contraceptives and iuds which they consider a form of abortion. today s ruling jeopardize it is health of women employed by these companies. we believe they shouldn t be allowed to deny employees federally mandated benefit. on the other hand, conservatives celebrated the ruling. house speaker john boehner said today s decision is a viblgtry for religious freedom and another defeat for an administration that s crossed constitutional lines in pursuit of its big government objectives. i m joined by senior counsel for the beckett fund for religious liberty which represented hobby lobby. the headline on this is for the first time ever the court is saying corporations can assert some of the religious protections that previously only
they think this is just the start and there is going to be more rulings like this? this is the story, i guess of the supreme court has been it starts with with a narrow ruling and then comes back and something big is repeelded, rolled back. i would imagine the reason we see it is you can begin to use this ruling to chip away at things on the basis of religious liberty a little bit at a time. i honestly believe we ll see corporations and otherses begin to use this act as pretext to dismantle other things they can say they believe are unconstitutional. let s look at the politics now we have been hearing that the playing field isn t in their favor. democrats have been talking about specifically firing up female voters this fall. we know there is a gender gap.
reimbursed by the federal government. there is relief given, fees and the insurance company is reimbursed by the federal government. are you okay with that as a solution? the government has never offered us that option. they have said from day one, no. but we are talk thing about going forward now with the ruling. in light of this ruling is that something you are okay with? right now, again, we have never been offered this option. it s something that if the government offers, the green family will have to consider whether that s in accordance with their religious beliefs. so the solution spelled out here in the justification of the ruling, you re not sure you are okay with it? the government has never offered us this option. if they choose to offer this option to the family that s something they would consider. so far it s never been on the table. i understanditis not been on the table and the world has changed. now we have this ruling and we have a specific suggestion fr
ruling it is. how there is no slippery slope. it applies to isolated cases. then you listen to the rhetoric, the clips and you think this is the biggest decision in the history of the supreme court. just from the right wing perspective, i m seeing an imbalance between how legal scholars are are talking and how the pundits are are talking about this. what s that about? there actually is a huge difference from a legal perspective. this is where i put on my georgetown law school grad hat. it s a narrowly written decision. it was written for that specific purpose to hopefully hope that people will not go berserk in the application of the law. just because the decision was written narrowly doesn t mean when humans get involved that they won t go nuts in their application of the supreme court ruling. are conservatives happy because
a huge gender gap with single women versus married women. it seems to me we can look at the right celebrating and the left not getting its way. at the same time this is the kind of thing that could fire up the left a little bit. absolutely. when you think you can coming off a great graet victory and there is joy and dancing in the streets, then it s time for a victory lap. not time to get fired up for the election. i see the ruling on the political front being good for the democrats. i agree with michelle that it is narrowly tailored because it says this only applies to contraception. it is only saying this was not the least restrictive way to meet the administration s goals of giving contraception for free