treason they told george that government derives its authority from the people not guy but people often don't consider is that they also committed heresy for which they could have been drawn quartered because they talk a george that government derives its authority from the people and not god and intrinsic a bedrock principle of our culture of our government is the concept of liberty which the court and the case in case described as the right to define once own concept of existence of need of the universe and of the mystery of life metaphorically it is our zone of conscience in our hearts and in our minds where we choose who's our god what is our god what does it mean to be a human be that liberty interest protects the rights of mennonites in the hobby lobby case to decide for themselves that human life begins at conception without interference from the that the undue burden claim and perhaps the hybrid rights claim are both before us but i don't see either of those things pleaded in the complaint in any way and so i just want to know what's before us and make your best case if those two claims are actually before  rights analysis as is the right of privacy which is a due process right now i don't even see any of that in the complaint and i'll a direct your attention to paragraph twenty two of the complaint where you say this is an action for declaratory relief the defendants are acting under color state law but then you're very specific about what's going on there under the a stablish meant and free exercise cl obtaining an abortion and then you go on and say this is about the religious believes as the adherence of the tenets to say tanach temples so i don't see i don't see the words i do burden i don't see the words casey and all of the individual allegations in addition to that are all existence is usually from grizel from the concept of privacy right to privacy is that the heart of our ability to decide for ourselves procreation it's at the it changes a lot it's very context specific i mean that's what the american legion case it's very good it's context specific and so our starting point here in this case is the body of law that is  which is turned on the body of law that developed the fundamental rights of decision on procreation now the supreme court has never recognize your hybrid right in conjunction with a new burden or even due process right it's myth they list freedom of speech freedom of press right of parents to education i'm sorry i say in the smithy case you know a nine hundred and ninety case they list freedom of speech and that is played that is played the toing are two cases you say they recognized hybrid right see here here about the statement that is made in the butler and we do allege that the creation of that booklet derives from basically the body of law that is being enforced by the defendants which would include the pre  we do have something more here we have a specific targeted action against a specific targeted individual on a specific religious belief you also have to look at mcrae in light of the american legion case you know the court seems to be moving in a directions frequencies we're moving in a direction of of knowledge of that religious statements are part of the fabric of our society got to say this honorable court ok and that those statements have legitimacy a if they do not sectarian division and b if they have a long history of acceptance if they are the kind of statements that us together as that was a facial challenge and there was no proof or evidence that the language that was used in the south dakota statute actually influenced or affected any pregnant woman seeking an abortion your case it must be delivered by the physician yes the book and there's no limits on what the physician can say in delivering it right the supreme court's clear statement that the states are free to promote childbirth over abortion they can take sides now if the supreme court did not specifically not addressed the specific point that was made in webster one that the language it would depend on the circumstance of the of the woman seeking the abortion if there are i'm sure women who come before into the abortion clinic who have not made up their minds and that they are looking to the doctors they're looking to the professionals for guidance i'm sure that's the case so doesn't this is this isn't that case she walks through the door she has already made up her mind she knows what she wants to do but here's the problem i'm having with that if if we don't take mccrae's advice seriously what is a state to do a state i think under your view just simply can't take a position without risking litigation state to do what they do in my home state of new jersey they could just give a woman abortion without lecturing her about whether she's a good person or a bad person committing murder or not committing murder they can look at it as what it is correctly it medical procedure you don't give you don't get involved in the in the morality  removing an appendix but the problem the problem i have with that is is casey in some of these other cases have said that it's permissible st state to take a position and so i don't know how to reconcile what you're telling me with what the court because because casey permits truthful and honest leading information so for example we don't have any objection to the being told that the father might be required to provide child support for this for the child  problem that that's true phone information it's not misleading but what the tenet does cross the line and promote a subjective belief so going back to your question to the extent that the state tries to interject its its subject of religious belief into the decision making process and then intrudes upon the zone of conscience and thereby causing undue burden and is a violation obvious religious connotations under mccrae in mcgowan statute like this one informed consent law to ensure that a patient is voluntarily undergoing a medical procedure without coercion is not establishment of religion at all any more than a law against larceny organs homicide or the clean water act those laws also may be in accord with religious beliefs of some religious groups analysis there because we don't have a a law or an activity with obvious religious connotations like we did in that case you don't even need to reach lemon or whether lemon applies  is either gone or or nearly entirely governed i think here we are if they then us looks exactly the same under american humanist i think that the question is you have something that you have a the claim there fail to meet this initial stop there was when you look at the history when you look at that kind of mighty mention a specific historical or why the monuments behind the particular vitamin across in that case there was no establish coercive medical decisions this is true in the abortion context just as it would be true for a kidney transplant or any other medical procedure medical procedures should be voluntary they should be informed they should not be coerced and informed consent loesser the same purpose in this context serves in any of those contexts as well and nd of all as an case you recognize the states that generate compelling interest in preserving and promoting fetal life that statement use its regulatory  are two paragraphs here that i think are relevant paragraph three and paragraph thirty eight the complaint alleges that dough is a member of the satanic temple that's paragraph three and that she agrees with some of the tenets of that organization that's paragraph thirty eight beliefs are not religious beliefs and do not make out free exercise claim i think that's what we have here we have a political advocacy group asserting that it's a political advocacy group in the complaint and that's all we have that doesn't add  sincerity of that fact and i can question the truthfulness of that fact and that's why this is the appropriate stage to address this question because it is not a religious group not asserting religious beliefs is asserting political preferences personal here in addition to the question of whether there is a sincerely held religious we've put in the complaint i think that there is a serious question of whether when you look at those specific police listed in paragraph thirty eight whether there is in fact a burden on those make sure that there is a voluntary decision in a statement saying that there is a voluntary decision doesn't violate a belief in making voluntary decisions as to scientific decision making missouri's informed consent law requires clinics to provide scientifically valid information that's what this court side in iraq was looking at very a very similar list of scientific facts these are scientific facts that's why it was a conduct claimed in ultrasound all that is required is that she signed a knowledge meant that the booklet was provided the opportunity was provided a voluntary opportunity to do something  this complaint don't hear what i'm not saying i'm not saying that signing something could never be a burden on our religious belief saying that the religious beliefs alleged in paragraph thirty eight are not burdened by th issue in this case fact in this they can legislate that jesus christ rose from the dead it is a philosophical proposition they argue that it is a secular purpose you know that the legislature means what it says when it a there's a extensive argument here about the state promoting the interests of the unborn but that doesn't appear anywhere in the statute the interest of the statute as frank promotes are the religious under for that belief the going back to the cray and harris i want to stress that neither of those cases involve trying to change the hearts and minds of people just giving somebody a day of rest will harrison the greatest talking about funding which changes hearts and minds when you've got the money to do something so his silly things like a fine line it is a fine line that in this line in this case the line  were can you address that well that's the charge holdings of the acknowledgement didn't acknowledge approval or anything else it was tacit understanding it was saying to that it's like if the if the motor vehicle department said you have to acknowledge recei belief is she should not comply with a law that promotes the interests of her part of her body the appendix she should not have to comply with a law that denigrates her