so in essence as i understand it said there is a rational basis it's deeply rooted in our nation's history there are religious bodies houses of worship that's what the first amendment protection for free exercise was designed to protect not people who have a generalized moral feeling one way or another hand in fact if you ignore that distinction you open up a pandora's box where everybody can come in and say i feel strongly and then exceptions swallow the rule that's how i'd probably not done justice to the more articulate framing which they gave to it but that's what i think their argument to be you need to grapple how and how there is a slippery slope if we say oh it's really just not about religion it's about moral beliefs and philosophy and one attribute as judge leon would have that that goes beyond what we're talking protection challenge would create an absolutely going title to be treated like a church and then they go through and say you know they list a bunch of well known non profits and and say been going to ask them this on their compelling interest assertion is when you when you get into that part of it is that we we want a universal system of insurance and the more exemptions you get the more difficult it is to mr that in fact it becomes practically impossible i think that could be their argument for why you know if there is something that's going to be affected at interest they're posing to us what different i mean this looks hope i'm concerned about is that if the individuals are are you know so the individuals have real alternatives as an employer's poe's the employer or to the individuals  making the claims themselves right having seen that the individuals here are successful individuals at you know every fortune five hundred company say we also employees assertion would fail i take it i'm a little surprised that because we get to claim some from this we've got real of jurors and we get the individual employees we're not meaning to give away the individual better or different than somebody that works for g e or for you know smith kline beecham her for some other giant multinational of five cattle which is to leave and it's truly health why does the fact that i choose to work for a nonprofit make  the distinction you want to draw is if your employer requires you to have a particular moral or religious belief that  because you're making an argument now which is not in your briefs and which frankly is pretty surprising to me there are there are two different claims being made here sign or stand one of them is the protection claim with a a arguments added on to it with respect to all turners the second is claims made under referee by your individual clients now isn't really the is the position you're taking on assume and it may be that you're saying things that are meant to be that you're bleeding over from one into the other and that's what's confusing me  a contraception complement to it i have a sincerely held belief that that that is involves for efficiency taking of human life i can't be a party to or participate in that pool i don't want to like the kind of coverage i'm going to go out on the individual market and look for insurance on my own and i want to plan that doesn't have it the government's regulations are preventing that kind of plan from being offered that it is a violation of my rights under refer that government action are you are you is your position that that argument is less credible coming from that employee because they work for g e than it is coming from an employee of real alternatives individual market that's their lawsuit are you saying their claim is less worthy of creating history or that it has less persuasive force than the if same argument that because i understand that's you meaning you subscribe to a plan that makes an option for certain people who want to avail themselves of certain services and i mean it could be you know doctor assisted suicide it could be any one of a number of talk about standing and i was confused because it seemed that he made a finding that there was no standing and that i wanted i didn't see anything in the briefing room and i wondered whether a comment on heat he says that the individual plaintiffs offer no evidence that they've been able to obtain acceptable coverage and he specifically found that the defendant's argument that the plaintiffs refer claim would not be even in the instance that this court were to issue a favorable ruling to be significantly more persuasive than it was in the first instance which might be confusing but then on the next page he says even if the point is had conclusively established tending to challenge the requirement that contraceptive services be included in their health care we are not convinced and then he goes on to speak about why there's the substantial burden  great thanks let's let's stick with the individual employees for a moment ok well it was kind of remarkable to me that on your it's articulated here under very similar facts so you know one of should just take a moment and tell us why they're wrong why is the march a life were wrong when it says that the substantial burden here because people are put to hobson's choice there have to participate in a pool play and the pilots are sincerely held religious beliefs where they have to go without insurance and that's a substantial burden why is it wrong when you say all it does is that that certainly minimizes their assertion and that's in fact with the march of life he says is that what you really done is you're taking a shot at their religious belief which is it's a silly religious belief for you to be worried about having to participate and pay money into a system that involves the provision of those prices well then hobby lobby i think it's footnote thirty seven just then that just take the wind right out of the sales hobby lobby says there's nothing in return for a good talks about direct versus indirect that the pressure i think that to be burns on religious exercises only says birds can for benefit on other individuals in other words i think that the mean directly in response to the exchanges rondo had with mr bowman and the argument you're making right now that there's nothing in the text to refer that says those table when you come to reproach he seems to be saying you can make the burden indirect by saying oh we're really not affecting you we're just given something to third parties who want what's that got to do with you and he sees something just as we are forced to pay in to give our dollars to a pool of money that's going to pay for something we find morally one and has a you know you could do it the government could could figure out how to how to do this giving you know certain of these moral concerns you know this is the least restrictive means there are other ways what he said to th said get out of regulating the insurance market enough to let an insurance company who wants to if it wants to go after this i doesn't hurt the government doesn't anybody it leaves it to market forces and if there's an insurance company that thin beliefs and they want this insurance coverage you can offer it that's it that's it what is what is the administrative burden on the u s government you know workable insurance systems that exist that results from that i mean mean you seem to be saying we've got this interest and it won't be a workable system but the market will tell you whether it's workable or not because either they'll decide it's workable and they'll offer a plan or they'll decide it's not workable and they won't offer a plan so how is the government's interest harm so the response to just leon is we the government just know that this is a problem and we don't have to let it go to the market because we know it's unworkable that's the bottom line  in this category hundreds of employees that many companies also you know what we're willing to take whatever the consequence of that changing market would be we're willing to  take less coverage we're willing to take poor quality all of the things that we think would be the parade of horribles in the in the marketplace there was an gotten to where it seemed like you were before where the government was in multiples of these cases across the country until it decided to frame it as as universally insurance that is the religious of government in those other cases it said hey maybe there is a less restrictive way to do this let us talk about it those talks can you can you shed any light on that it's still going on were said stan that if you can't because they're sens fighting about these important issues so you know the argument you just give us the response when he says link tells you that there's a difference between incidental and direct burdens that's something you need to pay attention to the voice wrong isn't leading the government  your that's that's framed exclusively because well let me ask you you need to repeat yourself but why do you think that's not in your client's interest as opposed to bearing the