"washington journal" is next. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. host: good morning. it's tuesday, march 20 6, 2014. you are looking at a live shot of the supreme court, where the justices will hear arguments in the highly anticipated hobby lobby case. supporters describe it as an important moment for religious freedom productions -- protections. we will be discussing that case for most of today's "washington journal," how to get the conversation started, we want to ask our viewers whether you think there should be more or less religion in public life. give us a call and let us know

what you think. our phone lines are open. host: you can catch up with us on all your favorite social media pages. host: a very good tuesday morning to you. that hobby lobby case is the subject of many articles and editorials and opinion pieces in today's papers. go through a few of them for you this morning. here is "the wall street journal." "contraceptive case skews ideological lines." the lead editorial in "the "don't openn," pandora's box."

"discrimination is likely to extend far beyond simple access to contraception." and "usa today," "hobby lobby case fuels bigotry." we want to start by reading a bit from an opinion piece from over the weekend on this case from pastor rick warren. his piece appeared in "the washington post." does our constitution guarantee the freedom of religion or does it merely allow a more limited freedom to worship? the freedom tove place our beliefs and ethics at the center of our business practices or must we ignore them when we form a company? hobbytcome of sebelius v

lobby will affect every american because any religion allowed to be practiced only inside a house of worship and not in the day-to-day business of life is a worthless faith. the administration argues that because hobby lobby is a for-profit corporation the company has no religious rights under the first amendment. government says that examining hobby lobby from paying for drugs and devices to which the owners object would amount to an imposition of the greens' faith on their employees. in this case, the administration is insisting that those who form an operate a business based on religious beliefs must disobey what they believe is god's standard in order to obey the government's program. if it wins, the first purpose on which the united states was founded with the severely damaged -- would be severely damaged." we will be talking about the case for most of today's show. just to get the conversation started, should there be more or less religion in public life today, the conversation already

happening on our facebook page. in --walters writes "less. if you want to follow religious police, worship at your church or at home. the government cannot choose one religion over another according to our constitution." also on our facebook page this --ning -- facebook.com/cspan "everyone is entitled to their religious beliefs. however, the u.s. is not a theocracy." below that, "how about c-span and the government stay out of people's beliefs?" you can follow the conversation, @cspanwj. mark is waiting in michigan on our line for independents. thanks for calling "washington journal" today. the 20thy comment is

ford started -- ford motor company -- after a while, when he saw that liquor might be getting in the way of his employees doing their job, he brought up gangster types to enforce morality right in their homes, ok? for the majority of the 20th century, the legend wasn't being screened from the rooftops and things got along very well, aside from world war ii, i mean, you know. religion wasn't being blared out every window, and the middle class grew to its greatest heights ever. now that we are in these predicaments and people are wanting to inject religion into all facets of everybody's life, it seems like things have gotten worse. no to the religion in

everything. host: our phone lines are open. also, a poll taking place on our facebook page started just a few minutes ago. already 51 people voting that there should be more religion in public life and 60 people voting less. craig is waiting in cedar rapids, iowa. caller: good morning. we know that the declaration of independence talks about our inalienable rights from our , and our founding fathers were referring to the triune god of the bible. we don't have separation of church and state in the constitution. it was supposed to be a beautiful balance between free exercise and establishment clause, but we have appointment

abuses because we treat -- but we have torn that to pieces because we treat politics as a football game -- you lose, we win. if you look at romans 13, it said that god ordained to the powers that be so god was involved in the powers of government and the job discussion is right there for people who work in the government. but we don't want to include god but we want all of his blessings , and it doesn't work that way, and we wonder why everything is falling apart and we have gridlock, because we don't know how to work together seeking common ground. we have got to quit functioning this way. i house divided against itself cannot stand. that is abraham lincoln's thin kin'. we have got to work together as fellow americans and stop all this divisiveness. it has been in th -- been an

abomination. we cannot suck everything out of america and expect it to survive. work together, be fellow americans, quit destroying this country just because you want to win and you to lose. host: craig in iowa this morning. when a twitter page -- -- on our twitter page host: we will keep looking on our twitter page and facebook page for your comments. tyrone on our live for democrats. caller: good morning, how are you doing? host: i'm doing good. caller: we need more religion

because look at what is going on in the world with same-sex marriage. that is an abomination to the lord. congressman with the president, calling them sob's. we need to stop this politicking -- host: tyrone, how would you do it? caller: people got to go to god and pray. forget about the constitution, go to the holy bible. we need to go to that. you've got too much corruption in politics and you need to get all these lawyers -- the abominations under god. get god in your life. i am a deacon and i live by the word of god every day. but on politics and put -- put down politics and put god first, not the constitution. host: we will be talking about

the hobby lobby case for most of today's "washington journal." some information on the folks who are in favor and will be on hand throughout the supreme court today. lawmakers will be able to take a stand outside the u.s. capitol, recording to "the washington times." representatives michele bachmann, diane black and marsha blackburn, virginia foxx, kevin brady, joe pitts, and steve scalise will gather at high noon and have a press conference there at the supreme court. "the opposition will also be on hand. some 40 organization will host a ,business' rally including the gay and lesbian task force, american civil liberties union, and naral pro-choice supporters will be in

attendance." you see people lined up at the supreme court. let's go to tommy waiting in madison come alabama, on outline for independents. caller: good morning. i think we should have more religion in our public life. i'm not a religious person myself, but i see politics the way it is today in this country and it's just crazy. ins like there is no faith anything anybody wants to do anymore. where are we going to vote for and where do we propose this -- host: tommy, how does religion fix that? think thatl, i just it has helped us so long in the past and if we go back to what is help us in the past we will

in from the street and won't repeat it -- we will learn from history and won't repeat it. host: eric on outline for independents. caller: first, i got us say, holy cow. i'm a little horrified at some of the previous callers already. enthusiastically cite the christian bible as if it is the only book, and the man from north carolina sounded to me to be an elderly african-american man said to forget the constitution. holy cow, does he know how different his life would be without it? first, we need to define public, and when we talk about incidences like the sebelius case and the stuff we have been seeing in arizona of late, we need to define public. if you are a business and operating and open to the public , with a business license,

health department inspections, things like that, a funeral home, take your pick, you need to not discriminate in the same way that you cannot discriminate in housing. if you're making a public offering in a capitalist market, you need to not discriminate in that way. if that is what you wanted to, salesyour church and big and yard sales and swap meets and things like that and shop for where's their -- shop for your wares there. you don't get to cherry pick. i would love to be able to turn away christians. the problem with rampant evangelical christianity in this country is why i am actually emigrating out of the united states. many,unately, we have many problems, but they seem to offers of the date from this christian moralizing. host: eric calling in from new

york. 2 opinion pieces. first, we showed you the headline from "usa today." couple --son, as this this couple bishops from new hampshire -- episcopal bishop from new hampshire. "they object to certain forms of birth control, claiming they constitute abortion." the claimn to say, " that corporations through their owners have freedom of religion, a very slippery slope. should employees be held hostage by the police of its owners?" to,other piece to point you the editorial board of "washington times" today talking about the undermining of faith and the affordable care act. "the goal of the administration's grand scheme with the affordable care act was never primarily about raising

money with taxes. the health-care law aims at the more profound objective of forcing americans to act like democrats. the high court will hear arguments tuesday about whether this is appropriate. esther obama reaches into the pockets of others to pay for -- mr. obama reaches into the pockets of others to pay for free benefits. the ability gives this president and unprecedented power to reshape society in his image. mr. obama not only makes decisions about health care, he decides matters of faith, too. it is up to the supreme court to say that the administration has gone too far. we hope that chief justice roberts will rediscover the bold print in the constitution and resist the urge to be nice to rescue obamacare a second time." richie in mount vernon, new york, on outline for republicans -- on our line for republicans. richie. caller: yes. the problem people have with

man, it says in the bible, that we will have life ever more abundantly and don't have to ask nobody. the only debt we owe on another is to love one another. things, life 2 would be a hell of a lot better, much better. in new york, sorry, didn't mean to cut you off. thought you were done. i want to show you some comments who the members of congress have posted statements on twitter and online. here's speaker john boehner's statement yesterday on the supreme court and religious freedom. "in the united states of america

host: speaker john weiner in his statement yesterday. -- speaker john boehner in his statement yesterday. a few treats for members of congress. -- tweets from members of congress.

