issue on appeal in this case is really one of the that gets down to two essential issues obviously the alliance of catholic health care representing the catholic health care system in california sought to intervene in a case in which a sought to intervene to defend a statute passed by congress to protect organizations such as the allies for catholic health care from viewpoint discrimination in the award of federally funded health care contracts the alliance sought to intervene to really defend important rights pertaining to viewpoint discrimination and to be free from viewpoint discrimination in the eligibility and award of important contracts that receive federal funding the mission of catholic health care is one that is rooted in a deep sense of an ethical principle an ethical viewpoint regarding the rendering of of health care that is unique to the catholic religious tradition and one of a long and distinguished history and the second of course is the notion that catholic health care exists primarily to serve the poor and under served which in fact it does in this state with i think considerable distinction and counsel you want to persuade us to i guess are two things government console isn't going to adequately represent your interests and the other is whether in this particular case which is going to narrowly focused whether you really have an seems that probably as long as that amendment stands california feels restrained to in any way restrict or discriminate against you group and i guess particular situation is whether or not catholic health care would be free from discrimination and its ability to compete for important federal health care funds applicable primarily to impoverished populations if the w books correct the statute related to conscience in that you're concerned that california is going to enforce against with respect to the provision of medically necessary abortion correct although i think in this i don't mean the law i'm just trying to understand what yes i'm not sure where the point of the federal funding is like the federal funding aspect comes with respect to the competition for federally funded health programs in our case primarily for for impoverished population been elsewhere in the united states which was the impetus for the well the amendment when the well the amendment was an act that it was done with the intention of rendering it carrot and stick approach to discourage states from discriminating against religiously affiliated health care providers such as the alliance members in competing for grants so that preconditioning eligibility on the provision of abortion was not a disqualifying factor for obtaining federal funds i think by conduct and certainly by by word in the contract and the complaint that there was an intention in the future to discriminate in other words pretty quickly over the certainly last time been on the books for twenty years and those with no afterwards to apply them right in some cases they are there i think they primarily go to regulatory eligibility for licensing your honor to be a licensed health care facility and so forth but there are there are certainly in some cases some criminal there's a constellation of statutory  funnels to california so i'm just kind of snow i know i understand california can block the funneling of federal funding because the health care provider doesn't comply with are going to do i think your honor when they file a lawsuit to ask for relief from the statute to permit them to engage in conduct that would otherwise render them ineligible for federal funding altogether i think is a pretty clear indication the state has an intention particular where they talk about interpretating the scope and breadth of these rights one of the overlaying considerations that has not been briefed and i think a stretch fletcher pointed out the adequacy of representation one of the overlying countervailing considerations your hon how this generally works is you apply for a grant for up for example a poverty program most typically you contract with the state state state department of health for example for a program to serve migrant workers who come send a contract the contract lays out the parameters of what the state expects for you to get that money that flows from the federal government to the states then they can impose conditions in that contract for example to require you to provide i think that i think that's a possibility here's the problem i think this particular case could in fact be determinative i think depending on what the trial court finds and ultimately reviewing court with respect to interplay between circuit a set is a practical effect there is a very practical effect that whether or not this statute stands or falls will have on the catholic health care system still trying to understand the practical effect if the practical of fact is that if the well than an amendment is no longer in force you lose the being concerned of the state of california would then resort to the medical emergency i'm in terms of any other rights that you may have that you've gone through those would all continue to exist i would hope so you're right they are hard to memorize the key is you would lose your ability and i think because the state has indicated is it would please the court california seeks to have the well in that declared unconstitutional so that in its words it might force per health care professionals to provide abortions nevertheless the district court held that three organizations representing over twelve hundred pro life medical professionals in the state had no interest in this case because these medical professionals protect the rights of conscience are directly in peril by california and the federal government and it's not only may not but indeed have not adequately represent their interests this court should of applying our state laws because we think we don't necessarily need to do it tomorrow or next day or again from next twenty years but we sure don't like the idea of having a federal law that seems to have enough from doing so on breaking the motion for summary judgment california is now investigating what it says are refusing to provide emergency medical emergency abortions and says that it is currently investigating us now force california defeat the motion to dismiss i'm standing ground from that point essentially by asserting that they had a concrete plan to enforce it well the people they have a concrete plan to enforce it against are the people that i represent they are the twelve hundred plus medical professionals in the state of california according to the state of california because of course california raises a coersion argument in the spending clause and according to the state of california who is the party who should