live from noon p.m. next is a supreme court oral argument in nashville institute a family and late advocates. the court will determine whether california's reproductive fact act is constitutional. the law requires pregnancy centers licensed to perform medical procedures to tell patients about all medical services available to them. the law violates their freedom of speech. the ninth circuit ruled in favor of california. the hour-long oral argument took place on march 20.

in case number 161140. the national institute of family and life advocates california took aim at pro-life pregnancy centers by pointing the way to an abortion with advertising rules on unlicensed centers that do not provide ultrasounds or any other medical services. the state than provided exemptions for all other medical providers who served pregnant women. it targets a particular topic of discussion is directed at speakers. the state law were that that perform abortions would have the patience if you would like to carry the pregnancy to term you will have access to a

clinic that will assist them. and provide or provide instruction on how to care for infants. would that be unconstitutional. they decided a very similar case indicates the decision from pennsylvania. pennsylvania imposed the requirement with informed content discussion. medical interventions are surgeries. in that case medical interventions require the discussions of the benefits of the procedure. wise is not also informed consent. when you say the patient well

no what the array of services available to her are. they are not medical interventions. perhaps the best explanations of the planned parenthood center in pennsylvania did pregnancy test but did not perform abortions requiring that encourage abortion. that would be unconstitutional to compel them to get this disclaimer. her question is a hypothetical case. doctors who are offering services they have to say if the pregnancy is carried to a full term. i understand your honor. if the state anchors that in the informed consent framework that would be considered under the legal principles.

this court recognized they can have assistance call this number. >> in the context of proposing a mental -- medical intervention. the sea has additional interest beyond the health of a woman in the interest of advancing the life of the envoy -- unborn child. it's a non- medical facility. the state has reason to think is telling women about the only one set of options and

another set of options. they're only telling women about abortion providers and they're not telling women about other ways that they may be able to complete their pregnancy. the state cannot impose a requirement that that facility post a notice saying in fact there are many kinds of facilities in the world. and some are abortion providers and some are crisis pregnancy centers that that would not be permissible. since it's an unlicensed facility it would be judged under strict judicial scrutiny. if in the license context however it would still be the same framework but the analysis would be slightly different. >> you were suggesting that everything turned on whether a medical procedure was going to be performed.

this is a facility prefers -- it refers women only to abortion providers. we want facilities that will tell women about the full range of their options. so the question is what a requirement in such a facility post a notice saying there actually are a lot of options and here's how you can access them. without be unconstitutional. as a targeted law. it's aimed at particular people and not given to all doctors to diagnose and confirm pregnancy. to post a notice setting out the up the full range of options available where they

may obtain services at no cost. when there be anything along -- wrong that lot like that. two-point the weight to an abortion facility into facility abortion it would be constitutionally problematic. provided for all of the options and applied to everybody. it would also apply to clinics that perform abortions. the outcome would still be the same. it would be unconstitutional to require that statement to a dr. dr. who is pro-life

because of the free exercise issues that would arise in this case. not only is the requirement of which doctors have to get the notice the notice itself is gerrymandered. at that given women all of their options. the state will pay for abortion services but it does not tell california women it will pay for pregnancy the simple basic things. i think what is bothering from these questions is that bothers me there are pro choice pro-choice states and pro-life states. if a pro-life estate can tell a dr. you have to tell people about adoption why can't a pro-choice state tell a dr. a

facility or whatever it is you have to tell people about abortion. the one we've said you can make a dr. who is very pro-life tell her about abortion and why don't we have to say to keep it the same you can make these people tell them about abortions. >> then be unconstitutional and any state. the laws that have been upheld are doctors who are going to perform abortions. whether it is medical treatment about to do. the only other question i have is you have a totally different line in which you are attacking this and that is you say which is certainly a point that this statute picks out 60 to 70 really pro-life

facilities and says you have to post these sides but nobody else does. and so they give a point there. if that's correct it doesn't have to be a trial on that. this is just a preliminary injunction. don't have to have a of a trial and present some evidence. i don't know what the evidence is on the other side. the gerrymandering of the statute. it begins by only regulated clinics that are licensed under section 1204. the is limited principally to non- profit community clinics. they are out of the statute to begin with.

