perhaps you could just clear up a procedural matter as i understand it in your complaint you asked for both you made both official an as applied challenge but i think in the in the request for injunctive relief you only limited that to the as applied but the district court as we know went beyond that and decided the facial challenge as well where does that put this court in your view are we reviewing that as well or is that just not before us at this time i think we are reviewing that and here is the reason why the fact that both parties have had the ability to fully brief the racial issue before this court and a lower court to go at and rule of law that i think there's more when the court has been faced with both the floating in the facts as the mad and check as the court notes it struck down one of the other and the reason it did it's the combination of the zones burns too much speech and that's exactly what we have here so if you look at madison  cheney were both injunctions and not statutes were this we have here i don't think it does and the reason if you look at the standards for looking at an injunction and the standards for looking at the statute the burden more speech the necessary which was the standard used in ads and shank is also similar to the standard of narrow teller and that's found in war vs rock against racism so there is a similarity although yes there are some differences between the two what's interesting is the burden has been deemed by the supreme court to be similar and so when it looks at whether we're looking at a statute here or the injunctions there the burden more space than necessary is the standard that involved and here the problem that we have is is that when you combine the two zones as shown in the record here it's almost impossible as a matter of fact to speak in this area and the content based on the telus tallis why it's so specifically the supreme court in hill one of the reasons they upheld the floating zone there is they said the person can stand in front of the clinic entrance door without blocking and speak and hand out leaflets that's why there was ample alternative avenues for communication this ordinance completely room from each side of the do or is it from the middle of the language of the of the ordinances at the entrance so my i would guess that i mean you start at the side of the door and yes you do a circle of fifteen feet and semi circle semicircle that's right starting with the door and that pushes pro life advocates out into the street when you look at the eight foot were there radically to push them out into the street well if you were directly in front of the door that's right that's right you cannot stand within fifteen feet of front entrance and the clinics even those that fifteenth is in front of the neighboring stores in some cases you still can't stand there even though it's in front of a pizza place or whatever happens to be next door whatever happens to be next door and liberty avenue sometimes this savory commercial enterprise they are there is there is a pizza restaurants there is there's museums there are daycare centers you name it there's progress in shops within the hundred for example you name it it's there and so you have the bustling downtown traffic pedestrians coming and going the one hundred foot zone extends to shops and all very busy street too by the way because you're taking bus traffic now all the way from from oakland and beyond down in the down turn using that route that's right and not only is it a busy street that shows also the one of the reasons your honour's asked about what are the facts what's really going on the reason she cannot communicate here is because of the downtown noise when you have an eight foot separation which by the way because of the length the sidewalk also pushes you into the street unless you're in front of the person trying to walk backwards as the supreme court said it's hard to have a conversation a bit behind someone to their back but if you're trying to be on the side of them no one walks on the edge of the sidewalk they walk near the middle or anywhere else it pushes you into the street into the street is the bus on the bus someone is not only dangerous but where her from eight feet away that you're required to be in the floating bubbles on in other words the floating zone requires you to be eight feet away from any person and so when you put this down to brass so sort of the person's walking in the middle of that which is actually fifteen that on one side fifteen those are thirty foot buffer that's fine you can stand there not in the street but on the side and still talk with the person that what you're saying if the person who is going into the clinic hundred people say the person was walking in and that person has with what person the person who goes into the clinic i'm sorry you can see if you're standing still outside the fifteen foot down here ok the problem with that is it's impossible to have a conversation with someone as you're standing still because of about a second as they walk by you cannot approach and you cannot approach at all you cannot reach out the handle leaflet you cannot approach and see that's what happens on the facts in fact the whole case was interesting because it's a well we'll see what happens in real life we'll see what happens  apply that's one of the reasons we focus on the planning junction and as applied challenge because in real life it shows her leafleting completely shut down the senate hill said there's a problem at least in from eight feet away no one can hear the leaks and it away that's a fact in this case shutdown what she did before this and don't forget this our client has been out there for fifteen years without incident she would walk along with someone and talk to them and say i love you i care about you we can help you she can no longer do so when she is eight feet away she cannot be heard even if she tries a long walk along someone because you there she's pushed in the street with the buses are or she can't be heard over the noise the leafletting is for close the conversation for close she would stand in front of the clinic's without blocking of course and reach people as they were about to enter hand she can no longer do that she loses the audience that she was has been reaching for all these years