With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". caused Nova to stop offering abortions to minors without parental involvement. Therefore, it is at best merely speculative whether these defendants caused Nova’s decision to require parental consent, with a concomitant prospective loss of patients that flowed from that decision. The plaintiffs burden of demonstrating causation is not satisfied when “[speculative inferences are necessary to connect [its] injury to the challenged actions.” See Simon v. E. Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 45-46, 96 S.Ct. 1917, 48 L.Ed.2d 450 (1976). In other words, Nova has “confus[ed] the statute’s immediate coercive effect on the plaintiff! ] with any coercive effect that might be applied by the defendants.” See Okpalobi v. Foster, 244 F.3d 405, 426 (5th Cir.2001) (en banc) (emphasis in original) (<HOLDING>). Nothing in the record distinguishes these

A: holding that a states governor and attorney general were not proper defendants when they had no power to enforce the challenged statute
B: holding that legislation governing classification of employees in the governors office did not confer certain authority on the governor and lacking this power the governor could not change the legislative will through a set of regulations
C: holding that amendment to the challenged statute mooted the claim when the state had expressed no intention to reenact the prior law
D: holding that the governor erred in considering evidence that was not before the board
A.