additionally among those non- profit clinics even though they several pregnant women among those that are principally given pregnancy services we require to expend those drugs the state has ended up with the result that only nonprofit pro-life pregnancy centers are required to post the notice. the notice itself is bias. for unlicensed clinics well have a lot of evidence with respect to the nature of the burden that would be imposed by the 48 font requirement

there is some evidence that it might be like a $9,000 a month tax for advertisements but what we do about the lack of a record here. >> this court faced a similar situation where there was a detailed disclosure required was certain financial professions. they did not have a financial record we do simply read the statute and made comments. the rule is the font must be larger than the main body of the ad or the same size as the main body of the ad with a special fonts special fonts and colors. think of a chevrolet ad with the warnings about financing

and had to be as big or bigger than the word chevrolet. that's not an effort to inform people that is an effort to clutter the ad and drown out the message of the ad. we don't know what kind of adjustments might have been made. to test what your position is. it has been simply the people who don't provide abortions were contraceptive services we don't perform abortions. and that would be everybody would know what's being offered. not if it's done in a targeted fashion. if all doctors in california who treat pregnant women are under the same requirements but then there are special and position him on a targeted group of people that is a form

of targeting that they outlawed. and that's what's going on here. >> can you please explain to me what the differences between the license and licensed and unlicensed in terms of the services. >> and then have a question based on that. but you seem to be basing your arguments on the point that at least unlicensed the unlicensed people are not providing procedures. they are advertising them. i looked at a few of them. there is a woman on the homepage with the uniform that looks like a nurses uniform. it shows an exam room. the text of the page titles abortion will educate clients

about different abortion methods available and describe in described in medical terms different abortion procedures. the website also said clients will be evaluated by nurses and that they follow all hip regulations if a reasonable person could look at this website and think that you are giving medical advice with the unlicensed notice belong to answer the first part of your question. they do not provide any medical services be defined as but they do provide medical advice. how is that different. when you are going for pregnancy you see the dr. and

the dr. described hopefully the benefits of a pregnancy in perhaps and perhaps it's the risks. not all pregnancies are without complications so this is consulting about a medical condition how is it any different than casey. you could to talk to her dr. about abortion in the state said you have to tell the person the alternatives. so if you can achieve is to talk to people about the nonlicensed facility about pregnancy why shouldn't you tell people that you're not a dr.. in casey again the doctors that were being regulated where the ones performing abortions. they made known that it upheld

that requirement because those parallel to the general practice of informed consent. unlicensed people who talk to women say you can choose. have you can talk about adoption they talk about the issue of pregnancy to be sure is it wrong for a state to tell agencies who give advice on immigration rates with states like this who say if you're going to give advice on immigration matters that statute that does that gives immigration people the ability to intervene in cases and matters. it would otherwise be the practice of law. other alternative providers are clearly otherwise engaged in the practice of medicine are allowed to do so medicine is defined by the state.

when you're not a licensed facility please explain to me what is both misleading and incorrect, or suggestive in any way that a person has to do something like go to the dr.. how is it doing anything other than telling people that despite how the picture looks on the website this is not a medical facility. >> is illegal to practice without a license. if that's what's going on here surely the california estate would've found a way to get it done. i do have a hypothetical. what would happen if and

unlicensed entity to set a billboard that said choose life what they have to make the disclosure it would be 29 words in the same size font we can assess the of california with the state of california disagree with that. it seems to me that that means that this is an undue burden in that instance and that should suffice. you been pinning a lot when you tried to distinguished casey on informed consent. certainly some of the requirements in casey our informed consent.