and so the combination of the two zones makes it completely impossible to speak to she have to ask her permission as she does and that's a no no i mean is that is that constitutionally permissible well we don't think it is constitutionally permissible the fact that you have to get permission for someone makes a speech and yet and yet there's a good law saying that you have a right to be left alone i mean well what's interesting about that if you look at the hill case they specifically did not hold that there was a right to be let alone they heard they held in all circumstances reference to the and there was and what's interesting about the holding there it was only a facial holding and there were seven justices who had questions about how this is going to work in real life the four concurring justices and the three dissenting justices and what's interesting you talked about that eight foot zone or whether you can approach and how you have asked this and seven justices questioned whether that eight foot zone is really narrowly tailored and they said that that's left for another day that's left of the as applied day that's today because in real life doesn't work it works in the courtroom where we're maybe eight feet away but we have amplification and it's quiet in here in the what else seeking but with the hills that how so i mean i go i keep going back to the various differences right both factually and spatially of these mean well a few different ways number one the only time a fix zone has ever been upheld by the supreme court is those specific defendants were either blocking or committing violence that's madison and check everybody else were still allowed inside the zone when you looked at the floating zone in hell it's pacifically was hell hell because there was no fix so when you stand you can stand right in front of the door and that's right and they specifically said they were assuming that the clinics were freestanding in other words there was just a building and was interesting you're out of talks about the overbroad argument hill specifically said well the reason we don't think this is overbroad is because how many people are within one hundred puts on a similar priest and a clinic that have no business with the clinic the record here is that ninety nine plus percent of people on the public sidewalk have no business with the clinic yet every single one of them are regulated under this ordina she deal with the spatial issues here and the combination of the two but first the chief grappled with it in detail or was it he she really did not and what's interesting the way she dealt with the fixed content based on is is completely avoided talking about it in fact in her opinion she sets up the comparison between this ordinance and the statute in hill side by side columns in the record and completely eliminated any discussion about the fix and what's interesting that's one of the main reasons this is different from hell so in answer to your honest question she didn't deal with the law she found it to be content neutral first of all because she didn't even discuss chang specifically said the only way this ordinance or this type of ordinance can be content neutral is if they apply to everyone across the board there's not one ordinance anywhere that's ever been upheld that allows one side of the debate to speak and demonstrate or picket inside the fifteen foot zone obviously demonstrating it's speech and then it specifically exempts clinic agents or workers and they actually do according to the record demonstrate in the zone so that's content based because hill said this is content neutral in hill because it applies to everybody if those if it's those qualifiers were eliminated would it be content neutral if it took out the all the speech aspects of that and yet none of the took out the reference to the clinic workers would be content neutral if it applied to everybody across the board then by definition it would be content neutral what makes a content based here is allowed one side to speak and this is what's interesting is the defendant find well they're not allowed to speak there either but the plain reading of this ordinance says that you can picket and demonstrate no one can picket demonstrate except for workers so that can't be read out magically out of the ordinance if the legislature wants to amend it they certainly can but the way it reads it was that the intent i mean it says in the order to try to do a balancing between those who are going into the clinics and those who wish to exercise their rights to talk to them or counsel them if they're willing to listen  but where does it say in there that they or specifically allowing clinical workers clinic workers to come out and to exercise their free speech rights if you look at section six twenty three point zero four of the ordinance which is on i believe j seventy seven in the record that section specifically says no one can congregate demonstrate or picket in the fifteen for a fix zone and then the next  specifically exempt from this section clinic agents and workers so the plain reading of that ordinance is no one can speak inside the zone except for clinic workers and so on it's face it's content based there's the only way to do  to get around that is to strike out words in there such as the picketing and demonstrating which are pure speech and that's not obviously permissible to do it's up to the legislature and on the as apply at the content  fifteen counseling women telling her don't listen miss brown she does not use talking about abortion is say they consistently demonstrate in the zone as a matter of fact as applied mr goulden i would like to ask you about an issue that you no counsel or war with her and i would also assume reporter is highly unusual and again speaking only for myself probably improper what the judge take the view without notice of the party without anyone's presence but the parties did not find out about that until the opinion was issued the other thing i think that's problematic even defendants they in their briefs twice well the judge basically said in several footnotes in her opinion that i went down i saw the location i heard i heard the noise all those types of things and so the evidence if the way the judge laid it out was in several felt i think about four or five in