105 S.Ct. at 2584 (White, J., concurring in the result). Accordingly, we afford speech to the public “by attorneys on public issues and matters of legal representation the strongest protection our Constitution has to offer.” Went For It, Inc., 515 U.S. at 634, 115 S.Ct. at 2381 (citing Gentile v. State Bar of Nev., 501 U.S. 1030, 111 S.Ct. 2720, 115 L.Ed.2d 888 (1991)). At the opposite end of the spectrum, there is no “constitutional infirmity” where the speech rights of physicians are “implicated, but only as part of the practice of medicine, subject to reasonable licensing and regulation by the State.” Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 884, 112 S.Ct. 2791, 2824, 120 L.Ed.2d 674 (1992) (plurality opinion of O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter, JJ.) (citations omitted) (<HOLDING>). For example, in Locke we applied Justice
holding that member of a large class of health care providers available to the insured was only a potential and incidental beneficiary of the contract and thus not entitled to recover thereunder holding that boren amendment created substantive federal right enforceable by health care providers to reasonable and adequate rates holding that a provision of a pennsylvania statute requiring health care providers to inform patients of the availability of certain information regarding abortion and childbirth prior to obtaining an abortion was a valid regulation of the practice of medicine and so did not violate physicians first amendment right not to speak recognizing that a defendant physicians own practice was at least some evidence of the standard of care and concluding that the case was properly submitted to the jury notwithstanding the plaintiffs failure to call an independent expert on the standard of care holding that health care providers could pursuant to  1983 enforce the boren amendment to the medicaid act