all of the things that we want doctors to talk about when we go to them and seek medical care. but there were definitely requirements in casey that don't have much to do with informed consent as i've ever understood. her return inform patients about that. the father would be liable to pay child support. those kinds of requirements they just don't seem to have much to do about informed consent. and they are in this goes back to justice breyer sauce for the goose point. there really the exact flipside of the requirements in this case. so how my supposed to think about that. they are triggered by a medical intervention rather than a discussion. i realize there is a factual difference. but these are not informed consent requirements.

this court held that they were in casey because they were components of the abortion process. the first amendment allows states to allow factual disclosures. is to require pregnancy centers to make disclosures about services that they do not provide and who would violate their most deeply held beliefs. it needs to compel a speech rather than speak its own message. if you are providing women's health services if the lists

all of the services that you will provide. it would provide those facilities. it would apply to the nato care. on the food. i think of california said to our providers across the board in our state. that looks to the united states like truthful of factual factual information about what you're doing. i think the concern here is that the license notice a really different from the vast bulk of requirements. i understand the questions to be along the lines of what you insert.

the question is can they be required to list services that they don't provide. does everyone in the women's healthcare business we want you to tell the public what you provide. to the extent that there are notices about your own services. as you move away from that in a way that three states have done. in that family planning clinic they did not do not had to tell anybody about adoption. >> i don't think it depends on that. they help women plan their families. they don't had doctors.

it's a family planning center. it's an information center. there are millions of people in this country that had views on this. if the lies permissible says dr. you must tell the woman about adoption then why should the law say family planning center you must tell the woman about abortion. everybody in the same business is with the same rules. there try to make a distinction there. and i need to know.

one has a dr.. is there any other distinction possible. making disclosures about their own services. there is page 80. you'd think most people would think family planning. and in the state can tell them. when you are going in to have a procedure that has a

disclosure related. and then it's just a discussion of what you have to propose. the more you get away from that kind of disclosure that's about what you're doing with that patient our customer. why shouldn't there be this is the regime that we want. we want to say the to family planning clinics we do a family planning and we do not do adoption. and we want to say to the crisis pregnancy centers along the line. we do adoption we do not do family planning or abortion.

what a woman goes into either one of these kinds of places they will know it's there. once is no longer tied to that specific goods or services or whoever is providing the more we ought to be worried that they are making you just advertise what other people are doing it saying we want people to know about services that the state has. how is that different than casey. we require doctors to hand out secreted materials telling the women about what services the state and others provided both

the license and unlicensed -- unlicensed ones are not doing procedures. i don't know how counseling on the pregnancy state is not part of medical advice in the same way a dr. gives it when he is considering an abortion procedure. i don't understand the difference. they are doing a medical related procedures and both are being asks and not advertising someone else's services. in casey we permitted it. please explain to me again why there is a difference here. i agree with everything you said in the back half there.

and if california were coming and saying before you perform in our stress out you have to provide certain information to make sure that's an informed choice that it's like casey and the question is how much disclosure do you have to provide and i think casey gives us important guidance on that. it's not helping the women who come into the clinic make an informed choice to opt into one of the medical procedures it saying with the generalized interest we have them know that we have some limited and free cost services. that is tailor-made to an obvious alternative. can i ask you something. about your brief that troubles me and that is the

government's request that we recognize a new category of speech called professional speech which is subject to a lesser standard of review. adopting this new category of speech would have far-reaching consequences i would like you to explain why that is consistent with stephen's in other cases where the court has recently said when were neck and a recognize any new categories of unprotected speech and how you would define the boundaries of professional speech. and there has been a lot of cases on them. just take a couple of examples. what they be subject to this standard. have a economist. how about scientist. how about a fortuneteller. how about somebody who writes an advice column for parents.

