and this lotus question but it's our it's our starting point thinking it is a good one and mr wagner to the extent that you think that there may be some kind of dispute on the in the panel i agree with judge logan it does appear that issue is moot and i'd sure rather have  case and we don't think that the genetic discrimination band receives any heightened constitutional scrutiny because neither this court nor the supreme court is over interpreted wrote and casey to create c in this case this record expressively of knowledge that plato said put or no evidence whatsoever of the fraction of women that would face a substantial obstacle as a result of the genetic discrimination but this is them from her arm abortions on the basis of them not being board certified or eligible obedience so again the overarching point here is that when her the plaintiffs in this case have sufficient board certified or eligible  briefing it in that case the court order that the district court dismissed stop the port relevant portion of the appeal and green handed to the district court's instructions to pay came that that part of the preliminary injunction so i think you could of the details yes and we have no problem with an instruction to bake cakes the part of the factual findings that are relevant specifically to the o b g y n requirement if this st eighteen week ban it prohibits abortions at a point in pregnancy that all agree its before viability and edwards and keeping an attachment this court recognized that prohibitions on abortion before viability are per se unconstitutional care case he made clear that the decision whether to terminate a pregnancy before viability is a highly personal one that must be left to the woman alone before viability and that court said the state's interests are simply not strong enough to support a prohibition on abortion because the recent ban is inconsistent with that one standing rule this district court properly enjoined and it seems like to have your honors are in agreement with us that the court should reject the state's request for an advisory opinion on the o b g y n requirements but just to underscore the point we have recently been able to come into compliance with that law and accordingly agree that the law may go into effect now so there is no controversy over that part of the aisle and this court to dis well i certainly agree with your honor that it would be very difficult to make it for the state to show and we think the state has not shown that there is an abuse of discretion but i do want to push back on your view about the inextricably intertwined test and whether it is satisfied because differently than a different judge you know the state has not provided any evidence of judicial bias which is the only reason why this court has historically granted reassignment irene and so we don't think that would be appropriate either and the only other arguments that the state has made as to why denial of reconsideration of the consolidation order is appropriate here is that the collateral order doctrine applies which we also argue is provision that bars abortions based on the down syndrome diagnosis that that applies to both that applies to and you know we it that is clearly correct under casey given it's at the cess on the fact that no state interest no matter how valid can support production and the right to obtain an abortion p availability like you know and it's it's not to say that the state is powerless to advance its interests there are many other things that it may do you know including again because we have not challenge that us as applied to post viability abortions but it's simply and not take away a woman's ability to choose the procedure prior to my ability to get your clients that we only challenge pre buy i believe in the very beginning of this lawsuit your honor and you know our clients only provide care up to twenty one weeks and six days which is also a pre buy ability point in pregnancy so ability and i just want to i know that you who are your honors you seem to be in agreement that the o b g y n requirement is needed but i do want to stress you know the state only gives two reasons why it is not it and they're both incorrect as the state has argued that we might seek relief again and it would be helpful for the district court to have this use on the law in that in that case that happens but that just shows that this is an advisory opinion which this court you know is not empowered to get that advisor are always awful but that doesn't mean that they're permissible and you know if we do seek relief in the future which we simply don't know if we well then the propriety of that relief will depend on the facts that apply at that time and the state is also argued that this court should review agree operates to prohibit abortions prior to viability and so it is flatly unconstitutional under casey it and edwards and k p management the reason and also operated at a place by ability of questions and no state interest is strong enough to support