penalties there are other ethical individuals in the united states who have who are able to keep their plan b they have a plan that is not compliant with the affordable care act but yet they are still being subject to penalties and insurance right because the the penalties that he is being assessed for not having an affordable care act plan one that is complying with the plan don't come from an insurance company nor do they come from a state optional for insurance companies and the insurance company said we're not doing that and yet that person is not in his eyes and that's how i would understand equal protection challenge in this context he found somebody who's has no insurance because their insurance company said we're not going to that arkansas when you look at what the commissioner of insurance of pennsylvania said essentially this transitional balls you pay some cost to show the government federal government is the one who's responsible for us in this thing we're just going to get out of the way in art and so on and certainly as necessary to flush out this equal protection claim but that's the argument you read below in the summary judgment was that based on this transitional policy to be attached to a copy of the march eleventh description of the policy that now the jazz adopted a policy whereby health insurance issue workers could continue coverage that they otherwise would have cancelled because it would have been in violation of circuit hard market reforms under the affordable just said that it would not enforce those market reforms against the health insurance issuers and encourage states to adopt the same policy pennsylvania adopted that policy so that meant that insurers in pennsylvania that had it would have had to cancel their coverage could instead decide to continue that coverage but plain as health insurance issuer decided not to continue that coverage so the injury that he's claiming which is that he  the health insurance issue or his decision not to allow him to can continue that coverage it's not attributable to the transitional policy which pennsylvania adopted by your argument on standing is to decide a transitional brief in this case we think it's very clear that as a matter of federal law the remedy or invalidating the religious conscience exemption would not be to also invalidate the individual coverage provision and congress specifically said that the individual coverage provision is essential to the reforms of the affordable care act and the supreme court recognized and i v that the purpose of the affordable care act was to increase the number of americans covered by health insurance and decrease  other response i don't have there your honor it is just that to emphasize how different this case is from the other cases in which courts have considered the social security tax exemption that is it was incorporated in a religious conscience exemption in those cases the plaintiff was a member of a religious group or a person who had a conscientious objection to the tax and so was essentially arguing that the exemption was too limited and should be extended to include their group but here that's not the situation that we have the plaintiff has no religious objection to insurance indeed he used to have health insurance and he's not even have a conscientious non religious objection to health insurance for the same reason and so we think this case is quite different than the other cases in which courts have reached the merits of this sort of exemption unconstitutional but in describing the statute in this footnote i just want to know what to do with the foot no because it says the distinction between different religious organizations and well established churches and churches which  claim doesn't i think you guys your honor because if any of the other restriction is even just the fact that he must be a member of a religious group that has a conscientious objection to it if that were all dead he still could not claim the religious by incorporating the provision of the social security act which has a cut off date is he doesn't say it this way but i'm just looking at the way the no it's not talking about the nominations as such it's just talking about well established versus new that's correct and the legislative history in l'arche end of arson sorry showed that the state legislature had passed the fifty one percent requirement in order to write and i understand that but what i'm trying to understand is is is in larson is the court saying we conclude the statute the court reads the statute in light of legislative history which it says makes clear that the legislature implemented the fifty five percent even if the statute has the effect of distinguishing between  the supreme court has given of what was the problem well i think you are a leader in the in the larsen opinion in the supreme court makes clear that the that the reason let's see we really ought not to worry too much about this footnote since the rest of the opinion is clearly talking about denominational distinctions well i don't think it's just a dominations but the point was that they page two fifty four of the union where the word is talking about the fact that the legislature adopted the fifty one percent role in order to have certain religions be tax exempt and not have to follow these reporting requirements liberated it was on purpose to allow the catholic church to be included but to not allow other more you know churches that it solicited from nonmembers to be included and so the supreme court looking at that legislative history determined that the no we have a problem i don't think we have a problem here because as the courts of appeals have explained the reason for this specific requirements in section fourteen o two g are to ensure that people who claim the exemption from social security and medicare that those people are members of groups a religious organization is that will care for their their members when they become dependent so it doesn't cause any change in what standard the court applies whether  for at least fifteen years but you know again just to get back to this case the plaintiff does not have a religious objection to health insurance he is not someone who would have standing  challenge this particular requirement because if any of the requirements are valid he still cannot claim their religious conscience exemption because he doesn't meet the fundamental requirement of having a religious or religious objection to religions without violating the establishment clause and even the plaintiff had speech twenty five of his brief recognizes that religious accommodations are permissible he then goes on to say that this one is not permissible because to be claiming and the legal argument he makes which is that there that the exemption distinguishes between religious denominations where he's not a member of one that's excluded in contrast to the other cases addressing fourteen zero two g where the person was a member of a paying social security taxes the two types of systems are of themselves different and you made the point about the penalty i mean there is they've got they think he's going to have a penalty for not having an affordable care act compliant plan whereas people with religious believes can be exempt from that one of the main things in these cases for the holding the you know two g under the establishment clause is the claim that the person who if you're going to grant that exemption you have to win you all benefits or so security and so the court has said that shows that it doesn't have the do think the two systems a different night and i do want to get to judge righteous point because i think it's very important the only case that i would like to call that that addressed the fourteen over g issue after larson was the dros case and they gave short shrift just in the form of that you pointed out is exactly right the court said this isn't simply a facially neutral statute it makes explicit in to liberate distinctions between different religious organizations and how to do that based on how they do their charitable donations if it's if indeed percent come from members