apartment at all have happiness wherever they go to themselves to their families to their communities and to society as a whole they make us better people in pure gold evidence from the surveys that are in the record in this case verify those intuition from perjury complete elimination and united states in the state of missouri are not far behind or rates of abortion of children with down syndrome are as high d as sixty seven percent and maybe a scotus ninety three percent based on a range of surveys that are in  record at this particular case that epidemic abortions targeting children with down's syndrome for elimination solely because of their disability not for any other reason soley because of their disability is a crisis in response to that the client this in this case the right to target a disabled person for abortion so we because of their disability d is not right that is deeply rooted in america's history and traditions is not implicit in the concept of  the overwhelming evidence this case demonstrates that our society over the last three and a half decades has decisively repudiated the shameful history of medicalize discrimination against persons with down syndrome that was a blight on a long number of case and casey obviously had literally nothing to do d with an anti discrimination provision and perhaps he was decided right around the time when societal attitudes towards persons with disabilities including persons with down's syndrome were undergoing this radical shift advise the court there's nothing in the legislative record in that but there's a whole series of cases they haven't argued that this is under inclusive doesn't should have targeted you know we should have protected other disabilities i'd say two things in response that one is i'm not aware anything like the evidence we have  you know in denmark and nations like that south korea where even slants united kingdom approaches ninety percent and that that the evidence that we have in the united states is that we're somewhere in the range of sixty seven to ninety three percent so i'm not aware of any evidence about that  i'd also like to emphasize if you actually look at the plain language of those two decisions both of them strongly indicate that this is an acceptable legislative choice starting with roe versus wade itself roe versus wade that the supreme court the penny of the court expressly said that do it on that one discriminatory basis so little that we still have the pre buy ability at least from the supreme court as it stands right now the pre buy had the right to a pretty viability abortion without a substantial just not presented that case and not address going back to roe versus wade the argument that you have a right to abortion quote for any d for whatever reason you desire is that is the supreme court's i cope with this we do not agree and i also with this we do not that people with down syndrome add to society we talk about how there's a compelling interest in protecting classic disabled per person for being targeted for elimination solely because of their disability we talk about eradicating the historical that really shameful there was an alternative but it wasn't a substantial substantial obstacle because there was an alternative to the partial birth abortion what is the alternative for the woman who is seeking should the pre buy i believe portion in this situation i think what i would say to that is this is not a substantial obstacle to the right to abortion however it does prevent women who is doctors know that the sole reason they're having an abortion from obtaining an abortion so it's only a prohibition if the court looks at the state's interest and says oh you're stopping someone or is it leant i planted is defined so narrowly as a prohibition and i would return to the analogy to employment discrimination and my discrimination provisions and if the patient said i want to for some other reason financial burden you know whatever that reason was then the statute would not cover that by this point turns your honor i see that my time is mostly expired if there's no further questions i reserve the balance bans has banned abortion at pre buy ability points in pregnancy and we submit that four decades of unbroken supreme court precedent make clear that this is unconstitutional the state does not  pre buy ability of portions and casey makes clear that the state may not do that no matter what interest it in casey held quote before buying ability the state interests are not strong enough to support a probation of the portion and it categorically rule that quote a stately not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability and went on to make clear that viability marked the earliest point when it when a state may enact a legislative they have so it does not matter whether the precise interests the state now invokes were considered in k c or not versus back and k b management concluding that unless the supreme court overturns its own precedent lower and intermediate courts have no choice but to follow this supreme court's binding viability and changed as i correct right and i read crap so far that is correct we are kid that in fact he had overlooked certain evidence that had already been submitted and we also submitted additional  abortion the question undue burden and large fraction test only comes in when you're talking about a regulation casey was at pains to make clear that it introduction of the undue burden standard for regulations did not in any way limit the central holding of throw that no woman could be prohibited from having an abortion pre complete and entire panel this will prohibit any woman who in counseling volunteers to her doctor that she is seeking an abortion because as i know this is a down syndrome that woman will be that our h s will not serve now and i think that the argument the state of missouri appears to be making here is that are a test its doctors should risk their medical license over the question of whether the licensing authorities would conclude that where they were aware of that down's syndrome diagnosis they still had no knowledge that it was the sole reason for