Mindful
of Leavitt v. Jane L., 518 U.S. 137 (1996), in which in the context
of determining the severability of a state statute regulating abortion
the United States Supreme Court held that an explicit statement of
legislative intent is controlling, it is the intent of the city commission
that every provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase,
or word in this article, and every application of the provisions in
this article, are severable from each other. If any application of
any provision in this article to any person, group of persons, or
circumstances is found by a court to be invalid or unconstitutional,
then the remaining applications of that provision to all other persons
and circumstances shall be severed and may not be affected. All constitutionally
valid applications of this article shall be severed from any applications
that a court finds to be invalid, leaving the valid applications in
force, because it is the city commission’s intent and priority
that the valid applications be allowed to stand alone. Even if a reviewing
court finds a provision of this article to impose an undue burden
in a large or substantial fraction of relevant cases, the applications
that do not present an undue burden shall be severed from the remaining
provisions and shall remain in force, and shall be treated as if the
city commission had enacted an ordinance limited to the persons, group
of persons, or circumstances for which the statute’s application
does not present an undue burden. The city commission further declares
that it would have passed this article, and each provision, section,
subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word, and all constitutional
applications of this article, irrespective of the fact that any provision,
section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word, or applications
of this article, were to be declared unconstitutional or to represent
an undue burden.