Transcripts For ALJAZAM Inside Story 20131128

Forprofit can share the same forprofit can share the same exemptions as some religious exemptions as some religious institutions and opt out of institutions and opt out of paying for some paying for some provisions in provisions in the Affordable Care act. The Affordable Care act. First this background. First this background. Reporter hobby lobby is a reporter hobby lobby is a Forprofit Corporation that Forprofit Corporation that calls itself, quote calls itself, quote a biblically a biblically founded business. Founded business. The company contends offering the company contends offering contraception goes against the contraception goes against the prolife beliefs of its owners. Prolife beliefs of its owners. The question before the supreme the question before the Supreme Court, court, our for profit our for Profit Corporations corporations forced to provide forced to provide. Based on biblical principles. Based on biblical principles. Its not forced on anybody, but its not forced on anybody, but its there for them if they its there for them if they would like. Would like. Reporter the oklahoma based reporter the oklahoma based arts and craft chain has more arts and craft chain has more than 500 Stores Across 41 than 500 Stores Across 41 states. States. Hobby lobby employees more than hobby lobby employees more than 13,000 fulltime workers who get 13,000 fulltime workers who get their Health Insurance through their Health Insurance through the company. The company. It would not be consistent it would not be consistent for us to live one way at home for us to live one way at home and accept a different way at and accept a different way at work. Work. That would be inconsistent with that would be inconsistent with our faith. Our faith. Reporter store owners have reporter store owners have no moral objection to the no moral objection to the 16 16 contraceptives provided by contraceptives provided by insurance. Insurance. The issue is four of the drugs the issue is four of the drugs available terminate pregnancy available terminate pregnancy including planned b and ella including planned b and ella known as the morning after and known as the morning after and week after pills. Week after pills. President obama has defended the president obama has defended the contraception mandate portion of contraception mandate portion of the law but the administration the law but the administration has allowed some exceptions. Has allowed some exceptions. Its good for our healthcare its good for our Healthcare System in general because we system in general because we know the overall cost of care is know the overall cost of care is lower when women have access to lower when women have access to contraceptive services. Contraceptive services. And listen, we recognize that and listen, we recognize that many people have strongly held many people have strongly held religious views on religious views on contraception. Contraception. Which is why we made sure which is why we made sure churches and other houses of churches and other houses of worship, they dont have to worship, they dont have to provide it. Provide it. They dont have to paid for it. They dont have to paid for it. When it was announced the when it was announced the Supreme Court would hear the hop Supreme Court would hear the hop hobby lobby case yesterday, the hobby lobby case yesterday, the white house put out a statement. White house put out a statement. Our policy is designed to insure our policy is designed to insure that healthcare decisions are that healthcare decisions are made between a woman and her made between a woman and her doctor. Doctor. The president believes that no the president believes that no one, including the government or one, including the government or Forprofit Corporations should Forprofit Corporations should be able to dictate those be able to dictate those decisions to women. Decisions to women. Over the summer the tenth over the summer the tenth Circuit Court of appeals in Circuit Court of appeals in denver ruled in favor of hobby denver ruled in favor of hobby lobby contending because its lobby contending because its not a publicly traded not a publicly traded corporation hobby lobby is corporation hobby lobby is entitled to be exearth from the entitled to be exearth from the contraceptive mandate. Contraceptive mandate. The Supreme Court is expected to the Supreme Court is expected to hear the hear the case in march. Case in march. Here now are lori windom, here now are lori windom, senior senior counsel representing counsel representing hobby lobby. Hobby lobby. And reporter from the religious and reporter from the religious news service, and fred news service, and fred geddes geddes professor of law at professor of law at Brigham Brigham Young University law school. Young University Law school. Help us know what this is about, help us know what this is about, what is the difference between a what is the difference between a person saying to an insurer i person saying to an insurer i dont want that, and i dont dont want that, and i dont want to be charged for it, and a want to be charged for it, and a company saying that to an insu company saying that to an insu insurer because they are insurer because they are providing a benefit to a group providing a benefit to a group of other people who voluntarily of other people who voluntarily associate with associate with it . It . What we believe is someone what we believe is someone does