the patient's abortion given the hostile climate towards abortion and your your honour's can take judicial notice that the licensing the parties left  and it's doctors have taken the position they've given the draconian risks that they face and the requirement that they certified that they have do not have any knowledge any knowledge that down syndrome is sole reason and that a woman is seeking an abortion that given that given that risk they will not perform an abortion where they have any knowledge that there has been a diagnosis or indication of down surrender so that necessarily means that any woman who approaches the clinic who either blown tears that she has had it down syndrome diagnosis or if she was referred by referral kind penalty are facing an abortion provider and abortion provider is reasonable in steering clear of the dangerous sentence and we would also like to the folks with the rain real brains in the operation are sitting next to me and hopefully they'll retrieve that in just a moment not point or but but i do all i do want to make no occur before a court make grant a preliminary injunction i think what you're hypothesizing your honor is that our client and  doctors at the last remaining abortion clinic in missouri should have to run the risk losing their medical license because someone disagrees as to whether they had any knowledge that down's syndrome was the sole reason for a woman seeking an abortion and we think that this is a completely not provide abortion care where they had any knowledge that there has been a down syndrome tike knows this or a down syndrome indication and there would be no where else in missouri for these women renewed and the state found it was on a pretext to obey says so the idea that in this environment there would not be licensing issues brought against any topped or who performs a tithe notice  play out and you know the state here relies on clapper well clapper that there are they argument was that this is a self inflicted injury that really you were not in the danger zone and so whatever precautions that you took that involved all kinds of expenditures those were completely unreasonable well clapper the plaintiffs there were not the target of the surveillance program plaintiffs here are the target they are the abortion providers who would lose their license and in clapper the risk that the plaintiffs communications would be intercepted relied themselves we think it is perfectly rational and reasonable for them to take the precautionary measures not leaving too and unfriendly jurisdiction to determine ineffable question of whether down's syndrome was the sole reason well down syndrome can come with added expenditures and i think mr sour teared that well they could offer the issue financial financial difficulties well how does one parse that it's financial difficulties if the woman would have had the child and not had financial difficulties if there had not been a down syndrome diagnosis with the down's syndrome diagnosis the costs the medical condition and attendant to that medical condition the fact that she that that  down syndrome children and adults require care into adulthood so when financial issues come to bear who is to say i mean it's really kind of you know a pistol the logical issue as to whether is that but for the down syndrome diagnosis that you have these financial issues but forward this down syndrome women of missouri the abortions that they seek and it is clearly clearly barred by casey and i you know i think that mr sour argued that past you know that that supreme court pronouncements should be and target is statutes well he said it was very very clear that it was making pronouncements to guide lower courts and it was doing so it was self consciously adopting bright line rules it made it clear that liberty should not be before viability and that is not i think mr sour try to argue that that is a conceptual pregnancy and not any particular pregnancy well that's not what the what the language that it's for making the ultimate decision to terminate her her particular pregnancy before viability that right belongs to a woman and i think the reason for a rd party standing which was uniformly endorsed by june medical the reason for rd party standing in part is because a woman cannot get that abortion without a doctor who is willing to provide it and here the interim of that's the down syndrome reason ban is such that if a doctor that learns of the down's syndrome diagnosis they will not at the last that justice justice roberts concurrence really does not address the question that is before this court because what is before this court is a prohibition and in fact what casing and was hearing and hearing to the basic holding of casey that the essentials holding and were ok with being reaffirmed and he had no reason to have trask's the question of prohibitions because they just weren't there but i guess we would argue that whether or not there's a balance then the benefits simple st we would argue the end to bring test doesn't apply didn't apply and key management didn't apply an edwards versus back but even if it did apply that we would mean that because this imposes an insurmountable obstacle in every situation where it is an actual restriction and not in the relevant restriction and thank you for giving me thank you just and you have quote the only question for a court to consider is whether or not the regulation as it's called that's what chief justice roberts wrote in that opinion it directly contradicts the main argument that they've made both as to the gestational age corollary to that there's been no evidence no evidence of a large fraction is presented in this particular case and i do d want to address very grave i can't leave on address the statement that this provision is d cool which miss him and said late in her argument i want to quote from paragraph fifty their child with down's syndrome about eighty percent said their outlook on life was more positive because they had a down syndrome child brothers and sisters had a favorable perspective with nearly all reporting love and crime ninety seven percent and ninety four percent