her opinion defendants basically said that the judge made certain findings based on the evidence and based on her views even they admit that she went down there and and gathered evidence for example when you're talking about the noise issue and it was on testimony that you cannot be heard on the city streets from eight feet away well the court went down there who knows what time of day who knows what the noise was like she could have found that there was a noise problem because she went at night when it was quieter i mean we don't know when shouldn't have to worry about that should we apply a harmless error analysis to this if we determine that it was there well i don't think it would be harmless error for several reasons number one it's pretty clear in case law that if a judge is go conduct of you they should do it do it in the in the presence of the parties with notice and ability to comment or we bought whatever evidence the judge is gathering or whatever she's whatever see if you in the other situation is what's interesting in combination with the view the judge went out of her way to gather other evidence and other material outside the record i think actually the bus schedule she cited in a footnote to say in response to the noise issue well anyway there's probably less noise now because they caught the bus schedule well that wasn't a record it information from this private view in a way that you challenge that has that might have changed the outcome of this case we we believe she did specifically for the noise issue and the way we decision making crime statistics was another thing she relied upon outside the record and it's not just the know it's a public record as well except for it's not necessarily i guess what would be judicial notice of a fact but it's how that fact affects the record because we don't know what was going through the judge's mind as to how that affected her opinion if she would have said i looked at here the crime statistics relate to these you know these these zones are needed we could rebut that or so your point is not that it may not be make that's exactly right and the problem with judicial notice it has to be undisputed and the problem we have is how do we know how the evidence was used evidence wise to come to the conclusion for us to say well no your honor that crimes that doesn't have to be undisputed parties we could rebut that evidence but if the judge is bringing in outside evidence that we don't know how it impacts we have no ability to respond because it may affect the opinion and the same with with an office and in the us there's a question as well have you back everybody thank you she did this with i don't think with any accompanying that is a correct that's correct your honor neither we were not informed that she was going to do this but this is the there are a number of reasons why it is harmless error even if if you are inclined to believe that it was there  first we can start off with that the standard in a preliminary injunction hearing is perhaps lower in terms of reliance on hearsay but even in terms of the abuse of discretion standard that you're looking at first before her view the court was fairly familiar with the area as she lived and worked in pittsburgh i think in the record it says she lived near the liberties down so it wasn't that she perhaps never had even walked along these herself fairly familiar with them too i spent fourteen years in the district court in that but that's not the point that the point you need to address is essentially the gnosis point being raised by you read the seri that is just as you didn't know about it they didn't know about it they didn't have an opportunity to supplement the record in any way whether she was correct certain she had power and whether she earned it or not they didn't have the opportunity to supplement the record isn't that really the you can let me just give you example take a look a footnote a word says this is a high crime area at least liberty and then however as a result of you however since the photographs were taken in two thousand and six the area has changed well that's may be subject to debate whether that area has changed and what the changes were it what the changes were that's correct your honor but i don't think that the actual findings that that may be  addressed your honor in terms of the fact that the district court agreed that the city of pittsburgh doesn't determine where they'll clinics are located in the city of pittsburgh doesn't determine how many cars or buses were not in control of the noise so she didn't find it fatal to them it did did she relies on the lack of noise in her decision intake definitely in terms of the terms of people you know and the protestors or advocates i don't believe that that was that her her view in any noise you may have heard resulted in in a final bid so if your view is that it wouldn't make any sort this ordinance still holds up without reliance on out when finding well in fact she really didn't grow any conclusions at all stitch in the concept is introduced the notion of noise is mentioned i think several needs clearly it's raised here without a clear conclusion but unless i missed something i don't recall seeing the effect of these several zones in the distance that they thereby require between the protesters and the object of the protesters communication why would noise not be a elementary material factor here in the ability of the protester to communicate a message on the street your honor the noise was the saying before and after the itself it doesn't go away whether you're to feet away or eight feet away there are some noise it's not a constant there's not a constant decibel level that never stops it's just a matter of being in and in an urban downtown setting  speech that the supreme court has said is permissible and the addition of the or the combination of the two zones so why don't you start with content neutral of course your honor it's been argued that  st section six twenty four point zero for those exams clinic workers from the zone that it's not content neutral what is your response to  my response is that it is content neutral and it starts with going back to the basic law proffered by the court in hill that talks about what do you look at to determine content neutrality first this ordinance