would we be getting it to be dangerous territory if we do this? >> the court has already talked about professional speech. it's often talked about in the context of commercial speech. what we tried to do was to say there is similar doctrines they overlap. they have somewhat different origins and there are certain professions that are regulated. it would include doctors and lawyers and maybe accountants there is some room for the states historically in that area. if it's a disclosure about what were doing. and the more that we shift away from that even in the commercial and professional speech box. in the states laces in this case.

the court goes all the way every corrected disclosure that a manufacturer has to make about some product that is put out in the public that has a risk. we are concerned it's can undermine the first amendment. the interest is served by the license disclosure is very much like that of the disclosure in casey for fort informed choice. it empowers the woman by explaining that her financial circumstance does not make her unable to access alternative and supplemental care including full prenatal and delivery care that parishioners do not supply. pregnancy and medical care is extraordinarily time critical.

there is a sense when you read the statute there is at least a question that arises as to whether the statute has been gerrymandered. when you speak to that. that is a serious issue. we have these have these general disclosure requirements but we don't want to apply them generally we want to apply them to some speakers his speech in his speech we don't much like. the disclosure is targeted at women who seek free care for pregnancy not at any particular viewpoint and clinics that either head that licensing the status or the low-cost pregnancy care are the ones where those women are going to be found and this information is immediately useful to them. then it has a lot of crazy exemptions and when you apply

all of the exemptions once you are left with you are left with a very strange pattern and it turns out that just about the only clinics that are covered by this are pro-life clinics. it can support that. why does this apply only to clinics whose primary function is providing service to pregnant women. you could have a small clinic let's say it has 30 pregnant women to come in a month. but that is the primary thing it does. and then you can have a big clinic that has a hundred pregnant women come in a month. pregnancy is not the primary concern. what is a law apply to one and not the other.

as opposed to be made in a lot of contexts where it's not. this court has said that it should be encouraged to imply those more narrowly when they can. if the purpose is to get this information out to poor women don't you think there are examples who stumble and to a for-profit facility when it to be beneficial for them to know that they could get treatment at no cost through the state why are most for profits exempted.

i would say it's always possible to imagine a new boundary for the law. but under an immediate scrutiny and does not need to be perfect and a legislature can concentrate its efforts where the need for the law is. they specialize as a category in treating people who have a weight to pay for care whether they are already enrolled in medicaid or health insurance or whether they just had the finances. so when you put all of this together. you get very suspicious patterns. i don't know that we need to go into statistics about what the percentage of covered clinics are pro-life and what are not. from a party in the state court case. and according to their statistics 98.5 percent of recovered clinics are pro-life.

>> yes. i understand that we are speaking outside of the record here. but the evidence in the state court i think it was off by a factor of ten in terms of how many and differed by a factor of ten when it told the state court how many covered non- anti- abortion. the state does not had firm numbers on this. we've done a preliminary assessment which found a significant number of non- anti- abortion covered facilities. i will also say that deriving this from state databases is tricky because they rely on self reporting. it is exactly the kind of thing the record would be useful for.

what was the state thinking and i realize the state there are lots of people who are thinking different things. give me a little bit more about your theory of the case even as to why these exemptions exist and why these lines are drawn. you've been saying we go where the problem is. how did you know where the problem was. what were you doing. what were you trying to do. let me start with the question of what the problem is. the state has overseen an extension of public medical care in california but has experience that publicity campaigns leave a gap that was highly concerning to them in the pregnancy context because of the medical issues and because of the severe timing constraints to get care that makes a difference. the goal to abilify women who

are seeking pregnancy care and appear unable to pay for it themselves or through insurance or public coverage they already had. there was a reference to exemptions. and exemption the exemption for medi-cal providers reflects that a notice would serve little purpose at a provider which already provides care under those programs which has the incentive. low income women who don't have a lot of access to information. you don't don't realize what all of their options are. want to of make sure in general in across-the-board that they get the best information that is available to them. another way to think about what the problem is and how a