not give up their religious does not give up their religious freedoms just because they open freedoms just because they open up a business. Up a business. And we believe the green and we believe the green familys religious beliefs familys religious beliefs transfer over to their transfer over to their familyrun benefit. Familyrun benefit. They want to run it according to they want to run it according to biblical biblical principles, and theyve principles, and theyve striven to do that. Striven to do that. They want the freedom under the they want the freedom under the law to do that. Law to do that. I notice you say family i notice you say Family Business. Business. If this was a publicly traded if this was a publicly traded business would that be a business would that be a different question . Different question . Yes, i believe you would have yes, i believe you would have a different question. A different question. Here you have a Different Group here you have a Different Group of people who are united in of people who are united in their religious beliefs and their religious beliefs and theyve let those religious theyve let those religious beliefs be apparent in the way beliefs be apparent in the way they run the cop. They run the cop. They are closed on they are closed on sundays. Sundays. They offer benefits. They offer benefits. They start their employees 90 they start their employees 90 above minimum wage. Above minimum wage. It would be different if you it would be different if you have a large number of have a large number of faceless, faceless, nameless shareholders who change nameless shareholders who change by the day. By the day. Professor, can companies have professor, can companies have Companies Legally been allowed Companies Legally been allowed to tailor their following of the to tailor their following of the laws provisions based on their laws provisions based on their own religious thoughts. Own religious thoughts. This is unprecedented. This is unprecedented. And hobby lobby may only have and hobby lobby may only have five owners but it has over five owners but it has over 13,000 employees. 13,000 employees. And there is something and there is something fundamentally wrong with those fundamentally wrong with those employees having to bear the employees having to bear the costs of someone elses practice costs of someone elses practice of their religion. Of their religion. When you say bear the costs, when you say bear the costs, explain further how you mean . Explain further how you mean . Sure, the greens want to be sure, the greens want to be excused from complying with excused from complying with certain provisions of the certain provisions of the Affordable Care act primarily Affordable Care act primarily the provision of certain the provision of certain contraceptives without cost contraceptives without cost sharing. Sharing. If theyre permitted to do that if theyre permitted to do that their employees will have to pay their employees will have to pay for those out of their pocket. For those out of their pocket. So thats a real out of pocket so thats a real out of pocket cost to female employees, and to cost to female employees, and to female beneficiaries who are female beneficiaries who are covered under their plan. Covered under their plan. David, hasnt the obama david, hasnt the Obama Administration been wrestling administration been wrestling with how to match employer with how to match employer demands, the law, and what the demands, the law, and what the Affordable Care act requires Affordable Care act requires thought the life of this law . Thought the life of this law . Its been a contested policy, its been a contested policy, this particular one, and it has this particular one, and it has not had support even among some not had support even among some of the of the administrations applies administrations applies who really didnt see the need who really didnt see the need for this contraception mandate for this contraception mandate to go forward in this way. To go forward in this way. The real struggle, the the real struggle, the interesting thing, the real interesting thing, the real struggle and debate and struggle and debate and controversy had been over how controversy had been over how religious specifically religious religious specifically religious groups and institutions would be groups and institutions would be either exempt from this mandate either exempt from this mandate or accommodated with this or accommodated with this mandate. Mandate. Thats months, over a year for thats months, over a year for the the Obama Administration to come Obama Administration to come around to a plan to exempt around to a plan to exempt houses of worship, charities, houses of worship, charities, things like this. Things like this. Now we have a case which is a now we have a case which is a little more black and white. Little more black and white. This is about businesses that this is about businesses that are not accommodated in anyway, are not accommodated in anyway, but say they want to be treated but say they want to be treated you know almost as if they are a you know almost as if they are a house of worship. House of worship. Again, this is not about birth again, this is not about Birth Control, this is about religious control, this is about religious freedom. Freedom. Even more than that, its about even more than that, its about where the culture wars are going where the culture wars are going to play out in our society. To