traditional rights with regards to free exercise of religion and secondly congress such authority under the employer mandate the passed that mandate but first before getting to the merits of the case i'd like to address what the administration has raised with regards to jurisdiction  standing in the anti injunction at liberty university clearly has standing as the district court has already found below and there's no reason to revisit those particular findings unlike any of the other four nonprofit cases that are out there none of those cases challenge the employer mandate in its entirety those cases all deal with the subsequent h h s mandate where the preventative care mandate but liberty university challenges the employer mandate in its entirety and consequently liberty will have to either pay a penalty or provide insurance that's a given there's no uncertainty and there's no possibility that liberty can go either way it pays a penalty for not providing insurance or it provides insurance and under that provision it has to comply with  essential coverage and the affordability liberty clearly has standing to bring this case also as it relates to the preventative care mandate in the complaint we listed section thirteen zero two which speaks about the preventative care that's part of the essential coverage talk to me if you do agree i do agree i agree that in the bookseller's there were some on certain days but it was certainly something that was impending and i think that the fact here you you may have something that's coming down the pi a little bit later but it's right around the corner for liberty university and liberty has one or two choices and really there's neither have penalty or provide insurance what's the basis for your concern about thirteen zero two thirteen zero two actually is something that we challenge in paragraph forty three and following in the second a minute complaint and that's the section that talks about the preventative care it is from that particular provision that the h h s mandate later came and that also did not relate to the exchanges you're not part of the exchange we're not part of the exchange but the know will you ever be no but the act itself does provide the basis for what the secretary later did which was the h h s mandate as relates to challenge the employer mandate in its entirety that we clearly have standing as relates to challenging the preventative care mandate that is part and parcel of what was authorized under the act and that's something that certainly liberty university when it does make the decision to say for example provide insurance will be confronted with and liberty simply cannot provide that preventative care if it includes as it does here the abortifacient drugs or the i u d s because of its position on abortion if you don't have standing but we use the word abortion ok but but those are two ferry different things arguably and if one were convinced that they are two different things and that a challenge using the term abortion is not sufficiently broad how if at all does that affect your argument well i think that as a relates to liberty university and the understanding of an abortifacient is that's what it does it terminate but i'm asking you to assume that a decision maker doesn't agree with plaintiff's interpretation of those words if judge davis she were not to agree that abortion is surgical and an abortifacient is not covered by the word abortion then liberty university st standing to challenge the employer mandate because it still has to comply or it has to pay a penalty and so liberty still has the right to be able to challenge the employer mandate before this court so consequently it still hits and we know based on what you already offer that  you're going to have to change something or pay something yes in fact the complaint actually addresses that liberty liberty like i said is unlike any other not for profit cases because they only challenge the current ones that are out there are even current for profit cases only challenge the h h s mandate liberty includes that before this court because that was something that subsequently occurred but liberty also from the very beginning challenges the entirety of the employer mandate i guess i don't understand your question you say that you have standing to charge them to challenge the employer mandate if johnston from the beginning was part of the case that you have what i guess i was interested in i'm really interested in what your argument might be there's a couple of cases in terms of issues that are issues of law and i believe that this clearly is and that singleton versus one of out of the united states supreme court there's this fourth circuit case called and there's a subsequent support that was nine hundred ninety six and there's another four circuit case in one thousand nine hundred four and basically it says that this court in address an issue that comes up post the filing of the case as long as it is a legal question and that's what this is but and i'm sorry i have you could have alternatively requested that we remain in the action to the district court so that you could file if you chose a supplemental or an amended complain but you chose not to do that we chose not to do that i wouldn't that be preferable well on the h h s mandate i don't think there's any dispute with the fact that it is out there this is a legal question as to whether it violates the free exercise well as far as liberty itself  concerned these regulations may as i understand it are tentative and we don't know exactly what rules going to be or whether it's going to play him to talk to the government about that i'm sure she's going to be able to tell me the answers to those questions  