before the court. you're the second person to reach that rare milestone. i distantly recall your first argument in january 1989. throughout your career you have consistently advocated positions on behalf of the united states exemplary manner. on behalf of the court, i sent manyppreciation for the years of advocacy and dedicated service during your tenure in the solicitor general office and as an officer of the court. we look for to hearing from you many more times. they can. the case -- thank you. the case is submitted. >> no, we get reaction from the supreme court ruling in whole women's health first heller step -- hellerstedt. and we will show you the oral argument to that. and then british prime minister

david cameron taking questions ote.he foot -- v today was the last day of the term for the super court. a notable day of decisions. it will be back to start the new term on monday, october 3. pretty safe that that that bet thatll not have -- the senate will not have approved another justice. to go back to that mcdonald case we just showed you, that was argued in april, two months ago today. the former governor of virginia was convicted in september of 2014. 11 counts of bribery. here's the richmond times dispatch. supreme court vacates the conviction. that case could be sent back to the lower courts to be reached tried -- retried. it will have to wait and see. justices reject abortion limits

in texas, that is the next case we will say. sweeping rule on abortion since 1992. downupreme court striking 5-3, a texas law that could have cut the number of abortion clinics in the state. the decision means similar restrictions and other states are most likely also constitutional. the kids coming up in just a moment. here.k here -- tweet robert pittenger of north to linux tweets -- north carolina tweets this. a democrat from alabama tweeted this. true freedom is the power of choice. you the oral

argument, bring you the oral argument in just a moment here on c-span. first, some reaction to the ruling. we will bring you to the founder of the whole women's health who speak to reporters and was there at the argument and we will study the pro-life syndicate from concerned women of america. following that, the oral are doing. let's take a look at some of the reaction after the announced decision. [applause] >> good morning.

i'm the president and ceo for reproductive rights. we are the lawyers who represented whole women's health in the supreme court decision today. america haveacross had a constitutional rights vindicated. [applause] the supreme court has sent a clear message to the tactics of politicians who have used underhanded means to shut down abortion clinics. health andwomen's the other clinics in the state of texas will remain open. [applause] there is a hope and possibility that other clinics can now open to represent women in so many underrepresented hearts of the state. [applause] without question, today is supreme court decision is a game changer.

and the unrelenting assault on women's health and right that has been going on in the state legislature for years. this is a tremendous victory. we will go forward in making sure that all of the laws that are blocking women access to constitutional rights will be overturned. [applause] not stop fighting and we are here today because whole women's health and the other clinics in this lawsuit the brave step forward to say to the state of texas that enough is enough. and because of that, we are here stupendous reinvigoration and this affirmation of the promise of roe versus wade for future generations and then i present .ou amy miller

[laughter] [applause] serve women with respect and passion and dignity in the passion they deserve. today the supreme court did the same. but this historic rolling, justice has been served in our clinic since it opened. [applause] after years of fighting hard heartless anti-abortion politicians. i want everyone to understand that you don't mess with texas women. [applause] you don't mess with whole women's health. with thisn't mess passionate, heartfelt powerful movement of people committed to reproductive health.

[cheering] three years ago, texas politicians passed hb two. regressive law and directly at women who have decided to end a pregnancy and those of us here to help them. with no legitimate medical justification, politicians forced abortion providers to completely restructure our clinic or to build many hospitals. half oforced more than texas abortion clinics to close including several of my own. these clashes have put a staggering burden on texas women . with this clinic shut down law, politicians forced women seeking abortions to go to clinics that are further away, to get childcare, take multiple days off work and to pay for transportation for hundreds of miles. process ofhe obtaining safe, legal health care has become an onerous and grueling process or just a possible. i hold in my heart does women

and families were forced to forgo hair -- care as a result of texas laws. today is a decision of a turnaround for exes and the country. a win does not mean that struggle is over. clinics don't reopen overnight. we have a daunting task ahead of us to determine whether and how to reopen our health centers that were forced to shut the doors. renewing leases, hiring staff and working with the communities that we previously served to help us reopen. and second, this decision only addresses two of the many restrictions women face to get abortion care in texas. now we must double our efforts across the country to end similar restrictions across the state. it is time to pass proactive state laws so women have access to quality clinics, can afford abortion and is not faced stigma

when they seek care. [applause] from day one, whole women's health rejected hb two's insulting permit. we bought back, we took on bully politicians and we struggled everyday since then i guessed anti-choice aggressive politics in the opposition's best efforts to shut us down and we won. [cheering] today we make history in 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 we all deserve. [cheering] i think we all across the state

would like to be able to contribute to restoring access throughout the state of texas. it is a consultative process. most of us have had to let our leases go. we've had to let buildings go. doctors have found other jobs. death has been other jobs. we have to get relicensed because they are forced to surrender our licenses. the rebuild process is when we will undertake and will be complicated. this is one of the reasons it is important for us to fight laws like this in the first place if only had 44 clinics, they were there to serve the communities that needed them and now we have to rebuild the infrastructure. re-surprised? -- or you just sized -- surprised by the decision? >> delightful. the decision was a complete and total vindication of the plaintiffs claim and we are not surprised. the tri-record was strong and the facts were there. effectthe devastating

and we are very pleased that the supreme court could see through what was happening and make clear. this will make it does a friend -- difference. there are cases across the nation attacking these underhanded laws and today's victory is going to make a huge difference in being able to push this back. we hope the politicians who have been passing these laws will start to do the responsible thing and let women have their health and rights in the state. [cheering] >> there was some gasping and handholding. there was a little bit of head and hand and a lot of smiling. [indiscernible]

i think that the 5-3 decision is that the majority of the court agreed with the district court and clear evidence that you cannot use sham justifications to take women's rights of way. justice breyer went through them in summarizing his opinion and we are delighted. thank you. >> thank you. [cheering] >> today, babies lost and their mothers lost. texas try to exercise their authority to protect women in the supreme court sided with abortion. we came here today as members of the pro-life movement say we will not give up. if anything, we are more resolute. this next election is about supreme court justices and 5000 appointees to our government. we have the pro-life community

must vote. this is a call to action. we will not give up. standl continue to resolute, stand with our members. we will be voting in november and working to elect a pro-life president. hillary clinton's position on abortion 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. womenrofited today for even the women lost. organization, i cannot endorse a candidate. let me say that as an individual, clearly there are only two candidates to vote for and i've already spoken about hillary clinton's position she is far left leaving abortion legal.

donald trump has told us he is pro-life. i would urge pro-life americans to vote pro-life up and down the ticket. thank you so much. hawkins, where the nation's largest pro-life youth organization and we were out here camping out. organizing this rally here today. today, women lost. today the supreme court the politics over the health and safety of women in the country. they told our state that they don't have the right to protect have of their citizens. the abortion industry of planned parenthood knows who profit off the despair of women and the trail of women. -- the trail of women. -- betrayal of women. agreety of millennials

with what was passed at texas laws. requiree lost the hallways we wanted upper and dilatory result to come to these are lost required to be a certain number of smoke to sensors -- smoke centers -- sensors anybody. today, the supreme court said we're going to put access for abortion over the lots of women. -- lots of women. -- lives of women. doctors in pennsylvania stop referring to him because after their portions, they were coming back with diseases because the equipment he was using. doctors had asked the state health department to investigate his abortion facility, but no one would. they were afraid. they were afraid because it was an abortion facility. what happened? a woman died.