play out in our society. Congress, the white house, it congress, the white house, it looks like the Supreme Court is looks like the Supreme Court is the main arena. The main arena. David, what adjustments have david, what adjustments have been made been made in that contraceptive in that contraceptive requirement along the way in requirement along the way in response . Response . They have made adjustments they have made adjustments really only for houses of really only for houses of worship. Worship. There were the tighter there were the tighter definition initially for rich definition initially for rich groups which institutions would groups which institutions would be exempt as houses of worship be exempt as houses of worship whereas religious bodies from whereas religious bodies from something that they objected to something that they objected to on the basis of their religious on the basis of their religious teachings. Teachings. That exemption was expanded, but that exemption was expanded, but they worked out this they worked out this accommodation for other things accommodation for other things like a Catholic Charity or like a Catholic Charity or University University and evangelical and evangelical university that would allow them university that would allow them to provide this Health Insurance to provide this Health Insurance for their employees. For their employees. But a third Party Administrator, but a third Party Administrator, its get technical, a murder its get technical, a murder Party Administrator would Party Administrator would separately provide the free separately provide the free contraception coverage to that contraception coverage to that employee. Employee. So the employer would not be so the employer would not be facilitating in any way the facilitating in any way the administration says, the administration says, the supplying supplying of the free of the free contraception health coverage. Contraception health coverage. The the forprofit businesses dont forprofit businesses dont have that accommodation. Have that accommodation. Well be talking more with well be talking more with these guests after a moment these guests after a moment after a short break. After a short break. This is inside story. This is inside story. From our headquarters in from our headquarters in new york, here new york, here are the headlines this hour. Are the headlines this hour. Al Jazeera America is the al Jazeera America is the only news channel that brings only news channel that brings you live news at the top of you live news at the top of every hour. Every hour. A deal in the senate may be a deal in the senate may be at hand and just in the nick of at hand and just in the nick of time. Time. Thousands of new yorkers are thousands of new yorkers are marching in solidarity. Marching in solidarity. Were following multiple were following multiple developments on syria at this developments on syria at this hour. Hour. Every hour from reporters every hour from reporters stationed around the world and stationed around the world and across the country. Across the country. Only on al Jazeera America. Only on al Jazeera America. Im phil torezz, coming up im phil torezz, coming up next on techknow. Next on techknow. Hike hike americas favorite sport is americas favorite sport is under fire. Under fire. Now, that impact simulated now, that impact simulated 100 gs of acceleration in your 100 gs of acceleration in your brain. Brain. Its the opponent no player its the opponent no player can see. Can see. So the system is showing so the system is showing realtime impact. Realtime impact. Can science prevent can science prevent concussions . Concussions . I did my job and just had to i did my job and just had to sacrifice my brain to do it. Sacrifice my brain to do it. Welcome back to inside welcome back to inside story. Story. Im ray suarez. Im ray suarez. Were talking about the hobby were talking about the hobby lobbys stores lawsuit against lobbys stores lawsuit against the Birth Control mandate. The Birth Control mandate. Still with us lori win ham still with us lori win ham representing hoppy representing hoppy lobby. Lobby. David Gibson National reporter david Gibson National reporter for the religious news for the religious news service, service, and professor and professor geddics, professor geddics, professor of law at the Brigham Young of law at the Brigham Young University Law school. University law school. Lori, are there limits to where lori, are there limits to where this religious preference can this religious preference can apply . Apply . Some people dont believe, for some people dont believe, for instance, in interfaith instance, in interfaith marriage, call it, quoting the marriage, call it, quoting the biblic being biblic being unequally y unequally y oked. Oked. Would an employer be able to would an employer be able to withdraw coverage of a spouse withdraw coverage of a spouse with someone with someone , an employee , an employee doesnt share a reasonable. Doesnt share a reasonable. Would someone as many would someone as many religions religions dont approve of ibf. Dont approve of ibf. They dont want to cover they dont want to cover prenatal care by someone who is prenatal care by someone who is pregnant by in vitro pregnant by in vitro fertilization. Fertilization. Are there limits are there limits that the that the religious preferences that an religious preferences that an prosecutor can do . Prosecutor can do . Of course there are limits. Of