does not regulate speech only vocation secondly it was not enacted because of disagreement with the message it's there it furthers the city significant goals without reference to content now with respect to the exemption for doesn't affect the content neutrality and i think that there are support for the position i'm going to numerate in the mcguire line of cases and in the recently decided mcallen case because those massachusetts statutes while they are different from the city's ordinance in terms of distances both included exemptions for clinic workers and i think the important considerations are that first of all when we look at the intent of the legislature we we look at it in  interpret it constitutionally the second point is that the exemption deals with the job that the sox are performing whether it's a police officer or whether it's a clinic worker it doesn't speak to the position or this but there's there's a big difference between of the safety officers and employees yes the clinic knowledge you're certainly would be more likely to perhaps have a viewpoint contrary to another person that's trigger on or however well it's not it's not that so much that they don't police officers represent the public everybody else doesn't represent them so it seems to me they're on a different footing here well the difference is that or perhaps something that helps with that question is that the ordinance doesn't doesn't just exempt clinic workers exams clinic workers in gaijin assisting patients and other persons to enter or exit the clinic and why it can be upheld then it should be upheld facially in this case similar to the mcallen or in the mcguire cases and what calling case the reason that it should be that there is official reason for city council to include that and that is to encourage credit workers to continue helping patients to enter clinics and that furthers the city significant interest in saving unimpeded access to clinics well i think  mean we would argue that because the limitation is engaged in assisting patients in and out of the clinic it it when you take the whole meaning when you look at the whole meaning it's not meant to address times when folks are congregating patrolling picketing are demonstrating it's it's about perhaps a three second walk between the pictures of the clinic i thought it might be helpful these are all and in the record but it's about a three second walk between the edges a clinic and when you enter the door and that's where the exemption is given while they are assisting and into the clinic and out of the clinic the clinic workers absolutely do not have any kind of i in terms of standing in the zone in order to protest or outside the zone in terms of the phone but will they are required to get consent of the patient before they clinic in terms of the fact that there are two zones here both the eight foot zone and the fifteen foot sound the city council believe that both zones were necessary to further the city's significant interest and this isn't quite as far stretch as palin's counsel would have you believe clearly the eight foot buffer zone is almost identical to the wording in help now the hill ordinance also had a separate provision for him and impeding access to the door and rather than go with that city council decided that they would have a clear marked six foot buffer so that would we're going to we're going to ask for a transcript of those arguments or don't stray too far from the microphone ok are your words on the record of course sorry your honor the wire has had a situation where it was an eight foot radius in front of the door so not much different than the city's fifteen foot sound but then within that you had the six foot approach provision so it was floating but it's loading while other people are standing wherever they does the asking for permission this does that that help to take it in your view that that significantly helped your case that if someone wants to speak of course they can go ahead and speak but absolutely i mean there's no our position is that there is no regulation whatsoever on speech just where it may occur there's no limit on signs or is no limit on how close you a willing your consenting person once they say yes i loved it to talk to you i want to know more about what you have to say there's no eight foot restriction at all and you're just left with a fifteen foot buffer it only in se i'm willing listeners and again it's important to consider where we are it's annoying listeners in front of a clinic and this is similar to the frisbee schultz case where the court said had found that there was residential their privacy concerns with people being in front of your residence and the court in this case and by the way the court now case found that even one protestor or one take it or call it in hit that privacy and that similar to this case where you're looking at even one protester a demonstrator can inhibit one's privacy in terms of the fact that they are medically captive so to speak they have to go into this clinic if they want to receive the services not sure  in concert to essentially do the same thing as the as the hill statute did the hill statute had two provisions it's just they weren't both buffer zones in this case we need the eight foot floating back floating bubble in order to balance those interests of unwonted communication we also need a fifteen foot fixed buffer to ensure clear and n p did access to doors and that i think the the real world application was really telling in the case of person the freemen where the court was looking at in that case it was a fixed it was a content base no less fixed down at one hundred feet in front of a polling place and the court said  in relying on some very anecdotal evidence from the from the lower court they said that it takes about fifteen seconds to walk seventy five feet and when you're looking at the application uninterrupted and similarly here the zones here work together to basically say the last three seconds before you enter a clinic you should be able to see the door you should be answered you should be able to enter it without interruption and before you get there one hundred feet before the clinic you should be able to limit unwanted communication to either three or four feet away or perhaps two seconds worth of time and both of