host: randy in michigan on our line for democrats. caller: good morning, and i want to thank you and all the fine folks behind the scenes we don't get to see for putting on this great show. host: appreciate it, randy. go ahead. caller: personally i believe there should be less religion in the public. i have no problem with people practicing religion. i have grown up around it all my life. i don't believe in organized religion. i sat in on different ones and i can't even see where they can agree on one got because we have so many different religions. andve gone into a lutheran seen the treatment and i've gone into christian and told them i was muslim and seen how i was

treated. yes, all religions and they can't even agree on one god. ask them what height they believe he is. you would have from six foot to 6'2". that's fine, but keep it in your churches. i would be the first one a fight so that you can practice your religion. i'm also the first one to fight so that you keep it out of our public life. i don't believe what you believe. i sure don't want to go to a god that is anti-everything you hear on here by some of these religious people. they don't believe you should do this, you shouldn't do that. what gives you the right to say what somebody should into the shouldn't do -- what gives you the right to say what someone shouldn't do? you can't even prove. you don't have any facts in that book, uf believes. host: one oth -- you have beliefs. host: one other tweet, sandra

fluke's. host: we will be talking about that throughout the morning on "washington journal." want to show you some other headlines from around the country. here is "the new york times." "obama will seek limits for an essay on call records -- an essay on call records -- nsa on call records." congress, itby would end the aspect that has most alarmed privacy advocates since its existence was leaked last year, according to senior administration officials. nsaer the proposal, the would end its systematic collection of data about americans calling habits. the book records would stay in the hands of phone companies, which would not be required to retain the data for any longer

than they normally would. the nsa could obtai specific records only with permission from a judge, usually -- using a new kind of court order. ther the plan administration developed and now advocates, the officials said, it would undergo major changes." if you want to read more on that, it is in "the new york times" and several of the papers today. on edward snowden, on the front page of "usa today," a comment from former president carter, who defended the disclosures from edward snowden in an interview with "usa today" on monday. thatys "the evidence intelligence agencies were collecting metadata on phone

calls and e-mails have probably and constructive in the long run. 'i think it's an intrusion on one of the basic human rights of americans, to have some degree of privacy for you don't want other people to read what we communicate.' does he view snowden as a hero or traitor? 'there's no doubt that he broke the law and that he would be susceptible to prosecution if he came back here, but it is important for americans to know the kinds of things that have been revealed by him and others, and that is that since 9/11 we have gone too far in intrusion on the privacy of americans -- privacy that americans ought to enjoy as a right of citizenship.'" comments from former president carter in an interview with "usa today." just asking you to get the discussion going this morning. do you think there should be more or less religion in public life? we also have a poll on our

facebook page, and on our twitter page, @cspanwj. our linemissouri on for republicans. caller: good morning, i am a conservative republican and also a christian. it seems like the only true groups it is all right to discriminate against these days is christians. we are to be silent and not express our views on anything and not have views on anything and not even supposed to participate in government unless we forsake our religion. you have all these groups like the aclu trying to silence us and strip any public display of our religious beliefs all over the country. if you were to do the same thing that, itl black people is all right to have equal

rights for everybody else but you have just got to be quiet and keep it in your own little group, there would be an outrage . that is just one example. the problem is that all the left believes in that big government andhere -- their god, abortion, the right to exterminate young children or any lame excuse you can come up .ith, is their holy grail they have no respect for the rights of others, yet they are constantly harping about their own rights. it basically needs to be stopped a we will have nothing but socialist or communist country, which i'm afraid most of them want anyway. shot outside the supreme court, where people are ,ining up for that case protesters on both sides at the supreme court. we will be showing you live shot all morning as we discussed this subject, the hobby lobby case

being argued on capitol hill. on our twitter page host: we have asked our viewers, should there be more or less religion in public life? we are getting your thoughts and tweets on the hobby lobby case from members of congress. senator dan coats host: we are going to be getting into the details of the case with supreme court correspondent for reuters, lawrence hurley did he will be joining us in about 20 minutes here on "washington news out ofeaking norfolk, virginia, the naval base there, according to the ap wire service.

a sailor was shot and killed at the naval station in norfolk in virginia. late last night security forces killed a male civilian suspect. says the shooting happened around 11:20 p.m. monday aboard the uss mahan. davis would not describe the circumstances of the shooting but said the scene is secure." ron in eagle river, wisconsin, on our line for democrats. caller: yes, good morning on this chilly day again. i don't think we should extend religion and he -- extend religion any more than the church on sundays or if you are in a private school. religionn why -- which would you want to see more of in our lives? would it be muslim religion?

no? would it be zoroastrian, protestant? should i go on and on? which religion should be dominant because no religion should be dominant. the question for you, it is not exactly about whether religion should be dominant or not. we are asking if folks should be able to express it or practice it more in public life and if lawmakers should be more upfront about their religion. what do you think? caller: yes, practice it in their lives if they wish to, but don't proselytize on other people who don't want religion. there is people who don't believe in religion in this country. ahead and push it on , it's just as much if not more of an inconvenience than allowing people just to study

and worship the way they want in church, or synagogue, or temple, or wherever else they wish to go ahead and practice religion. but no, not in public life. not in making decisions that includes people's lives in this country who may not be religious. host: ron calling in from wisconsin this morning. here is an e-mail that came into our inbox this morning. felix in north carolina writes that "the overriding question really is this -- do we want more government in our lives and businesses? the elections in november will answer this question." a few other headlines. here is the front page of today's "wall street journal." russia anders shun raise pressure."

the heads of state of the world's largest advanced economies moved to isolate russia, severing a key link between moscow analyst world after 2 decades. the leaders of the g7 effectively disbanded the larger g8 by excluding russia until it changes course on ukraine. they also agreed to exert punitive sanctions on russia's energy, aching, finance and arms industries unless osco begins to dialback plans to absorb the region of crimea. while chastising moscow and a joint statement, they left the door open for russia to one day return to its share in the g8. 'russia has a clear choice to u.s.,the leaders of the u.k., france, germany, japan,

italy, and canada said." "the wall story of street journal." also subject of an editorial in "the wall street journal" today. "putin gets the boot." "after dumping russia from the g-8, how about calling the world cup? -- pulling the world cup?" "the logic seems to be doable opened a prospect of mr. putin's return if he doesn't grab more territory. that isn't likely to stop the russian strongman. we recommend pulling the 2018 world cup from russia. that would really hurt." editorial board of "the wall street journal." one more story on russia and crimea. "aid package for ukraine

advances in the senate." it begins what promises to be a heated weeklong debate in congress over the role of the international monetary fund and how it should play in the crimean crisis. the 78-17 vote showed considerable bipartisan support for the measure, bolstered by the votes of some republicans who spent last week's congressional recess in ukraine." if you want to read more of that, that is in "the new york times." the debate is also taking place on capitol hill and you can watch it here on c-span. later today there is house foreign affairs committee meeting at 10:00 a.m. to talk about the ukraine support bill. it will mark up a pending legislation to promote ukraine 70 and democratic institutions while section -- ukraine's sovereignty and democratic institutions while sectioning those who would undermine

independence and stability. that is happening live on c-span 3. we have about 10 minutes left on "washington journal" to talk about this question, should there be more or less religion in public life. live shot of the supreme court this morning where the hobby lobby arguments are set to take place. spencer on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i don't know who came up with a question but it seems elicitcally designed to religion or how you shouldn't have religion, which doesn't really seem to meet to be the question that is .eing addressed by the courts the question might be should businesses be forced to provide and specific devices.