so it just seems like you would be particularly wanting this to go back to the district court into a mentor complaint anyone have any of these problems well if it were relating to the h h s mandate alone that may be one thing but a challenge to the entirety of the employer mandate is another and there's no reason to send it back on that issue tonight and i was trying to say my question is trying to separate the two issues so just dealing with the we've gotten pretty close we've pretty we've gone along pretty far in th abortifacient challenge that you make you make a bunch of other challenges you make commerce clause challenge and you make a tax challenging you make a bunch of other challenges you make other religious challenges but i'm just focusing on that one on the h h s minute i think this court could do either way certainly i don't think that the court should rule against the h h s challenge other preventative care if it is inclined to send that back but as it relates to the rest of the case it's no need to send it back with regards to the underlying challenge of the employer mandate in its entirety and in fact in that particular situation as it relates to the h h s mandate if i might this vial i just want to be you call it the  whether it surgical or chemical and i think it is part and parcel of this particular act it is part of what the act speaks about as preventative care is just simply a man about it and standing i think the press so issue reasons first of all the administration in the supplemental briefing in the first round of litigation actually pointed to ninety ten ninety ten as a provision that applies the excise tax to cadillac plans and in that particular section of the statute it actually references chapter sixty eight the only remedy it specifically allows in the act is to have a subsequent refund civil action and it specifically references this chapter sixty eight individual mandate if i be pointed out does not reference reference section sixty eight is not a come up under section sixty it comes up or under forty eight the employer mandate comes under chapter forty three it doesn't reference chapter sixty eight nor does it reference sixty six five or sixty six sixty five or sixty six seven a i believe it is and so therefore i think the employer mandate is on all fours within a five b but even beyond that the employer  enforced not just by the i r s but by the department of labor and the department of labor would not have anything to do with the entitle junction act like the individual mandate the employer mandate is intricate to the operation of the overall act the effective date was delayed and in addition it's been forced by the department of labor so i think that we even have a stronger case for the fact that the an injunction that doesn't apply and under the the employer mandate section it uses the word penalty nine times i think it uses the word tax twice but n f i b clearly indicates that picture her meds are not necessarily indicative as it relates to the application of the a i a and i think by that very well i think it i think just to the contrary to the terms were crucial  analysis not crucial for the fourth constitutional now for wreck but i think that crucial as far as the eye analysis yes but i think that the they don't want to get too far into the well because obviously some members one does not understand well the fact of the matter is though that the very face of the act in the administration abbott ably argued before and it supplemental break that the a i a doesn't apply and i think when the act actually applies it in one hundred ten f and doesn't here i mean the very language it looked like to me when they were writing that opinion i'm not sure you would think about this mob but it just seems everything it was saying seemed to be what is here with judge when i respectfully disagree in fact they actually use the word assessable payment nine times in the forty nine eighty eight and consequently i think twice it mentions tax but once it it once in the context of whether an employee goes out to get a subsidy in the exchange and seek tax refund or some kind of cost sharing but as it relates to the employer i think it actually clearly mentions that as a an assessable penalty i'd like to address the religious freedom restoration act if i might the nineteen of the twenty six cases dealing with the for profits have actually entered a plume an area injunction under the religious freedom restoration act in the geneva college case just came down a few days ago and in that particular case it dealt with a not for profit case and that case although it wasn't a plan or injunction it's going to go there right away it denied the motion to dismiss on this on the same grounds that the administration has been or green should not grant implement or injunction and the administration just a few days ago dismissed its notice of appeal in the district there is a mandate to purchase a product that interferes with the free exercise of religion it could be unconstitutional said it would be unconstitutional if it did interfere with the free exercise of religion and in this case liberty has to pay a penalty if it doesn't provide insurance if it provides insurance it has to provide the preventative care mandate now whether third parties choose to access that or not is not relevant what is relevant is liberty is the vehicle for that to happen liberty would have the same objection if it were required by law to provide or not gra cable t v to its students even though it was paid for by the cable provider at no cost to liberty the fact that there be an access to that content that's objectionable to liberty is the same thing here with the preventative care mandate that