they got to that silly too late. they cannot get her out of the hallway in time. she died at the facility. every time a woman goes into an abortion facility, she will wonder if she comes out alive. >> reaction out that the supreme court on both sides and reaction to the decision of whole woman hellerstedt. here's the headline in the wall street journal following the decision today. supreme court rejects abortion law as undue burden. it is unconstitutional and would require doctors to have admitting privileges to hospitals within 30 miles of the

claim. they say it was an undue burden. argument fromral march of this year. >> argument this morning in case 15 to 74. >> may 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. question -- ay preliminary question, can you address that? was in thethat

question. let's assume they are separate claims. admitting privileges. decided.argued and why is it not included -- precluded? >> is not precluded because it developed subsequent entry of judgment. >> you could have asked for supplemental briefing? it was filed six days after the supreme court issued its decision in this case. you could have asked for supplemental british and -- briefing. >> they brought the new fact in the court of appeals said they would only consider evidence of the trial and rendering the decision and held the evidence of the tri-record was speculative. there was not a suspicion -- sufficient basis. any clinic would be forced

closed as a result of the admitting religious. -- privileges. >> is your argument that you have allegations of official challenge and official challenges against you and all you had to do was come up with new evidence. you could start over again? serialevidence must be and it must be newly developed. newly discovered evidence would not be sufficient. evidence available at the time. provide the basis for a subsequent suit. evidence that developed after judgment that is material to the claims that provide sufficient basis. >> what is key? >> the clinic closures that resulted from enforcement, actual enforcement of the admitting privileges requirement.

the first suit was a pre-enforcement 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 -- >> your little specific evidence in the record of this case with why anyto wire -- particular clinic closed. your argument is that the law took effect and after that point, it decreased. n 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 the decisiony take of this court holding that law as unconstitutional is not binding on us?

themould have to sue again and make the same argument, is that correct? >> no, your honor. >> the difference? >> the state had the opportunity to bring forward evidence. >> was that their burden? >> on the first instance. the plaintiff came forward with evidence and the seat did not offer anything to do for the evidence. the decision to support the district court's finding that it was the cause of the clinic closure. there are couple of things. , the number of clinics in the state remained fairly stable. in any given year, there may have been a one-to clinic variants. 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 honor. the testimony of the plaintiffs about the reasons why the clinics closed. thatlaintiff testified 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 english tory surgical center -- a, mbulatory surgical center? is that your position? >> that is correct. the claims against the requirement were right at the time that the case was filed. hadimplementing regulation not been adopted. >> certainly in the federal

system and i assume in many states as well, regulation sometimes take years. i don't know of any row that says we have to wait for regulations to be, gated unless there's something -- promulgated unless there's something anticipated. i would disagree that the extent of the burden of the loft 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 requirement that has been adopted for abortion providers, the burdens would have been much less. it would have seek 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 subtly challenge them, if you challenge just the admitting privileges provision, how would you factor in, asc isg you be challenged. if you are challenging just the asc separately, you would have assess theou would burning house by that provision. it seems to meet the separation of the two provisions would make your case much harder. >> i would disagree. ish of these requirements externally burdensome on their own. the admitting privileges requirement which is partially in effect and has been. opera closure of nearly half of all the abortion facilities in

texas today. the respondents have stipulated that it would close any remaining licensed abortion facilities that was able to comply with the admitting privileges requirement. independent, each requirement is burdensome. >> 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, 31 facility left -- there would be one facility left and several others. before that, said the appointmentof the

privileges would reduce the number from 20 down to about -- from 40. to about 20. the question is what evidence did those findings rest upon? heard the othere side, there is no such evidence. accountgive a brief that will show that those findings, the dimension of the number from about 40 to about eight is what the district court found rested upon evidence, what was the evidence? closedially, 20 clinics in the wake of hb2. initialose to prior to

enforcement to be admitting privileges and 11 closed on the day the admitting privileges took effect. respondents quibble with the evidence concerning the first egg. even if we, there is basis in the record for the district close of thehe same reasons as the others, -- >> where the record is that evidence? >> in the plaintiff testimony about reasons why the clinics closed. they testified that the clinics closed in anticipation of enforcement knowing that the clinic would not be able to continue operating 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

references later? >> yes. directmany do you have 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? >> to date, roughly 20 clicks. how would he have direct evidence? >> approximately 12. >> if you got that is, we are talking about a huge number of facilities. don't understand why you cannot put evidence about each clinic to show why clinics closed and as to some of them, there information that they closed for reasons that had nothing to do with this law. maybe when you take out all of those, there was to be a substantial number and enough to

make your case. i don't understand why you cannot put direct evidence. i could give you examples. planned parenthood center for choice, is that when you are talking about? that this news report was closed as result of the 2011 texas women's health program b ill which cut funding for family planning services. not the law we are talking about. >> that evidence is not the record. >> i understand that. put quite a bit of evidence that on the record. my point is why is there not direct evidence about that particular clinic? >> you said you had wrecked evidence for 12 clinics. i understood using -- >> is important to keep in mind. >> could make sure i understand.

thee at 11 were closed when admitting privileges took effect. >> correct. >> and the two-week. that the asc requirement was in effect, a dozen facilities close their doors. lifted, they reopened again immediately, is that right? >> it was like a perfect controlled instrument. 12 clinicso effect, you take a lot of effect, the reopened. >> that is correct. that is what the state stipulated. the stipulation is direct evidence of the impact of the asc requirement. thehis date will talk about remaining clinics. thetate will talk about remaining clicks. would be improper for this court

to ask for further findings? >> i don't think that is necessary. i think there is sufficient evidence to support the district court's findings that the remaining clinics which would rumberger -- number fewer than 10 not have capacity. >> there been some changes, really get major clinic 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. show this law has an effect. would provide the petitioners with the opportunity to supplement the evidence on record. the evidence on record shows

that it supports the district court finding that because of the asc requirements, the cause of it are so prohibitive that it would deter new clinics from opening. ambulatoryer of surgical centers performing 50%tions has increased by since the law went into effect. since the law has taken effect, three new able to tory surgery centers have opened and there's evidence about that at the trial in the trial court and that would happen. they put that into account. , there was substantial evidence including texas's experience in 2003 following the asc law for later abortions, post 16 week abortions showing

that the market never adjusted at which the procedures occurred in texas drastically diminished. fustian, i don't want to take your rebuttal time, in, cocounsel but in -- put in a case in louisiana, 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? why was it not been? -- done. ? >> there is evidence about the number of abortions performed on an annual basis, the geographic distribution of those abortions. those statistics are part of the record in this case.