host: spencer, how would you answer your own question there? caller: i think that the government -- that she and -- it seems perfectly reasonable to me that the devout christian hobby lobby, they already provided the pill and other contraception. they have an objection to plan b and certain devices. i would be more interested to hear if they paid their employees well and treat them well. like you are able to create controversy here when you post a question in that , which shows bias by an arrogant elite who probably only hangs out with .ther media types

it is not a very controversial thing and if you put the question in the way that it is, 90% of the people who call and say "what business is it of ?"ybody to say it would destroy 30% of the businesses in this country so that we can gobble down lots of planneb b pills. host: spencer, we will bring in a supreme court reporter from reuters to discuss the issue of the case -- caller: the question -- host: we will certainly get to that and others as well. we want to get the discussion going. line forur independents. good morning. caller: they should keep state and church separate and stop

paying public employees to take a religious holiday off if they don't want to recognize religion . they shouldn't be paying them. that's what i got to say. host: all right, stand from connecticut. harold in ohio on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm quite concerned that religious freedom, freedom of i don't think religion should be forced on anyone. however, i think the right to peak publicly amongst your eers or whomever you are addressing is still a right that must be maintained through our freedom of speech. the other thing i would like to point out is somewhere in the health care bill on page 100-something there is a muslim term that states that the

muslims are exempt from having to be involved with the health care bill, and they will not be penalized financially for not doing so. it seems like a conflict, or contradiction, rather, that people who have religious add thatns to not abortion part into the health care programs at the companies, it seems like a contradiction that they cannot do that. host: harold, we will get into some of the religious exemptions for individuals and religious institutions as you talk about this case later in the show and examplest the business there at hobby lobby and discuss that with the roundtable of

guests coming up in about an hour with a supreme court correspondent coming up in a couple minutes on "washington journal." other headlines we want to point you to. here is "the seattle times" today. "hope dims as search turns up no signs for life," talking about survivors and the search in the giant mudslide in washington state. " the mudslide killed at least eight people and demolished dozens of houses," according to "the seattle times" this morning. deadcials confirmed 8 monday night. the death toll had stood at 4 and as of this morning, the death toll up again today." headline, the mystery of the missing flight, the hasysian airlines flight,

been solved by a revolutionary use of satellite data, the headline from "financial times." u.k.-based company solve the mystery at the final course taken by flight mh370. on the basis of thin mints -- on the basis of the information, the flight that had set off from kuala lumpur and headed for beijing crashed in the sea southwest of perth. is a remote location, far from any possible landing sites. it is therefore with deep sadness and regret that i must inform you that according to this new data, flight mh370 and it in the southern indian ocean. -- and i in the sub --

ended in the southern indian ocean.'" may in racing, wisconsin, on our line for republicans. caller: good morning. i am so happy. lobby washobby against murder. they do give contraceptives, but murder, that is one of the 10 acteddments, and people so nice to each other because they had some belief in some kind of system, which is known god. howcently saw a segment on muslims treat women. they are probably more radical and they treat them like a piece of meat. i don't want that kind of thing going on. -- if theyy exempt come to this country they should obey our laws. host: this was in his report he saw? what are you referring to?

caller: yes, it was a news report. it was pretty interesting. host: what was the news outlet? i'm sorry. caller: it was just this program. , also ofnews reporter the bible, which i believe in. there are so many things happened today that are written in the bible. i have recently in the last 10 years or so and very interested in privacy and i see it happening before my eyes. -- interested in prophecy and i see happening before my eyes. host: anthony in louisiana on our live for democrats. caller: good morning. thank you, c-span. i just want to say that a lot of ofes we take man's law ahead god's law and history has shown us that it creates problems in our country. i think our country is becoming more and more divided between democrats and republicans.

we just need to pull together as a country. and all of this bickering and stuff going on every day about religion -- you know, when we , all ofying in school the shootings and stuff going on in our country, we need god everywhere and our country. whatever your religion is, practice your religion, enjoy your religion, and enjoy your higher power. that is all i really wanted to say. thank you, c-span. host: and that will do it for this first segment of "washington journal" today. we will be back with reuters supreme court correspondent lawrence hurley to talk about the hobby lobby case and look at the legal arguments on both sides. later we will have a roundtable discussion on the case. we will be right back.

>> to tell you the truth, this year it has been very difficult for me to offer the kind of ourl leadership organization needs, because every time i have to talk about the needs of the country, the needs for affordable homes, jack ideas idea and an developing here, every time i try to talk about the need for minimum wage, the need for daycare centers, ideas on both sides of the aisle, the media have not been interested in that. they wanted to ask me about personal finances. .ou need somebody else so i am going to give you that

back. we will have the caucus on tuesday. and then i will offer to resign the house sometime before the end of june. that be -- let's not try to get even with each other. , please don't get in your head that you need to get somebody else because of john tower. thatrats, these don't feel -- please don't feel that you need to get somebody on the other side because of me. let's restore this institution. -- the rightful priorities of this country --

let's all work together to achieve them. our nation has important business and it can't afford these distractions. and that is why i offered to resign. i have enjoyed these years in congress. i am grateful for all of you who have taught me things and been .atient with me a quotationey had that harry truman used to like. fame is af date -- vapor, popularity and accident. wretches take wings.

those who cheer today my cruise tomorrow. -- only thing indoors one thing endures, character." i am not a bitter man and i am not going to be. i am a lucky man. privilegeven me the of serving in the greatest institution on earth for a great toy years, and i am grateful the people of my district in texas, grateful to you, my colleagues, all of you. .od bless this institution god bless the united states. [applause] from 35more highlights years of house for coverage on our facebook page. c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you today as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider.

"washington journal" continues. host: and we will keep talking about the much-anticipated oral argument taking place today at the supreme court. you can see a live shot of it now. to help set the stage for us, we are joined by reuters supreme court correspondent lawrence hurley. the challenge that is being heard today stems from a provision of the affordable care act. the claim, as i understand it, the 1993 religious freedom restoration act. what did that law do and how did it the to today's argument? guest: thanks for having me. standard forthe how people can object to government interference -- how government -- will government regulations interfere with their religion. it is various levels people have to get through before you can win the case. in this particular case, the question is whether the

for-profit corporation can .ctually make such a challenge in this case it involves companies that are providing health insurance. the issue is whether they even have the grounds to make the claim. host: let's set the stage for who the players are. we hear about hobby lobby but it is a case involving a couple different companies. guest: there is a whole series of companies all around the country who have made these claims. the supreme court has only agreed to hear 2 of those cases. the 2 cases before the court are hobby lobby, run by evangelical christians, and the other is conestoga wood specialties, run by mennonites. both of them have made the same type of claim, saying that they will -- object on religious grounds to providing some of the

contraceptive coverage required under obamacare. host: kathleen sebelius is the named defendant in this case. who is making the arguments today for each side? guest: right, so on the government side will be the solicitor general, donald really -- donald verrilli. he is the main governmen lawyer who argues before the supreme court. arguing for the challenger is a very prominent private attorney named paul clement. these are the same 2 lawyers who faced off when obamacare, the main law, was before the court and the court decided that case in 2012. host: these guys know each other well. guest: yeah, they do. host: could you take us briefly through the arguments on both sides? start with the government's case with verrillrilli. that theey claim

corporations themselves, the owners don't have a valid claim. they say the company can't make the claim because they don't have religious feelings, and the companies merely providing company is merely providing benefits as required by the government. the owners themselves, managing the company, they are not actually providing the service and sells directly has -- the service themselves directly as a company. so the second part of the question, the government says they have a compelling interest in providing health insurance s to women allive around the country. on the other side, the position a that this provision imposes substantial burden on their

religious belief, and if they don't do what the government wants them to do, they will be fined quite heavily. they say that the government has other ways to achieve the goal .f providing the coverage there is no need for the government to be imposing on their religious feelings. host: we are talking with lawrence hurley, supreme court correspondent for reuters. we are showing you live shots of the supreme court throughout the morning on the "washington ," and we will be discussing this subject for the next hour and a half or so.

