Get abortions here in texas. Now we must redouble our efforts across the country to end similar restrictions across the state that push abortion out of reach for so many women. It is time to pass proactive state laws so that a woman has access to quality clinics in her community, can afford abortion, and does not face shame or stigma when she six hour care seeks our care. From day one, whole Womens Health rejected hb2 and we fought back. We took on the politicians and we struggled everyday since then against antichoice, progressive politics in our oppositions best effort to shut us down and we won. [cheering] today we make history and tomorrow we get back to work so that every woman who seeks Abortion Services can get the health care she deserves with the dignity and respect that we all deserve. [cheering] [indiscernible] we would all like to be able to contribute to restore access throughout the state of texas. It is a complicated process. Most of us have had to let our leases go and buildings go. Staff have found other jobs. We have to get relicensed governor forced to surrender our license. I think this rebuilding process is but we will undertake it will be very complicated. It will not happen right away. This is one of the reasons it is important for us to fight laws like this in the first place. When we had 44 clinics in the state, they were there to serve in the communities that needed them. Now have to rebuild the infrastructure across the state. Were you surprised by the decision . The decision was powerful. It was a boom. It was delightful. The decision was a complete and total vindication of the plaintiffs claims and we are not surprised. The trial record was strong, the facts are there, it is clear that the law was passed with the intent to shut down clinics. It had the devastating effect and we are very pleased that the Supreme Court could see through what was happening and may clear. This will make a difference. There are cases and cases across the nation in which we have been attacking these kind of underhanded laws and todays victory will make a huge difference and be able to push this. We hope the politician who have been passing these underhanded laws will start to do the responsible thing and let women have their health and rights. [cheering] [indiscernible] there was some gasping. Some handholding. There was a little bit of head and hand and a lot of smiling. [indiscernible] i think that the 53 decision is that the majority of the court agreed with the District Court and the clear evidence that you cannot use sham justifications to take womens rights away in the facts are so clear. Justice breyer went through them in summarizing his opinion and we are just delighted. Thank you. Thank you. [cheering] today, babies lost and their mothers lost. Texas try to exercise their authority to protect women but the Supreme Court sided with abortion. We came here today as members of the Prolife Movement say we will not give up. If anything, we are more resolute. This next election is about between 14 Supreme Court justices, hundreds of Lower Court Justices and 5000 appointees to our government. We at the prolife Community Must vote. This is a call to action. We will not give up. We will continue to stand resolute, stand with our members. We will be voting in november and working to elect a prolife president. Hillary clintons position on abortion is that it should be legal at any point in pregnancy and should be paid for by the tax payer. She is in lockstep with planned parenthood. She recently spoke to them. Others parenthood and profited today, but women lost. As an organization, i cannot endorse a candidate. Let me just say that as an individual clearly there are , only two candidates to vote for and ive already spoken Hillary Clintons edition. She is poor left believing abortion should be legal for any reason at any point in pregnancy. Paid for by the taxpayer. Donald trump has told us he is prolife. I would urge prolife americans to vote prolife up and down the ticket. Thank you so much. Im kristan hawkins, the president for students for life of america. We are the nations largest prolife Youth Organization and we were out here camping out. Reserving our space, organizing this rally here today. Today, women lost. Today the Supreme Court put politics over the health and safety of women in the country. They told our state that they dont have the right to protect half of their citizens. The abortion industry of planned parenthood knows who profit off the despair of women, the betrayal of women. They want today. Won today. These are common sense requirements. Half of americans agree with this. The majority of millennials agree with what was passed with texas laws. These are lost the require laws that require the hallways be wide enough for him. Soapre certain number of dispenser. These are common sense laws. What a woman goes in for a colonoscopy or liposuction, they have to have these regulations in place. Today the Supreme Court said were going to put access for abortions over the lives of women. He was operating a legal Abortion Facility in the state of pennsylvania for more than four decades. Doctors in pennsylvania stopped referring their patients to him because after their abortions, they were coming back with diseases because the surgery implement he was using. Doctors had asked the state Health Department to investigate his Abortion Facility, but no one would. Because they were afraid. They were afraid because it was an Abortion Facility. What happened . A woman died. She died. They got to the facility too late. They cannot get her out of the hallway and time. She died at the facility. Every time a woman goes into an Abortion Facility, she will wonder if she comes out alive. Now Supreme Court oral argument in whole Womens Health hellerstedt. Firstchallenging a texas law that limited abortion access. The law required dr. Supporting abortions performing the abortions have been missing ambitious. This