now i bent to begin with the commonwealth economic injury and emphasize that the outset that both components that the commonwealth economic theory of injury are supported by specific evidence in the record not conjecture first specific evidence supports the fact that employers and that's sheets s are highly likely to take advantage of the expanded exemptions provided by the rules and that is the consequence of women in massachusetts this will lose con coverage the department's regulatory impact analysis for the final rules calculates that at a minimum seventy thousand five hundred and fifteen women of childbearing age who are currently using an f d a approved method of con law that means that at a minimum we still have eight hundred twenty nine women in massachusetts who are likely to lose coverage importantly that very illiterate impact analysis accounted for a number of factors that would make th be using an affected method of contraception but of course if you spend that out over a bigger time horizon like a year for example it percent of women likely to use contraception they also assume that only sixty two percent of employees working for employers are covered by employer sponsored plans so that i also like to emphasize that the employers that were included in that top elations specifically the litigating employers are extremely likely to use the extended standing we have against the state had evidence supporting the fact that some proportion of those employees will turn into the commonwealth state funded services to no teen replacement contraceptive care and services  circuit and a district court in california and a district court in pennsylvania has rejected that argument and for good reason it's just simply into insistent with this that stand so there's a standard and i pointed out or sit down t message and economic hime before it could come to court and seek relief that commonwealth won't know until some time that women have lost coverage because of the rules and are seeking state funded sources because the rules don't hardly be thought that governmental action likely to cause harm cannot be challenged until it's too late and magic mass health itself track the number of requests challenge based on the denial of the opportunity to comment on the rules in addition to the substantive a claim and a change of mind answering my question did you take advantage of the opportunity to comment on the and sit state funded services as a result but the commonwealth claim an injury is too speculative to support standing here and the fundamental problem is that massachusetts has not shown the sufficient likelihood that employers will use the standard exemption under the account that the mandate initially but it was as a result of congress not this victory in the supreme court and it's challenge to the mandate that the agencies need the accommodation available to harbin lobby and other moves coverage and then turning to the state itself sufficient from your point of view to establish standing well i think the problem is and there are additional layers of speculation and that but to come back to the still continue to cover methods that their particular employees might choose and those women may also have alternative access they may have access to a style such plan a parent's plan if we're talking about a young adult or maybe even to afford con plaintiffs cannot rely on speculation about the unfettered choices made by independent actors not before the court the court says it's that it's claimed just burden to provide facts assuming that those choices have been made or will be made entity that the commonwealth pointed out cummins allison which has been using the accommodation objects to the accommodation i think that's just too speculative g o p don't we just don't know that hobby lobby has an objection to the accommodation and method and i understand that and we certainly don't mean to minimize that but i think some employers recognize that too on and so that their decision to either use the exemption for example rather the accommodation is not something they would enter into lately and i would not to so be it at once but just to go back to hobby lobby for a moment i think it is worth considering what the court said in heart in rugby with respect to the accommodation and the court you know did not  two circuits now respect to the final rules on that procedural injury alone cannot be the basis for standing apart from that they still have to show some substantive injury from the rules so you know they don't need to show for example that the rules would have been any into your honors they have two very quick points to name the first is that the department and styles have counted out the lobby and i don't care a million players that are likely to drop coverage under the rules and use the expanded exemption and the ninth circuit and the