that liberty has to be a vehicle whether it pays or not and the regulation doesn't give any relief by the way to self insured but because liberty if it chooses to give insurance has to provide the preventative care and that alone is enough to violate its religious free exercise but again this all turns on whether preventative care is in the case before that's correct your honor but we believe it is and i think that the administration has not even come back with an argument with respect to the issue of least that means we believe under refer this court should grant an injunction but we also believe on the general challenge to the employer mandate qantas that you follow up to that question because you know after all we have to decide it so i know you have a lot of things to say but i wasn't sure that your argument with respect to that argument before i thought you'd made all these religious arguments other religious arguments before that not true i think your complaint yes they are complaint and it also for the individuals as well and the individuals we know under and we mention this in the complaint the district court actually referenced this have to go out if they go out into the exchange they may find themselves in a situation where i work and it's got your answer then in response to my printer davis just now you said if we should find that this is not there hasn't been this challenge to the health care so i didn't mean to sort of pin those together tell me what we're talking about here that i didn't mean to say that if there hasn't been a challenge there has been a challenge we believe that it is sufficiently alleged in the complaint to the act itself as it relates to the employer mandate and to the abortion provisions of the employer mandate that of or the employer provision that is now manifested under the h h s as a relates to that assuming it was in you  it is i believe it's briefed and i know the religious freedom restoration act and free exercise are briefed in that opening brief as well as in the report i understand that the refers brief but the preventative services is that part of your proof is a part of your challenge talking we're talking about i'll give you another minute because i'm taking up your time the preventive care the provision that jeff davis is talking about can you translate that for me what does that mean that means the thing the hard word the congress as it relates to liberty is challenge to the entirety of the employer mandate lacks authority under the taxing and spending clause because this is punitive and i think n f i b is important in this particular situation points down the right track because and if i be they said that the payment for the individual was minimal currently it's under one hundred dollars versus several thousand dollars for the premium so it was an easy trade off financially but for liberty it's not it's two thousand dollars per employee chooses not to provide insurance and if it provides insurance and it's not part of the essential coverage and the preventative care slash abortifacient is not part of it it's two thousand dollars per employee as well so like drexel furniture it was not a portion but drexel it was not tied to income and like drexel this isn't forced by the department of labor so i think for those reasons the fact that the penalty is excessive and it places an exaction on the employer that is not tied to income in fact liberty university is tax exempt anyway and that it's been forced by the department of labor takes it outside of a permissible tax in addition your time is expired and i'll give you another two minutes but you should know i'm going to give the government they meant time so thank you and i brief i'll just rely on our briefing with regards to the commerce clause and if the court has any questions when i return we have to address those as well just to save the rest of my time  klein for the federal government i think it might be helpful if i could step back and explain the relationship between the different provisions that have been discussed at particular with respect to the employer so the challenge in this case libert challenge i'm going to use the u s code cites to be precise to forty nine eighty eight and that has nothing to do with the preventative health care and what we call the contraceptive coverage requirement because  know like various litigants use the term abortifacients but that's a term of art for federal law purposes and we're talking about contraception for present purposes minimum essential coverage which is what an employer provides under forty nine eighty eight to avoid tax liability is not the same thing as essential health benefits and is it your understanding that liberty already satisfies minimum coverage yes in a police based on the second amended complaint which is what we have and there's nothing contrary in the briefing they offer health coverage to their full time employees and the dependents and it's not the unusual form like dental only that would be excluded but otherwise if you're just looking at forty nine eighty eight which is the provision at issue here our minimum essential coverage is defined by cross reference to section five thousand egg and it includes lots of things including employer sponsored coverage leaving aside dental only or vision plans on essential health benefits is really something totally different that's a regulation of insurance companies that sell policies on the individual and small group market this is a point that the eleventh circuit actually made it had a sort glossary at the beginning of its opinion and so at six forty eight f third twelve fifty the court explains two key terms and the actor essential health benefits package and