course there are limits. This is the law thatber talking this is the law thatber talking about, the law the Supreme Court about, the law the Supreme Court is going to be examining, its a is going to be examining, its a balancing test. Balancing test. You have to balance the damage you have to balance the damage to religious to religious freedom against the freedom against the governments interest, what its governments interest, what its trying to regulate on the other trying to regulate on the other hand. Hand. In this case its very strong in this case its very strong because youre talking about because youre talking about very large fines and penalties very large fines and penalties if you do not comply with this if you do not comply with this mandate and the governments mandate and the governments interest is weak. Interest is weak. The government has already given the government has already given out many exemptions from this out many exemptions from this law as many as 109 million law as many as 109 million americans, thats a third of the americans, thats a third of the u. S. Population, may be on plans u. S. Population, may be on plans in 2013 that are in 2013 that are grandfathered. Grandfathered. That means those plans dont that means those plans dont have to comply with the have to comply with the contraceptive mandate and dont contraceptive mandate and dont have have t to t to comply to many parts of comply to many parts of the Affordable Care act the Affordable Care act. It would be different if youre it would be different if youre talking about a different type talking about a different type of care, any form of of care, any form of discrimination. Discrimination. The Supreme Court said back in the Supreme Court said back in the 1980s the government had a the 1980s the government had a compelling interest in eliminate compelling interest in eliminate eliminating asia discrimination eliminating asia discrimination so those case was be treated so those case was be treated differently under this law. Differently under this law. Professor, would this be professor, would this be easier case if the owners had a easier case if the owners had a blanket objection to all forms blanket objection to all forms of contraception rather than of contraception rather than carving out some and saying carving out some and saying well, these are okay, and these well, these are okay, and these are not okay . Are not okay . Well, it imposes greater well, it imposes greater costs on the employees, but i costs on the employees, but i really think that that is beside really think that that is beside the point. The point. All this talk of balancing and all this talk of balancing and government interests really government interests really doesnt matter what matters is doesnt matter what matters is that the establishment clause that the establishment clause the First Amendment prohibits the First Amendment prohibits the government from imposing the the government from imposing the costs of practicing someones costs of practicing someones religion on other people who religion on other people who dont practice that religion. Dont practice that religion. That really is the important that really is the important issue in these cases and one issue in these cases and one that has largely been overlook that has largely been overlook overlooked. Overlooked. Mmhmm, mmhmm. Mmhmm, mmhmm. So what if hobby lobby were to so what if hobby lobby were to in future only hire employee who in future only hire employee who is shared their religious is shared their religious outlook, would that be outlook, would that be permissible under the law . Permissible under the law . Well, i want to be clear that well, i want to be clear that hobby lobby, the green family hobby lobby, the green family and their Family Business and their Family Business respect their employees who are respect their employees who are diverse and their customers, who diverse and their customers, who are diverse. Are diverse. If you had some business in the if you had some business in the future who wanted to engage in future who wanted to engage in religious discrimination by religious discrimination by simply not hiring someone of a simply not hiring someone of a different faith, those would different faith, those would fail. Fail. There is only one case that was there is only one case that was attempted and it went to the attempted and it went to the appeals court, and they said it appeals court, and they said it was so strong that it overcame was so strong that it overcame even the employers religious even the employers religious exercise. Exercise. David gibson, who is lined up david gibson, who is lined up and on which side . And on which side . Who has been heard from on this who has been heard from on this issue, and have the cast of issue, and have the cast of characters been changing . Characters been changing . Are there any surprises in who are there any surprises in who has been speaking up either for has been speaking up either for the Affordable Care act or the the Affordable Care act or the employer . Employer . Reporter now, i think you reporter now, i think you largely got the breakdown that largely got the breakdown that you see in these culturewar you see in these culturewar issues. Issues. Youve got a lot of youve got a lot of conservative, culture visit conservative, culture visit groups, christian conservatives, groups, christian conservatives, certainly, the catholic bishops certainly, the catholic