is 90 minutes. Argument this morning in case 15274. Made please the court, the texas requirement undermines the careful balance between state regiment interest by regular teen abortion and fundamental liberty to make personal decisions about their pregnancies. They are Unnecessary Health regulations that create substantial obstacles to abortion access. There is a preliminary question, if you could address that talk of this claim was precluded. Claim thatfirst the , looked assumer they are separate claims. Admitting privileges. That was argued and decided. Why isnt it precluded . Youre on a calmer your honor, it is not precluded because it developed subsequent entry of judgment. You could have asked for supplemental briefing . The new action was filed six days after the Supreme Court issued its decision in this case. You could have asked for supplemental briefing. The point is brought the new fax to the attention of the court of appeals said they would only consider evidence in the trial record in entering and help the decision the evidence of the try was speculative. There was not sufficient basis. Any clinic would be forced closed as a result of the admitting privileges requirement. You made allegations concerning the same claims. Is your argument that we have allegations on a facial challenge and facial challenges result against you and all you had to do was come up with new evidence and start over again . Materialidence must be and it must be newly developed. Newly discovered evidence would not be sufficient. Evidence available at the time of the first feet of the plaintiff merely had not discovered the evidence or did not bring it forward. That would not provide the basis for a subsequent suit. Evidence that developed after suit is in the first material to the claims does provide sufficient basis. What is key . The evidence is the clinic closures that resulted from enforcement, actual enforcement of the admitting privileges requirement. The first suit was a preenforcement challenge. It was before the law took effect. The court concluded that there is not sufficient evidence that any doctor would be unable to obtain admitting privileges or that any clinic very little specific evidence in the record of this case with respect to why any particular clinic closed. Basically, your argument is that the law took effect and after that point, it decreased. The number of clinics. Suppose you win and the state examines what happened in each of these clinics and comes up with evidence showing that in quite a few instances, the closure was due to other factors and could they take the decision the position that the decision of this Court Holding that law as unconstitutional is not binding on us . You would have to sue them again and make the same argument, is that correct . No, your honor. The difference . First of all, the state had the opportunity to bring forward evidence. Was that their burden . No, your honor. The plaintiff came forward with evidence and the seat did not offer anything to do for the to rebut the audience evidence. The decision to support the District Courts finding that it was the cause of the clinic closure. What evidence is that . There are couple of things. Prior to hb2, the number of clinics in the state remained fairly stable. In any given year, there may 2 clinic variant. Following the enactment, more than 20 clinics closed within a short period of time. What is the evidence in the record that the closures are related to the legislation . The timing is part of the evidence, your honor. The testimony of the plaintiffs about the reasons why the clinics closed. The plaintiff testified that clinics closed in anticipation of enforcement and in some cases because of actual enforcement of the requirement. Can we go on to the second piece about the ambulatory Surgical Center . That was not part of the last case and your position is that that is a discrete claim. Is that your position . That is correct. The claims against the afc requirement were not right at the time that the case was filed. The final implement in regulation to the statutory requirement had not been adopted. Certainly in the federal system and i assume in many states as well, regulation sometimes take years. I dont know of any rule that says we have to wait for regulations to be promulgated unless theres something anticipated. And the key objections you are making were clearing the statute anyway. I would disagree that the extent of the burden of the loft law would impose is clear on the base of the statute. Until those implement and regulations were adopted, the statute provided a deadline for the adoption of those regulations. Until they were adopted, the plaintiffs could not have known whether waivers or grandfathering would have been permitted. If they were permitted as they have been in every other asc requirement that has been adopted for abortion providers, the burdens would have been much less. The plaintiffs would have first andmpted to get license have seekeat appropriate waivers before filing the suit. You think you can separately challenge the admitting privilege and that asc provision . Yes, your honor. If you can simply challenge them, if you challenge just the admitting privileges provision, how would you factor in, presumably you would have to assume the asc provision is not count. In assessing the burning, he would look at just the admission privilege and vice versa, if you are challenging just the asc separately, you would have to assume you would assess the the burden solely caused by that provion. If used to me that the separation of the two provisions would make your case much harder. I would disagree. Each of these requirements is externally burdensome on their own. The admitting privileges requirement which is partially in effect has been responsible of the closure of nearly half of all abortion facilities in texas to date. Theasc requirement , respondents have stipulated that it would close any remaining