minimum essential coverage although they sound similar each has a different meaning and goes on to explain so essential health benefits has nothing to do with liberty university for two reasons it's not in the individual or small group market it's a large employer and it's not an insurance company and in fact it's self insured so it's really that this case has nothing to do with essential to you it's not just that they haven't raised it you don't think they can challenge is that right it is it is more complex little bit more complicated than that when the new regulations come out which will be this summer liberty's plan may be covered by the new regulations assuming it's not a grandfathered plan and they don't qualify for any exemptions at that point if they were aggrieved by the new regulations they could file a new lawsuit but it would be a new lawsuit it's not in this case it's never been in this case and it does not implement the provision that is at issue in this one about why indeed the we also have individuals making the religious claims don't we yes they've challenge five thousand so again five thousand as a the supreme court has now established doesn't even require that an individual get health coverage they are free if they for whatever reason do not want health coverage to make the shared they've challenge to put the dish to court in such a way applying it all standard said there's nothing there and again they are also separately confused in assuming that there will be no plans available that exclude abortion because in fact planned sold on the exchange that they don't have to cover a what does the government plan to make changes to its proposed accommodation of religious employees based on the comments of his receipt the pull out of court i mean the departments are in the process they received all the comments the comment period has closed and they've committed to issuing the final regulations before august which is when the enforcement safe harbor expires again this is not nothing to do with forty nine eighty eight but this is the separate contraceptive coverage requirement and at that point anyone who is covered by the final regulations and is aggrieved would be able to bring a challenge that's not i that's helpful for me because it's all very clear as mud but what i really asked was if you can tell us whether there are going to be changed the there will we have said to the d c circuit there will be changes from the existing contraceptive coverage regulations that are the subject of the ongoing rule making i'm not able to commit the departments to a particular form of final regulations but we have said and again this is so just again to lay the landscape because in there really are lots of contraceptive coverage there this is not one of them but there are probably sixty of them the company is the for profit companies that don't have the protection of the safe harbor we've briefed the merits that's those are the decisions that the plaintiffs are referring to when there are twenty  letters in the nonprofit cases where there entities like liberty university that are covered by the safe harbor and will essentially have the benefit of the new regulations whether they'll end up liking them or not but they're being change the d c circuit i believe it's not wanted twenty two or twenty three district courts have said we're not you know adjudicating those challenges now because they're going to be new regulations coming out this summer so switching over to the issues that actually are before the court on ri man from the supreme court the pre enforcement challenge to forty nine eighty eight is barred by the anti injunction act and separately there are  it would be premature anyway given the uncertainty about whether liberty university will owe it tax under forty nine age we you know we do believe that this court was correct in saying forty nine eighty eight than that we know of no precedent for kind of made congress can use different terms interchangeably and to some extent there are different variables like a political payment amount assessable payment amount and they all come together the one thing congress made completely clear in section forty nine eighty eight see savin is it's all a tax that's why congress specified that this tax is not deductible and there are various proper cross references and you know we did argue to the supreme court like the employer provision of course is labeled a tax and therefore it is a tax the supreme court had no occasion to explicitly address that it wasn't before the court but just to make clear you know we have have said that the label that's it that's dispositive trying to get a little consistency into the government's argument right we are now yes exactly well i think you need a little consist ok just to underscore that the other point is you know we get the anti injunction ackbar would apply even if you had certainty that liberty or another employer owed the tax that you know it's it's a distinct bar you pay and then sue for a refund but as we also argued in our supreme court brief even say for five thousand a few don't have an a bar you still would look to the normal inquiry about timing is it appropriate to adjudicate a pre enforcement challenge to this payment and both her liberties challenge and the challenge that the two individuals have brought to five thousand and it's premature for the reasons that we've discussed in our brief but to the individuals get the benefit of this regulation that are going to come up when they are not they're not subject to the preventive services when they are go out and buy some sort of are they obligated to purchase insurance that has the option of having these whatever we want to call them