Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to make substantive exclusions in the hospital’s interest. E.g., Peterson, 559 P.2d at 191(allowing exclusions based on rules that “comport[ ] with the legitimate goals of the hospital and the rights of the individual and the public”). Moreover, Arizona explicitly gives all hospitals the right to refuse to allow abortions to be performed at the hospital, Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 36-2151, and has prohibited all abortions in public university hospitals except those necessary to save the life of the woman having the abortion, Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 15-1630. Arizona itself does not have the power to prohibit any providers from performing abortions merely because it disapproves of abortion and would like to place obstacles in the way of women seeking abortions. Casey, 505 U.S. at 877, 112 S.Ct. 2791 . Thus, Arizona may not delegate such a power
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that the purpose of abortion laws in the late 19th and early 20th centuries did focus on the states interest in protecting the womans health rather than in preserving the embryo and fetus
B. holding that a county ordinance conflicted with state laws and was invalid as applied to all citizens
C. holding that laws that are administered with an unequal hand and an evil eye are unconstitutional
D. holding that laws with the purpose of placing an obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion are invalid
E. holding that a ceremonial marriage performed under the laws of a foreign power by a foreign consular officer on united states territory was invalid because it did not comply with the laws of new york state
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.