>> we have taken so much of your , --, perhaps you could extrat are you take an five minutes and we will afford you up rebuttal time. >> thank you. fundamentally, these laws impose heavy burdens on abortion axis that are not medically justified and for that reason they impose an undue burden. >> do you there's a rational basis for the law -- think there is a rational basis for the law? >> i do not. we did not preserve our rational basis claim. the district court denied the claim. we have not preserve the two. focusing on the undue burden. we would not concede that the law has a rational basis be

cause -- >> we have to assume it does because you are not raising the challenge. >> because the law undermines the state interest rather than advancing it by causing an increase in later abortions and self-induced abortions, we would not concede that it is rationally related to the state interest. >> even if the test is undue burden. >> that is correct, your honor. in order to determine, we must first determine the magnitude of the burden it composes and compare the burden for what the law is intended to achieve. >> house is logical? logical?s this what difference does it make what the purpose of the law is in assessing whether the burden

is substantial or undue? the offensiveast that has a rational basis, then you look at the burden of the obstacle. does not make a difference. it is either substantial, or undue burden or it is not. >> in order to determine whether a burden is undue, we have to consider what the burden is in relation to. theexample, in upholding of forms and consent requirement , the state interest being served by the requirement, and concluded that the requirements to serve the purpose by making the abortion decision more informed. >> i thought it went to whether it was undue to the woman's

right to exercise the right to abortion. not with respect to the state interest. well, your honor, it is both. sought to balance with regulating abortion without woman's fundamental right with her liberty to access the procedure and it concluded that the state cannot impose unwarranted or in somewhere that state had a good reason to impose a restriction and that restriction did not impose , thens that were undue the restriction could stand. were a restriction is unreasonable or in their leg which of casey, medically unnecessary, and it is going to impose burdens on access to abortions, then that restriction cannot be sustained. burdeni walk through the

, there are two types of early abortions at play. that doesl abortion not involve hospital procedures. a doctor prescribes to pills and the women take the pills at home. correct? under texas law, she must take them at the facility, but that is otherwise correct. >> she had to come back to separate days to take them? >> correct. >> now she has to travel 200 hotel, to get a those two days of treatment? >> that is correct. >> let me ask you something about that today weight where that traveled time. travelday wait and that time. how many other states and recognized medical people have that thereere shown

is any benefit from taking pills at the facility as opposed to taking the pills at home as was the case? >> there's absolutely no testimony in the record and no briefse in any of the that there is a medical benefit to having a medication abortion at a multimillion dollar surgical silty. facility. medicalher mainstream association to consider these requirements conclude they are not medically justified for a variety of reasons, including that they impose onerous burdens on medical abortions which are the earliest forms of abortions and that these burdens are imposed on early surgical procedures prior to 16 weeks and

as a result, women are going to pregnancy later in and is evidence in the record that following implementation of these requirements, and the six-month period, there is an increase in the number and the portion of abortions be performed in the second time after. by delaying women's access to abortion, these requirements are actually increasing the risks. >> if the chief may permit me to finish. >> first. -- sure. and yes.on what is the risk factor for a dnc related to abortion and a non-abortion dnc performed in office for other conditions besides abortion? is there any evidence in the record that shows that there is any medical difference in the

two procedures that would necessitate an abortion. ? our abortions more risky? >> the procedures are virtually identical. articulately when -- performedly when dnc for a spontaneous miscarriage. the doctor would typically perform a dnc and that is virtually identical to an abortion. taking, thet i'm two main health reasons show that this law was targeted at abortion. >> that is correct. >> is there any other medical condition like taking the pills that are required to be done in

hospital? . as a prelude to the procedure, that an independent, i know there are cancer humans by pills now. -- treatments by pills now. how many of those are quite be done in front of the doctor? >> there are no other medication requirements. no other outpatient procedures required by law to be performed. >> thank you, counsel. >> may please the court, the effects of the texas law issue are much more extreme. this law closes most abortion facilities in the state with

extreme stress on a few facilities that remain open and exponentially increases the obstacles confronted for women who seek abortion and it does that on the basis of a medical justification that cannot withstand any meaning scrutiny that the market medical association has told you has been groundless. it increases health risks for women. >> true of every provision of the asc on. -- law. everything provision. why was the hold ring held -- whole thing held unconstitutional? >> there are some parts of the regulation that i think operating alone would not have the substantial effect. in fact, some parts of the reauthorizectually regulations are ready on the book.

i suppose one could say that with respect to that, they could have severed them. one could say that. the pre-existing relations. everything,ed compared the abortion prior abortion licensing and asc reasonableit seems under the old law there had to be a nurse but not necessarily a registered nurse. the new law there has been a registered nurse who has a cpr certificate. do you think that is unreasonable? >> i don't want to state an opinion one way or the other, but i think getting to the point of the question, the problem the , the confronted here closet provides instruction that every provision, every clause,

every word, every application should be severed and the ,roblem that the court noted the court has to go in and decide which collection of the many requirements there ought to stand and which shouldn't. >> made the district court should have done that. i read through these regulations surprised by how many are completely innocuous and many of them have nothing to do with. they have to do with basic safety. nothing to do with abortion. the entrances to the clinic have to be -- you have to have an elevator. cars have to be wide enough so you can bring a stretcher if someone has to be taken to the hospital. things of that nature. i don't know why things cannot have been severed out. >> i think some could have been if they believe a remand is

appropriate. we think that would be appropriate. we do think that the basic point remains that this is a substantial obstacle and i would points thatress two arose. with respect to closures, here's what i think the record will permitu, taking the asc first, there is a stipulation that all clinics that weren't already closed as a result of the admitting requirement would not be able to meet the asc requirement and therefore would cease operations. did ceasethey operations. there is evidence on the record with respect to the seven clinics operated by whole women's health that it was physically impossible to meet the asc construction requirements could day -- because they could not hit on the real estate. there's expert testimony that

the cost of retrofitting the clinics would be between 1.6-$2.6 million. the cost of building and a new facility would be $3.5 million which would be prohibitive and the official operating cost would be between 600,000-1,000,000 dollars or more. admittingct to the privileges requirement, we know that 11 of the 20 clinics that date thelosed requirement became affected. seems to be the only reasonable inference is that the law caused the closure. with respect to several, there's evidence that they closed in advance of the date because they would otherwise have to pay a licensing fee to stay open which they knew they would not going to be able to stay open. there is ample evidence on the

record to causation. to capacity, i think this is key. this is a locus of the substantial obstacle problem. effect,is law took theere brought flight 65 -- facility that would remain open performed about working thousand a year. -- 14,000 a year. they would have to increase four dr five fold in a short perio of time with the backup of being the admitting privileges. duederstand, but with all respect, that is wrong. you will see that the doctor said that something is just common sense, these facilities will not be able to increase by four or five times and second,

he did not just rely on common iodse, he looked at the peropp of time of the coach of the clinics and you look at that time and he studied the numbers of abortions that occurred at the remaining facilities during that time in one would expect that there would be substantial increase. havingrict court saying theypowers, will stay the requirement for 2.5 years to see the capacity problem. could a district judge do that? >> i have not given the question . and i love to opine on that -- and i loathe to opine on that. they probably think they can do anything. [laughter] notddition to these clinics

providing more abortions when have the clinics in the state significantave increases in the overall number of abortions in parts of the state far away from the cities. there is no evidence of the actual capacity of these the next and why would that not put in? louisiana case, you can see them as important to put in. some of the numbers are amazing. a doctor there performed 3000 abortions in a year. we don't know what the capacity is. >> you have expert testimony in that regard. >> what is that based on? it is not based on any heart statistics. -- hard statistics. the time where half the claims were closed and you would