provisions and abortion contraceptives well again to go back to what n f i b held because this was dispo in and if i be they're not obligated to get insurance at all if as the six are could explain they're more comfortable making the shared responsibility payment that is an entirely lawful option ok so they don't get any benefit from the regs that are coming out because that deals with employers right but it but according to you they don't have to take this course in any event exactly and it's also at this point speculative whether they have to do anything under five thousand a because there are various exemptions in the statute based on financial hardship and they allege in the complaint it would be a financial hardship one of the two says she is unemployed and i assume this is still true because we have not gotten any other information the other provides no information and so because so it may be that they don't even have to make the shared responsibility payment so we suggest that it would be appropriate to just wait and see if any of this pans out at which point they could sue for a refund or even consider challenges in a concrete context the rely on standing or rightness or both or what if we got to the end of it overlapped because of the uncertainty there's no certainly impending injury so the supreme court in clapper described that as article three standing in it's correct i think lots of courts have recognized that it overlaps with rightness when what you're talking about is not you're the wrong person but we don't know yet the secretary has an ass for any further tender of standing on the part of the individual so i take it well as i don't see happened in the ass we explained in our brief that this is speculative and i did look to see in the reply brief did they say oh no i do have you know i'm now employed there is income you know sufficient that i don't i'll be relying on council to where it needs and we don't have any first hand knowledge i guess we would expect that council would have supplied additional information if in fact they thought it was certain that they would not qualify for any of these exemptions it would be difficult to do because the hardship exemption is the subject of proposed rules that are not yet finalized so i think there's some inherent in certainty in bringing a lawsuit here you know years and years before the provision took a fact and that contemplated implementation for romy can i ask you before you get from there on i just had some fact questions i don't know the answer to and one of them is it possible for an employer to be subject to the employer mandate and the forty nine eighty tax at the same time when your honor says employer mandate which it which u is one consequence if a group health plan doesn't comply with various requirements of public health service act in a recess so i mean just for example can't discriminate on the basis of medical condition in in rolling right ok i think all sorts of things this is not something new and there are different consequences that one actually can begin forced by the department of labor it can be enforced by h h s against insurers and there  in addition to the penalties under the statute under the bigger act yes it is the it really is a completely distinct from the potential tax liability under forty nine eighty eight and that's just tax liability there is no separate department of labor enforcement or there's that this is just a standalone affordable care act tax liability that an employer is potentially subject to if the employer either doesn't provide any health coverage to its all time employees in which case or under subparagraph a or if the coverage it offers doesn't meet the affordability criteria and those are the subject of separate statutory provisions and rules well in the classroom if you follow up question if liberty provides affordable health care to its full time employees but does not provide the level of coverage required by the act what's what are the consequences say the a forty nine eighty eight if it provides full time coverage to it if provides you know coverage to its full time employees and their dependents as a practical matter there and it's affordable so it's a monetary thing there should be no tax liability both because it's never been pled or addressed by any court or you know brought to the supreme court's attention or anything like that but also because they don't they're they're protected by the safe harbor right now so there is no forty nine eighty believe the safe harbor that is what it's doing it's insuring that the protected entities are in accruing tax liability aren't subject to department of labor enforcement etc so so that's a totally independent reason that even if it had been pled like in some of the other cases that it would not be just last your sister does an individual obligated by the individual mandate to purchase insurance have the option of not being caught having an insurance be covered cover with the benefit of two plus years the deliberate deliberate never have standing in this case with the benefit i have to that we did not focus on the challenge the employer provision because i think as we've the ira but what is your other argument that liberty never had standing whenever it's dangerous to challenge anything in the affordable care act well the only provision they challenged was forty nine eighty eight which is this one that we're discussing and i should make clear that liberty is the only as far as i know the only plaintiff in the country that is even contending that congress doesn't have the article one hour to impose tax liability on an a large employer that fails to offer health coverage to its employees i mean it's been established