bishops have been very prominent on have been very prominent on these cases speaking out against these cases speaking out against these cases. These cases. Although its important to note although its important to note that even though i think that even though i think catholics have been associated catholics have been associated with the opposition to birth with the opposition to Birth Control and the opposition of control and the opposition of this mandate that hobby lobbies, this mandate that hobby lobbies, a christian owned company, and a christian owned company, and there is another company, a wood there is another company, a wood cabinet making company that is cabinet making company that is mennonite owned, you have the mennonite owned, you have the usual suspects, the beckett fund usual suspects, the beckett fund and freedom groups and then on and freedom groups and then on the other side the american the other side the American Civil Liberties union, and old Civil Liberties union, and Old Fashion Church stateseparation Fashion Church stateseparation groups that are lined up as well groups that are lined up as well as planned parenthood and the as planned parenthood and the abortion rights groups. Abortion rights groups. Its shaping up as a standard its shaping up as a standard culture war battle. Culture war battle. And i think its not going to and i think its not going to bethis isnt going to be the bethis isnt going to be the final word on this mandate. Final word on this mandate. Youre going to get a lot of youre going to get a lot of cases coming out of this. Cases coming out of this. Have earlier attempts by the have earlier attempts by the department of health and Human Department of health and Human Services meet some of these services meet some of these objections have the yays and the objections have the yays and the nays been lying up, or have the nays been lying up, or have the religious organizations for whom religious organizations for whom these exceptions have been these exceptions have been offered offered been satisfied with what been satisfied with what the government offered . The government offered . Thats where the division has thats where the division has come come internally. Internally. Especially in the catholic world especially in the catholic world youve seen some groups, for youve seen some groups, for example, the catholic hospitals example, the catholic hospitals around the country have said around the country have said theyre okay with the theyre okay with the accommodation. Accommodation. Some universities, some others, some universities, some others, you know, the you know, the places, the places, the religious institutions that are religious institutions that are most affected by this mandate most affected by this mandate who have these employees who are who have these employees who are employees of diverse faith even employees of diverse faith even though they work for though they work for a catholic a catholic or evangelical institution, they or evangelical institution, they say theyre okay with it. Say theyre okay with it. But you have the religious but you have the religious leadership of these groups going leadership of these groups going in a different direction, very in a different direction, very vocally opposed to if. Vocally opposed to if. Youre seeing this mandate not youre seeing this mandate not only driving a wedge, but only driving a wedge, but driving a wedge driving a wedge internally internally within some groups between the within some groups between the folks in the pews and the folks folks in the pews and the folks in the pulpits. In the pulpits. David gibson for profit david gibson for Profit Corporation corporation s, contraceptive s, contraceptive insurance, and the affordable insurance, and the affordable consider this the news of the consider this the news of the day plus so much more. Day plus so much more. We begin with the government we begin with the government shutdown. Shutdown. Answers to the questions no answers to the questions no one else will ask. One else will ask. It seems like they cant it seems like they cant agree to anything in washington agree to anything in washington no matter what. No matter what. Antonio mora, Award Winning antonio mora, Award Winning and hard hitting. And hard hitting. Weve heard you talk about weve heard you talk about the history of suicide in your the history of suicide in your family. Family. Theres no status quo, just theres no status quo, just the bottom line. The bottom line. But, what about buying shares but, what about buying shares in a professional athlete . In a professional athlete . And now a techknow minute. And now a techknow minute. Every sunday night, every sunday night, al Jazeera America presents. Al Jazeera America presents. Gripping films from the worlds gripping films from the worlds top documentary directors. Top documentary directors. This is just the beginning of this is just the beginning of something much bigger. Something much bigger. Next sunday do the math. Next sunday do the math. These companies are a rogue these companies are a rogue force. Force. One environmentalist says one environmentalist says fossil fuels equal disaster. Fossil fuels equal disaster. Will his movement add up to will his movement add up to change . Change . We will fight it together. We will fight it together. Al Jazeera America presents al Jazeera America presents do the math. Do the math. Welcome back to inside story. Welcome back to inside story. Im