licensed abortion facilities that was able to comply with the admitting privileges requirement. Independently each requirement , is burdensome. Collectively, the onetwo punch of the requirements would be responsible for the closure of nearly 30 i think what he asked, i think the question was, one of the two lines asked, in the district opinion on page seven, the District Court has said that if the asc regulation goes into effect, there would be one the silly left in austin, two in dallas and other what are two in san antonio. Before that, said the enforcement of the appointment admission would 40 downhe number from to about 20. I think the question was, what evidence did those bindings rest upon . As you have heard the other side, i think they have said there is none such evidence. The court of appeal said there is no such evidence. Can you give a brief account or page numbers that will show those bindings . The diminishment of the number from about 40 to about eight witches with the District Court found rested upon evidence. What was that evidence . Yes, your honor. Initially, 20 clinics closed in the wake of hb2. Eight closed prior to initial enforcement of the admitting privileges and 11 closed on the day the admitting privileges requirement took effect. Respondents quibble with the evidence concerning the first eight. There is basis in the record for the District Court to confer infer. Where the record is that evidence . In the plaintiff testimony about reasons why the clinics closed. Each of the plaintiffs testified that the clinics closed in anticipation of enforcement knowing that the clinic would not be able to continue operating when the requirements took affect and as a result, they needed to move resources to remain clinics to ensure that some clinics would continue to operate. Could you give us any record references later . Or on the rebuttal . Yes. How many of the total that closed do you have direct evidence about the reason for the closure . 11 of them closed on the day these admitting privileges took effect. How many are you claiming total closed . As a result. Today, roughly 20 clinics. How many do you have direct evidence . Approximately 12. Direct evidence. If you go through this, we are not talking about a huge number of facilities, i dont understand why you cannot have put evidence about these particular clinic to show why the clinic closed and as to some of them, there is information that they closed for reasons that have nothing to do with this law. Maybe when you take out all of those, there would still be a substantial number and enough to make your case. I dont understand why you did not put direct evidence. I can give you examples. Planned Parenthood Center for choice, is that when you are talking about . Yes, your honor. There is a news report that this was closed as result of the 2011 texas Womens Health program bill which cut funding for Family Planning services. Not the law we are talking about here. That evidence is not the record. I understand that. You put quite a bit of evidence not in the record on the brief. My point is why is there not direct evidence about that particular clinic . You said you had wrecked direct evidence for 12 clinics. Us could supply witness with those later. Yes, absolutely. It is important to keep in mind. Could make sure i understand. You said 11 were closed when the admitting privileges took effect. Correct. And the two week requirement that over a dozen facilities shut the doors. And when that was lifted, they reopened again immediately, is that right . That is correct. It was like a perfect controlled instrument. Experiment. Affect, 1200aw to you take the law out of affect, they reopen. That is correct. That is what the state stipulated. The stipulation is direct evidence of the impact of the asc requirement. The state, i think, is going to talk about the capacity of the remaining clinics. Would it be a proper and be helpful for this court to ask for further findings . I dont think that is necessary. I think there is sufficient evidence in the record that we have support the District Courts findings that the remaining clinics wch would number fewer than 10 not have capacity. There have been some changes none of the clinic, adjective they use in san antonio, suppose there was evidence that there was capacity and the capability to build this kind of clinics. Would that be of importance . Then it which show this law has an effect. There were any doubts, three manned with provide the opportunity to supplement the evidence on record. The evidence on record shows that it supports the District Courts findings that because of the asc requirements, the cause of it are so prohibitive that it will deter new clinics from opening. The number of ambulatory Surgical Centers performing abortions has increased by 50 since the law went into effect. Effect,aw has taken three new ascs have opened and theres evidence about that at the trial in the trial court and that would happen. They put that into account. But nevertheless, there was substantial evidence including texass experience in 2003 following the asc law for later abortions, post 16 week abortions showing showing that the margin of her adjusted and the rate at which those procedures occurred in texas was drastically diminished. One quick question about capacity, i dont want to take your rebuttal time, but your cocanceled cocounsel is also litigating a case like this in louisiana. In that case the plaintiffs were , able to put in evidence of the exact number of abortions were performed in all the facilities. What could that not have been done here . Theres evidence in the record about the number of abortions performed on an annual basis, the geographic distribution of those abortions. Statisticscts those and they are part of the record in this case. We have absorbed so much of your time with the threshold question. He could have some time to address the marriage. But you take an extra five minutes. Thank you