for about seventy five years that the commerce power permits congress to regulate the terms of employment that shack rue but the supreme court's case supreme court's opinion in the companion case to address this and because you know like lit it in so been popping up saying n f i b changed everything no one has succeeded in any other context and they certainly didn't call into question race that we know that congress can reach  consumption of homegrown marijuana the idea of congress it's going back to hipaa has regulated the terms of employer group health plans so you can't leave people out because of their medical condition or medical history you can't charge them different premiums this is all these are employer regulation of the compensation of employees and no court has called that into question that the whole i mean i do know from the litigation in n f i b that the entire argument on the other side was i'm an individual doing nothing not i'm an employer and you know i'm conner's i remember that argued by a horse and a and independently the taxing power congress has long its tax code power to encourage employers to provide health insurance to its employees and it's done so again here by establishing tax liability for large employers that don't do so enter requirement and a tax that was you know the employer had one child for one day it owed ten percent of its net income for the year that's not unlike of course there are significant arguments made in the brief with the other side about how onerous this taxes provision and we've walked through to show that their calculations are off by orders of magnitude but i don't want to go back to the point i open with which is this really only underscores why  court shouldn't in advance be addressing a challenge based on hypotheticals about how a tax might be calculated particular the government is saying no you're wrong it's not thirty four million it's three thousand and then here it's saying that that issue is not whereas under the employ under forty nine eighty eight it's labeled a tax that's the end of the matter so and you know that's not saying the supreme court explicitly addressed that but the supreme court in saying five thousand a isn't subject to the injunction act it was adopting argument when it said because congress called it a penalty rather than a tax so the anti injunction act separately forty nine eighty eight the challenge is premature because we don't know whether liberty will owe any taxes under forty nine eight so those are separate points and then and the reason we don't know is because because of the complaint because forty nine because a the way they seem to satisfy because they offer health coverage the full time employees and their dependents and b all they say is if our coverage is on affordable but that's also that's in their control because the proposed regulations have various safe harbors they can look at the w to use of their employees they can make sure that it's affordable and again this none of this is taking  about the individual employees who are still in the air or the individual people who are still in the case but those separately so and you're correct that they are not employees of liberty they're right and they are separate right for them hardship exemption or big there are different terms for it if there are required premium contributions would be more than eight percent of household income they're exempt from everything don't have to make the shared responsibility payment if their income is below the filing or if they separately apply and get a hardship exemption don't they allege that they will be subject to this knowledge to the contrary they both are to you know the only two paragraphs but they both allege that it would be a financial hardship and one says she's unemployed right i don't know that anything so it's just again going off of the complaint and the fact that in response to our brief they didn't come back and say anything like know my circumstances have changed i now have a job or just you know anything we have no it's their burden to establish standing to challenge this this provision ok you have another point or two you were trying to make the argument time equal and your colleague has a rebuttal for the she getting up all the time he had i believe the only point i have not yet address is that individuals also challenge the religious exemptions but i just want in five thousand ad because there are certain categories and point out that the supreme court in united states versus lee rejected a comparable challenge it's actually to the internal revenue code exemption that's cross referenced in the portable care act five thousand exemption and also all of the courts of appeals to address the issue have said no that doesn't violate the establishment clause and it's not a basis for extending it if i may i want to address liberty first in rebuttal and then also the individual plaintiffs liberty as it relates to liberty will have to either pay a penalty or provide insurance and under that insurance are supervisions there's the essential coverage which includes the preventative care which is the abortifacients and then there's affordability if you don't have the affordability it's a three thousand dollars per employee per violation but if you don't have the essential coverage whether it's preventative or anything else just providing insurance generically doesn't give you a pass under this act if it doesn't meet the essential coverage which includes the preventative care the abortifacients and liberty has to pay two thousand dollars per employee per year so you're going back to the that you gave us in your original brief the government countered it with other math and i read your