that people could attempt to interfere with medical care whether it's time with the phone lines obstructing the entrances putting out a smoke bomb or using noise is it's not just any noise that interferes with health care as the evidence shows it's the targeted kind of noise that people are as yes it's it's it's making noise with the intent of having heard within the building and making it for the purpose of interfering with what's going on the continue to be pretty intense and i think to be really are two different inten really goes back to original question is that just as a matter of practicality if people are intentionally making noise so they can be heard within the building and so the constat are wrong first officer says hey they can hear what you're saying up there you're interfering with health care and the people continue to make that noise there's obviously an intent on their part to interfere with with health care so i think the statute is drafted is such a way that it is targeting the noise that is the most problematic noise and that's and that's the noise that is being targeted at the no content is just a jackhammer and we run it for hours on am very destructive then i have the same device and i'm shouting slogans don't do point to make here is that there's a huge difference in the mind of a person getting health care it's it it's one thing to be trying to talk to your doctor and trying to get advice and try to make a big decision that having a jackhammer going on downstairs which certainly may be just a little distracting immediate annoying but that is an order of magnitude different it's different than having a protester down the street yelling directly at you trying to engage you in conversation personally while you're trying to engage with a health care provider that simply a completely different situation which the content no no it's not the content it's the matter in which it's being delivered and we say that hill versus colorado addresses the situation in hill versus colorado the supreme court said it's not the knesset that the protesters are trying to convey to the women it's the confrontational aspect of it and the state has a compelling interest in protecting women who are going into a health clinic from this kind of confrontational behavior itself the message is the direct confrontation and  interferes it is a matter of practicality but that's going to happen because the way these cases develop at least the mystery in this case devolved is it was complaints from within the facility saying what he's doing is disrupting our health care that it's not disrupting they're not going  interfering with with with health care services and then the attorney general because it just it makes sense that there can't be that there would be an action brought if there's no actual interference or for example the person heard inside the hospital say things like don't get your medical services here this is a place that does not supply enough staff in order to protect his patients so they is protest in violation of the statute so if there was a pro choice protest going on it is the people inside the clinic or this is interfering with our ability to provide health care and the warnings given to the this is coming to this court unofficial challenge but but our view is that everything with officer said was this isn't part based based on what you said and i think what the officer was was trying to express is that  in terms of determining intent it's not just the volume that you're speaking of because someone who's walking past you know support of measures to stop global warming what they're saying may be some evidence about their intent is in hill versus colorado the court said that you can you can consider that you can consider what they say is the evidence of intent so so our view is that i mean it we're not necessarily saying that the officer did a good handle this correctly but but it is don't have to legislate for problems that don't exist but but the it is a pro choice rally going on and for the reason it's interfering with the health care it that case it's probably not the content of what they're saying that's going to determine intent it's the fact that they've been warned they've been a situation like that if the person has been warned what you're doing is interfering with health care and they continue to engage in exact same kind of conduct i think you'll be hard for them to argue going for the fact finder hey i really didn't mean to interfere that c make the argument and maybe that you could miss the fact finder but our view is that we have pretty good evidence on our side that if they kept doing the exact same thing after being warned they had an intent to interfere and i guess that same issue arises and in any public's sidewalk based on the speaker's intent in making that speech read may see things this is a restriction of speech who's to me come down to my view well first off i think this is a restriction on speech because if we allow states or the government to circumvent speech requirements by calling it noise you can have all manner of restrictions that in fact cover speech  capstone example with the nurses they said well what they're saying would be the evidence that they're intending to interfere if they're saying that specific conduct and if you allow this idea of calling  ways that intentionally made the intent to criticize the government in a way that would be clearly aimed at suppressing the message you're saying that the restriction is intended to disrupt targeting in this what's the message that's being targeted in the message here that it's being targeted is there they're feeling the intent to interfere with a medical procedure because these pro life pastors are out there saying offering of speech a content based restrictions that restrict based on its function or purpose and here was restricting your use based on its function or purpose he intends to interfere with a medical procedure and the problem isn't that that it is not ok to have an ordinance that bans burning the fag but it sees me burning the flag the purpose is for to shut down the expensive content you're trying to say but the way they do it is because the statu shows no intent of interfering with a medical procedure where it seems each time at this you know the same level saying i don't want you to have an abortion shows the intent to interfere with the medical procedure and we see this in the video a force that seem like good ideas absolutely there i mean allows the government to look at the content of what he was saying to silence his speech and determine if you falls under this provision so absolutely that there's that subcategory that blanket a blanket to the intent to interfere with a medical procedure and this is because it allows the government to look at the type of speech and then go on from there so i think i will use more than three minutes already before if if the court has any questions i would certainly try to answer them but i just i think want to make one and inevitably you're going to have to look at the all kinds of noise and some cases yes and i will concede that in some cases officers are going to look at the content but again in hill the supreme court said that there's nothing unusual about looking at the content to determine intent to use it even for the that squares a place where they're put astray shivs the opposite kind of lawsuit we're going to also from demonstrators say why can't we hold our demonstration here there's no evidence that our demonstration is interfering with what's going on at the health care well why why didn't you do it that doesn't mean that this is some kind of content based restriction ok and thank you