tv Inside Story Al Jazeera July 1, 2014 3:30am-4:01am EDT
3:30 am
autobiography. >> tracy expects to fetch more than a fillion dollars when it goes under the hammer. a reminder that you can keep up to date with all the new features and analysis on the website at aljazeera.com. >> what the hobby lobby decision means for working people and their bosses is the inside story. >> hello, i'm ray suarez. the justices of the supreme court of the united states waited until the last possible
3:31 am
day of the 2013-14 term to release their decision in the case originally called sebelius vs hobby lobby. hobby lobby is owned by christians who say that their religion for bid the type of birth control offered in affordable healthcare. rif ra gives employers the legal right to change what is offered in healthcare insurance. president obama changed them and supreme court changed them again. >> advocates on oil sides
3:32 am
crowded the steps of the supreme court in anticipation of the final decision of th of the hobby lobby case. the court ruled for hobby lobby saying closely held companies can opt out of the federal mandate to provide birth control to their employees if it goes against the company owner's beliefs. as : he also argued that since non-profit institutions like churches can opt out, for-profit, closely held
3:33 am
companies can as well. read from the bench: >> at the heart of the argument is rifra, it is meant to shield from the burden if they practice their faith. >> this is a stand for religious freedom. the supreme court recognized that american families do not lose their fundamental rights when they open a family business. >> reporter: the plaintiffs argued that as christian family-owned companies the affordable care acts penalty for not providing the option of contraceptive coverage would be
3:34 am
a substantive economic burden. >> we're grateful to be able to continue. operating our business . >> the government argued that it is intended to protect individuals not corporations. and expanding the act to companies could lead to discrimination. the confident also insisted that corporations that opt out for religious reasons not only infringe on the rights of their female employees but also burden the government in finding another way to insure them. this past weekend former health human services secretary kathleen sebelius discussed what a ruling for hobby lobby would mean. >> i think it's very troubling in terms of over all freedom of
3:35 am
religion emphasis and the balance between the public square and the private square in terms of religion has been a fundamental part of our democracy for a long time. i think this will blur the lines in serious ways. >> this involves two companies and could effect women for years to come. what does this religious exemption do to that part of the law, and will other companies use this case to fight other laws? arguing violation of their religious liberty. >> hobby lobby, religious freedom and federal statutes this hour on the program. now that we know that corporations can reflect the beliefs of their owners does this closely decided high court
3:36 am
decision have implications that stretch far beyond reproductive health or the affordable care act? does it extend the person hood of corporations into new territory? joining us in that conversation are erik baxter, kavita patel. and ira lupo, . erik baxter, let me start with you. you went to court. you argued the case, and did you get everything that you were looking for. >> what a great decision. what a great day for the hawn family. you don't give up when you're trying to provide for your family. that's the the significant
3:37 am
decision by the supreme court. >> they accepted the arguments that we argued. they acknowledge when you force someone who is running their business, threating them with millions a day in fines that is a substantial burden. that's what we argued. and if there was a need to provide these drugs to women for free they could do it directly noting the most straightforward way for the government to meet it's compelling interest is to deliver the drugs directly. >> ira, does this extend the notion of person hood in r ifra. to individuals? >> i think it takes us some place new neither the first
3:38 am
amendment's had not been interpreted this way. this was an open question, and so the court decided that open question in a way that puts us in a new place and opens up the possibility of other sorts of corporate religious freedom claims. >> now as we look back at juris prudence, in religious exercise was something inherent in a human being, in an individual. corporations can't go to church. they can't wear certain garb, they can't perform rituals. >> i was enter waded to the government's side of the case. but at this point whether corporations could exercise religion, i was not on the government side. we all know that corporations
3:39 am
can corporate for religious reasons, universities, charities, they are just as artificial as hobby lobby or general motors. they have a corporate status but we always recognized that religious institutions could organize in a corporate form. so what was new here was not act actual to art you official. it was the artificial to at official. >> so hobby lobby is more like notre dame than general motors because it's not closely held. >> no, no, that's not what you asked me before. the court emphasize this closely held point, but as a matter of legal logic this extends just as forcely to publicly held and traded corporations as closely held corporations. you won't see claims by publicly held corporations because they're not likely to reach an
3:40 am
