act [that is] fraught with consequences.” 505 U.S. 833, 852, 112 S.Ct. 2791, 120 L.Ed.2d 674 (1992). And similarly, we observed in Bryant I: As humankind is the most gifted of living creatures and the mystery of human procreation remains one of life’s most awesome events, so it follows that the deliberate interference with the process of human birth provokes unanswerable questions, unpredictable emotions, and unintended social and, often, personal consequences beyond simply the medical ones. 222 F.3d at 175. Accordingly, we conclude that the requirement imposed by § 307 on abortion clinics to make arrangements for referral services to clergy, as needed, does not, on its face, establish religion in violation of the First Amendment. Cf. Brown v. Gilmore, 258 F.3d 265 (4th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 996, 122 S.Ct. 465,
holding that a state statute requiring a moment of silence to enable students to meditate pray or engage in any other silent activity does not establish religion in violation of the first amendment holding that where the first amendment does not protect a certain activity there can be no first amendment right of association to engage in that activity holding that if comment is fairly susceptible of being construed by the jury as a comment on the defendants exercise of his or her right to remain silent it violates the defendants state constitutional right to silence whether comment was introduced in states caseinchief or for impeachment purposes holding that the state may not impeach a defendant with his postarrest or postmiranda silence holding that a statute allowing public school teachers to expressly dedicate a moment of silence to prayer violates the establishment clause recognizing the right of students to challenge on first amendment grounds actions of school officials which circumscribe the range of ideas to which students are exposed