those work together to serve a significant interest in the safe and unimpeded access and the right to be in a right to be not approach in terms of its there's an unwilling communication coming towards you and in terms use to provisions it's just they chose to the legislature chose to enact two different types of provisions that work together they tell us again why the floating bubble zone is needed because in terms of the legitimate interests in significant interest that the city has expressed they are entitled to balance the rights of the speaker with in this captive situation the right to have a seat from or a distance from unwilling contact and this isn't what zone helps ensure the unimpeded access and the  even handed application of the law they're both needed because they while they work together they sed they serve different purposes ms brown is permitted to hold signs if she would like to ms brown is permitted to hand leaflets and she does not have to move out of the way and she can  i think was discussed earlier she could stand erect only looking down the sidewalk deciding where someone was approaching she could stand on either side and be ready with her leaflets and you point puts her at the location of the of the woman in the blue shirt here if she was in front of the door it is a parking lane it's not it traffic lane as i understand it and i could i guess perhaps there are times when it is a that was actually what i was getting to the court in he'll even stick a specific concern about him with the view that they know they did your honor but what they were able to work their way through their concerns by saying yes but the protester may stand right in front of work but wasn't that the ultimate resolution of that the right we believe that the city significant interests justify this minor restriction on the location of her speech it isn't exactly the same as it hell but it's still constitutional she still has every take a pamphlet anyone interested in taking her pamphlet she certainly had the opportunity with is with this ordinance to offer literature and as the court denied as the court as a district court stated people are  have the choice of taking them or not the the that she cannot give out the pamphlets white in front of the door and then again that's assuming she wasn't blocking the entrance does not render this statute unconstitutional thank you very much  that's one of our points here this ordinance interesting the enough is not triggered by blocking or impeding access although that's the purpose is claimed and that's one of the problems of why it's not narrowly tailored all the city has to do is prohibit blocking impeding access here fifty people can block the sidewalk not violate this ordinance they can engage in violence and not violate this ordinance but if one person speaks the ordinance is triggered that's why hill said we don't have to shut down the fix down we just have to prohibit blocking and that's all that this the city needs to do and in fact they have blocking ordinances so it's certainly no harm to them if this ordinance is struck down because the evil's already taken care of this reza had the eight foot bubble and blocking i it would be constitutional according to hill thankfully but it would still be unconstitutional as applied because of all the differences in the clinics are not free standing all those things but yes and that's because the hill upheld it and obviously we would about that but what's interesting here when you look at all these other cases even the mcguire versus riley line of cases and cases a few things interesting about those number one they repealed the floating zone because they found it to be impossible to enforce and comply with that's exactly one of the problems we have here it's impossible to comply with an eight foot floodings on a someone's moving down the street they realize that that repeal that part of the zone not only that they had the limitations on the ordinance where only one clinic was open this ordinance applies twenty four hours a day seven days a week even when the clinics are closed so it regulates one hundred percent of speech in a one hundred zone even when the clinics aren't even open so it's it substantially over broad because it covers  where's the damage where's the injury the injury is in two things and one cortisol that the opposite side of the same coin the injury is it's not narrowly tailored as applied to the alleged evils which are the blocking impeding of the clinic in other words you have nothing to do with those two things also it doesn't further those interests whichever you are going through is required whenever interest the government puts forth the organs has to actually further those interests this one doesn't so if the organs of the clinics are closed it doesn't further impeding our access to the whether the eight foot loading zone works or not that's really a legislative decision that's that's not a constitutional facially well i would say it is a constitutional issue and i would say legislatively whether they pass it or not but constitutionally if that eight but zone burdens more speech than necessary to say it's a constitutional issues then yes the amount of distance is up to them the question is is it constitutional as it's applied and we were just asked not hossa to show because the record here because it wipes out all your speech the last thing i'd like to say your honor is is one of the arguments here is that you see throughout all the cases the legislatures of the these that passed this ordinance that are trying to do is just balance out these are these are hot issues in the united states and there are people on both sides who have really impassioned and all their what they're trying to do is say ok look we got it got to separate i'm a bit allow them to have their  intellectual answers don't really mesh i mean we've got something in hill that says a certain thing that we've got mcguire eight feet within or whatever six with an eighteen foot radius who knows what works the question is is the person able to get out the type of information that she wants to communicate and probably further that i have found anywhere else and maybe it's just the next case of the supreme court what principles would you lay out for us in writing of the solution here forget ting that