host: lawrence hurley, before we take some phone calls, take us through the mechanics of how the arguments work this morning. this is an unusually long set of arguments that will be taking place, correct? guest: normally it is hour-long arguments. in this case they've extended it by 30 minutes, so a 90 minute argument, and the 2 lawyers we discussed earlier will take turns. paul clement for the challengers goes first, and then the solicitor general goes. both of them will be up there answering lots of questions from the 9 justices and trying to get a word in edgewise. host: who are the justices to watch? guest: generally the rule of thumb when you are at a supreme court argument is that -- whatever what justice anthony kennedy has to say. he is often the swing vote in close cases. especially on sort of these

types of issues. so everyone will be keeping an eye on him. and possibly looking out for interesting comments from other justices that might indicate which way the court might go. ont: one of your previews this case, you talk about the corporate rights issue that is being discussed here. explain what that is, because it is something the court is touched on before but in the area of campaign finance, correct? sort of an, this is interesting issue because it creates a lot of controversy. in 2010, the court decided the case called citizens united, lifted some campaign-finance restrictions on corporations and unions. people said -- some critics of the court said they were too poor corporation, to pro-business -- too pro- corporation, too pro-business. this brings up the idea of

whether corporations can ring up religious objections and some say that the court says they could, this could be used in all sorts of ways in the future to object to government relations they don't like. courtyou say that the threads the needle on the subject. how could they do this on this case? guest: if they wanted to avoid getting into that issue, they could allow the case to go forward just by finding -- the owners of the companies could make the claim. the government says they shouldn't be able to, but the appeals court that decided one of these cases, that is the way that they ruled. host: when will we know what the court rules? guest: usually we should get a decision by the end of june. host: the mechanics of howard works from lawrence hurley. -- of how it works from lawrence hurley. rosanne,tart with waiting in florida on our line

for democrats. rosanne, good morning to you. caller: good morning. this is regarding the question whether or not more or less religion should be in government . , governmentemember shall create no religion. however, no religion or all religion is guaranteed under the first amendment. if you are an atheist, muslim, jew, or christian, you are guaranteed the right to practice as such and guarantee that freedom, not just in a place of worship or on sundays or saturdays. is imposing a hca law that violates that right. the first amendment is being violated. ande were many beheadings burnings at the stake under king george. religion,acticing his or for being a witch.

a bloody battle was fought over this. we need to remember these things. host: lawrence hurley, the caller raise up the affordable care act. what could the ruling in this case mean for the affordable care act? is the act itself actually under threat in this case? guest: no, as most people know, in 2012 the supreme court upheld the affordable care act eno -- in a 5-4 decision. this case, although it involves a lot of very divisive issues, the practical impact could be somewhat limited. it doesn't affect the viability of the obamacare law, and also doesn't directly affect even the contraceptive provision. it would allow certain companies that can show -- or their owners that can show

that they have strongly held religious objections to get an exemption from the contraceptive requirement. hurley, what is correspondent at the supreme court. will you be at the chambers today when the arguments are happening? guest: i will, yeah. host: how many supreme court correspondents are there in the chambers? guest: the full-time supreme court press corps will be there -- host: how big is that this court? -- is that press corps? guest: permanent members is about 20 people. because it is a big case, there are reporters from other news organizations who will be there. probably over 100 reporters inside the court. and probably quite a few outside the court as well because as you have seen from the pictures, there is going to be a lot of demonstration outside the court. host: how long have you been covering supreme court issues in your reporting career? guest: i've been doing it for 6 years now.

i didn't actually cover the health care ruling, but i did cover the citizens united case we talked about earlier. host: here is how then from ohio puts this case and i want to get your take on what he says. the first amendment protects the free expression of religion and prohibits government from imposing their view of religion. the question from the court is whether the government is imposing its views on this family or prohibiting this family from practicing and expressing their religion as they see fit." is that a good summation of what is happening today? guest: what is interesting is that under the court president -- under the court precedent, under the first amendment, the court said that it is a general law, that applies equally to taxes or such as social security. you can have a religious objection to that. the same way that people can't,

for example, if you are antiwar, you can't just say i'm not going to pay taxes to go to the pentagon. that is pretty well established. somessue is whether, to extent, if the government is already provided some exemptions, which in this case they have to religious institutions, whether that could be extended to other people that have religious objections. host: karen asks on twitter host: you touched on that just a little bit. guest: actually, that is one of the potential outcome -- the potential outcome would be if the company lost the case, they could just say we are not going androvide health insurance

they could give employees more money to provide health insurance instead of providing it themselves. host: 15 minutes left with lawrence hurley, supreme court correspondent for reuters. he will be in the chamber's today for the hobby lobby argument, here to answer your questions before heading over to the supreme court, where it is starting to snow on capitol hill . you can see the press court setting up. -- press corps setting up. sharon on our line for republicans. caller: good morning. host: you are on with lawrence hurley. go ahead. caller: yes, i'm calling because i believe that everyone should have a right to believe what they want to and not have their rights infringed on by other people, you know i'm saying? and then i believe the big picture behind everything that is going on is the devil.

we are not fighting people. it is evil spirits in high places -- host: sharon, can i ask you, you said that rights shouldn't be infringed upon. in this case whose rights do you think are being infringed upon? i believe the government is trying to take christians rights from them. is the enemy is trying to take our freedom away. prayer is the key to everything. we were showing our viewers some of the pictures of protesters outside the supreme court. how unusual is it to have people ?leep overnight is this expected to be one of the biggest cases of the court's term? there are typically a few

cases per term to get a good turnout. i have heard people queuing up behind the court since friday on this one. with the cold weather i'm sure it has been unpleasant. this case is probably the biggest this term as far as the interest goes. we had the gay marriage cases in big case on voting rights. >> along with the protesters we are arty seeing we read earlier that members of congress will be hosting a press conference outside of the courthouse to talk about this case. can you talk about the role of congress in the hobby lobby case . there are members of congress from both parties that one of them,-

senator ted cruz, republican from texas, actually wrote his own brief. before he was a senator he was a prominent lawyer. he knows the law. host: and we will go to charles waiting in daytona beach florida . you're on with the supreme court correspondent from reuters. i think it is really wrong for any religion, any company that has a religion, that they believe a certain belief. if i worked for a buddhist company even though i am protestants, i don't follow what they believe. , respect their religion 100%

anybody that believes in any religion. i do not respect that they should written french on my theys as to not believe -- should in french on my rights as to not believe what they believe. is not the first time the freedom of restoration act has been in the news, dealing with laws around the country. in arizona this was the subject of a law that the governor did not sign. that was state law, not under federal law. there was pressure not to sign that. host: is it the subject of other challenges? is something that folks are looking to put some of these cases on the supreme court? what is new here's is the

question of whether a , a for-profit company, can make an objection under this law. writtenthe law has been hasn't been interpreted by the supreme court before. that is the key thing here and what people are looking for. -- wasas there must there much opposition when this was passed in 1993? guest: no, it was passed pretty efficiently. daniel on our to line for republicans. we are talking with lawrence hurley, supreme court correspondent for reuters. it is not just a religious issue, it is also a health care issue. consuming birth control pills are actually doing something that's harmful to

themselves. if you read the label, it says it can cause heart attack, stroke, or cancer. host: are you still with us? not just ais religious issue, it is a health issue. host: i want to talk about the history of this case before it reached the supreme court. reached bydecisions lower courts leading up to this case. how did hobby lobby and the spare in their decisions? supreme court rules in different ways, which is generally why it takes different cases if the lower courts are divided. in the two cases of the courts

hearing today, the appeals court decided opposite ways. caseobby lobby won their in the appeals court in denver, where the court said that the corporation could make a claim. is in the other case, which pennsylvania, the government won that case. a lot of the courts have weighed in, including the appeals court in washington. the company couldn't make the claim. let's go to eric waiting in denver, colorado on our line for independents. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. question i have is relating to the artificial corporations. a corporation is considered an off -- considered an artificial person create when you create a

corporation you -- artificial person. when you create a corporation you create an artificial person. how does an artificial person have spiritual rights? they don't. they are because we created it that way. we have religious rights. an artificially created person cannot claim those rights. host: you are talking about this corporate rights argument hurley was talking about earlier? i think we lost him there. if you can talk more about the corporate rights issue and where the justices have come down on this topic. you mentioned one of the pvs cases involving the f ec -- one of the previous cases involving .he fsc is the first time

the court has had a case on whether for-profit corporations can claim a case under this federal law. the way they are connected is if this court was to rule that companies can make these claims then critics of those types of decisions will put it together with what they would describe as further evidence for pro-business. roberts court treated differently than other courts in the past? how have other courts treated this issue? guest: generally the roberts court is seen by some critics as being rather pro-business on a whole range of issues. people would see that is just one aspect of that. lenny is on our line for independents from maryland. you're on with lawrence hurley from reuters.