expect that those clinics could handle the best passes all -- capacity and they did not. percentagesr of went down by 4.4%. increased demand. no distant six showing there was an increase for abortion. statistics showing there was an increase or abortion. abortions on of average performed annually through many clinics is 2000. let's was bye-bye to two and you get 16. >> multiply by two and you get 16. then 24. is that accurate? >> in the short time remaining, i would like to finish with one point. the question before you is

obtain they will substance and whether the talent still holds. -- balance still hold. if the right retained substance, then this law cannot stand. the burden imposed are far beyond anything in the justification is far weaker. burden, it is the definition of an undue burden. undue means excessive or unwarranted. he could be excessive or unwarranted as compared to the obstacle. also as compared to the knee. -- need. >> casey and guns all is also said substantial obstacle -- gonzales also said substantial optical. i think whether is an optical or

theen would exist without state interest. the state interest is evaluated on whatever test there is with respect to the legislation and then you look at what the impact was. >> i think it is in the interest of government to look at it at what we are suggesting. because, it is one thing to say that you're going to impose a requirement that does work as these requirements do. , theyou have justification american medical association want to, but the government able actually, and say, this requirement is going to make a difference in saving hundreds of lives. that might be a burden that you think would be acceptable given the medical benefit. the besthy we think

understanding of undue burden works best with the government's the one we are suggesting. whether you look at it our way or as two separate inquiries, this law can't past for the reasons i've said. if you find this law is upheld, you will say this only exists in theory and not fact. the commitment of the court will not have been kept. thank you. >> thank you, counsel. mr. keller. will afford you an additional eight minutes. >> may please the court. texas acted to improve abortion safety and planned parenthood provided this increased ended up care of legal and accessible

care. the texas metropolitan areas have abortion clinics today will have "aches if the court affirms come and that includes the six most populous areas of texas. locatedany women are over 100 miles the nearest clinic? ja242tice ginsburg, provides a 25% of texas women of reproductive age are not within 100 miles of an asc but that would not include el paso that the lexus -- with the mexico facilities. >> that is odd that you count the new mexico facility. youexico does not have -- mexico does not have any surgical -- new mexico does not have any surgical requirements and if your argument is right,

then new mexico is not an available way out of texas. women,aid to protect the they need is the sillies. .ut send them to new mexico no admitting privileges, no asc and that is all right. if that is all right for the women in the el paso area, why is it not right for the rest of the women? >> the policy set by texas is the standard of care for abortion clinics should rise to the level of asc. texas can't tell new mexico how to regulate. whether those people need to make it ultimate decision. thosen why should account clinics?nt those >> women in el paso often use

the facility. i would go into the contextual analysis of this challenge. paso to women in el have access to abortion. in any event, over 90% of texas women of reproductive age live within 150 miles. >> the statistic i gleaned from the record, that hundred thousand women live further than 150 miles, 750,000 further than 200 miles. that the compared to just 212 where fewer than 100,000 lived over 150 miles and only 10,000 lived more than 200 miles. 10,000 tong from three quarters from a million even more than two miles away. statistics ande expert testimony not account for el paso or mcallen.

looking at a fraction of the women affected. i'm in him, a large fraction of distance inravel casey, the district court found over 40% of women were going to have to travel at least one hour and sometimes three hours and there was a 24 hour waiting period. can we reduce that to two hours. here, the relevant fraction is lower. the challenge would not succeed. they have not shown any pasty for evidence. -- capacity for evidence. >> taking into account the undue burden analysis. the value of the need be imposed, being even if i grant you in some circumstances

because you can't get any kind clinic, so you might have to impose a burden that might be undue another circumstances. bodyweight -- you evaluate? the health benefit to what you are doing. >> three elements of the doctrine. i'm talking about the question i asked. according to you, the slightest health improvement is enough to impose on hundreds of thousands of women. i don't necessarily because it is being challenged, but the slightest benefit is enough to

of hundreds ofs women? >> if the law had no health benefits, it would be rational, assumed to the expert, acknowledged that some doctors do believe there are benefits f or asc admitting privileges. >> what is the benefit of having a surgical center to take two pills when there's no surgical procedure et a -- at all? >> first, the competition rates are greater. the competition rates of a drug abortion, surgeries are possible. >> that is much more likely to arise near her home. all, the travel

distances, that was about the drug protocol. different part of the bill. they are not raised a challenge to that. that. not talking about i'm talking about this lawsuit. you need to have access to a hospital within 30 miles. 30 miles of what? centers of the surgical when the woman lives in a much goater distance if she can to any hospital, it will be her local community. not new the surgical center. >> most abortions are surgical abortions in the state. >> asking about the medical. i can't imagine what the benefit is of having a woman take those pills and dilatory surgical center with no surgery involved. >> they would be surgery with a competition.

that is -- >> the competition will not occur on the spot. -- publication will not occur on the spot -- complication will not occur on the spot. it arises after she is back at home. it has nothing to do with the surgical center. >> when the significant majority of women are living within 50 miles of the clinic, in most situations, they're going to be at the facility and it is beneficial to have the continuity of care. the spatial challenges -- >> is the underlying premise of that the thrust, it does, affect of this law is

to increase surgical abortions and that is the states authority to do because my reading indicated that medical abortions nationwide are down significantly in texas. toit would be permissible regulate both surgical and drug-induced abortions. drug-induced abortions, there are greater competitions in the first lawsuit. theme is thatng this law has increased the number of surgical procedures as opposed to medical procedures and this may not be medically wise. you might say this is within the right of the state. i want to know what your position is. >> given the greater competition rates, the legislature would be

permitted to act that way. the petitioners have not challenged that particular part of the district court. in the fifth circuit, they have not raised that. what they're try to do is say that there are many clinics lack capacity. this circuit noted that there is no capacity, they did not even try to take discovery from the non-petition claims. did is look at the number of abortions and percentage formed -- performed and they performed more abortions. the inference that they were at capacity cannot be drawn. >> what evidence would you have put in capacity issue had he been afforded the opportunity? , the statistically significant showing of capacity in the circumstantial evidence about the timing of the closure? >> not in the record, the

application,eir they went clinic by clinic and tried to estimate the number of abortions that could be performed in those facilities. district court did not do fact-finding there. asked to perform 99 annalee. -- annually. planned parenthood operates five of the nine asc's. they are not the lawsuit. they have complied with the law and have doctors with admitting privileges. if one asc to perform 9000 annually and it will be eight others in texas, it does not stretch to believe that those

remaining facilities would suffice to meet the demand. we did not put in the evidence because petitioners -- >> did you ask but in the evidence. >> no. >> i would like to go back to the question that justice ginsburg was asking. about what is the benefit of this procedure. there are two laws. i'm focusing on the first law. dr. atst law says that the abortion clinic must have admitting privileges in a hospital 30 miles nearby. >> correct. >> prior to that law, the law had to have clinic a working arrangement transfer such a patient. >> that is correct. >> i want to know, go back in

before the period new law was passed. where in the record will i find who had of women complications who could not get to a hospital even though there was a working arrangement for admission, but now they could get to a hospital because the doctor himself has to have admitting privileges. on what page does it tell me competitionstheir and why that happened? >> that is not in the record. >> it seems to be correct when he says that he could find in the entire nation in his

opinion, only one arguable example of such a thing if he is not certain given that one is correct. womans the benefit to the of a procedure that is going to cure a problem of which there is not one single instance in the nation, and perhaps that, but not in texas. >> the national abortion federation producing recommended that women use of abortion doctors. who'm sure there are people have all caps reasons would like to have this. i'm just asking you where we have a judicial duty to say whether this is an undue burden upon the woman who once the abortion. there are two parts, and she burdened in what is the benefit?

