mr. verrilli: yes. we think that would trigger scrutiny. the difference is in that situation they are on their premises. trying to getion, back what i was discussing with you mr. chief justice, etna is a different petitioner. blue cross is a different innate best entity. etnake arrangements with and blue cross and other insurance companies to provide contraceptive coverage to other third parties and employees. >> you admit in your brief that at least in the case of the self-insured plan the notice, the form or the notice becomes part of the plan. this is their health insurance plan established under orissa and you are putting a new objectionable element into the plan isn't that correct? mr. verrilli: i don't think that's quite right. i think her has been some confusion about that on the petitioners side. there are two separate notices. the first is the notice that the employer provides to the government -- that is an orissa plan document. the legal effect is to exempt the employer for many obligation to provide contraceptive coverage. there

mr. verrilli: grandfathered plans offer no contraception coverage. --tice alito: mr. verrilli: this is a transitional device. a number of people in grandfathered plans has dropped by 50%. there is no reason to think it will continue to drop, and if it does continue to drop, we will see zero very soon. in the long run, we are all dead. [laughter] but what happens in the interim? a congress not require contraception coverage right away under the grandfathered plans? they required coverage right away under grandfathered plans for 25-year-old son, so they could get coverage under their parents health insurance plan. greatwould've been no administrative difficulty for the grandfathered plans to put in contraception coverage, preventative care coverage right away, right is a good for the 25-year-old. the reallyid for important things, like a 25-year-old graduate students, yes, you have to do that right away. before these other things, you can continue not to provide that coverage for women as long as you maintain your grandfathered status. >> when they pass the americans wit

general verrilli: may i answer, mr. chief justice? justice roberts: sure. general verrilli: what i would say about that, justice sotomayor, is that in this context, the subsidy goes to the process of contract formation and contract administration within that collective bargaining context that i described earlier, that of necessity, a different first amendment standard has to apply to. thank you. justice roberts: thank you, general. three minutes, mr. carvin. mr. carvin: thank you. as to the absence of a factual record here, it's important to point out that we gave them an amended answer where they could make any allegation they wanted. and at page four of their so-called opposition, it said, to quote, "the unions do not oppose the entry of a judgment on the pleadings." why is that? because they certainly it's their burden to argue, for example, that agency fees will lead to the demise of the union. but they didn't make any such allegation in their answer. they didn't make any such allegation in response to justice ginsburg's question, and they've got all the

general verrilli? >> mr. chief justice and may it please the court, the effects of the texas law in this case are much more extreme than those of any abortion law this court has considered since casey. it closes most abortion facilities in the state and exponentially increases the obstacles of women seeking abortions in the state on the basises of a medical justification that cannot withstand any meaningful scrutiny that the american medical association has told you is groundless and that the district court found will actually operate in practice to increase health risks to women -- >> is this true of every provision of the asc law? >> no, i don't think it is true about every provision in the regulations, justice alito. >> not the regulations -- yes, the regulations. every single provision. then why was the whole thing held to be unconstitutional? >> so i agree with the premise of your honor's question. there are some parts of the regulation that i think, operating alone, wouldn't have the substantial effect.

general verrilli: mr. chief justice, and may it please the court: the effects of the texas law at issue in this case are much more extreme than those of any abortion law that this court has considered since casey. this law closes most abortion facilities in the state, puts extreme stress on the few facilities that remain open, and exponentially increases the obstacles confronting women who seek abortions in the state. and it does all of that on the basis of a medical justification that cannot withstand any meaningful scrutiny that the american medical association has told you is groundless, and that the district court found will actually operate in practice to increase health risks to women and not decrease. justice alito: is this true of every provision of the of the asc law? general verrilli: no, i i don't think it is true about every provision in the regulations, justice alito. justice alito: not the justice alito: not the regulations -- yes, in the regulations. general verrilli: yes. justice alito: eve

general verrilli: and i think, mr. chief justice, that is because, you know, it is one thing to say that you're going to impose a requirement that does work as much as to be the kind of obstacle that this requirement that these requirements do, when you have justification that's frankly flimsy and the american medical association has told you was groundless. but if if the government were able to come in if it were us or if it were state were able to come in and say, well, actually, this requirement is going to make a difference in saving hundreds of lives, that might be a burden that you would think would be acceptable, given the medical benefit. that's why we think the the test that makes sense, the best understanding of undue burden, the understanding of undue burden that works best for the government is the one we're suggesting. but i think whichever way you look at that, whether you look at it our way or whether you look at it as two separate inquiries, this law, hb, can't -- hb 2, can't pass it, for the reasons i