> a new battle ahead for obamacare over the birth-contro"> > a new battle ahead for obamacare over the birth-contro" property="og:description"> > a new battle ahead for obamacare over the birth-contro">
found it to be wildly unconstitutional. >> nice try. you get an "f" because we got you. >> a new battle ahead for obamacare over the birth-control mandate. >> the justice department has asked the supreme court not to allow religiously affiliated groups a temporary exemption. >> why has the full weight of the justice department come down on the little sisters of the poor? >> all the nuns would have to do to get out of the birth-control mandate is to sign a form. >> we're just a few days into the new year and already the war on women is heating up in our nation's highest court as we await a key decision from justice sonia sotomayor. at issue, whether signing a form puts a substantial burden on religious liberty. in this case, a nonprofit religious organization is challenging the affordable care act's contraception mandate. if you followed the debate last year you'll recall religious nonprofits like the little sisters of the poor are already exempt from the requirement to provide health care plans that give access to free birth-control coverage to their employees. all they have to do is fill out a form. but the nuns claim the very act of filling out the opt-out form would mean simply allowing someone else to provide the service, and that would go against their religion. in a surprise move just before she let the times square ball drop on new year's eve, justice sonia sotomayor temporarily blocked the penalty for failing to sign the waiver. friday the obama administration responded with a brief that argued the applicants, quote, failed to satisfy the demanding standard for the extraordinary and rarely granted relief they seek. and now it's up to sotomayor to decide what happens next. joining me now, spencer overton, professor at george washington law school and jodie jacobson, editor in chief at rh reality check. thanks for being here. jodie, i want to talk a little bit about the self-certification. i mean, it is already the case that if you are a religious nonprofit it is a matter of signing a form and you have the exemption. >> yes, absolutely correct, karen. in fact, they need only sign a form to say what they're already saying in public, which is that they disagree with having to directly provide contraception, which, in fact, they don't have to do because they're exempt already. >> what does that mean in practice for the women who might be an employee in terms of their ability to access care? >> in this particular case, the women who would work for the little sisters of the poor or any religiously affiliated organization would not have coverage under their direct employer. they might get that coverage for contraception elsewhere but not have coverage under their employer. >> spencer, two questions. one, i'm wondering if you were surprised by sotomayor's decision, and, two, talk to me about this idea of substantially burdening a person's exercise of relg by signing a piece of paper.igion by signing a piece paper. >> we shouldn't read too much into the decision because she may have been wanted to be fully informed in terms of briefing the matter. in terms of substantial burden, the whole objective of having an exemption is to not burden these religious organizations. so limply filling out a form, if we said that's a burden and someone was a conscientious objector in terms of the military and filling out a form so that they don't have to serve, that could be a burden. and so if a court were to strike this down and say it was a burden, there would be implications in a variety of areas. >> it feels, jodie, what's really happening here is this is more of an attempt to try to get a case that can get to the supreme court and really undo access for these women to any kind of comprehensive care and access to contraception. >> karen, you're absolutely right. i mean, we have to remember that going back to the aca itself and its passage, the bishops were concerned that there be anyone able to access contraception under insurance, never mind who they worked for. they didn't want that provision in there at all. this is an allout effort by the far right in the united states to take away-out effort by the far right in the united states to take away a form of health care women need but also opens the door to their being able to take away many forms of health care and other things with which they dils agree. >> spence, so on that point, what do we expect sotomayor to do? i read also there have been other rulings in the lower courts that seemed like it was creating a patchwork. i know the supreme court generally doesn't like to see that happen. >> right. she could either refer it to the entire court or she could just strike down this injunction in terms of either allowing a fine to be imposed against the little sisters or she could say, hey, we're not going to have a fine, but let's allow things to go forward in the lower courts, which is possible. note, this is very different than the hobby lobby case, which is the for-profit corporation. this is nonprofit where there is an exemption. with hobby lobby, which we'll see a little later on this year, that involves a for-profit company. >> and i want to talk about hobby lobby in a minute, but jodi, i wanted to make this point to you. what strikes me also in this case is the women, the people, the individuals who work in nursing homes, i mean, they are low-paid employees. these are not people who make a lot of money. and they are the people who need the help the most. and time and again with these efforts that we're seeing from the right to try to impede access, it really does fall to damaging and hurting low-income women. >> absolutely. we already know from many studies that one of the biggest obstacles to getting access to things like contraception on a regular basis is cost. and that cost barrier is highest for women who are lower income or poor, who make minimum wage, and so we have this situation where we have an employer denying an individual the ability to gain access to health care coverage for a form of primary preventive care. it's really -- it's really unconscionable, actually. >> okay. now let's talk about hobby lobby because as we're talking about this case, so this case is a nonprofit religious organization. hobby lobby is a for-profit religious organization. explain to us the difference and how the law treats each of these instances differently. >> well, remember, hobby lobby is an arts and crafts store and its owners are christians and they believe that they