on the first one, i have asked you to give me a single example of an instance but there is the benefit and you say, quite honestly, there isn't. so let's turn to the second, the second one, which against the validated, that even without the surgical center, leave it out, there are risks, quite correct. those risks are roughly the same as the risk you have a dentist office when you have some surgery where you don't have a surgical center. there are 28 less time less than a colonoscopy where you don't have a inventory surgical center. -- ambulatory center. you have seen the briefs. i've read them and you have. what is the benefit here to , this and woman

dilatory surgical center -- asc when the risk is miniscule compared to, procedures that women run every day in other ryeas without ambulato surgical centers? before theyt, even upheld the asc requirement, virginia did not require the rain surgery. performed in a hospital or asc. and looking at the law, it is whether the legislature has a legitimate purpose. >> the>> legislature say anything -- >> can the legislature say anything? we have looked around the country and we think there are 10 great hospitals in the

country. massachusetts general. we're going to make all our orm toon facilities conf the standards of those hospitals. that will increase medical care. we don't make anybody else doing other kinds of procedures conform to the standards, but we think it will increase health benefits if abortion facilities conform to them. would that be all right? this, and abortion can be treated differently. >> every abortion facility have to for the standards of mgh? >> there would have to medical evidence, at a minimum. here come the experts have conceded the doctors believe this is where there is a medical discriminate. even if you don't accept the medical testimony.

>> i'm sure there's medical evidence that it every facility was as good as massachusetts general, they would be better facilities. i'm sure you could buy doctors within that. even though does not apply to any other kind of facility doing any other kind of procedure, even though we know that liposuction is 30 times more dangerous and yet does not have the same kind of requirements. >> this date could -- the state could increase the standard of high as it wants as long as there is not undue burden by the woman seeking abortion. they could increase the standard of care of to the very highest, and it would not be able reading audubon, that it would be better for them. anything unconstitutional about that? >> provided they choose.

of these two completely discrete analytical categories? casey noted is that the undue burden test the purpose and substantial obstacle to access. whether the state interest would become without be going to a rational basis review or maybe a purpose-based analysis. proofed the clearest about the general doctrine about unconstitutional purpose to defer that there is unconstitutional purpose when there is legitimate interest in promoting patient health. even row versus wade said the state can ensure maximum safety. >> with illegitimate interest in protecting the health -- under the law, it was not sufficiently

protected of the women's health. as i understand it, this is one of the lowest risk procedures example froma pennsylvania but nothing from texas. this is among the most safe, least risk procedures at early-stage abortion. problem that the legislature was responding to that he needed to improve -- it needed to improve the facilities? >> plan parroted admitted over 210 women annually are hospitalized because of abortion petitions. childbirth?ed to >> the amicus brief disputes that. dispute?re really any

it is a much riskier procedure. [laughter] without amicus briefs -- point out there may be a difference. 1e reason why reports and is -- reporting is important, in fact -- >> underreported, most of the competitions you are talking about were reports that hospitals. there is some evidence of not reporting of the things outside of the hospital. the number of hospitals are accurately a party. publications within the clinic. 210 from 70,000, that is

pretty small. it is lower than 1%. negate thatean to one should try to avoid injury to anyone. don't take the question as that. but there are people who die from competitions -- complications yet we don't require that people take aspirin in acs centers. sometime between the benefit and the burden. purpose, the constitutional analysis would be in texas legislature had an invalid purpose. >> don't you think you can read that from the fact that there are so many other medical treatments his cup location ises -- complication rates

so disproportionally high and the legislature is only targeting abortion when there is nothing about the figures before risk show unusual -- so unusual that it needs greater attention? >> this is why petitioners are try to upset the balance that was struck. >> i don't question the purpose. what the purposes they are worried about these competitions and they want to make light saber for the women. -- life safer for the women. you say there are not many competitions. if you -- complications.

if you say you reduce the clinics, he suddenly have at least 10,000, maybe if u.s., less,a few more, -- a few maybe a few more who have to travel to get their abortion, maybe more. maybe stay overnight. scrape together the money. you understand the argument. but they're to be more women -- will there be more women or cure women whodie -- fewer die of competitions to create an abortion -- competitions to toate -- complications create an abortion. you will find many more women dying. riske concern is this tiny of dying during competition -- claimant, --in a

clinic, is this a remedy? >> self-induced abortion, the evidence in the record were two points of testimony or petitioners prevail. as applied challenges can be brought to areas. but there could be shown substantial optical of travel distance. all those closed before the requirement took effect. they were planned parenthood facilities. supply challenge is a real album, -- problem. if you bring that and are ancessful, you can't have inbuilt tory surgical center -- ambulatory surgical center the spot. they cannot start up tomorrow when they are closed.

overroblem would be long before the clinic could be restarted. >> the clinic reopened and they did reopened. one facility, one of the facilities in west texas, in the first lawsuit, they told the court that that clinic would close regardless. seven of the a clinics that closed before the admitting privileges, when they went from 41 to 33. does replant parenthood -- those were planned parenthood clinics. to 22.nt from 33 i believe six of those clinics ceased -- but the city was going to close anyway. stipulation that no

currently licensed abortion facility meets the asc requirement. each will be prohibited from performing abortions after the day the lock us into effect. that is the stipulation. not a question of evidence. texas stipulated that no currently licensed facility meets asc requirements and each will be prohibited. >> the asc requirements. four of the facility that reopened, four of the reopened of the 11. dallas, two in fort worth, one in austin. they were afc's -- asc. there are nine forming abortions today in texas. three opened up after house bill

two was passed. challenges, --e >> were they opened as a result of the law or were they planned to be open before the law went into effect? i think that make a difference to me. if they were planned to be open, it takes quite a while to get the money, get the investors, by the land, to the building. it seems they must have been planned for a while and if they were, it was because there was a need independent of the number of abortions. in other words, it is fortuitous they came into existence, but the need was not there independent of the reduced number of facilities elsewhere. >> legislature provided 13 months to come into compliance. has 433 general asc.