caller: hello. i know a few plaintiffs on this case against the government. it wasious to know if muslim owned companies that brought the case to the government. was muslim owned companies that brought the case to the government. host: who are some of the other companies involved? 80 companies? guest: i can't remember the exact number but there are quite a few. all of them are closely held companies. this is not the case of microsoft or apple trying to get this type of exemption. companies whowned are all religious and have the same religion. ownerspany where the

have different religious views -- since they all have the same dues and they describe it they expressed the religious views through the company in a way such as giving donations to andl religious groups celebrating religious holidays. different to a publicly traded company. only casen't the happening at the supreme court this week. although there is lot of activity today. one of the case is being watched of secret service and how they treated protesters. can you describe that case? it was about president george w. bush and one night

there were some protesters himby who were -- who poked and secret service moved them slightly. this led to litigation as to whether they were correctly moved in the secret service treated the bush protesters differently to how they treated pro-bush protesters. the term ends in june. we are starting to get some of the big decisions. due to makecourt is some decisions just before the oral argument in the hobby lobby case. cases, suchme big as issues of campaign finance and another case about what

types of prayers can be -- public prayers can be made before a legislative meeting. host: what, those expected to come? guest: 10:00 a.m. host: a question from twitter -- guest: no. says the amendment government cannot endorse a particular religion. obviously individual people have their religious views. these cases are about conflict. host: let's go to richard waiting on the phone from georgetown, texas on our line for republicans. you are on with lawrence hurley. is is thereuestion

a provision in the health care someplace to exempt -- am i on right now? host: he is asking about the religion exemption provisions and health care act. is that something you can discuss for us? guest: in terms of the contraceptive prayers -- contraceptive provision, the government invented religious there was an outcry from nonprofit catholic schools and groups like that who said they did not want to provide this coverage. the governor -- the government , they them accommodation

still have to provide the coverage but they don't have to provide themselves. the health insurance will provide it but they have to sign for the waiver saying the object -- saying they object. that has led to litigation. that itself could be an issue that could end up at the supreme court again. host: lawrence hurley is with reuters. we will give you time to get up to the supreme court to watch the arguments. we appreciate you coming on. up next, two perspectives on the hobby lobby case. we will be joined by elizabeth wydra and ed whelan. dus talksin bogar about tension over ukraine. an update from c-span radio first. >> in addition to the supreme

court case, other headlines. congressional action to authorize sanctions on russia over the crimea annexation could be delayed over competing house and senate bills. senate legislation has advanced while members of the gop controlled house object to provisions dealing with the international monetary fund. they are prepared to write their own bill. senate continues to work on the ukraine built today. 10 --nate comes in on comes in at 10 and will be live on c-span television. hasukraine government accepted the resignation of their defense minister. interior ukraine's minister says a prominent member of a radical nationalist movement played a key role in antigovernment demonstrations was killed in a police operation to detain him. first lady michelle obama in

--jing, encouraging rural i rural chinese students to get a good education. she cited herself, basketball star lebron james, and howard schultz as people with modest backgrounds succeeding. some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> have you ever heard of fracking? hydraulic fracking? >> no. >> fracturing? >> no. >> congress ordered the environmental protective agency to look into dangers close to water sources due to hydraulic fracturing. studies untilced

2016. can we really wait that long, congress? >> we have announced the winners of this year's c-span student cam competition on what is the most important issue congress should address this year. watch the top 21 videos starting tuesday on april 1. see all the winning documentaries online at student cam.org. years bringing public affairs events from washington directly to you. when you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings, and conferences. and offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house, all as a public service of private industry. we are c-span, created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on

facebook, and follow us on twitter. >> "washington journal" continues. host: to continue our discussion on today's supreme court discussion, we are joined by whelan.h wyder and ed guest: one of the questions is whether hobby lobby as a corporation 10 ring their claim that these particular forms of contraception are being covered under the affordable care act violate their religious liberties. host: this is a standing issue? guest: it is a question of whether the corporation can claim the rights to free exercise of religion in the same way a living breathing human being can do.

my organization filed a brief that said if you look at the original meaning of the constitution, you see the founders thought of religious liberty protection as being very personal, a right of conscience and dignity. it doesn't translate well when you are talking about a an artificial corporate entity. do you think this is going to turn -- guest: i think there may half dozen issues that the court will explore. address thisy question of corporate exercising religion. the history of exercising religion is deeply tied to corporations. , the closely held corporation can engage in exercising religion, what does that mean for an incorporated culture delhi -- incorporated kosher deli?

one can even imagine a court .andate -- a pork mandate i don't think any corporation can exercise religion as several steps too far. i think the case is going to really come down to the religious freedom restoration act. there are two components to the scrutiny test. first is the government's obligation to show the hhs mandate. is to show the hhs mandate as a least restrictive means. host: explain where that test came from for those that aren't familiar with it. guest: this is a strict scrutiny test you see under various constitutional doctrines. it was actually the test under the free exercise clause from the 60's up until the 1990's

when the supreme court called division v smith, that is no longer under the exercise clause. unanimously nearly the freedom of restoration act, which restored, as a statutory manner, the standard that had applied previous to the smith decision as a constitutional manner under the free exercise clause an. to show the mandate advances a compelling governmental interest. thatecond is to show through the least restrictive means. i think it is easy for the challengers of the mandate to say that the government did provide this accommodation to religious nonprofits that you say is less restrictive means. why not also revive that to us? -- also provide that to us?

host: can you talk about the religious freedom restoration act, the history of it, and how it is being used in this case. freedom -- the religious freedom of expiration act -- religious freedom restoration act, some people are wondering why you are bringing in principles of the free exercise clause. with what congress is intending is to try to codify and restore the free exercise principles prior to the supreme court case. when you look to those free exercise principles, never more than 200 years since the ratification of the free exercise clause has a secular commercial enterprise been given

free exercise and protection in the same way individuals. even if hobby lobby and the companies that are bringing this particular claim, even if they can bring their claim they haven't been able to identify a single case in our nation's history. commercial enterprise can use the religious freedom exploration act -- freedom restoration act -- you might want to give a call because he is probably arguing the case in two hours. host: before we get too far into talk about who you groups are and what they do. what is the constitutional accountability center?

guest: we are a nonprofit, nonpartisan center focused on looking at the constitution's and usingistory arguments rooted in the constitution to further the progress of promise of our founding documents. we filed a brief on this particular case. we often filed briefs on supreme court and lower federal court appeals. guest: the ethics and policy center is a d.c. think tank dedicated to applying the judeo-christian moral public policies. specifically that corporations under limited circumstances are indeed capable of exercising religion. i would say in response to elizabeth's last point, what is unprecedented is the intrusion religious liberty of

corporations, the effort by to use employers as a means of advancing their particular objective. elizabeth failed to mention one of the three companies that his brain these challenges. the third company is a company called martel, a for-profit christian bookseller. how could it be that a company like mardel would not have the religious rights of a nonreligious bookseller? they are operating identically but one loses religious protections because it is incorporated as a nonprofit instead of a for-profit.

there were five justices in the case. they recognized the incorporated grocery store indeed had religious liberty rights under the free exercise clause. host: we talked a bit about the contraceptive coverage in the final rule from health and human services on the affordable care act. just to bring everybody on the same page, we will show you a bit of information of what it requires. it requires insurance plans to cover contraceptives with no copayment, coinsurance, or did dr. bos. these institutions such as churches, synagogues, and mosques would be exempt.

that is the heart of the age age rule on contraceptive coverage. h rule on hunter rule oncountry -- hh contraceptive coverage. if you are outside the u.s., 202-585-3883. we will start with felix calling in from carolina on the line for democrats. caller: how are you on this beautiful morning? host: excellence, go ahead. vietnami am a disabled federate them -- vietnam veteran. 1990'sd to the early case where justice scalia wrote that's native americans do not have a personal individual religious right to partake in ceremonial peyote.

