interfere with the private doctor-patient relationship such that it imposes a substantial obstacle on a woman seeking an abortion. Id. In Wooley v. Maynard, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects “the right of freedom of thought,” which “includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all.” 430 U.S. 705, 714, 97 S.Ct. 1428, 51 L.Ed.2d 752 (1977). Citing to Wooley, Casey observed a physician’s First Amendment “right[ ] not to speak... as part of the practice of medicine.” 505 U.S. at 884, 112 S.Ct. 2791. The Supreme Court noted that the right is “subject to. reasonable licensing and regulation by the State.” Casey, 505 U.S. at 884, 112 S.Ct. 2791 (comparatively citing Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 603, 97 S.Ct. 869, 51 L.Ed.2d 64 (1977) (<HOLDING>)). B. Article III Injury-In-Fact The Act
recognizing that the police power is broad and comprehensive but concluding that the texas constitution forbids its exercise when the result would be the destruction of the rights guarantees privileges and restraints excepted from the powers of government by the bill of rights holding that the founders undeniably left police powers reposed in the states recognizing minnesotas long history of acknowledging right of municipalities to exercise police powers by regulating land use and development holding state legislation was a reasonable exercise ofits broad police powers in regulating the administration of drugs by health professionals where the decision to prescribe or to use is left entirely to the physician and the patient holding that the state police is a state agency