>> most don't choose to provide abortions. you don't know if you have enough resources to open up a asc he will do an abortion. get enough developers to invest in the work. >> the point being that there will be at least 10 clicks. -- clinics. >> testimony on the record that fourast for doctors -- doctors asked for admitting privileges. circuit remedy provided for what dr. who's past retirement age to be the only doctor performing abortions in the clinic. know how many day had, but they had at least or people before. it seems rather callous to say as a remedy that we will make that one dr. do the work of four

or maybe more. circuit remedyh reasonable? >> that was the only main plaintiff. as applied. >> as applied, the law is affecting this clinic because it can't get its doctors certified. why should a require a named plaintiff to relieve that clinic of the obligation of going without admitting privileges? >> most of the doctors and clinics are not part. that it is the only clinic in the area. if any dr. who is licensed a properly can get admitting privileges, they should be permitted to work in the clinic. why does he have to become an indentured slave to ensure that

women in her area of providing with their fundamental right to choose? >> it would not be an indentured situation. if there are that came into facts that came into being. >> can i go back to a question that you said earlier in time if you are being misquoted. now, texas is allowed to set much higher medical standards weather has to with personnel were procedures or the facilities themselves, prior medical standards higher medical standards for abortion facilities that facilities that do any other kind of radical work, even -- medical work, even much more risky article work. -- medical work.

i would do know, why would texas do that -- would like to know, why would texas do that? >> when their competitions. texas can connect the law. -- an act the law. -- enact the law. >> but there are many other procedures that are high risk. like the sections, colonoscopies, i can go on and on. you say you can set higher standards for abortion. i want to know why that is? >> this is as result of a scandal that prompt other states. texas is regulations have made abortion facilities such that that can never happened. you have continue inspections. that was not a problem in texas. having a rogue outfit there. texas has taken action to prevent that.

i'm left wondering, given the baseline of regulation that s, why isrogue outfit that texas would make this choice. you say it you are allowed to pick the choice and we can argue about that. i would to know why texas would make the choice? confirmsidence brief that there were publications, that the laws do have benefits. are you or are you not contesting that there are greater competitions in abortion facilities and there are with a great deal of medical procedures that are not subject to the same standard of regulation? >> brain surgery have higher risk of publications -- complications. >> one of the amicus briefs said

instance after instance where whole women facilities have been cited for appalling violations when they were inspected. holes in the floor, rats could come in. tok of any equipment adequately sterilized instruments. similar to that are raised in the texas amicus brief. >> as i understand, actual reports of inspections of those facilities. >> they do discuss that and the competition from holman's health were underreported. wereole women's health underreported. >> random inspections. wasproblem in pennsylvania that the filthy clinic had not been looked at by everyone in the state in 16 you.

texas can go into any of these clinics and immediately spot a violation and says he can't operate. -- you can't operate. texas has its own mechanism for preventing the kind of thing from happening. >> texas did have existing regulations. not --alid and >> valid only if it is taking care of a real problem. a real problem. meaning, the governor of pennsylvania said it was a regulatory failure and only in has not beeninic inspected for 15 years. the doctor was fabricating his reports. that could happen anywhere. anyone who intends to break the anyone who intends to break the law is going to break the law, whatever the regulatory rules

are. you're going to have doctors, as happened pre our laws, who were performing abortions without permission in their offices or without licenses. and i don't want to suggest that we should presume that's going to happen, but it will happen. mr. keller: the constitutional standard for whether a state can make abortion safer can't be that it can only prevent the gosnell situation, and there are complications. justice sotomayor: well, but yeah, but but you have to see, as justice breyer asked you earlier, why are the problems? isn't this a selfcreated problem? what happened in texas independent of gosnell that raised the gosnelllike situation --in texas that made legislature so concerned after so many years about taking care of this greater risk in abortions, as opposed to all the other procedures that are performed in non-asc facilities?

mr. keller: because there are complications in abortion -- sotomayor: but there's complications in colonoscopies, and colonoscopies are, what, 15 times -- 28, justice breyer just corrected me. [laughter] 28% higher. i mean -- mr. keller: but legislatures react to topics that are of public concern. in gonzales, the court noted after dr. haskell's procedure for partial birth abortion became more of a nationwide concern, states reacted. when the legislature sees that there's a problem, and maybe that there wouldn't rise to the same level of a gosnell problem, but the legislature can still act to make abortion safer, which is precisely what texas did here. if i can address my friend's contention of the record as to what clinics closed preemptively. there is evidence in the record that killeen, mccallen and el paso, three clinics, closed preemptively. they brought asapplied challenges in mccallen and prevailed. they brought their asapplied challenge in el paso and did not prevail. and the killeen clinic did not seek asapplied relief. indeed, if there are any future concerns, asapplied challenges can be raised.

for instance, the wide swath of area in west texas that does not have an abortion clinic today, there was no asapplied relief sought in this case. and if there were if it would turn out that there were going to be an issue in that area, a future asapplied challenge could address that concern. justice ginsburg: well, that's the problem. once a clinic closes you said mccallen reopened, but that was very swift. once a clinic closes, equipment are gone, the doctors are gone, you can't reinstate it tomorrow. it won't be there. there will be no remedy for that woman who succeeds in the asapplied challenge. mr. keller: mr. chief justice, my time has expired, if may address it. chief justice roberts: sure. mr. keller: except even there, the clinic was not just closed

for a single day. it was closed for a longer period of time. and there was an el paso clinic that actually reopened also months later. so an asapplied challenge could allow a clinic, if an undue burden, if a substantial obstacle were shown because of driving distances or capacity in the future, in that discrete instance, but we're in this facial challenge posture, petitioner's bear the heavy burden to show at least a large -- justice sotomayor: why isn't self-evident in that area -- justice kennedy: sonia is off. justice sotomayor: this area of western texas, it's as big as california. no? bigger? mr. keller: i'm not sure about california, but it certainly is a large size. justice sotomayor: huge area. mr. keller: absolutely. justice sotomayor: why isn't it self-evident if you have a law that says you can only be an asc provider, and who's going to come in and say, i can't be an asc provider, but it's an undue burden on me, or it's an undue burden that's selfevident on the women in that area? mr. keller: well, the right is possessed by the women. the clinics and doctors can bring challenges. justice sotomayor: exactly. so why don't we take this lawsuit as those women saying just that? mr. keller: because there was -- justice sotomayor: you can't have a law that has marginal, if any, medical benefit be applied to this procedure anywhere where there's an undue burden on people on women.

mr. keller: planned parenthood had four clinics in west texas. they all closed before any part of hb was actually put into effect. they could have brought an asapplied challenge. they didn't. planned parenthood did not join this lawsuit. they were part of the first lawsuit. and indeed, the facial challenges here are barred by res judicata and there are significant record gaps. justice ginsburg: may i ask you one question? you earlier in your argument, you were quoting how many women are within a reasonable range of the clinic. but don't we know from casey that the focus must be on the ones who are burdened and not the ones who aren't burdened? there there is and the district court said, you know, this is not a problem for women who have means to travel, that those women will have access to abortion, anyway.

so in texas or out of texas. so casey was quite precise in this, when it's talking about husbands and notification. you don't look to all the women who are getting abortions. you look only to the to the the women for whom this is a problem. and so the only women we would be looking at is not all of the women who are who live in austin or in dallas, but the women who have the problem, who don't live near a clinic. isn't that the clear message of casey and the husband notification -- mr. keller: when a law is regulating women, as it would in the spousalnotification provision, that might be different. but when we're talking about doctor and clinic regulations, when the law is going to have a relevant effect, is going to be for every doctor and every clinic, which is precisely why the fifth circuit noted that that was the proper denominator, all women of texas reproductive age. and petitioners have not challenged that denominator holding in their opening brief.