statute like this comes about is more targeted. it's to say there are these crisis pregnancy centers all over california and we know that women just go into them and they don't realize what they are and there being subject to being misled and we think this is a terrible problem. the state could legitimately if you view that as a problem. whether it is a problem or not. it's much more targeted than the first. is this a second kind of statute or the first kind of statute. and the authors the verbatim statement. why shouldn't this court take the cosmic did approach to this. why should the state free ride on a limited number of clinics to provide the information. the legislature is aware of

the shortcomings of other methods. despite their efforts to publicize. it is a permissible speech requirement in the professional context. it's pretty unusual to force a private speaker to do that for you. under the first amendment. i don't think it's unusual to require a professional to explain alternatives or additional options that are and available. as in the laws that have been cited in our let me ask you first what was the second kind of statute. to a generalized feeling that

in general poor women don't had access to information or a state could be responding a feeling that there are a particular kind of center that is misleading women as to what they do and don't provide. i can see this arising in either of these two ways. i want you to tell me why it arose in the first way and not the second. the primary issue is women and not knowing where they can get the free care that they need for all of their options including carrying a healthy pregnancy to term. the informational problem is going to be concerning where there are cases of deception and so forth. they have some awareness of this. didn't dress statute with that as a primary.

i think i got the impression that there are about 60 or so centers. that are really pro-life. they don't didn't want to talk about abortions and then it seemed to me that there were a thousand centers and i really did end up wondering all of those centers and the poor women that really get the information i have no idea. the fact that they may have medical things doesn't mean they tell everybody about it. i don't know what it's like. this is my question. don't we need a trial on this. i have no idea. they are not empirical. you've not told me whether women who don't go to these 67 centers but do go to 700 are

all informed. whether it is a member of the cal medical program or not. and i six set that you don't either. i think the trial that's what they're for. the record at the preliminary injunction states was not sufficient to support induction. there would be a great deal of evidence on both sides. justice kennedy asked the other side. if one of these facilities wrote an ad that you said it pro-life and put their name it appears as if the law would require them to have the statement this is not a medical facility i don't think

so your honor unless it was there. it was unlicensed. they are things like operating up ultrasounds. what if you have an organization that provided adoption services and advertise there is an alternative to abortion. can it make them include that disclosure requirement. i want to make all of the abortion alternatives also fully available and making them aware of those. it would not be serving the same interests.

the license facilities provide medical care page 91 of the complaint describes medical care that they provide to medical women. what additional ultrasounds or discussion of family planning what more would it take to require the adoption center to be covered. in one of the ones that you have listed for licensed center. >> what would make it subjected to subject to the same kind of requirements. at what point do you say ultrasounds are out of it? .. ..

>> if it provided it as a licensed medical service through licensed medical providers then the state would have to justify the sufficiently important state interest with the -- >> what your answer though? it provides to services, adoption and pregnancy testing. could you oppose the disclosure requirement on that facility? >> your honor, i think it would be much more difficult to justify here. >> i know. that's what i'm asking the question. [laughing] >> right. >> i'm trying to figure out the limits of your argument. the centers have bright services they provide can you say we can impose this requirement on them. before we can say yes or no, i would like to know the limits of it. so facility that provides adoption services and pregnancy testing, can they be covered by your law? >> through a licensed provider, yes, they could accept --

>> i don't know what you mean by through a licensed provider. that's all they do. they counsel and adoption and they provide pregnancy testing. could you require them to say there are other options you may want to consider and, therefore, here's a disclosure saying here are the facilities where you can get other options? >> i think probably not. they are providing so much more limited set of medical services that it may be less -- >> mr. klein, can we go back to my question? i have read the law with respect to the silly and it requires a facility to do two of four things before it qualifies under the law. you appear right that they have two, one, offer ultrasounds, obstetrics, sonograms, or prenatal care, or pregnancy testing or diagnosis or, three,