agreement on what their religious beliefs are. they won't get together and say we're for or against something on religious grounds. as a practically matter publicly traded companies won't assert rifra rights. but i think they'll have them after today . >> you were there at the birth of the aca, you saw it watched inside the obama administration, it's formation. how does this change the application of the law, if it does. >> the inclusion of contraceptive coverage was considered an essential health benefit which is really a fundamental principle of the law. what we're really talking about is being able to offer cost effective preventive services for women and their families. so it is an important announcement that was made today by the supreme court, and it's affect on millions of women and
3:41 am
their families having access to these services is a huge one. from a medical standpoint we already know that the ability to have access to contraception, and it's not just for birth control. that's been a large part of this conversation. there are plenty of medical conditions for which women are prescribed contraception, this to me marks the intrusion into what goes on between a woman and her doctor, to be honest. so it's an important effect. >> i think the conversation gets particularly fraught when it has to do with birth control. >> right. >> but does it also just change the operation of any policy once you start putting asterisks by certain senses when you're laying out a plan. >> as ira pointed out there were already opt-out mechanisms for
3:42 am
not for profit religious organizations. there were mechanisms already to opt out. if that's a possibility why not extend that. but that's a slippery slope which i think. justice ginsberg articulated in her opposition statement. >> did we in this decision enter a new territory where people because we have no established church, because there are so many denominations with so many interpretations of religious teaching that really a boss in a family-held operation can say, you know, i don't approve of this. i don't like this ivf or other forms of operations that have come to line. gene therapy, who knows. rather than saying i object to tampering with nature. it's against my religion. i don't like it. >> there is no threat of that. as ira mentioned organizations,
3:43 am
churches, corporations have been exercising religion for a long time. but aca was enacted it was always the law that employers to include whatever drugs or product s, services they want and exclude other services and products. in all that time it's been legal to do that, and we've never had these kinds of claims that had raised concerns that had been weird or damaging exclusions from insurance coverage. what the court said in this case it balanced the government's interest against the interest of religious objectives. it has a compelling interest if it wants to override someone's religious beliefs. here the government failed to meet its burdens. you don't have to crush the little sisters of the poor or hobby lobby or any other, to provide these drugs. the government has other ways to
3:44 am
do it without infringing on people's religious freedom. >> that's interesting that you used the word "crushed" we'll get to that after the break. substantial burdens are a part of this law giving. we'll take a short break, and when we come back we'll talk about the applicable placings >> we're following the stories of people who have died in the desert >> the borderland marathon >> no ones prepared for this journey >> experience al jazeera america's critically acclaimed original series from the beginning >> experiencing it has changed me completely >> follow the journey as six americans face the immigration debate up close and personal. >> it's heartbreaking... >> i'm the enemy... >> i'm really pissed off... >> all of these people shouldn't be dead... >> it's insane... >> the borderland marathon only at al jazeera america
3:46 am
get our exclusive in depth, reporting when you want it. a global perspective wherever you are. the major headlines in context. mashable says... you'll never miss the latest news >> they will continue looking for suvivors... >> the potential for energy production is huge... >> no noise, no clutter, just real reporting. the new al jazeera america mobile app, available for your apple and android mobile device. download it now >> welcome back to inside story on al jazeera america. i'm ray suarez. on this edition of the program we're looking at the ruling announced by the supreme court on the last day of the session in the hobby lobby case. what it days about the state of the laws regarding religious freedom for employers and employees.
3:47 am
ira, it may sound pedantic but it's not. can a catholic boss decide he doesn't want ivf in a package offered to employees. can a christian science member choose a practice rather than going to a dollar. are they possible now? >> i think your question is assuming some things about the affordable care act and what the mandatory coverages are that is not right. ivf is not mandatory under the act, so many insurance policies don't cover it. in terms of christian science practice that's ordinarily not covered under health insurance policies, and if it were, and if there were one more coverage, people were not excluded from
3:48 am
ordinary practitioners. >> but the affordable care act requires in the case of the christian scientist, it lays out the benefits that have to be clued in a plan. if you say look, those are just against my religion, i don't want those things provided to my employees. does this decision allow you, give you a platform for that position? >> i think a platform, yes. a likely winning platform or probably platform that would be acted on, i think no. i say no because contraception and birth control rather uniqu uniquely among medical services is one where you have theologies that oppose not just themselves using it, but others using it. there is a concern about others behaving sinfully or immorally where people who are against vaccinations or blood transfusions or other kinds of practices typically say don't force me to do, but they don't object to other people doing it.
