that prevents abortion agencies from receiving Choose Life funds. WEN’s “level playing field” argument fails because it does not accurately reflect the law of this circuit. WEN relies heavily on the dissent in Henderson, which argued that plaintiffs should have standing where the relief sought would “prevent! ] the State from manipulating the content of public debate by presenting only the view favored by the state.” 287 F.3d at 390. The “level playing field” analysis is simply not consistent with First Amendment law. The proper remedy for Appellant’s alleged injury would be to make funds available to WEN, not to take funds from adoption agencies. See, e.g., Rosenberger v. Rector of the Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 828-30, 845-46, 115 S.Ct. 2510, 2516-17, 2524-25, 132 L.Ed.2d 700 (1995) (<HOLDING>); Henderson, 287 F.3d at 387 (Jones, J.,
holding it was not an abuse of discretion to deny funds holding high school which allowed student secular noncurricular activities to meet on school property was required to provide equal access to a christian student group holding constitutional the granting of student activity funds to the campus newspaper holding student activity fees not to be state funds when they were segregated from university funds and the state treasury holding proper remedy when a christian student newspaper was denied student activities funds was to make funds available to the religious paper not to deny funds to nonreligious student groups