existence their conception on the other side of the battle line the belligerence believe here the human being does not come into existence at conception that a fetus is merely tissue simply part of the human body much like an appendix one of the battle lines where that war runs through planned parenthood clinic a couple miles from here it is on the front line of the culture war and i represent mary jo and members of the satanic temple were casualties of that war merry go and other members of the have gone into planned parenthood seeking an abortion if they did it you know almost any other state in the union would simply have a medical procedure removing fetal tissue but in missouri they get subjected to what we the missouri tenet and missouri lectionary and here's how it works but you don't get to fight the war in court unless you have standing so how do you have standing you have injury you have injury in fact particularized in concrete ok so mary doe is had an abortion in the past but doesn't seek any damages for the earthly of fortune is relevant guilt doubt in shame is what gives her standing she walks into planned parenthood and she is told young lady human life begins at conception young lady you have to saying part of what they're saying yes that she she was subjected to i don't want and for purposes of of argument we we will see on this she felt guilt and shame and  was offended by the by the missouri tenets but that she's not asking for any damages for that and and because she's not now you know i don't know if that means if you court ruled that solely on the basis that she had already had the abortion did not address at all what the court must accept as true that they felt guilt out of shame that they were offended by the and they were hurt by tennessee there are two questions the first is the establishment clause question she does not need to show any kind of ongoing injury after the initial contact establishment clause cases standing establishment clout excuse me clause cases represents a special case in our jurisprudence you don't have to keep going back to see the ten commandments to have standing to complain about their being there in even if you're only seeking prospect of relief is there a case that says i think if you look at the free thinkers case there was no requirement that they had to go back and look at that ten commandments a second time i think they pled that they were exposed to it all the time when they go back to have an abortion they played that they were pregnant that there were members who were pregnant and who they pledged that they will be subjected to it that was the general allegation and within the ambit of that general allegation you must infer that they will have to get that they will be subject to it again but really the question of the question is this is what you're looking for what are you looking for in standing surely looking for the authority to reduce or to find a state law unconstitutional and what you need is a litigant who's got skin in the game basically that's yet all right the question is how much skin in the game do we cast to keep going back time after time how much skin in the game do we have to put before we get standing just wants twice three times i mean you keep  that these are our spare specific events we are the outcome of unwanted pregnancies it's not like it's playing on and then there's a very limited time friend to make up your mind about whether you want to go for an abortion all right in our case in terms of the the people that we represent we have another compelling thing working against us which is not only guilt out of shame but the culture war is a shooting war doctors who give abortions gets shot and mary doe who is an who true identity is only known to two people including myself potentially puts herself at risk for standing up and lending her name to this action so i just never thing else that a litigant has to take into account when she says am i going to be a plaintiff in a case like this she has to make a decision of how much she's going to put herself personally at risk so i come back to the original question is how much skin do we have to put into getting i submit that we have already put plenty to establish nandy now the time that i've asked for initially is r wade applies that says that abortion cases are unique in the standing context because of the fact that by the time you went to get a case the pregnancy that may have been there even if it was one at the  you really what the way that roe recognized exactly what i said is that you have in this context you have a very specific limited window of having a litigant step forward and present her case to the court and in the case of roe the court react recognizing the clock runs out therefore we're going to rather have it be moot we're going to have this doctrine of you know let you know we'll come back and look at it because it'll come up a taking no but when the supreme court's doesn't want to we're going to know what the supreme court said is the state can say anything it wants or can make a value judgment and the state has made a value judgment what this court has said it's an impermissible theory of life when as in this case that value judgment is put in front of someone getting a medical procedure is no longer just a value judgment it now crosses the constitutional line into affecting individuals the question can human life begin to conception is not capable of resolution by the political process it is not capable a resolution in the legislature is capable of resolution only in the minds in the heart of individuals and the religion clause says that that remains there so long as you keep the resolution of that issue on the battlefield you continue to complicate the culture war solution to that problem is to say what your honor i'm asking you to do a very heavy lift here ok because the way this case a shape you know there are two questions to answer either a abortionists or satanists can have abortion on demand in missouri or b the state of missouri can ban the clerical garb and preach christian dogma from the waiting room a planned parenthood but that's not the question we trial court and let the process work is it possible to plead that members of the temple who don't believe that it's a human being would endure guilt and shame by being exposed to the state's view is that if that's what we've alleged aims contradictory to me i don't see how well if they believe it's not a human being and yes and that's part of the religious tenet right why would they point of missouri lectionary and the whole point of misery tennant is to get into her head in her heart and cause her to double guess herself and to doubt herself and to think that maybe yeah maybe just not commit murder here  it is injury that in the in the in the establishment context it's called speak magic injury but it doesn't really do it justice think of it in terms of the injury in the abington case of the child who sits on that in the classroom has to listen to that to the christian prayers  against earth island and said you must identify the specific member and so the argument was made actually on the earth island case that well you know it's a gigantic organization of environmentally minded people and obviously statistically at least one of them is going to  have a specific injury that arose from the challenge environmental practice majority the supreme court said that is insufficient as a matter of law so association standing in this case can only be based on the allegations that are specific to mary doe because the only individual human