clause i christians seem to pick and choose religious beliefs of the bible. they go home to a disobedient wife and children and don't stone them to death but they hate christians -- but they hate homosexuals in the morning. i preach thego gospel. sometimes i even use words. toocrats utilize capitalism their advantage. simply don't patronize their businesses and go to democratic businesses. several comments there from felix. your thoughts on any one of them? atst: i think when you look the constitution's protection of religious freak exercise, it was intended to protect the vibrant

pluralistic religious society we live in. people will have different views and religious beliefs. the caller is talking about the president that is against hobby lobby. i think there is a plethora of case law to choose from that shows that the claim being wouldt by hobby lobby fail before the court. i think it will be interesting to see the way the justices address those previous precedents. i think the government did a great job. there will be a strong argument that our constitutional principles established precedents going back to the 1990's. it goes back long before that and really supports the government's position in this case. guest: the color referred to

this decision by justice scalia, in step -- the smith case 1990. that was an interpretation of the free exercise clause. the charge that the caller is picking -- the charge the caller made that people are picking and choosing among religions is unfair. after the religious freedom restoration act was enacted justice scalia was part of the unanimous majority, holding that the minority religious claim had a right under the freedom restoration act. the difference between 1990 and now is the road -- the existence of the freedom of religion restoration act. james is from tennessee. the morning, you are on. i am a veteran like that

other guy that was on a minute ago. we fought to protect the which is freedom of religion and right to bear arms. there was a republican that got on there it a while back those talking about these muslims in america that was traced back to that they werens involved in fire bombings, murder, and kidnapping. i'm a christian down here in cap -- down here in tennessee. if anybody comes in here, they are a dead duck. they will be leaving in a body bag. on, we wantl move to stay on the subject of the hobby lobby case. i want to read a piece that you did for cnn. you talked about this case being a roadblock to the affordable care act and was almost more

problematic than the problems associated with the health exchange website rollout. why do you think that? i think the affordable care act has had a lot of flack lately. i think this adds to the theative, which i think administration is probably not incredibly excited about. just as the affordable care act got a victory the last time it came up in the supreme court, i think it should get another victory. i think that would be a welcome win for the administration, just as we are seeing an uptick in for people who will successfully sign up for coverage under the affordable care act. a lot of people are getting access to quality affordable care they never got before. i think that is incredibly important. if there's one thing that comes out of this case, i think there has been an increased awareness for the great preventative

health coverage that was provided for women under the affordable care act. a lot of preventative screening and counseling for women that have come under the affordable care act is one of the great benefits of the law. host: who will be the key voices here you go -- voices here? justice kennedy is often a swing vote in cases like this. i will also be interested in justice breyer, justice kagan, -- justice kagan. it will be interesting to see if they try to craft a narrower approach. on this question of obamacare more broadly. i want to say here that the narrative of the failure of obamacare is the reality. matter after matter the administration offered waivers and exemptions.

i think it is very striking that won'te set of folks who get the benefit of an exemption is those that have religious complying with the hh a mandate. it says something about the way in which obamacare is being rolled out. this maybe you can take e-mail question -- guest: my understanding is that groupuise -- the insurance plan did provide coverage for these forms of birth control and when hobby lobby then reviewed its plan after the passage of the affordable care act today, they discovered this act and try to

not encourage those forms of birth control. the law actually allows companies like hobby lobby to avoid providing coverage for these forms of challenge contraception the law does not require coverage of these forms of contraception. ant it requires is if employer offers a group sponsored health plan then it must meet -- must meet certain minimum requirements and federal law, which cover many different aspects of health insurance plans. if hobby lobby chose not to offer a group sponsored insurance plan it could avoid covering these particular forms of birth control and perhaps a party employee compensation package to offset the loss of the approved health insurance plan, and then they would just

pay tax instead of meeting these contraception requirements. that gets us into situations court upheld paying social security taxes against a religious objection. i think that puts us squarely into the realm of constitutionality. the constitutional account ability center and public policy center. perhaps you can take this question from jan in wisconsin, who writes -- the situation if hobby

lobby prevails will be exactly as it was before the hhs mandate. an employee is entirely free to obtain contraceptives as they see fit. i want to emphasize that no one questions -- the obama administration does not dispute hobby lobby's and its owners sincere religious beliefs against a particular subset of so-called contraceptives that -- operate in and an embraer -- operate in an embryo killing manner. nobody spews that hobby lobby has religious objection here. the problem any player recognizes is you are in a competitive market for employees and employers make the the session to offer health

premium -- insurance. the pressure hobby lobby faces is ample literature through the threshold issues under the freedom restoration act. host: let me talk about those fines. waiting in westwood, new jersey on our line for republicans. good morning, you're on with ed whelan and elizabeth wyder. good morning. i find callers are just as interesting as the guests. of i don't -- i don't want anybody placed in a body bag. i go back to a commitment, love your neighbor as yourself. i have in my hand a copy of the declaration of independence. this was unanimous.

the rights which were given to of 1776mously on july 4 have now been taken away. i think president obama could restore them by an executive order. i doubt he is going to do that. the right to life was taken away by the congress, which should have been supporting us, in rovers his weight. clearly unconstitutional. -- the affordable care act is clearly unconstitutional. persony the right of a or citizen to have a doctor or hospital of their choice. they gave it to the non-caring government who only wants power, power, power and more power. harry reid and the senate, they took away the pursuit of happiness because they know what will make us happy.

and what will make us happy, in their opinion, is certainly -- what would you try to say? they refuse to consider all the bills passed by the house of representatives that would give us happiness, that would give us jobs. host: we are going to let elizabeth jump in and offer her views. guest: i love the colors enthusiasm for the declaration of independence. i disagree with a lot of the conclusions he draws i share that enthusiasm. i think it is important to think just --at it is not what we haven't been talking about are more than the 13,000 employees of hobby lobby across the country who are going to be by -- going to be affected what the companies trying to do in this case. i think when the justices hear this case we will hear all the

uncomfortable with the idea that individual owners of a company can impose their religious belief on employees that were not hired on the base of religion. hobby lobby does not higher on the basis of religion. the employees are not required to share their religious beliefs to the individual owners of the company. are statutorily granted the rights to have these particular covert forms of health care, they should not be sacrificed so there could be the fullest effectuation of the religious beliefs of the individuals involved in hobby lobby. there was a case called united states versus lee in which the court said that when you voluntarily enter the world of the limits that one

individual might take on his or her conduct as a result of their faith cannot be imposed upon their employees. i think that is something that should really come into play when we are talking about this case. the libertyst about of the green family that owns hobby farm -- hobby lobby. we are talking about choices of the employees and their families. pictures of the supreme court. protesters are there. i saw you jotting down some notes. there are tens of millions of employees whose employers are exempt from the hhs mandate in virtue of the so far grandfather plan exemption. the government does not care but they are getting these supposedly necessary benefits from their employers and yet it

is eager to compel those employers with religious objections to provide this coverage to the much much smaller -- infinitesimally smaller amount of employees they have. this is not a matter of imposing religious beliefs. hobby lobby and its overtures have against the government, individuals remain entirely free to obtain contraception as they see fit. the government's obligation will fund the least restrictive means -- there are plenty of ways the government can provide contraceptive coverage to these employees. --entioned before the calm the accommodation arrangement. we are not talking about rights here. we are talking about a that tries toer

elevate to the highest level, something that government never saw fit to put into the obama care legislation. there simply is not a compelling interest in requiring hobby lobby to provide benefits when all of these employers with their millions of employees don't have to have the secular exemption. that goes back to the rf ra? guest: it goes back to the religious freedom restoration act. host: on twitter -- a question from an e-mail --

guest: a think what we are talking about here is health care and public health. the experts that congress specifically tasked with coming recommendations -- ed talks about how these forms of contraception were not specifically enumerated in the affordable care act. that is not the way congress legislates when they talk about coverage for vaccinations. expertsked the medical with coming up with what vaccinations should be covered through regulations. i think most of us are pretty please with that as we don't think of congress as being a medical expert freedom -- medical expert. provisions -- -- it sending full range

was important a full range of contraception be covered here. i think most americans are into it for common sense. contraception to use are largely governed by cost. some of the safest and most effective forms of , areaception, like an iud also the most expensive. that decision of what form of fda approved contraception is really a decision made between a woman and her doctor. the link is so indirect to the individuals who own the corporation and to our sponsoring the group insurance plan, administered by a third .arty maybe there will be a choice made by a woman and her doctor to use one of these challenged forms of contraception. attenuatedt link is

as a substantial burden under the court case law. david green quoted -- michael waiting in arkansas on our line for independents. i am a disabled veteran, which has nothing to do with what i am going to say. i live in the state of arkansas. let me tell you what happens when religious believes decide loss. under mike huckabee we had a law called a blue law.

