U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE RICHARD KOPF (addressing the attorneys during opening arguments)
"I have to tell you, I don't see that Congress spent anywhere near the kind of effort that you folks have spent in honestly trying to give me a fair picture of the medical situation." Later, he asked the lawyer for the Department of Justice, "The question really is, did Congress really care about whether this was safe or unsafe?"

DR. LEROY CARHART, TESTIMONY IN COURT:
Q. Do you think that any abortions you perform woud be prohibited by this Act?
A. I think that not only mine but every D&E procedure would be affected...every procedure could potentially break the law. I find that unacceptable.
In response to a question about what he would do if the Act were in effect: "I would stop doing abortions past 13 weeks and go back to where we were in 1969."

DR. LEROY CARHART, STATEMENT ON THE COURTHOUSE STEPS:
"This case is not about abortions in the third trimester. It affects the safest procedures I perform as early as 12 weeks of pregnancy. I won this case in the Supreme Court four years ago. I'm back in court today because the government is back in my office, coming between me and my patient and telling me that I can't put my patient's health and safety first."

DR. WILLIAM FITZHUGH (questioned by plaintiffs' attorney Janet Crepps)
Q. Doctor, do you know what you would do at this point if the Act were to take effect in terms of your practice?
A. If the Act would take effect, I would probably continue until such time as I hear [about] the enforcement or somebody is making waves. . . . I would have to take my chances a little bit, I think.
Q. So you would risk jail time?
A.. Probably.

DR. JILL VIBHAKAR (questioned by plaintiffs' attorney Priscilla Smith):
Q. When we were seeking an injunction back in the fall, had you made a decision about what you were going to do if we were unsuccessful in obtaining an injunction?
A. I was going to cease from performing second trimester abortions.

DR. DOE Expert Witness for the Plaintiffs, when asked by plaintiffs' attorney how the Act would affect the witness's practice:
"It would put a chill on the way I practice," Dr. Doe said. "I would never know if I was going to be breaching the Act using the techniques that I currently use."
Q. Then why did you agree to testify in this case?
A. "I thought it was the right thing to do. And that's on the basis of my past experience with seeing the results of illegal and unsafe abortion in the earlier years of my experience. So I wouldn't like to go back to those years."

NANCY NORTHUP, VIEWPOINT ON THE TRIAL,
"The sponsors of this law deceptively sold it as a narrow limit on late-term abortions. This week, doctor after doctor testified that the ban would force them to stop providing abortions early in the second trimester. The huge impact of the ban reveals its true aim: to limit Roe v. Wade and ultimately the availability of safe abortions."