justice ginsburg: but this is about -- what it's about is that a woman has a fundamental right to make this choice for herself. that's what we sought as the starting premise. and then this is certainly about casey -- casey made that plain, that it the focus is on the woman, and it has to be on the segment of women who are affected. mr. keller: yes. and and the right held by women to make that ultimate decision is not burdened in, at a minimum, a large fraction of cases in texas, when each metropolitan area will still have a clinic, even after the law goes into effect, and future asapplied challenges could address any possible concerns about west texas or otherwise. chief justice roberts: thank you, counsel. mr. keller: thank you, mr. chief justice. chief justice roberts: ms. toti, you have five minutes remaining. ms. toti: thank you. a few brief points. first, the record cites from earlier, evidence that hb two caused clinics to close in texas.

the plaintiffs testified that hb two caused clinics in killeen, austin, beaumont, mcallen, and el paso to close, and that testimony is that ja 339, 715, 722, and 731. respondents stipulated at ja and -- ja 183 and 184, that the asc requirement would cause any licensed abortion facility still operating on the day it took effect to close. plaintiff's exhibit 28 at page two, which is not in the joint appendix but was admitted in the record at 2808 and 09, demonstrates that for the five years prior to the enactment of hb two, the number of abortion clinics in texas remained fairly constant. finally, at ja 229 and 1430, there is, at 229, testimony from dr. grossman, and at 439, our response to the fifth circuit's directive showing that 11 clinics closed on the day that the admittingprivileges --

chief justice roberts: and that that's the book? the last evidence was from dr. grossman? at page 232 he said, "i am not here offering any opinion on the cause of the decline in the number of abortion facilities." ms. toti: that's correct. dr. grossman did not offer an opinion on that. but his testimony supplies the fact, from which the district court drew the inference, that clinics closed on the day that the state first enforced the admittingprivileges requirement. the district court referred from that fact that enforcement was the cause of the closure, and respondents offered no alternative explanation for why there would be such a precipitous drop in the number of abortion -- justice sotomayor: can you tell me why planned parenthood left the western area? the general says that planned parenthood that asc and the and the admitting privileges had nothing to do with the closures in the western area of texas. ms. toti: well, the the two clinics in el paso, which is in in in that western region of texas that would be forced to close as a result of these requirements, are not operated by planned parenthood.

planned parenthood doesn't have any clinics in texas. the plaintiff in this case and another independent provider operate those clinics. justice alito: and as to the the clinics where there is direct evidence, does the direct evidence show whether the cause was the admittingprivileges requirement or the asc requirement or both? ms. toti: with respect -- it does specify. and some specify the admittingprivileges requirement, and some specify the asc requirement. and some specify both. so with respect to whether abortion can be regulated differently than other medical procedures, abortion can certainly be treated differently, if there is a reason to treat it differently. but texas may not impose unnecessary medical regulations that burden women's access to abortion. in simopoulos, the court found

that the regulations of secondtrimester procedures at issue in that case were consistent with prevailing medical standards at the time, and that was critical to the court's decision. that is not the case here. there is extensive testimony in the record that these requirements are not medically justified. they are not consistent with prevailing medical standards, and their amicus briefs from leading medical associations, including the ama and acog, confirming that. justice alito: do you think that federal district judges or this court is well qualified to determine whether there is a different risk, regard with respect to abortion, as compared to other procedures, that may or may not have to be required may or may not have to be performed in an in an asc? ms. toti: your honor, district courts are quite competent to determine the credibility and the reliability of expert testimony.

that's something that's within the core competence of a trial court. and the trial court in this case determined that there was no credible or reliable evidence supporting texas's contentions about the medical justification for these laws. and, further, had texas truly believed that these laws provided some important benefit for outpatient surgery, it would have made them generally applicable. all outpatient surgical providers would have to have admitting privileges or practice in an asc, but that's not the case. texas law expressly authorizes other surgical procedures, including those performed under general anesthesia which early abortion is not to be performed in the physician's office. and even other physicians that operate at an asc aren't required to have admitting privileges. the facility is merely required to have a transfer agreement. so these regulations target one of the safest procedures that a patient can have in an outpatient setting for the most onerous regulations.

chief justice roberts: thank you, counsel. prime minister david cameron taking questions on the u.k. votes to leave the european union. after that, we will show you the supreme court oral argument in the case from march of this year. >> c-span's washington journal live every day with news on policy issues that impact you. the supreme court ruled five to three against the texas abortion act. baker talked about this most significant ruling on abortion and almost two decades. and president of the constitutional accountability center discusses the ruling in the texas abortion access case

shares hislson thoughts on the terms big supreme court cases and their potential impact on the 2016 presidential campaign. he sure to watch washington journal beginning 7 a.m. eastern . brad miller testifies tuesday on the u.s. effort against isis. committee hearing is live at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. and c-span's road to the white house coverage continues tomorrow with remarks from donald trump on economic policy. he will speak with supporters in pennsylvania and you can see that live beginning at 2:30 eastern here on c-span. >> the hard-fought 2016 primary

season is over with his store conventions to follow this summer. >> colorado. >> texas. >> in the first non-politician in several decades. on c-span, listen on the c-span radio app, or get c-span.org.and at you have a front row seat to the beginnings on c-span monday, july 18. >> prime minister david cameron told members in the house of commons that the decision for the u.k. to leave the european union was not the best outcome for the country but must be accepted. following his remarks, he answered questions from members scotland,ure of immigration, and new relations

with european union member states. this is just over two hours. >> order statement, the prime minister. >> thank you mr. speaker. with permission i would like to make a statement on the results of the referendum. last week saw one of the biggest mechanic exercises in our history with over 33 million people from england, scotland, wales, northern ireland all having their say. we should be proud of our parliamentary democracy. it is right when we consider questions of this magnitude and we don't just leave it to politicians but rather listen directly to the people. that is why members from across this house voted for a referendum margin of almost 60 met one. when i talk about this house let me talk about the new member choosing to take her place. [laughter] and i thought i was having a bad

day. what this means, that steps were taken immediately to stabilize the uk economy, the work on negotiation to leave the eu, our plans of involving both administrations and the next step toward the european council it was the british people's vote to leave the union. it was not the result i wanted or what i think was best for the country that i love but there is no doubt about the result. i don't take about back what i said about the respirator will be difficult. result i wanted or what i think was best for the country that i love but there is no doubt about the result. i don't take about back what i said about the respirator will be difficult. we've seen there will be

adjustments within our economy. complex institutional issues and challenging new negotiations under take with europe. i am clear on the reason this morning morning that the decision must be accepted in the process of implementing the decision in the best possible way must now begin. at the same time mr. spiegel we have a fundamental responsibility to bring our country together. in the past few days we have seen despicable graffiti on the polish community center. we have seen verbal abuse because they are members of ethnic minorities. these people have come here and made a wonderful contribution to our country. we will not stand for a crimes are these kind of attacks. they must be stamped out. mr. speaker, we can reassure citizens living here and brits living in european countries that there will be no immediate changes in their circumstances. neither will there be any initial change in the way our people can travel, the way our goods can move or the way our

