that what the court but most fundamental or the court may visit it confused the question of law of whether a physician has a duty to disclose in the scope of the duty which is clearly civil and that stores the nature of the procedure the doctor has to disclose the medical risks summit let me stop you right joy because when you're talking about disclosing the nature of the procedure  talks about material risks involved in the procedure itself and you have to give you have to disclose what those material rezai are and you have to get a consent that once a person understands what those material risks are in this case is there really any question what the procedure is about yes why and you know as as one who has been consulted by literally thousands of women and i believe was confirmed that she had she she was in fact pregnant and at the pregnancy health center they told her that what she had insider was a human being that's quite simply the start of one and planned parenthood they told her the contrary information so she had basically the entire universe of information that she was available to her and she had to choose which of the two she wanted to put her faith in you  there is no claim that is if the court is prepared to say that this is a matter of fact there is no persisting between a woman put under stand that terminations of pregnancy and should i and do i want to maintain my relationship with my child yes or no and in fact that's the question she asked herself and that and the answer to that question letter to plant here you know the answer to that question the answer to that question would dictate her determination and if the answer to what are you willing to planned parenthood to get the answer to that question even though she had the answer from the pregnancy help center that apparently w fact what case to rely on for that on on this record we have in this record defendant's you know scientific evidence that supports that conclusion that's number one clarify that common law and prior to that passing have that statute a comma long and been interpreted differently yeah let me ask you this question because it seems like i'm just talking here in the common law be different in  different states of course of course absolutely so there's no doubt that that's the common law in south dakota or north dakota the common law on illinois may be a little different than actually it is the same in this regard was the district court there looked at the statute and said the statute was unconstitutional right because it said it violated the first amendment and fourteenth amendment right of the physician because the statement is not an accurate statement of fact well that's relevant to this case that this case is saying we have a woman who said if this is a human being i will not have this procedure tell me if this is accurate or not they deliberately misled her she relied on what they have to say well misled her is sort of judgement it all sounds to me as it can be a difference of opinion or simply can't be any different application of existing law because inaccurate or incomplete this isn't the whole informed on your consent case going forward because one they didn't take the sloes in the first instance like the should including the wrists of the mother but they also made misrepresentations when those pointed however that does not mean that's not something simple liability when this negligence that results in the hall that language matters and it has no meaning whatsoever if if if if there is a statement that the nature of the procedure and she knew that six months down the line your honor with with all due respect i disagree she did not know the nature of the procedure she knew she knew that at some point there's going to be a human being she did not know that at this point it was and if you look at the science that we put in the record now let me ask you this question let me ask you this question under your under your u nder your your presentation when when when can an abortion occur without answer is she can happen torsion the answer is perfectly legal the answer is constitutionally protected i'm asking you and under the question that you say that really motivated her yes that you have she had a human being inside when when when when does that human being come into existence is that i'm that's a that's a question of fact for a fact finder after this  a a way that we should be running there's a civil justice system you're asking you're asking a very complicated question that if i can rephrase it it sounds rather experts that are providing not just opinions but but what will be referencing still all the scientific studies journals texts everything and mostly disciplines human genetics  difference between those two you have  may have placed the court wendy and her stand on behalf of the defendants the trial court's decision must be affirmed the trial court correctly found as a matter of law that abortion provide rights why is that a matter of law as opposed focus on planet earth or do they have any additional duty no planned parenthood students are the same of those that are imposed on a physician to disclose to their patients material medical risks associated with a procedure thing being consented to ok and here there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that mary jo or any other two diff class that are playing purports to bring this as a class action did not understand the nature of the thing being consented to mary doe does not even allege that she was incompetent or did not understand that what she was consenting to was a lawful abortion and that that abortion would terminate her pregnancy she acknowledged that planned parenthood provided to her the required disclosures under in one eye common law the first seeable risks associated with the procedure the results on the alternative she acknowledged that by itself later it was under no obligation to inform her of the question that she was asking that is correct the question that she was asking well  a i'm claim parenthood as an institution exceeds the boundaries let me know what it is regarding the question that was asked she asked of the person it was not what if what if that necessarily because the question is whether a physician is physician or abortion provider has this duty to