clerks issuing the marriage licenses on davis behalf. the key question for the judge today, jose, is she unable to do her job or just unwilling? back to you. i m just wondering, what, gabe, legally, what is kim davis offering the judge legally for what the kentucky governor described as not doing her job. i understand we have been talking about that, but is there a legal ground that she s pushing? her lawyer suggests that because this is such a religious conviction, because this is who she is, that she cannot be compelled to do this. they re making the argument that this is so essential to who she is that she cannot be compelled to do this, even though it s her job. you ll recall two federal courts have said that argument doesn t hold water and the supreme court has refused to block that. so her lawyers face an uphill legal battle. many legal experts say they do not have ground to stand on. that didn t stop them, however, from trying late yesterday to file an emergency injunction
republicans want to take away your contraception. that s how it got contorted. romney won married women. he lost single women. by 29 points. yes. and mara is right. single women are a growing portion of the vote. so this could really hurt republicans in 2014. i think, you know, you have to look at races like kay hagan and mary landrieu. both democrats, both vulnerable democrats, but this could actually help them. and the court didn t help with the wheaton decision. right. to catch everybody up on that, there are religious groups the administration has created an accommodation for them. they can say i m a nonprofit religious group. i have objections. this is different than for-profit hobby lobby. there s a form they want them to sign which would absolve them. a number of these groups are challenging that saying we don t want to sign a permission slip we never agreed to. wheaton college was among those who filed for an emergency injunction at the supreme court.
college emergency injunction saying these nonprofits don t even have to fill out the form. how devastating was this and how much of a bait and switch? it is certainly a bait and switch. you can see that in justice sotomayor s dissent, which she says undermines confidence in this institution. you have what a is series of moving goalposts. first what they said was when this regulation first came out in the beginning of 2012 that religious organizations were being forced to violate their views. then private corporations said, i don t want to have to pay for this. then they said, i don t want to have to pay for quote/unquote abortion-causing contraception, which is not fact. it is not scientifically the case that this is abortion. what it allowed them to do is say this is about abortion, not birth control. step back behind them, and there are employers that object to all forms of birth control. step back behind them, and there are nonprofit employers who were given accommodation who now
provide birth control access to thousands and thousands of women who are about to lose coverage or who never had it because their employers religious objections. and time is of the essence. as the new york times report, legal and health care experts expect a rush to court involving scores of employers seeking to take advantage of the two decisions already. about 100 cases are pending. these cases are not about the undue financial burden imposed under a penalty by the aca as hobby lobby claimed. we re talking about a long list of nonprofits, religious oriented trying to opt out. all they have to do is fill out this document. the groups say even signing on this line makes them complicit with an immoral act. and last week, the court issued a temporary emergency injunction allowing wheaton college to skip the form altogether. never heard of wheaton college? perhaps this other name will ring a bell. according to the associated press, in its term that begins in october, a challenge from t
wheaten college filed for an emergency injunction and got one and there was a very lengthy dissent. i will read a little bit of it coming from justice sotomayor and ginsburg signed on, saying we feel like there is a switch with the hobby lobby decision. those who are bound by our decisions belief they can take us at our word but not today after relying on the availability of the religious nonprofit accommodation, holding this violates the law as applied to closely helded for-profit mices the court has retreated from that position. how does that complicate the conversation now? i think that both of the cases, with respect to wheaten, the court was doing something that was very straight forwarded saying wheaton doesn t have to fill out the form until the case is heard. now, justice sotomayor if you look at the dissent she said at the end, this is not how we