should not have to provide birth-control coverage here. so what the law does is it does not provide an exemption for for-profit corporations but it does provide an exemption for nonprofits like the little sisters in colorado. >> we were sort of thinking about this, batting around with my team, if last year the supreme court said corporations are people, how does that weigh into potentially the way they could decide the hobby lobby case? because then are you saying people -- if corporations are people, then are these individuals who own this corporation, does that change the calculus in any way? >> right. on one hand, you should say hobby lobby should be an easier case because it's for profit, right? that's the objective, to make money as opposed to practice religion. right? on the other hand, the fact there is no exemption makes that case a little bit different. note that you could even have, though, an objector exemption with for profits, right, but just require that they pay their money for something like health care for veterans or something like that, because you don't want companies basically to just invent religious objections to get out of paying for health care for their employees. >> right. jodi, i want to talk about sort of broader legal strategy here, because again, hobby lobby and little sisters both actually brought forward by the beckett fund for religious liberty. we know this is part of a strategy of a myriad of cases, frankly, around the country with the goal of getting to the supreme court weather the goal of not just undermining the affordable care act but really going after access to birth control for women. >> yes. so you have 80-odd cases out there that are both corporate and nonprofit. they're all joined at the hip with this, you know, very specific strategy aimed at reproductive health care per se, although, again, going back to yours and spencer's discussion, if they were to succeed in this you'd have the ability of corporate actors, corporations to determine what their employees could do in their private lives, and that could be taken far beyond contraception. do you allow hiv prevention medication to be give on the people who might need it? you know, you can decide any number of, quote, unquote, health and lifestyle issues for your employees. it really has dramatic implications well beyond simply whether or not people get birth control. >> spencer, that's part of the issue for me. i think oftentimes we kind of push these issues and say it's really about birth control, that's just woman's issue, but actually there are much broader implications here if you start to say that your employer has this kind of say over different aspects of your life. >> that's absolutely right. i mean, you could envision a scenario where a corporation would say, hey, my religion believes that white folks or straight people are better than others, right, and as a result i can discriminate against people of color or gay folks. >> right. we are going to be watching this case very closely and i think a lot of american women are going to be watching this case closely. thanks to spencer overton and jodi jacobson. >> great to be here. thank you, karen. coming up, it's time to give the president some credit on the economy. first we're off to the races. the 2014 matchups we think you'll want to watch. >> the republicans that are guilty, they've got to go. the guy isn't doing the job, let's put somebody in there that will. it's nothing personal. this was a great car. in its day. but now it's just old. it's got to be retired. this car has to go. is this the bacon and cheese diet? this is the creamy chicken corn chowder. i mean, look at it. so indulgent. did i tell you i am on the... [ both ] chicken pot pie diet! me too! [ male announcer ] so indulgent, you'll never believe they're light. 100-calorie progresso light soups. we've learned how to stretch our party budget. ♪ the only downer? my bargain brand towel made a mess of things. so goodbye so-called bargain brands, hello bounty basic. the affordably priced towel that's an actual bargain. watch how one select-a-size sheet of bounty basic is 50% stronger than a full sheet of the bargain brand. it takes a strong towel to stretch a budget. bounty basic. the strong but affordable picker upper. and try charmin basic. all right. great news, disrupters, the dawn of 2014 means we've entered an election year and ten months from today voters head to the polls for the midterms decide ing who controls congress and the nation's statehouses. these contests have real and lasting impacts that are felt long past election day. just think about local everies to scale back women's rights or to suppress the right to vote. these races matter. and believe it or not, they are already under way and they're competitive with candidates who are now battling over the affordable care act, immigration, and the minimum wage. so we sized up the field to bring you what we think are some of the most fascinating races and faces you will see vying for office this year. here to help me assess the map are malika henderson, national political reporter for "the washington post," and chris cafinas from "the washington post." >> happy new year. >> the cook political report analysis has these nine states with races considered kind of a toss-up or just leaning republican or democrat. i want to begin with a race that was in the headlines this week. ohio governor john kasich up for re-election, a rare gop governor who expanded medicaid in his state. but on tuesday a tea partyer, ted stevenot challenged he will challenge kasich on the right. it seemed up until that point that kasich was on pretty solid footing. so what's your take, nia, on this race? >> you know, i think he's still pretty much on solid footing still. this candidate doesn't look that serious. you have to look at kasich. he's very politically smart. i think the nod probably goes to him. i think across the country you'll see these tea party challenges from the right, but i think in this case, my money is on kasich, and i think if he does win he would look like a strong candidate also for 2016. >> chris, one of the things that strikes me is in these governors race where is we're talking about potentially having a tea party challenger, that's different than a jergerrymander congressional district because they can't go as far to the right. do you agree with that theory? >> yeah. it boxes them in, especially in a state like ohio where this was a state that, you know, three, four cycles ago people would say it was clearly a red state and i would say more so now it's a leaning blue state that, you know, kasich has figured out a way to win it. give than reality, sitting right puts you in a bit of a box. you're out there governing. you can't go out and kind of run a traditional primary campaign so, if there's any kind of groundswell or hidden like opposition amongst the republican, you know, base against kasich, you know, he could find himself a little bit of a challenge. i think he kind of survives it, but it helps kind of rough him up and weaken him for the general. >> next, tom korbut, pennsylvania. 