ray suarez were talking im ray suarez were talking about the hobby lobbys lawsuit about the hobby lobbys lawsuit against the Affordable Care act against the Affordable Care act Birth Control mandate. Birth control mandate. Professor, if this company professor, if this company prevails in court, does prevails in court, does everybody get to make their own everybody get to make their own rules about what theyre rules about what theyre comfortable with morally and comfortable with morally and personally in the insurance that personally in the insurance that is provided by the affordable is provided by the Affordable Care act . Care act . I think i think thats a grave danger thats a grave danger that that will occur. That that will occur. The position that hobby the position that hobby lobby lobby and the beckett fund have taken, and the beckett fund have taken, whether its the individuals whether its the individuals burden is entirely a subjective burden is entirely a subjective judgment that they make by judgment that they make by themselves and the government themselves and the government cannot question. Cannot question. No matter our idiosyncratic the no matter our idiosyncratic the believe, if a person simply believe, if a person simply raises her hand and says this raises her hand and says this burdens my religion, then the burdens my religion, then the government has to come forward government has to come forward with a compelling interest and with a compelling interest and it has to show that its it has to show that its protected in the least protected in the least restrictive manner. Restrictive manner. As i said at the beginning, as i said at the beginning, thats unprecedented for people thats unprecedented for people to be able to opt out from to be able to opt out from general laws just by raising general laws just by raising their hands. Their hands. Lori windham, too light a lori windham, too light a burden for employers and too burden for employers and too heavy for the government . Heavy for the government . I believe the burden on the i believe the burden on the employers is heavy. Employers is heavy. We dont want the government to we dont want the government to be in the business of deciding be in the business of deciding whose religious beliefs are whose religious beliefs are correct, but the burden is the correct, but the burden is the rule, and the consequences of rule, and the consequences of the rules. The rules. Here the consequences are huge. Here the consequences are huge. Were looking at fines of 100 were looking at fines of 100 per employee per day if you per employee per day if you provide some but not all of the provide some but not all of the services. Services. 2,000 per employee per year if 2,000 per employee per year if you dont provide any insurance you dont provide any insurance whatsoever. Whatsoever. And so the burden in this case and so the burden in this case is really a very large is really a very large government fine. Government fine. And the Supreme Court said back and the Supreme Court said back in the in the yoder case in the 1970s yoder case in the 1970s any government fine on religious any government fine on religious exercise is going to be a exercise is going to be a substantial burden. Substantial burden. Now if you did not have fines. Now if you did not have fines. If you had some other sort of if you had some other sort of regulatory mechanism that people regulatory mechanism that people were complying with, then the were complying with, then the burden analysis might go a burden analysis might go a little differently. Little differently. What if it was offered what if it was offered earlier to other organizations earlier to other organizations put the burden on the insurer put the burden on the insurer and took contraception out of and took contraception out of the debate between employer and the debate between employer and employee, would that satisfy the employee, would that satisfy the greens . Greens . I cant speak to the greens i cant speak to the greens specifically. Specifically. I can tell you that as was i can tell you that as was discussed earlier religious discussed earlier religious groups have different feelings groups have different feelings on this, some believe that is an on this, some believe that is an acceptable that they can take. Acceptable that they can take. Others believe that still forces others believe that still forces them to be complicit in them to be complicit in something that violates their something that violates their religious beliefs. Religious beliefs. The courts are going to be the courts are going to be working through that and sorting working through that and sorting that out. That out. David gibson, i know that you david gibson, i know that you dont have a birds eye seat, a dont have a birds eye seat, a look into the mind of the nine look into the mind of the nine justices, but given what theyve justices, but given what theyve ruled on in the past, given how ruled on in the past, given how theyve come down on questions theyve come down on questions involving private business, involving private business, private entities and religious private entities and religious practice, what should we be practice, what should we be looking for when it comes to looking for when it comes to argument argument time . Time . Are you asking me to predict . Are you asking me to predict . Because that would be a fools because that would be a fools errand, and ill be in trouble errand, and