3:49 am
the likelihood that people are going to be chemical or idiosyncratic saying this is what i believe in so everyone has to follow these practices, i don't think that's very likely. >> you're using a reasonable person standard or common sense standard for something that may not be there in the decision. if and some religious believes object to blood transfusion, why wouldn't you under this--the text of the five-judge majority decision not be able to exclude blood transfusions if it is very much part of your reasonable's teaching that you're objections. >> if someone made that claim, i'll tell i couldn't they couldn't. the government would have a very strong interest keeping that in the insurance policy and not having any interim time as we're now going to have to decide whether the government is now going to pay for contraceptive care, whether there is going to be acome days for for-profits,
3:50 am
for not-for-profits where insurance companies pick up the tab even if the company doesn't pay any premium. we're going to be in this interim . i don't believe the courts are ever going to force that decision, to not offer blood transfusion in life or death. >> what about gaming the system, using that position even if it's not a passionately held belief in order to try to create a plan for your employees that just offers fewer things and thus is perhaps cheaper? >> one of the first elements in proving the case under the religious freedom act you have to show religious belief. it's been legal for decades for people who object to blood transfusion, if they objected to
3:51 am
provided them to others they would have excluded them a long time ago, and they just haven't done it. to come forward now and say we think this is goin this is going to give us a business advantage . >> sincere religious belief. that's the phrase that gives me probable. we don't have a board who judges sign sear religious belief. we don't have a board that says that's not what the men know mennonites teach. >> that's not correct. courts won't get into something--if a belief is religious or not but they test all the time we have prisoners who bring religious liberty claim for kosher meals or certain instruments to exercise
3:52 am
their religion, and then courts have to decide are they sincere? have they tried in the past to do this? what is the history of their religious exercise? courts look all the time to see if there is ulterior motive. here no one questioned the green and hawn families providing this, and it was accepted without a fact. >> kevita, when you design a policy to do anything, to provide any good, do exceptions ply kateed application of that policy? >> exceptions always complicate the broad--especially the affordable care act where we're also dealing with statesman dates. rifra and it's federal implications. there was specific language in the fordable care act to ensure that these essential benefits
3:53 am
were able to be followed no matter what states would be doing that might be different. so any exception, even in the decision today or other state's decisions which might cause exception to these essential benefits is a problem. that's because at the end of the day the reason they were called essential health benefits because they were felt to be essential for all persons, and there were no exceptions to what a human had a right to achieve in their own healthcare status. >> we're going to take another short break. when we come back we'll talk about the applicability of the affordable care act going forward. how is it going to work? are there going to be a lot of companies who come forward with this kind of objection, and what will that mean for everybody who is trying to be insured under the act. this is inside story.
3:55 am
3:56 am
we're looking at the supreme court's decision in the hobby lobby case with the 5-4 decision affirming the store chain's view that the religious convictions of its owners trump the requirements of the affordable care act. looking out from this decision what questions remain unanswered about the breadth, the impact of the case. kevita, do you imagine there will be a lot of businesses coming forward now that this is settled saying hey, us, too. >> there were reports from around the country that after the ruling they intended to? forward. what the magnitude will be for millions of women is not clear. but it's clear that it's not just going to stop with the two companies today. >> reporter: will there have to be a new office in hhs receiving these claims.
3:57 am
>> from here on forward the government, hhs, will have to think about what the options are going to be and what the administration can do, and then how they will handle a lot of these opt-outs. remember it's not hhs that will deliberate each and every similar one of these. what they'll do is bring thes this forward, and because of the supreme court ruling they'll consider the opt-out profits. but last year alone we had 4 million women who were able to get contraception without copays compared to years prior. this is going to have a significant affect on our country. >> erik basketter, lookin baxter, looking back on this, was that the benefits will still be provided but in relationship strictly between the insurance's client and the healthcare provider. leaving the employer who provides the policy out of it.
3:58 am
will that be good enough for some of these companies? >> i can't speak for all the companies there. our clients and none of the clients i'm aware of, they're asking themselves to be left out of it completely. they should not be forced to authorize others, they should not be forced to pay for the drugs themselves. government has exempted millions of employers because they have grandfathered plans. they have given the complete exemption to religious organizations. if you're a church, you don't have to comply. and justice kennedy raise as concern about that where he says, why are hhs and the irs picking and choosing between religious objectors. why should you be completely exempt because you're a church and not a non-profit organization or for-profit organization like hobby lobby. >> are weather do we see this going?
3:59 am
are we going to be wrestling with the effects for some time to come? >> we are going to be wrestling. the necessary fifth vote. he did suggest no reason to treat for-profits differently than non-profits. but he may be thinking that all of them should be subject to this partial opt out where the insurance company provides the coverage rather than the coverage through the company itself. if that's valid, that's a legal question going forward, if that is valid for non-profits, for profits, maybe hobby wil lobby will be bringing a lawsuits about that, but they will be decision. >> thank you for joining me. this brings me to the end of this edition of inside story. in washington, i'm ray suarez.
4:00 am
61 Views
Uploaded by TV Archive on