filed and then there was a couple called the dose who said we anticipate we may get present pregnant in the future and want to have an abortion and at one twenty seven one twenty eight of that opinion because they were not currently pregnant and whether or not they would become pregnant in the future was a matter of conjecture and speculation so in this particular case the fact that mary doe was not pregnant at the time the complaint was filed and merely allege that she may become pregnant in the future i counsel actually did file a parallel sixty court action during the seventy two hours during the three days between when she first made contact with planned parenthood in two thousand and fifteen in which you had the abortion and the state has not opposed that case on standing grounds we've argue three eight seven it and in missouri state court so there could never be a plaintiff who has standing under the state's standing is incorrect although i would point out that reading supreme court case fairly it does not trouble the supreme court that certain were may never be a litigant who has standing to address them i also want to address there too i think new i view them as sort of new york evolved theories of standing that were advanced in the reply brief in this particular case one is this notion that there are six catholic league at san francisco case that a way that relies on those are cases where the case is a case where oklahoma passed an amendment that says you can't rely on islamic law in state court and the tenth circuit held that a muslim has stand you know islamic law into court therefore that created standing for muslims to challenge it similarly in the ninth circuit's case mechanically case in two thousand and ten the argument was this non binding resolution at the city of san francisco adopted expressing disapproval of catholic the supreme court went out of its way to reemphasize that the injury must be both concrete and particular artist and it's perfectly clear that the injury that every muslim in the state of oklahoma feels from a message of exclusion from this amendment is not a particular  that because she was exposed to the misery lectionary is referred to that she was injured it was caused by the lectionary saul we got the first i think were i think the first two elements  matter pretty easy i think i think the third one if it is then is read your argument is well there's no redress ability because she's not asking for any damages for that injury and which i guess goes back to my question  we don't concede that guilt out in shame constitute an injury in fact under article three because the so why is it any different than having to observe a ten commandments display like in the freemason case are not freemason not free thinkers case i mean why is  to take their complaint and it's at the face and their argument is that being can be an ass to the read the missouri lectionary in their mind is no different than having requiring someone to read the ten commandments supreme court said in the valley forge case which is that psychological the psychological consequences of disagreement from government action is not an article three injury but even assuming that it was our present argument is as you stated redress ability clearly i mean say they have to go back and ask for one dollar of nominal damages but never sought leave to amend the complaint in this case now had the pending state court action where they're standing has gone undisputed but the supreme court has treated that as an important critical difference because again and again for example in adarand that past damages do not establish the real immediate threat of future injury that is required to support standing to claim prospect of relief even if only nominal damage damages are required to be asked they must be asked for and they were not asked for in this case again in class or against international the supreme court strongly reaffirmed that the new injury must be certainly impending possible future injury is not enough as to the mere fact that  established religion here but except in that they say we've been injured by the fact that we've been exposed to it on want to government message well the you keep saying government message but that's not the claim because of as a government message i think we've said pretty clearly you can do that from a governmental standpoint it's the fact that it's a religious there they're trying to get around our prior precedent this is these types of statements are constitutional under the fourteenth amendment they're saying but that's a message and there i think they're very careful to say it's a religious message and so i think we have to take them at their word that they're arguing it on the establishment cause on the first amendment just like a it's they're saying to be no different than saying you have to read the ten commandments before you have an abortion i actually agree that that is the allegation and i think it's a question of law and whether or not that the mere exposure to that message which is a government religious message it's a religious mesh it's required by the government when they go into planned parenthood it's a question of law whether or not that requires the level of an article three injury in fact but i agree with the way we've reached it focuses almost entirely on this redressed ability question which is an easy question dealing with religious displays as somehow dispensing with the article three acquirement certainly impending future injury to support future injunctive relief i point out that in the freethinkers case red river freethinkers which is principally relied on by them this again who said look the potential minister in the courtroom in the county courthouse in that courthouse all the time i had seven cases there in the past two years they've all been heard in that courtroom i've attended four public meetings there and in recent times i intend to do them in the future the notion that any of those cases in some way dispensed with the requirement certainly impending future injury really has no merit at all so for those reasons i would emphasize three things first there association standing for this organization based on any member other than mary jo because there are no specific allegations about any member other than mary doe in this case secondly the argument that the religious display and then turn to the question of the six whether such a temple has standing i would ask for the opportunity to address that question by a written response same with the letter that we got on monday this case was decided last june when a com we're not arguing the privacy claim we're not arguing to or we're arguing that the religion clauses so again the fact of abortion is irrelevant the littleton case which we cited in our brief says continuing adverse affects of the initial injury creates standing it is redress a bill go back to abington ok if you say to that to the school system you may not compel christian prayer at the beginning of the church school day and all right that is at least a step of bringing that you new child into the body politic is no longer feeling like the outsider same thing with mary jo if you give her the relief that we seek in this case ok that will vitiate the guilt that in shame that feeling of being an outsider ok i mean how many times does hester prynne have to wear the scarlet a if you say to her you can take it off it was wrong to require it to be put upon you in the first place that will give you sufficient relief standing skin in the game and give you the opportunity to come back