ill be in trouble for that. For that. Youre going to look for tough youre going to look for tough questioning of the obama questioning of the Obama Administration. Administration. There is a case last year, the there is a case last year, the ministerial exception case that ministerial exception case that Obama Administration was arguing Obama Administration was arguing on behalf of a woman who had on behalf of a woman who had been fired from a lutheran been fired from a lutheran church. Church. The church said they had a right the church said they had a right to fire her. To fire her. The Obama Administration said the Obama Administration said this is discrimination. This is discrimination. They lost 90. They lost 90. They lost unanimously across the they lost unanimously across the board. Board. All the all the justices. Justices. If they dont have a great track if they dont have a great track record on these cases. Record on these cases. But i think there are going to but i think there are going to be limits that court will be limits that court will recognize. Recognize. I think the most fascinating, i think the most fascinating, one of the most fascinating one of the most fascinating aspects is how much theyll take aspects is how much theyll take that citizens that Citizens United case united case precedent that ruled two years precedent that ruled two years ago that corporations had free ago that corporations had free speech rights, and how much they speech rights, and how much they will apply that to religious will apply that to religious freedom rights. Freedom rights. Thats something that was raised thats something that was raised in the lower courts, and thats in the lower courts, and thats something that we really need to something that we really need to look for. Look for. Oddly theyve never had oddly theyve never had a a court constituted this way. Court constituted this way. Six catholic six catholic , three jews. , three jews. Not that it matters but its an not that it matters but its an unprecedented moment. Unprecedented moment. There are no protestants on the there are no protestants on the court. Court. Its really a remarkable its really a remarkable moment, but of course you have moment, but of course you have catholics and then you have catholics and then you have catholics. Catholics. They range the spectrum, they range the spectrum, reflects the Catholic Church reflects the Catholic Church these days from scalia to soto these days from scalia to soto soto soto meyer. Meyer. And this reflects the wider and this reflects the wider religious scene. Religious scene. Youve got catholics on one youve got catholics on one side. Side. And catholics on the other side. And catholics on the other side. Youve got baptists on one side youve got baptists on one side and baptists on the other. And baptists on the other. Its interesting discussion. Its interesting discussion. Professor, even if a professor, even if a settlement could be found before settlement could be found before march when the argument goes march when the argument goes forward. Forward. Well, the u. S. Courts of well, the u. S. Courts of appeal, the Circuit Courts have appeal, the Circuit Courts have split in a variety of directions split in a variety of directions so its really something that so its really something that the Supreme Court needs to the Supreme Court needs to decide so there is consistency decide so there is consistency in the way that the mandate is in the way that the mandate is applied or not applied across applied or not applied across the country. The country. If the ruling goes your way, if the ruling goes your way, youre saying that the youre saying that the Affordable Care act will still Affordable Care act will still be okay and workable rather than be okay and workable rather than a very ad hoc kind of thing. A very ad hoc kind of thing. Yes, i believe thats right. Yes, i believe thats right. What the greens and the family what the greens and the Family Businesses are asking for is a businesses are asking for is a very narrow exemption from one very narrow exemption from one very small part of the law. Very small part of the law. This is not going to strike down this is not going to strike down the Affordable Care act or have the Affordable Care act or have any larger affect. Any larger affect. That brings us to the end of that brings us to the end of this addition of inside story. This addition of inside story. Guests, thanks a lot for being guests, thanks a lot for being with he. With he. The program may be over but the the program may be over but the conversation continues. Conversation continues. We want to hear what you think we want to hear what you think about the issues, and you can about the issues, and you can log onto the facebook page. Log onto the facebook page. You can send us your thoughts on you can send us your thoughts on twitter. Twitter. Our handle is aj inside story am our handle is aj inside story am or you can reach me or you can reach me directly directly at at ray suarez news. Ray suarez news. See you next time for the see you next time for the next next inside story in washington. Inside story in washington. Im ray suarez. Im ray suarez. Welcome to al Jazeera America. Im del walters. These are the stories were following for you. Fly high, the winds wont stop the balloons at the macys day parade from going up. And outrage in egypt, girls as young as 15 getting long prison sentences for speaking their minds. Well it happened the