reply brief is saying no our government might be right about the math but we still are suffering only on the only on the affordability the government countered the a well but the other one your honor is the essential coverage that's a four thirteen to fourteen million dollars fine and that has not been rebutted by the department of the administration nor can they because that is a plan that penalty happens if liberty does not provide might we don't know how you know the six layer myka not say that just by providing coverage you're not going to be under the act and you're fine there's no penalties the act specifically requires that it has to include essential coverage essential coverage under thirty no two requires preventative care which will be done you know yet exactly what that means well we do because regulations are still out there right but the regulations are to become final august one regulations change well but they can't keep a vital you know having  standing by constantly changing the regulations rick liberty university is a large employer it has to provide a significant effort which we're doing now to be able to prepare for this we can't just simply wait august one and say are they going to come up with some new regulation we know what the regulation closing the hammer is about ready to fall on liberty and we have very little window right now because we're closer to the actual implementation into the penalties that liberty will ultimately incur look i for one don't fault you at all for bringing to the supreme court's attention that frankly the good justices have overlooked aspects of this case and summarily denying sir so i don't fault you would offer that but but this case is very different from the case you filed a couple of years ago and it's very different from the challenge you're likely to melt after august first of september first or november first whenever those rates come down and i'm not sure we should jump into the well just two responses on that liberty's challenge is the same regarding the employer mandate as relates to the preventive care the abortifacient i think it's still going to be the same as it relates however to the individuals it's still the same and the administration says that the but we don't have a district court making a finding of fact if you like this that's not our job this is actually part of the act in terms of what's required is preventative coverage and the mandate says and there's no option out a care definition was up for grabs that's not true that's not true no the preventative care is part of this the h h s mandate said through the i o m and now came out and said relative care includes this contraception the board of you know these and also under a five thousand which is the individual mandate and then the h h s mandate came out clearly and said that preventative care includes enlisted but thirteen o two deals with exchanges  well i'm sorry civil the the five thousand speaks of what's in supposed to be in the plans and it's part of this preventative care which if you use the term preventative care the h h s mandate says all plans have to include these a ifacients contraception sterilization these morning after pills and are you days off plans and the only issue is the first time and if you're right it's the first time i've had somebody from the federal government misrepresent something to me in open court in response to a direct question i'm not impugning anything regarding the you may not be but i'm i would certainly be and i'm so happy about that that this all plans will cover everyone so when the individuals choose to get insurance and by the way michel what dell is a law school graduate now and is employed but when they asked which of this market is logically graduate then amazing isn't it but  s when they choose to go into the insurance market for health coverage they have no choice all plans will have the abortifacient the only issue that's in these h h s mandates is this which employers will not have to pay directly for it if you're insured by an insurance company then the mandate or the regulations say in the insurance company you have to pay for in the employer doesn't have to directly pay i've got your basis for saying this and i want to hear what the abortifacients by which they mean i used the plan b and ella grandfathered plans are not required to abide by the preventive health services coverage requirement i'm just not only asking really simple question in grandfathered plans in which case their plans do not have to cover contraceptives what they're calling abortifacients separately if we're using the term abortion the way it was used in the complaint and in federal law that's not what i was i'm asking about abortifacients are individuals mandated to buy a policy that covers their coverage if they're in a grandfather plan it doesn't have to provide it and separately if they don't if they're imagine they don't have access otherwise to a plan that's to their choosing they don't have to buy coverage at all they can take the shared responsibility so some individuals existence of these grandfathered plans is looming as very significant in the emphasis on how millions and millions of women are in grandfather plans so i don't include abortifacients as what cording to you they are not required to include what what they're calling a board of patients the plan or not that's like that's a little different than is the employer is the employee who were acquired by applying the does have abortifacients in it that i'll just go back to the basic point no one is required to buy as they can pay they alternate theory as your position correct ok we will come down and greet the lawyers and then i think we'll take a brief recess