you're on one side or the other woman be the principles the new for principles that you would tell us to decide this by i would do a few things and i don't it is a difficult decision and there is a balancing you know when i start looking at jurisprudence or free speech i go back and look at the civil rights cases in a labor union case is the court was so careful to make sure it didn't throw the baby out with the bathwater so to speak it make sure it carved out all the conduct that kept the speech protected in the light of atrocious activities that happened around those times and so what i would say is we need to start with the principle that we have to protect free speech yes we have to protect women but we have to protect free speech and so what i would say is we need to do it in a way that does the balancing your honor mentioned of and i just believe this ordinance goes so far the tell just complete the scale just completely skips over but  i would say there are ways to do it in my opinion that the district court judge asked me what would you do and i laughed and said if they wanted to hire me to write their ordinance i'd be glad to but the short answer is study away from speech because this is all conduct based the cities have an interest in stopping blocking and violence and harassment and dogging i agree one hundred percent if you are not laws to prohibit those stay away from the speaker is saying it's worse the problem because anybody who's who's who's who's blocking someone or or constantly dog g them like the court said until a falling down the street you can prohibit that it shouldn't matter though what the person inside the speaker here still has a right to speak still has a right to have leaflets that a certain point can be handed out outside a fifteen foot radius well and that's really the question here in on paper and what you're saying is that the ability to communicate to speak is impaired tremendously impaired yes and if there was a way with the speaker could still speak in real life and not just on paper and in theory which is what we have never real life case here what actually happens but yeah that's the problem it does not allow the speaker to speak it completely shuts down the as the evidence here in the opinion here demonstrates in order to enforce the kind of regime  that you've laid out here you really have to have a constant police presence at that time and apparently they did for a long time and it was too costly and they decided to deal with it in a different way you're lacking that constant police presence and that's just one person's word against another unless maybe you could have video surveillance or something like  that it's a good point but what's interesting about that this ordinance still requires police presence and here's why officer testified that in order for them to be able to arrest someone they have to see what someone commit the act so what's interesting is whether it's a law about blocking or this law it still requires the same police present presence to inforce it so it doesn't save any limited resources because it's just a different law and both laws require police presence or to enforce them so i think that's one of the problems here but i agree and i would say that the principles here in the balancing act and the it is a difficult area and i'm not diminishing that but we have to make sure that we start on the side of free speech and we protect it as best we can and i think that there are ways to protect free speech without going so far as the city when here to allow actual communications and actually it's being distributed instead of saying well from eight feet away i can can you a piece of literature all right so let's imagine the city has just hired music and song to propose that  what would it be my recommendation as a constitutional attorney would be let's prohibit all the conduct you want and let's enforce it harshly and make sure that there is no blocking no dogging when someone ask or would you like a piece of literature and someone says no you can't stay in their face and and harass them and so there are ways to basically say it doesn't matter whether you're talking about the you know them but it's basic harassment  hundred and and not like now how do we do you know well how is that situation doubt with obviously if you have the bubble you have to ask permission you can't approach right inches away from someone's face and the bubble completely shuts off speech which is why an application even underhill and are and it's unconstitutional but i think the reason is that this is this is a public sidewalk supreme court has said for years we're going to hear a speech we don't like that doesn't mean someone can attack you or physically do anything to you but we're going to hear speech we don't like and if we get to the point where what's the difference if it's politics it's the election and someone brings up a candidate and that brings up on his notions i know  this is you know even the courts should recognize that women entering these abortion clinics are in a different situation than other patients as well as sure that they're safe and i think an application of of laws that  agreed with it or disagreed with this what the supreme court helped the problem here is that hill didn't say that as applied there's going to be problems let's work them out this record shows you have applied problems in real life it also went beyond hill to the combination of  that the supreme court twice already struck down so while there is a lot of weighing and balancing the clear principles here show according to the three main cases at the supreme court the precedent we have to go by this is gone too far because the last two times the court say something similar to this it said no we struck one of them down it went too far so i would suggest as a lawyer to say let's take hill forbade them not add ons not add content based not add all these different things we might have to make some changes because these are not free standing clinics they encompass pizza places in daycare centers and everything else we have a long way maybe you both will get a chance to argue this in front of the supreme court maybe some case was very well argued in the take the matter under advisement we would like to have a transcript made of the testimony have you