services can be sold. we negotiate that the european council will be discarded in a new negotiation to leave the eu will begin under a new prime minister. turning to our economy it's clear that markets are volatile. some companies are considering their investments and we know this will be far from easy. we should take confidence from the fact that we are ready to confront what the future holds for us from a position of strength. as a result of a long-term plan, we have one of the strongest major advanced economies in the world. we are well played to face the challenges ahead. we have stable inflation, the employment rate remains the highest it's ever been. and it's forecast bully below 3% this year. the financial system is more resilient and was 66 years ago. with capital requirements for the largest banks, there are ten

times higher than before the banking crisis. the markets may not have been expecting the referendum result but as the chance chancellor said this morning, the treasury and bank of england and other authorities have spent the last few months putting in place robust continuously plans. as the governor of the bank of england said, the bank stress test has shown that the uk institutions have enough capital and liquidity reserves to withstand a scenario more sincere severe than the country currently faces. the banks can make it available 250 billion additional funds of it needs to support banks and market. in the coming days the treasury come the bank of england and the financial authority will continue to be in close contact. they have contingency plans in place to maintain financial ability and they will not hesitate to take further measures if required. turning to preparations for our negotiations from the exit of eu the cabinet met this morning that will bring together

officials and policy expertise from across the cabinet office, treasury, foreign office and business departments. clearly this clearly this will be the most complex and most important task that the british double service has undertaken in decades. the new unit will set at the heart of government and be led and stopped by the best and brightest from across our civil service. it will report to the cabinet on delivering the outcome of the referendum, advising on transitional issues and exploring objective options from outside the eu. it will be responsible for ensuring the new prime minister has the best possible advice from the moment of their arrival. mr. speaker i know colleagues on all sides of the house will want to contribute to how we prepare and execute the new negotiation to leave the eu. the dutch of lancaster will listen to all comments and make sure they are put into this plan

turning to the administration we must ensure that the interest of all parts of the united kingdom are protected in advance. as we prepare for new negotiation with the eu, we willfully involve the scottish, welsh and northern ireland governments. we also consult gibraltar and the territories and regional centers including the lump london assembly. i spoke with scotland and wales as well as the first minister in northern ireland and our officials will be working together over the coming weeks to bring our administrations into the process for determining the decisions that need to be taken. while all the key decisions will have to await the new prime minister, there is a lot of work that can be started now. for instance the british and irish governments meet this week to work through the challenges relating to the common border area. mr. speaker, tomorrow i will attend the year pin counsel. in the last few days i've spoken to chancellor merkel and a

number of other european leaders. we've discussed the need to prepare for negotiations and the fact that the british government will not be triggering a local 50 at this stage. before we do that we need to determine the kind of relationship we want for the eu. there's really something for the next prime minister and their cabinet to decide. i've also made this point to the president of the european council and the european commission and i'll make this again at the european council tomorrow. mr. speaker this is our sovereign decision and it will be for britain and britain away alone to take. tomorrow is also an opportunity to make this point. britain is leaving the eu that we must not turn our back on europe or the rest of the world. >> care. >> the nature of the relationship we secure with the eu will be determined by the next government. i think everyone agrees we want the strongest economic links with our european neighbors as well as our friends in north america and the commonwealth and all its partners like india and

china. i'm also sure that whatever the nature of our future relationship, we want to continue with a great deal of our extensive security corporation and to do all we can to influence decisions that will affect the prosperity and safety of our people here at home. mr. speaker this negotiation will require strong and committed leadership. as i said i think the country requires a new administering cabinet to take it in this direction for this is not a decision i've taken likely but i'm actually convinced it is in the national interest. mr. speaker although leaving the eu is not the path i recommended, i am the the first to praise our incredible strength of the country. as we proceed with implementing this decision in facing the challenges that it will bring, i believe we should hold fast to the vision of britain that wants to be respected abroad, tolerant at home and engaged in the world and working with our international partners to advance the prosperity and security of our nation for generations to come. i have fought with these things every day of my political life

and i will continue to do so and i commend the statement of the house. >> your hair. >> thank you, thank you mr. speaker. first of all i would like to thank the british people for turning out to vote in such high numbers. the vote was a reflection of the significance of the issue. it was a close vote. on the back of the campaign that was too often divided and negative. these put forward a positive step to remain part of the european union and required two thirds of our own supporters but majority of people have voted to leave. we have accepted what they said. many people feel disenfranchised and powerless, especially in parts of the country that have been left behind for far too long.

communities that have been let down, not by the european union but by government. those communities don't trust politicians because for too long they haven't. so, instead of more extreme cuts to local services, which have hit the areas the hardest, this government needs to invest in those communities. many of those areas are deeply concerned about the security of pledged eu funding. can the prime minister give us any guarantees on those issues as that money is desperately needed. secondly, the issue of trust in the tenor in the referendum campaign was disheartening. untruths were told. many key figures spent the weekend distancing themselves

from to claim that the vote to leave would hand nhs an extra 350 million pounds per week. it is quite shameful that politicians made claim they need to be false and promises they knew could not be delivered. thirdly, real concern exists about immigration but too much of a discussion in the referendum campaign was divided. in the days following the referendum results, it appears we have seen the rise in greatest incidents such as the attack on hammersmith which the prime minister referred to and sadly many other subjects all over this country. i hope the time minister can address the attacks on the streets of this country. as political leaders we have a

duty to calm our language and our tone, especially after shocking events of ten days ago. our country is divided and the country. [inaudible] mr. speaker we have serious work in this house and in the country. i want to accommodate as many as possible of those colleagues who wish to question the prime minister. matters are slowed up a people make a lot of noise. thank you mr. speaker. it does appear that neither wing of the government has an exit

plan which is why we are insisting that the labour party be fully engaged in the negotiation that lie ahead. we need the freedoms to shape our economy for the future and protect social and employment rights while building new policies on trade, on migration, environmental protection and on --dash investment. i fully understand the prime minister is standing down in three months time but we cannot be in a stage of paralysis until then. the prime minister is making the european council tomorrow. i hope you will say that the negotiations will begin so we know what's going on rather than being delayed until october. we as a house have a duty to act in the national interest and ensure we get the best agreements for our constituents. will the prime minister today confirmed that in the light of the economic turmoil the chancellor will announced a suspension and determination of

the now even more accountable productive physical rule. what the economy needs now is a clear plan for investment. particularly in those communities that have been so damaged by this government and sent such a strong message to all of us last week. will he specifically rule out tax or further cuts to public services that were threatened in the free referendum. i welcome his assurances on the uncertainty felt by many eu nationals, currently working in our economy, including the 52000 who work so well and help our national health service to provide the service we all need. it is welcome that the prime minister consulted with the leaders and administration i hope with the mayor of london two, city for which the implications are huge. we must act in public interest and support measures to reduce volatility. i welcome protections but what about protections for people's

jobs, their wages and their pensions. can the prime minister make clear what plans are in place. the chancellor spoke this morning to reassure the stock markets though they clearly remain very uncertain. we understand that some measures cannot be discussed in the house so just an assurance that they will provide private briefings on this matter. finally mr. speaker, on a personal note, may i say i have many fundamental disagreements with the prime minister and his government. another the left as he announces the end of his leadership it's right to say that he was right to do so. i want to thank you two in response to the inquiry and the reaction to