whether you are religious or not you are not allowed to purchase any item, medicine, toilet paper , anything on sunday. they didn't believe in doing anything on the holy day. under xsed that law baptist preacher mike huckabee. day you are not allowed to buy any alcoholic beverage on sunday. michael seems to be concerned about the role religion plays in his choices. that is obviously the broader question of what role these informed fees play and public policy. a lot of people have different views. address the to burden on hobby lobby that is supposedly attenuated. hobby lobby is forced to pay for this.

if you want to make it so it is attenuated, don't make hobby lobby pay for it. never before has the government sed implicitly in wrongful conduct. on the review board that involves a person objecting to manufacturing carets to be put on takes. -- put on tanks. his objection was summoned to make the decision to use the tanks and conflict. no one said that is to attenuated. he is objecting to what he was forced to do. the court said it was not the business of the courts to that religious judgment. it is not the right of the course -- of the courts to second-guess hobby lobby and moral complicity.

host: let's go to gabriella in florida on our line for democrats. you're on the washington journal. lord, i'mank the waiting for the rapture is what i am waiting for. i am a christian democrat. world i don't think subjects like this would even come up. when you have people saying in -- a sundayhat school story or people killing other people for reasons -- i think if jesus was in the world right now he wouldn't the running after women who made a mistake, even if that would be the case. i don't think he would be running after those people. i think he would be upset at the hierarchy of a country that is very sad.

i'm a true blooded american. i believe the rapture is coming and i believe that people need to get right with god. we will -- host: we will stay in california. donnas on our line. is on our line. caller: i wish people would get it through their heads that the bible is not a religious book. people have taken the bible and take in -- and turned it into the rule of the people. the word of god is meant for only one group of people, and that is the hebrew israelites, the black, spanish, and native american indians in this country. but the white supremacy and white supremacists have taken

the bible and turned it into a thegious type thing when bible was not meant to be for religion. it was meant for a group of people to take this bible, which is the instructions of how to live on this earth, and governed this world. the hebrew israelites were to -- want to talk about the implications of what could happen depending on the decision on this case. is the affordable care act under threat here? a previous correspondent said no, the actual still stand even if the justices side with hobby lobby. guest: exactly right. not only was the internal -- not only with the affordable care act, this particular provision would just mean that the companies would get an exemption from having to comply with it.

the actual integrity of the provision and act are not in question here. i want to get back to that quote you mentioned from mr. green. he is wrong about that. the court has said that when you choose toe and exercise a business in the commercial realm, which these business owners have chosen to do, even the christian bookstore is a commercial incorporated enterprise. when you choose to do that you are put to these choices. the court is upheld against religious challenge, not questioning the sincerely held religious beliefs. they upheld latest challenge -- upheld religious challenge. sometimes the commercial business owners are put to that choice and the court said they have to comply with generally applicable laws that often work

to the public's health and benefit. if hobby lobby were to get this case we could see an under binding of principle. -- undermining of principle. and also in antidiscrimination principles when it comes to treating people of all colors equally in the treatment of gays and lesbians. host: on our twitter page -- ed whelan, we will let you jump in. of course there are federal laws that will survive the scrutiny test. of i think every example in elizabeth's a of horrible's would survive.

i did not meet over speak there. -- the courthas has never said that under the freedom of restoration act if you are in business you lose all right. that is a remarkable proposition. imagine the operator of the kosher deli and whether that makes sense in that context. theirk people are letting biases on a particular substantive issue here work their view on the underlying legislative key issue. yes, social security taxes can be imposed to satisfy the scrutiny tax -- scrutiny test. the court recognized a unique interest there and a comprehensive system. that everyot mean claim a business make loses. host: on our twitter page -- a few minutes left with ed whelan and elizabeth white re

-- elizabeth wydra. oral arguments are being heard. are both of you planning to attend the arguments today? guest: i'm happy to review the transcript later and not fight the crowds. guest: i'm going to -- over when this is done. it should be great. host: we are showing our audience some of the crowds there. down at theng supreme court at this hour. let's go to ron waiting on the onnes from hudson new york our line for independents. good morning. morning.ood i have a multipart question. i hope you give me a chance to get it all out, it works together. first of all the constitution .oes not grant us any rights in the declaration us as we were endowed by our creator with rights such as free street

should -- free speech, freedom of religion. the constitution says that the government may not take away those rights but rights existed before the government even existed. first part of the question is aw do you tell what religion corporation has seattle isn't the religion of the ceo or the stockholder vote required or can the president of the corporation decide what religion is of the corporation? if i am working for that corporation and i have a different religion and the government exempts the corporation from a particular law, isn't the government establishing a religion which is prohibited by the constitution? issuey, wasn't this already decided when the supreme they have been using it for thousands of years, the

native americans couldn't use peyote in their religious ceremonies because it was late -- it was illegal. have three questions. what police does cbs have when it -- what belief does cbs have what it decides not to -- what belief does cvs have when it decides not to sell tobacco? it is a matter of addressing who under state law decides what policies are. recognizeortant to that it will be extremely rare. it will be extremely rare for a corporation to set forth and that here to a policy of religious beliefs. ity ought to be respective. is not a matter of establishing religion. abilityployees have the

they had before to obtain contraceptives by whatever means they want. concerning theon 1990 case, the freedom restoration act statutorily restored the standard that had been employed -- that had been abandoned in the smith case. we saw a case that went the opposite way of division v smith under the restoration act. bys case was not decided division v smith. i think the caller brings up some interesting points. when you think about what religion -- what religion the corporation has. an artificial corporate entity does not have religion in the way that the founders understood religious liberty at the time the bill of rights were drafted. a corporation cannot pray. i have never seen exxon mobil in the pew next to me in church on sunday.

leaves into one of the of the individuals behind the corporations? the artificial corporate entity is a separate legal being from the individual investors who own it. by trying to blur that distinction, there are a lot of unintended, but definitely very worrisome consequences for basic rinse bowls of corporate law in principles of- corporate law in this country. willnk the justices thely be concerned with undermining of fundamental principles of corporate law that hobby lobby is pushing in this case. host: where do big business

groups stand on this case? big businesses do not exercise religion. hobby lobby does. the administration recognizes that there is nothing about the corporate for him that makes -- makes a business incapable of exercising a religion. is a case from a couple weeks ago from the fourth circuit that involved whether a corporation can have a racial identity. , yes, a corporation can have a racial identity. i think it is a little odd that folks would recognize that corporations can have racial , that somehow when

they are implementing religious beliefs of their owners, they cannot possibly have religious beliefs. host: did you want a quick response? guest: the fact that some incorporated entities like churches and synagogues get protection, they have got protection since the time of the founding. the founders distinguished between ecclesiastical corporations and corporations. i don't think anyone thinks that walmart is the same thing as a church or synagogue. we have a couple minutes. carol is waiting in illinois on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. it seems to me that hobby lobby 's position is inconsistent

because they sell a lot of products from china. china has a one child policy. we all know that there are lots of abortions in china. it seems to me that at hobby lobby can make money by selling things from china, which their practices and china should be against their religion, that is ok because they make money. but if it might cost them money by providing birth control coverage for their employees, well then it is against their religion. guest: i think there is confusion there. it is not up to the u.s. government to tell hobby lobby what it's religious belief should be. , under the government's own arguments, hobby lobby is costing itself money or is at best neutral and not providing contraceptive coverage.