know if the well them it stands it will not apply section thirteen seventeen to force medical professionals to provide abortions if the world in that falls it well that is the basis of california's lawsuit we have to take california at its word and for that very reason that's  why we have it that's why we have a case that's why we have an interest in this case and it's why our interest would be impaired if if the well and it were to fail the medical groups members are they for sites people that congress intended to california has on claims could in fact give away the forty nine billion dollars in order to impose five thousand dollars civil fines and it is criminal prosecutions misdemeanors and allow for private rights of action in fact to enjoin health care in defending the constitution ality of the world in a minute because for you could see shielding that you don't want to have stripped away even if you put in a collateral for soothing still assert the constitutional all i think we understand what your concerns are in that regard tell me why you think that the justice department is not going to get those interests your to provide other emergency services so in other words if they require a pro life doctor or a catholic hospital to provide emergency appendectomies it's perfect it's perfectly consistent with the world in them for them to also force them to provide emergency  essentially it takes out the world and then it's t v in order to save it on its face and it is completely contrary to the interest of our members the entire purpose of the well in that which is a statute that they advocated for is to protect them against situations like section thirteen seventeen in california that would actually force them to provide abortions and the interpretation urged by the defendants current defendants is not only contra their in an attempt to defeat california standing they've now asked the district court are provided the ammunition now for the district court to hold that section thirteen sever that california has no standing in this case because it is perfectly free to apply section thirteen seventeen to forced pro life doctors to provide abortions that's completely contrary interest i know them well right time that i would like for his or just a moment for a bottle that's ok thank you  underlying litigation here and also their failure to demonstrate that any interest that they do have would be impaired or impeded that they were so situated that that interest would be impaired or impeded by the resolution of the claims and the underline negation i think perhaps one of the reasons why this court found some of the arguments here a little confusing and difficult to follow is because well i think  argument is that those intervening years have changed the argument and their their rationale for what their injury is they have previously argued that their injury is that they may be forced to provide emergency abortion s contrary to their religious and ethical objections beliefs and that that concern turns on an interpretation of the word emergency within this cut california con and whether or not federal spending restriction is constitutional and whether congress exceeded its authority under the spending clause of the us constitution in an acting that these interven not it's not sufficiently then start to claim that they have an interest in doing something that that the state may try to discourage them from doing they must also be able to demonstrate that states government were entering into a consent agreement that would govern how its police department was going to go forward the how the city's police department would but there they have though there was somewhat different because there the proposed intervener still have rights to make complaints against the l a p d officers they could bring civil rights actions against them they want to be held they were being threatened to have their their beliefs that's the law we are protected by now i'm not sure that that gets them all the way home but it does seem that there's at least an arguable protected interest so what's your response as to why or why not they are impacted you said there were two parts  what your argument on the argument on that it's that they will continue to have whatever remedies they print may have the weldon amendment does not provide them with any additional money that they don't already have if for example we w assume that that california were to enforce thirteen seventeen to compel any unwilling health care provider to perform an emergency abortion that that would constitute a violation having a consent decree that actually prohibited the police department from doing the very things that it had in that they allege that had in fact done in the past they had in stronger argument because they allege that they had actually been that case the court found that there was that there was there was a different issue with respect to whether they had adequate remedies and in this case the remedies that they have are i'm sorry i do have something here let me ask another line question as i understand the argument that the other side the state of california is seeking an interpretation of the weldon amendment if it is found of the constitution no which will define what emergency services are necessary services are not seeking a determination as to what an emergency abortion constitutes or what constitutes an emergency situation but the state of california speaking is the determination of what constitutes discrimination and the declar relief that the state is seeking with relief declaration that says that enforcement officially neutral law is that apply to all emergency health care provision all martians who have care services discrimination for them to or that it would be discrimination to require them to perform abortions services under some circumstances the  issue in the case not the right to this wrong that is an issue the issue the issue of whether provision requiring a health care provider to provide emergency medical regardless of what they are in regard less of whether the health care provider has a religious moral or ethical objection is at issue in the case what constitutes an emergency is not an issue in the case and really governed by the pleadings the arguments that the u s government chooses to make in your terms of responding to the issues that are raised by the complaint perhaps intervenors have an argument that if they're not raising the correct arguments that they may be able to augment those arguments they can broaden the issues that have been framed by the complaint in this case and the complex issue of what is the meaning of an emergency is not framed by the complaint and this ca quick point i want to make because i'm i am bleeding over in my time