prenatal monogram tests or pregnancy and, four, like health data. but they have to do two or more of those things. let's go back to the question justice kennedy asked. one of these medical care facilities says pro-life and their name. are they required to post a notice? you started by answering the question, at a dual think you've finished the answer is no, they are not required to. >> because they are not offering in the advertising one of these services? >> because they are not, right, they are not doing -- >> show me where that is in the statute. if it's a covered facility, in any ad that they put out, including women just as choose life, has to include this disclaimer, were not licensed. >> in order to be a covered unlicensed facility it has to do two or more of the list of

things. >> so you have thoroughly that offers pregnancy testing and advertise the upper pregnancy testing. that's all they do. they have to put in the disclaimer? >> yes, in that circumstance they may be required to do that. >> do you agree that mandating speech that the speaker would not otherwise give, indeed, it not agree with, alters the content of the message? >> yes, it does. >> so then you are synced on this billboard the state can require the message, the content of the message be altered, it even though they are not providing medical services? >> yes, your honor. because the criteria are designed not to see who is providing medical services, that's taken care of by our unlicensed practice law, it is designed to address instances where the services that are offered and provided could make a woman belief that she's going to the accessing medical services and is spending her time and resources to do that

and is unable to evaluate what she is doing. >> if we uphold your argument, if we agree with your argument, could the state amend its statute and civic any evangelical group that has a seven-day rally for pro-life has to give required information of this sort? >> no, your honor, i don't think that would follow. >> why not? >> even putting aside the free exercise targeting, the -- >> so religion is not a part of this calculus in the case that you have? >> your hypothetical statute did target evangelical groups. that is on its face unconstitutional. i'm assuming we want to take that out. >> it didn't target it. it included it. >> so i think the statute is reasonably read and applied in recognition of its purposes which are the purpose to prevent women from making their decisions about where to go

based on mistaken confusion what's opera. that's a classic -- >> there was a question raised about 13 different languages and what burden that would be. i don't know what the states answer to that is i mean, it's one thing to say we're not a licensed medical provider. but if you have to say that, those two sentences, in 13 different languages can be very burdensome. >> your honor, if the statute, if an application to a kind of ad that the centers otherwise have been running and would run, if it makes it too burdensome to place those ads the statute would be unconstitutional as-applied to that. >> what is the situation for los angeles county? this is california law. you should know the answer. somebody is going to put up an ad, a covered unlicensed facility postman at in los angeles county.

in how many languages must they print the disclaimer? >> it would be 13, and it would be, if the plaintiff showed standing and made a a record of the kind of ad that they used to run and that it would be impossible to run it that way, it would be unconstitutional but that requires actual standing and some sort of demonstration. >> what kind of an ad, as to what type of ad would that not be unconstitutional? >> there's nothing in the record about what adds these plaintiffs do, in fact, run. we don't know. we do know this doesn't apply to tv and radio ads, for instance. i want to make sure come if i may, to address one point. >> so you want me to have remained for them to tell the court what he billboard is because i don't know that? >> your honor -- >> there is a lot of things we don't know but i think we know what he billboard is. >> we don't know what adds these petitioners or nifla members

run. the court did not abuse its discretion with respect to. >> what about there were legislative findings about false and misleading representations, has california ever brought charges against think of these places for false and misleading advertising? >> i'm not aware the state has picked up with the city and county of san francisco has. in any case that doesn't address, such a procedure would not be superior. first, that kind of policing that kind of issue would not necessarily be more speech protective since it might involve undercover patients, record subpoenas, site visits and the rest. >> but it would have the virtue of applying evenly to all persons and all industries in a law that is very familiar. anti-fraud provisions in