disclose these non material value laden information and if that if such a disclosure is provided provided it and that the statute at issue did not codify that then existing common law in fact section seven i have the statute issue in rounds provide it's a legislative legislatively enacted statute that extends the common law that pushes the common law and is outside what is required under the common law it was not part of the  our understanding of the plaintiff's position and is there another case that is there a case out there that found the common law in the absence of a statute from the legislature  addressing that factual question there are no cases in illinois or any other state which have found that as a matter of common law physicians and abortion providers are have a duty to disclose when life begins there is the new jersey supreme court's decision in a corner up which is directly on point and highly instructive the court there to the issue before the court there was whether the common law of new jersey which is virtually identical to that of illinois requires physician to disclose to their patient that an abortion would result in the killing of a life separate human being as a matter of biological and scientific fact finding that there was no consensus within the medical or scientific community as to when life begins the court declined to extend the common law and found that the common rock like that of illinois only requires a physician to disclose that it was a human being and by based on the allegations of the complaint which we must accept as a true and a two six one five motion she did ask me and karen what was the answer planned parenthood according to the allegations of the complaint told her that there was only tissue being evacuated from her her body at that time and you think that was accurate under illinois i think that the sabers only t does illinois law answer the question whether there was a human being present in her body when she was the fear no illinois law does not because that's simply not within the ruling that doesn't answer that question how does illinois law impose the obligation to disclose to answer that question there maybe you should talk to a priest maybe talk to someone else but i don't know when she said i don't know you know why should the fact that she said no all contradicting what the information that she had received previously why should that make a specific question was and why do i have read human beings like because there is simply no real consensus within the medical community as to when life begins right but they didn't say that they just said no according to the plaintiffs complaint is that she possessed the very information that she claims defendant should have disclosed to her it exceeds i have boundaries that may be that may be but why wouldn't an appropriate answer then be i can't answer that question rather than you know even if you accept the allegations as true it is simply not the type of information or disclosures that an abortion provider must make to i has defined requisite consent in mccardel and this court held that that was a consent is an understanding of the nature of the thing being consented to right and that mary jo indisputably gave mary jo consented to determination of her pregnancy she knew she was ending the life of the developing child within her she stated that planned parenthood she was confident in her decision and she was not ready to be a parent that mary jo now leader we're gratz her decision and now claim is that in part based on the fact that the counselor told her in response to her question why carrying a human being in my body the answer was no no mary jo's mary goes the allegations in the complaint that defendants did not disclose to her as to when life begins that oppression would kill a separate life human being her claims are not based on me three any possible interpretation consent claim in her complaint you're not misleading her when you say no to the question of my hearing a human being in my mind absolutely not planned parenthood did not mislead mary go play and karen had provided underlying cause of i guess the well as this court has found the illinois consumer product does not apply to the practice of medicine or the provision of medical services and you can't separate the question from the actual provided or that consent decree provides an extensive a ray of regulations which govern abortion providers providers not just position themselves and therefore under this court's rulings the practice of medicine in the pr well she has to take that position but i'll address that one second but here's here's a point that i think has to be has to be considered we have the expert who says it is within the profession they would make these absolute right to a lie on what the decision said in fact in the record here what's clear she's saying don't believe her that you hear pregnancy help center they why they don't want to talk about we have the doctors we are  think that during those two years she gained it now if she did that she didn't have prior to in the first instance it's a question of fact of whether the doctor has a duty to disclose unify mass but clearly when she asked his specialist context they can't this leader number one number two there's a question about the statute in south dakota that was being clarified what the fence he's talking about when does life begin when does life begin this metaphysical philosophical theological question is it what the what the eighth circuit said is look at the fact question whether as a matter scientific fact this is a member of the species a human being is one thing quite separate apart from the value judgement about whether as a culture we are going to attribute to this particular human being a life that has the same value as all of human beings two separate questions she didn't go into plan about kona that the longer jerseys the same is here is just absolutely absurd number one that is a reasonable patient jurisdiction this is not number two the court made a specific point of saying we don't recognize the young one child as a human being in law here because we don't have the awful death statutes you do we don't have feel homicides illinois to us but more importantly this business about the court saying well th