inherent in the challenged statute and likelihood that the state-mandated message will be received is derivative of the likelihood that their physician will speak it. See supra. Further, as a prudential matter, Plaintiffs are the appropriate parties to challenge the Act on the basis of patients’ alleged constitutional rights, As recognized by the parties, there is a legion of cases that have come before the Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit in which both physicians and abortion facilities were permitted, to litigate on behalf of third-party patients to enjoin state laws restricting -abortion rights. See Griswold, 381 U.S. at 481, 85 S.Ct. 1678 (physicians asserted constitutional rights of patients to whom they prescribed contraceptive devices); Singleton, 428 U.S. at 118, 96 S.Ct. 2868 (<HOLDING>); Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v.
recognizing constitutional right to effective counsel recognizing that a criminal defendants right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel recognizing that there seems little loss in terms of effective advocacy from allowing an assertion of a womans right to an abortion by a physician recognizing that a claim is an assertion of a right and if there is no assertion of a right there is no claim to deduct recognizing that loss of consortium is a right of action separate from that of the spouse