commercial speech are well known and don't post any of the problems we've been discussing today. why wouldn't that be a superior mechanism for addressing these concerns? >> so to the narrower concerns, which are not the only ones here, it could be significantly more or at least it's an open question about whether it would be as or more speech interested to be really get into everything that the petitioners are saying to assess it. as a post requiring a two sentence of mostly obviates the need for that because it gives women the information to protect themselves and make informed decisions in the very limited time that they have available, simply placing the notice to call the government. >> the one is prophylactic and requires you to compel speech and someone else. the second is, puts the burden on the government to prove that someone has abused their free-speech rights. this court is normally pretty

jealously protective of speech. why isn't again that latter approach preferable? >> for the same reason it wasn't a necessary step in casey, because in the regulation of professional speech government, given the close of light relationship that the patient has on her physician, can require a certain amount of speech to ensure that the patient makes informed decisions about very important matters. the main difference from casey is how much less burdensome this disclosure is because there's more lexical and how can be delivered and because it's only giving a phone number for the patient to call and get information from the government rather than requiring the physician to herself hand over a complete statement pamphlet which is what the disclosure in casey required. >> would it be fair to say, and i still don't have full answer to my question, all right, pro-life, nothing else, and unlicensed facility, it meets all of the criteria, has an ad

that says just pro-life and puts its name. does it have to give the notice, yes or no? >> yes, if it meets the other criteria. and it's possible -- >> that seems to be more burdensome and wrong because it's not tied to an advertisement that is promoting medical services. >> may i continue? it's possible that that kind of as-applied challenge would result in invalidating that application, but injunctive relief addresses particular problems. thank you. >> thank you, counsel. mr. ferris, you have five minutes remaining. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. i like to first address your concern about the gerrymandering issue. on page five we point out the states website with the state tells low income women how they

can go to private doctors and get information or get services for pregnancy. yet those doctors are all exempt from this act, as are all nonprofit clinics that have general kind of practice that justice alito's russian described. as to the ad burden, the amicus heartbeat international on page 24 of the brief gave a mockup of what can and would look like when you're simply pregnancy questions and a phone number, and all the languages required in los angeles county. that's what it would look like and it's clearly burdensome. i think the last answer from california was correct, is it would be triggered if they were otherwise mandated by the law. i would last like -- >> the answer was that this was not brought up in this case intel now and it should be aired below. >> your honor, that's not correct. it was raised below as our reply

brief sets out. it's in the complete. it's in the briefing in the district court. it's in the oral argument in the district court. it's in the court of appeals took . all those details are on footnote five of our reply brief. the good for the goose, good for the gander concern, here's what could happen is california's law is upheld. and pro-life state is going to find out there is no different to the more between perform abortions and those who counsel about it, who talk about it. if merely talk about abortion is sufficient to require you to give pro-life information, we've taken a a big step in the wrong direction of politicizing the practice of medicine. if everyone who recommends abortion can have to give these kind of -- >> it's you have to be a professional group giving advice in a professional way. i don't think the goose in gander has to do with everybody in the world. and there are things called

family-planning clinics, et cetera. >> certainly, your honor. take it on narrow and a broader construction, under construction as i understood your hypothetical, family-planning center that didn't perform abortion but did all the other services. i believe it would be unconstitutional in a pro-life state to require that center to give a pro-life kind of disclaimer that was required in pennsylvania because they are not doing anything that relates to the practice of medicine in that context. taking the broader construction, if we are not going to gerrymander this and say all doctors who treat pregnant women have to give all the options. if that's the case, doctors who advised to deliver and doctors who advised to get abortions are going to be swept into this requirement, and the political ramifications of that are enormous. we should not politicize the practice of medicine in that way, and the line that casey drew between performing

abortions versus advising about abortions is a constitutional appropriate line. thank you, your honor. i rest. >> thank you, counsel. the case is submitted. >> today is day two of the consumer federation of america food safety conference. this one will hear from food and drug administration commissioner scott gottlieb and later in the day nutrition experts, agriculture reporters, representatives of farmers and state officials will address the gathering. this is live coverage on c-span2 and it should get underway here in just a minute. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> good morning. i see we have