that s aware, we are fully aware of the problems in this town. we are sympathetic. not to the point of destruction, i would assume. we don t this is not a high profit business. we can t sustain this kind of damage. the businesses here are trying to give an optimistic point of view. you can see this is a very artistic community. they painted a lot of the plywood here. they are handing out smiley faces today, trying to keep things positive heading into tonight. there is bad weather in the forecast. one owner told me he is praying for rain. bret: will carr in st. louis. the protests in hollywood last night took the form of mockery and ridicule. the focus of contempt at the emmy awards, president trump and by extension the americans who voted for him. jonathan hunt shows us. in 2017, we still refuse to be controlled by a sexist,
it s a very profitable group. they make money on abortions, they could survive without federal funding for abortions, right? i got this right so far? i think so, yeah. what you can do is split planned parenthood into two. you put the abortion said over there. let it be a for profit business, they make money. you want to supply health care, birth control? just separate them. that way federal money doesn t go towards abortion. they could be two different organizations. funnel the money into the right place? no. to melissa s point. i don t think this is what matters. greg, i think what matters i think this is always a problem when you get into these positions. if you focus on one element of who pushed the video, you win the argument this is about the butchering of children. the democrats would love it if you turned this into a war on planned parenthood. because then that s translated into a war on women. it s much better to focus on this repulsive part that the media has
much identical. it has the same features. there is some language in it, as i understand it, that says this law cannot that complying with federal civil rights law is a compelling interest, which sounds really reassuring. but of course, there is no state law anywhere that can overrule federal civil rights law. so in essence, that s a concession that means nothing. it has the same language about private parties. it has the same language about for profit business. it seems to have been the product of a lot of behind the scenes contact among the people who are lobbying for these bills in a number of states. and last week before this became this subject that it is now, the governor of arkansas said
the federal law doesn t have. the first is and this is laid out earlier, it says this is a defense in an action brought by a private party, even if the government is not a party. the only other statute that has that language is texas. and texas then goes on after that language to say, but it s not a defense to a civil rights lawsuit. so if this were not about discrimination, indiana could have put that language in. they did not. it also has a harder test for the government to pass. it has to be essential, the government s interest has to be essential, which is tougher than the federal rfra. and finally, it applies to as far as i can tell virtually any for profit business that can say our religion forbids us to do something. it suspect aisn t a license to
a private party, even if the government is not a party. the only other statute that has that language is texas. and texas then goes on after that language to say, but it s not a defense to a civil rights lawsuit. so if this were not about discrimination, indiana could have put that language in. they did not. it also has a harder test for the government to pass. it has to be essential, the government s interest has to be essential, which is tougher than the federal rfra. and finally, it applies to, as far as i can tell, virtually any for profit business that can say our religion forbids us to do something. it isn t a license to discriminate. it s to make it as hard as possible for your customers to get equal treatment. take us through the arkansas law. the arkansas law is pretty