is that the they have also the possible the option of participating as an the position that all abortions constitute emergency abortions and finally i think it's really important to note that the intervention in this case would circumvent the rules on article three standing the plaintiffs really we we in the past acknowledge that the standing requirement is at least implicitly addressed by a requirement that the applicant a certain interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the case that the action so there are certainly as well if they did intervene again on our side so i think it's appropriate for me to start with that this case is a facial challenge to an act of congress in those circumstances the government the united states will vigorously defend the statute the fact it's obligated by congress to defend federal law it's the quintessential example i think of where the united states will adequately reserve represent the interests of anyone who would be protected by that statute it's it's a much easier case than even me a city of los angeles case which i think is our strongest case on this point there the united states was in foreseen civil rights laws against the city of los angeles citing violations against members of the los angeles community when the members of the community sought to intervene to challenge or question terms of the consent decree this court said well the united states represents the very constituents at apply in a situation where the state treated abortion the same way as it treats and appendectomies we say that's a possible interpretation but we we do not adopt that interpretation in a case like this where we have facial challenge to act of congress that wouldn't be appropriate certainly have some authority and interpret in the laws there that we're enforcing but at the same time we have the summary judgment briefs in front of us now and and this court and other cases and saying we have to have a very compelling showing  situation like this where we have the government whose interests are aligned with a private party the briefs do not make the argument that they actually could you possibly have to get into how we would love to have an exam across we'd love to get  this case i think the overarching concern of the federal government is to when we have a direct challenge to the statute to rather than have this these cases adorned like a christmas tree of parties that are intervening there i mean there could be many many parties taking intervene and step in and i thought the problem with bringing another group in interveners in those parties gave them co equal standing with the department of justice as having an interest in the litigation and the justice department might argue for an error in instruction not the sort of you know not be rendered and incapable of doing so but the other parties litigation would take a contrary position so you don't have as parties you don't have to come up with a common position i think if we look at the city of los angeles case that was a problem there but the court said we still presume adequate representation there you had members of the community with direct individual constitutional rights at stake and the court nonetheless said we are going to we're going to presume that the united states is adequately representing these parts of the united states could  y into a narrower consent to greet and some of the members of the community would have desired and the members whose actual constitutional rights are being violated here we have a one step removed the one and then it does not confer and the individual rights it is a funding limitation yes i agree with that statement they are being intended beneficiary of this law using the encouragement of congress to spend in power to try and to to protect their conscious rights but the conscious rights they have do not are not in the statute if california prosecute goes after one of their members they can't say well the wellman i meant stop you from doing it because it doesn't do that it's a funny instruction what have they they can count on california not doing that kind of grieve you know greed is a very powerful human force and they can count on the fact that the taxpayers of california will not care so much not a legally protect our interests if congress had passed this law instead and said if you take our money state of california you have to consent to lawsuits filed by members of intervening organizations that we might have a legally protect interests are not impaired one bit when california goes after them if they go after them for violating their laws they will be able to cite those interests they will not be impaired in any way thank you there no for the question proposition that they are saying it does and us first the city of los angeles the community members there did not object to any of the terms of the consent decree they just thought to enforce the consent decree we strongly object to the interpretation of the world in a manner that the federal government that have offered and although they say that it is it's well it's not really an interpretation we've all heard it's something that i would design say we don't have it in for a lizard i don't have it in front of the language from page nine of their brief in opposition motion for summary judgment in the first place because this is that lines eight through eleven in the first place because section thirteen seventeen applies to medical emergencies involving any life threatening or other serious condition and not simply abortions it does not on  constitute discrimination within meaning of the world and then that as defendants have acknowledged and then citing to their their discovery responses they say that the well the amendment does not prohibit california from from apply from does not prohibit the application of section thirteen seventeen doesn't approve it on its face and the national reading is or and i and nondiscriminatory fashion as long as you're requiring them to do other things other medical emergencies then you can also require them course you can introduce new new issues not before the court and the way the current parties have have phrased our interest and for example having the term medically necessary or medical emergency defined in some way  issue which is frankly puzzling to me because california seeks a declaration and an injunction preventing them at the welding that from being in force in a medical emergency or in medically necessary abortions and yet when we come in and say well what do you the council relies on the police in that particular case the circuit reversed the decision denying intervention and ordered them into the case as a matter of right because in that particular case their members were directly affected by