general lawrence was and in a county prosecutor like valerie in these proceedings this is the second time that i've stood in front of this panel with respect to idaho's parental consent laws only this time the only issue presented is how to apply the u s supreme in the previous litigation the panel struck down the state's parental consent law because it lacked a valid medical emergency definition the panel also refused to sever portions of the definition because it determined that severing would be contrary to the idaho's legislative intent of restricting as many abortions as the state could the panel went on to acknowledge that even if the previously legislation had a valid medical emergency provision the legislation would consent bypass procedure that provides for exceptions for minors so mature miners think in general terms stripped of the provisions that the district court found offending  and statutory rape that sort of thing completely eliminate the requirement of post procedure notification that's right so far that's correct sir and would contain provisions that would allow for consideration of footnote with respect to florida and was mentioned it was the legislature's understanding and believe as supplied by opposing counsel own committee records that fornication would be included in statutory rape obviously you couldn't have a statutory right without sub for all three fifty one it contains the legislative thoughts and deliberations as as to why they provided and the reporting requirements as a as the way that works and determined that these provisions or similar provisions before they had been tweaked with were several that's correct what do we make of that does that have any influence on the legislative somewhat if we didn't here we apply a federal or state standards have a row and it doesn't matter and i think i think that's a very good question and part of me is just it's a very interesting case because the i r s does talk about almost any knowledge in a federal standard but i think what i you know is really saying is that it's it's not really new federal law but it builds upon previous statutes or previous cases that the supreme court has decided upon jane now for instance even bloody one where they chose to abstain in those cases your honor rather than treating abortion cases as abortion cases it seems to me that they're to a first amendment question and they focused on the second principle which is how courts can you know courts in knowledge and that the courts must restrain themselves from rewinding the law but with respect to the second principle it's the question which should be can this court devise a remedy that does not entail quite substantially legislative work and to answer that question it really depends upon the background of the constitutionally rules at issue now that if you were to go that route maybe you should certify to the supreme court that way in terms of judicial economy you want to see this case again time not to come up a second time or this case can decide on its own like you previously did with respect to what was then one you know i thought about certification to the supreme court you know how many certifications in the ninth circuit to the supreme court and i believe that and i can honestly i do not know that one of several other things that happen let's say we said it's not severable ok then it would seem that would go back to the legislature and that candidates would comply with or had to sign a ballot legend indicating whether or not they were comply with term limits and then they would put the language the legend on the ballots and provide voter standing here where you are now you don't reject that out of no no no as a better fact i think i believe the attorney general's office has as has has made several attempts to to reach across the table and discuss supreme court set out three interrelated principles one of which i think is most essentially at stake here which is the touchstone of any just about remedy is legislative intent for the court shouldn't use the term legal power to circumvent yes but the question really is because that's what they passed and you're always having whenever you have several you have a counterfactual problem i mean what would they have done if they didn't do what they did and so if that's the question we have to consider not what they did but what they would have done they knew they couldn't do that well in that sense i would agree think this is not this is round two and in that sense i think that makes this different from you're positing and makes this case different from jane out there finds reasons why i think this is true and five things i think point to the fact that the legislature wanted this law and wanted this law we prefer no law to this law the sense that what you said was you try to sever if possible and preserve as much and as much of the statue as possible and you looked at idaho law and you looked at idaho law which state and its presence and the unconstitutional  and that if you just drew a line through it as far as he was concerned friends with his findings and conclusions the statute would otherwise be ok how is that different than the situation i don't think this is evil intent i think when you look at your just mission for example but this circuit's decision in gonzales what this court said was you had a clear holding up the supreme court that you need a health exception for a partial birth  abortion and you have testimony that it would be unconstitutional and you did it anyway it has to be indispensable you have a right you have every right in the world to test the constitutional envelope and to try again and just see if this one's right how do you but it's not as if that's irrelevant that's what intent i mean the other way to look at it would be  we know what several and where we can live with that and why isn't that pretty good intent or evidence that they were going to do or die over that  think for two reasons one is that there was there's certainly language in the washington decision where the court has we have serious questions about whether how much we engage in rewriting of state law but even so we view this language the issue what judge what judge william said in his decision was every miner has to have an opportunity to pursue a confidential bypass without reporting to another government agency in fact this and in fact that this this decision would require passed this once and was told it was unconstitutional legislature then they had other models it's all it wanted was a parental consent ma it could be your decision you know and was it and it's saying where you asked language that is sort of unique and you do it not just once but twice that must mean that it's indispensable to your intent and then you do it again it is if the legislature the legislature is pushing the envelope and it has a right to do that but it's if then asking you to to fix it  so that's where the difference lies i think in terms of striking the statute in its entirety and leaving it as a legislature for assault that's why we have lived in your could you may know you do things one right i left in our two pieces that what i'll call that are related to reporting one is the section that says that the judge must inquire as to whether the minors sexual relations were forced or otherwise in violation of i think it's sixteen when i won and it also leads in the provision that says if the minor fails to answer questions that she can be she can be prosecuted i think this issue hasn't been briefed i think but i do think that there's a question under the reasoning of both judge williams and of judge when mail as to whether that would create a chill a miner is going in for a bypass she's there to prove whether or not she's sufficiently mature or an abortion is in her best interest she's been questioned as to what the nature  to look back more carefully the papers we view that as part of the reporting requirement that it's a great time because that was in part what gave rise to the guardian having understanding of the sexual relations and therefore being required to report what your position with respect to the question i asked the state about the possibility of mediating this going through a mediator sitting down with the statue attempting to arrive at i would have to confer with my clients on that mediation as to i mean but when one of my questions there is there's a finding of incarceration i guess i come back to they're willing to take the amount you say there may be some other difficult areas we don't know right now because it's not part of this record whether they're willing to remedy that but are you willing to sit down and talk about i think the more natural course might be to go down there for that possibility might be to go back down to the district court to try to figure out if you the court were to go in favor of seven million figure out of what i've got that  boomerang to me but just the judge mckeon pointed out i mean we've been down and back once and now go back again if he says his client wants to his the state of idaho wants a maybe now's the time to put them to the test just a thought you told me you have to consult with the client we've sent them i think one question there was if that's what the state wanted i apologise i can't help but go back if that's what or post emergency notification that works and they want to push that envelope and so in that sense they are more akin to congress and in that sense to just sort of rewrite and leave to people to continue to challenge i think really does and thank you for your thank you to be a minute or so if you feel there's something you're just going to tell us that we have the cloud over i can i have one question so come  state or federal law i'd like to my interpretation of it and believe me i might be wrong but i feel that i you know is actually the supreme court is providing lower courts with direction when dealing with severability clause is in general and i think the concerns they were addressing was that in abortion situations it's a very it's undeniably emotional for everyone involved and but if we were to take that out of the on the map and it respectfully i just i submit that i mean if we take it out of the abortion context if we say the states wanted to pass that immigration reform protecting discrimination immigrants and portions of that provision is unconstitutional