When the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas law Monday that would have made it more difficult for abortion clinics to stay open in the state, it sent shock waves through the U.S. Senate, and one group of senators in particular.

That group is the “purple” senators, Republicans like Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and Mark Kirk in Illinois, who are up for re-election this fall. They fear retribution at the polls from voters who are alienated by the hard-line positions of Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell. His positions can be unpopular in purple states — those not red for solid Republican electorates, but rather straddling the party lines or even leaning Democratic.

McConnell’s decision to deny Merrick Garland, President Obama’s nominee for the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat, even a Judiciary Committee hearing, let alone a committee vote, does not sit well with a wide swath of voters in purple states. The purple senators are under intense re-election pressure to come out in favor of a Judiciary Committee hearing for Garland.

Pro-choice and pro-life activists demonstrate on the steps of the United States Supreme Court on June 27, 2016 in Washington, DC. In a 5-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down one of the nation’s toughest restrictions on abortion, a Texas law that women’s groups said would have forced more than three-quarters of the state’s clinics to close.

Now the Court has demonstrated that it has the force to strike down abortion efforts like Texas’. Certainly, pro-life forces can use their strength in conservative states to try to create barriers against abortion. But, the Court has indicated in the Texas ruling that a bare majority of the sitting justices will strike down extreme state laws.

Many senators in the Republican majority will react by redoubling their efforts to stop Garland cold. They know that Garland would only strengthen the Court as a force against state efforts against abortions.

On the other hand, this ratchets up the pressure on purple Republican senators. Their Democratic election opponents can marshal strong pro-choice support after this decision to say that moving Garland toward confirmation is a vital issue. Some have wondered whether young women who were Bernie Sanders supporters, for example, will turn out in the general election. This may be the kind of issue to bring them to the polls.

A second point is what happens after the general election if Clinton wins. It has been speculated that Senate Republicans might hold their noses and move Garland through in the December lame duck session. Better someone centrist in his 60s than whomever Clinton would nominate – likely considerably more liberal and younger and so longer on the Court.

URL

"The Daily Show" took to Twitter to explain a tweet they sent out many called out of line.

In response to the Supreme Court's decision Monday to strike down a Texas law regulating abortion clinics, the "Daily Show" tweeted, "Celebrate the #SCOTUS ruling! Go knock someone up in Texas!"

Fans immediately responded calling the tweet "inappropriate" and in "poor taste" prompting the show to respond on social media.

A rep for "The Daily Show" did not return FOX411's request for comment.

@TheDailyShow I'm pro choice, but this is in poor taste.

— Zach Bright (@zacharybright) June 27, 2016

@TheDailyShow This is offensive and completely misses the point. Delete the tweet and fire whoever wrote it.

— Alex Bond (@bond_alexander) June 27, 2016

Texas abortion clinics had challenged a 2013 state law and regulations that cut the number of abortion providers in half, to roughly 20. Fewer than 10 would have remained open if the law was allowed to take full effect. The Center for Reproductive Rights had sued Texas, on behalf of a coalition of abortion clinics.

The Texas law required all clinics performing abortions in the state to operate as certified “ambulatory surgical centers,” which would be regulated under the same standards as hospitals. Doctors who performed abortions were also required to first obtain admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. Proponents of the law argued it would improve patient care and safety, though abortion rights groups contended the law made it nearly impossible to operate a clinic in Texas.

The abortion ruling was one of three high-profile cases decided on Monday, likely the final day of the court’s session before a summer break. Decisions on public corruption and guns were also handed down.

URL

MILLEDGEVILLE, Ga. — Imagine being in downtown Milledgeville and seeing a 141-year-old, two-story house rolling down Hancock Street on the back of a flatbed truck.

That was the scene 50 years ago when the Brown-Stetson-Sanford House was moved from its previous location on North Wilkinson Street to its current home at the corner of Hancock and Jackson streets.

Dr. Amy Wright, executive director of Georgia’s Old Capital Museum, said that June 29, 1966 is the day that historic preservation began in Milledgeville.

"Prior to 1966 and the Old Capital Historical Society's efforts to save the house from the bulldozer, people just routinely bulldozed houses. They saved the molding, some of the lumber, and trim but didn't think anything about trying to save a whole house much less move it. So it was the effort to save the Brown-Stetson-Sanford House, the emphasis on the architectural value and the historical value, which really made people more aware of saving other historic homes. It really turned the tide in Milledgeville."

The now almost 200-year-old house formerly stood about where the Baldwin County Courthouse is currently, and was scheduled to be demolished after Piggly Wiggly bought the land on which it sat. Members of the Old Capital Historical Society stepped in and raised the $50,000, more than $370,000 in the present-day economy, necessary to move the historical home.

Wright's father, John Johnson, was an architect and helped oversee the relocation. He had experience moving homes and previously used a company out of Swainsboro owned by two brothers to help move them. Johnson once again enlisted the help of the Braswell brothers to save the Brown-Stetson-Sanford House from demolition.

"The chimneys, 10,000 lbs. of plaster, and the porches were all removed and the windows were boarded up," Wright said. "It's just unbelievable. For the 45th anniversary … one of the brothers was able to come up for the anniversary celebration. We were looking at the pictures and started laughing and I said, 'How did you know that truck was going to pull that house?' He said, 'We prayed a lot ma'am, we prayed a lot.'"

Two Georgia Power crews were also part of the move, as electrical wires had to be cut along the route and spliced back together once the house had passed.

Wright said the fact that the house was relocated when it was turned out to be very fortunate, as a few years after the move a law was passed in Georgia that said two-story houses could no longer be moved.

Wright said that just because the house had been relocated, it did not mean the work was complete.

"The Old Capital Historical Society didn’t have enough money to do anything more than move it. They got it moved, but they couldn’t put the porches back on or do the plaster or anything until they raised some more money. So it was just sitting there on that lot. It was in the '70s before they got the porches on and got the kitchen added and really got it looking better."

The now renovated house serves as a museum showcasing what life was like in the capital in the mid-19th century and is a destination on the city's trolley tour and for Georgia history students around the state.