56% say he doesn't deserve re-election. 53% disapproval rating. he is definitely not doing very well. chris, he was one of the place where is we saw some of the worst infrastructures in terms of disenfranchising voters in the last presidential election. >> i think governor corbett is done. >> okay. >> i don't think there's any way literally -- if you look at the polling, he's kind of a trifecta of all bad polling. he's got bad approval numbers, bad head to head numbers against all his potential democratic opponents, and he's got bad kind of favorability numbers. i'm not sure how he overcomes it. he's just not a really good candidate and hasn't been a good governor and it kind of shows. >> a republican legislature there, i mean, has been no real fan or help to him. he recently tried to privatize the lottery there and they had pretty much stood in his way of getting things done. he doesn't have those kinds of issues to run on that chris christie had to run on, this idea of really reforming pensions. so he doesn't have much to run on. he's got a pretty strong challenger there in allison schwartz. >> all right. let's move on to the senate where we have 35 seats up for grabs, 21 of which are democratic held seats. the cook political report analysis shows ten races including mitch mcconnell, facing a tea party challenge on the right and a strong democratic challenge from democrat allison grimes. but we wanted to take a look at three women in particular because just this week three women senators, north carolina's kay hagen, new hampshire's jean shaheen and louisiana's mary landrieu are all being hit with an ad from the americans for prosperity. and nia, so it strikes me, they're going after them on obamacare. we have a little piece of the ad against landrieu, and then we'll talk about it. >> if you like your current insurance, you keep that insurance. period. end of story. >> those individuals who like the coverage they already have will be able to keep their current plan. this is a very accurate description of this bill. >> but now louisianans are finding out that they lied. >> basically you said what the president said. any regrets? >> no, wolf, what sofer. >> tell mary landrieu it's about people, not politics. >> so nia we're going to obviously hear and see that kind of campaign again and again and again over the course of this next year. how are democrats going to be able to -- is that going to work, i guess, is is my question for you. >> well, you know, one of the things that landrieu is doing is very much running against the president against this particular issue and going out there and saying she wants the president to -- the changes she put forward reversed this. she had 90,000 people lose their insurance because of this law and people flooded her offices there really demanding some change and complaining about this. but she's very smart. she has won based on a coalition of suburban voters and black voters. the question here is, is she going to be able to keep that coalition together, because, listen, if she stands up to obama and says, listen, i want obama to reverse course with some of this obamacare stuff, then she risks alienating african-american voters, which is also smart, running a race almost like a governor's race, focusing on local issues like flood insurance and in that way i think she's running a pretty mart race. treacherous waters down in louisiana for kay hagen. >> chris, the thing that strikes me about that. louisiana is also one of the state where is the governor didn't take the medicaid money so, in theory there is a case as a democrat to be made to go on offense to talk about the need to help cover people, because again the argument has been the more the rollout continues the more people who are signed up, the more people using the plan, the more people have positive experiences. it makes it less of a liability for candidates and more of a positive for candidates. >> well, i don't think you have a choice. at this point, you know this, you have to go on the offense and i think you have to go out there and tell your own story. when it comes to obamacare in terms of the positive, in terms of helping people with pre-existing conditions, helping folks who otherwise would not have had health insurance who now have it, i mean, you've got to go out there and tell the positive story. i think landrieu had started doing that on the positive side as well as going on the offense in terms of wanting some changes. i think you'll start seeing this amongst other democratic candidates and i think they're going to mix that with a very strong offensive campaign against their potential opponents because one of the mistakes that republicans make is they look at an issue like the rollout that, you know, has not been good, obviously, they think that's somehow going to be a panacea that will win them races. that becomes just a sliver or an issue, you know, platform. it does not become the way to win these races. and democrats i think have got to be smart enough to understand that and be, you know, willing to go very aggressively against their opponents and undercut them so they don't have the ability to let them make the story you define yourself. >> two more races i want to get to, house races, both kind of fun. nia, i'm going to -- speaking of women candidates, i want to ask you about utah congressional candidate mia love. got the little -- >> nia mia. >> how could i not ask you about her? >> that's right. >> but she lost last time but i think it was 768 votes in 2012. >> mm-hmm. >> she is a darling of the republican party, considered a rising star. what are her chances? >> her chances look good because jim mathison, who beat her by, you know, less than 800 votes last go-around, is not running. so she, it seems to me, has got a clear path to this seat. this would make her the first black woman republican in history ever in the history of ever. and so you imagine that she is on a path to be a real darling for a party that wants to show it's more inclusive, wants to show not only of african-americans but women. i think it will be really interesting to see the kind of race she runs there. and if she wins what kind of congress person she will be and