this is not a matter of hobby lobby saving money. it is not a matter of the government having any right to tell hobby lobby that it's religious beliefs are not coherent because it is doing x in one place. host: fort lauderdale, florida. republican line. caller: good morning. i have a question. if hobby lobby is mandated to provide contraception, which i believe is the morning-after pill which is abortion, would toy be able to hire people they woulder that not have the services provided? i am a christian. i want to follow god's rules. how can the government tell me to go against god's law? i would like to know the answer to that question.

guest: i think that the caller raises an interesting question. i would clarify that the law does not mandate hobby lobby to provide this form of contraception. offer the not want to full range of fda approved contraception coverage as a part of theother parts affordable care act, they do not have to do that, the law does not require them. i think the larger question that the caller raises is can a commercial enterprise hire people based on them sharing religious beliefs? the answer is no. hobby lobby does not profess to be able to hire people, only people who share religious beliefs. they do not hire on the basis of religion.

i think that is why it is particularly troublesome that essentially what they're trying to do is impose religious beliefs on people who might have very different religious beliefs. the caller expresses an admirable strength of conscience. there are many people in the united states that have similar strong feelings of conscience that might differ from the owners of hobby lobby in the protection of religious liberty that goes both ways. for the individuals, in their personal capacities, who own hobby lobby, and those who work there. religious liberties are a right against government, not a right against other individuals. employees remain entirely free to obtain contraceptives. the government has plenty of other ways of providing contraceptive coverage to them. there is no reason for hobby

lobby to be the vehicle for their agenda. host: we're showing a live shot of the supreme court. people are walking up the steps of the supreme court to watch the arguments today. nancy is waiting in overton, texas. independent line. caller: good morning. don't think this is about religion, i think this is about the government taking more money out of our pockets to pay for people who don't want to work, for drug addicts. i see it every day. in the last 15 years that i have tried to hire people, they used to be good. now they are all on disability and they have turned into meth heads, crack heads, coke heads. host: did you want to respond to

the business owner? guest: it is too early in the morning for me for meth and crack heads. when we are talking about employers, we are talking about a commercial enterprise. has held before, when a person voluntarily chooses to operate their , whichs as a corporation the owners of the businesses did in this case, then they have legaln to take on the statutory schemes that cover corporations -- govern corporations and there are certain rights that are different than those of individuals. the owners of hobby lobby are trying to have their cake and eat it too by having the advantages of the corporate form, but avoid the perceived

difference --disadvantages. guest: i do think that is what is going on. i would go back to the simple example of and incorporated jewish deli. once a jewish deli incorporates, it has no religious liberty rights. that position is not reconcilable with the clear set -- text of the religious liberation act. laws that will belon survive scrutiny. to the strict scrutiny test, the government cannot show that there are not less restrictive means. they cannot show that this that there are millions of employees subject to exemptions. host: that is all the time we

have with ed whelan and elizabeth from the constitutional accountability center. we appreciate you joining us. up next, we will be talking with d.c. lobbying on firms representing the russian government and the tensions over the ukraine. >> president obama plans to ask balless to end the collection and storage of phone records by the national security agency, but allow the government to access the metadata when needed, according to a senior administration official. the nsaress approves, would stop collecting metadata, instead the government would have to get permission through the foreign intelligence survey shunts -- surveillance court.

u.s. officials have made their case to the vatican for pope francis to visit the u.s. next year. this message needs to be heard, they say. the governor of pennsylvania and philadelphia mayor made their pitch today at the vatican. the pontifical council is helping to organize the september 22 through 27th meeting. francis had made family issues a top priority of his pontificate. no confirmation of his participation is expected before next year. finally, experts hailing the move on more than 30 countries attending a nuclear summit in the netherlands.

experts say it is the most significant achievement of the meeting -- turning nuclear guidelines into laws. >> i do recognize that xenophobia exists. attitudea negative toward a community -- i am absolutely against that. it is part of xenophobia. judeo-phobia, christian-phobia, whatever it is. lobby, iranian lobby has turned it into a position. they have been accused of islam-phobia. this is what the national

socialists would have accused anyone against their policy of in germany. this has become very dangerous. >> u.s. policy in the middle east. saturday night at 10:00 eastern on book tv. on april 6, more discussion on the middle east with bing west. live, in-depth, starting at noon eastern. book tv, every weekend on c-span 2. >> washington journal continues. host: kevin bogardus covers lobbying issues for "the hill" newspaper. with all of the international controversy on the russian lookingin crimea, he is at what it means for the c suite.

lobbyists include this huge public-relations firm named ketchum. russia also has some lobbying representation. another firm has a subcontract to represent the russian federation. ketchum represents the big state owned oil and gas company in russia. they have another subcontractor as well. how they are negotiating the sanctions is they have not really been sanctioned themselves, yet. the obama administration has started out with these small round of sanctions, targeting individuals and smaller companies, not necessarily sanctioning the whole russian

government yet. himhat ever happens, catch lobby shopsnd the will have something to worry about. they could negotiate and they could find a way to represent russia if the russian government ends up getting sanctioned itself. you could seek a license from the treasury department from the office of foreign control -- foreign asset control. it is a very powerful office that no one hears about too much. it is responsible for enforcing u.s. sanctions of all kinds. host: how lucrative are these contracts? what do these groups do in the united states for the russian government? guest: ketchum handles pr. that is how they pitch themselves. an economicemselves

development firm. they try to polish up the image of russia through media relations action on social media, using twitter, facebook, and so on. it is pretty lucrative. they have had the contract for eight years. time invery long washington lobbying perspective. they have earned more than $26 billion over the past eight 2006. starting in subcontractor has been around since 2010 or so. got $1.4 million so far from russia. the other subcontractor is more responsible for contacting lawmakers and the more traditional lobbying that people think of.

the lobbyists on capitol hill. that is their role. host: if you want to talk to kevin bogardus, give us a call. democrats, (202) 585-3880. republicans, (202) 585-3881. independents, (202) 585-3882. outside the u.s., (202) 585-3883 . you can also check out his story on thehill.com/ . fromhas been the response these companies as tensions have escalated over the recent weeks and months in ukraine and crimea? they're looking at other lobby firms who have had to deal with controversy. they are trying to put their

head down and keep a low profile. recentlyomething i was -- that was recently filed by ketchum, their twitter account from the russian government. does notind of see, it have much to do with the crisis in ukraine or crimea. i will read a few for people. ships, trains, and autos are taking over florida with more than $1 million invested. why does this russian shipping expert believes that this is the most promising type of fuel? read about how kos asked him will demonstrate the benefits of natural gas vehicles when it hosts the world expert -- kazakhstan will demonstrate the benefits of natural gas vehicles when it hosts the world expo. guest: they do not necessarily

want to deal with what is going on in ukraine. they want to keep boosting the image of russia in general. host: what has been the response to your story? did they give you a statement? guest: they did for the first story edited. -- i did. it was a standard statement. we are sticking with russia. -- we arethey noted not advising the russian federation on foreign policy, including the current situation in ukraine. they continue to focus on supporting economic development and investment in the country. that is what their stance has been. we have nothing to do with the foreign policy. we did not tell him to invade or not invade crimea. we have nothing to do with what is going on. it is trying to distance

themselves. even when this happens, firms can get caught up in the swirl of controversy for foreign clients. i have heard privately from pr -- peoplele in o said, i cannot believe people are representing putin here in the united states, considering what is going on. host: i wanted to get into some of the history of this. first, let's take some calls. william in indianapolis. on our independents line. caller: yes, good morning. quick theyring how could shake down the shell companies? they're going after individuals where the individuals can change the names as easy as companies in the ukraine.

they cannot find the guys who are tearing down target and messing with the internet. it is so easy. they are not going to find these guys. the only one they could get is the guy who owns the brooklyn nets. firms, their duty is to keep the money flowing. in order to do that, they have to change identities for the russian highrollers, oligarchy. --is impossible for the u.s. they're one step ahead, they have been doing this for decades ever since the old soviet union. host: lobbying firms -- do they do some of the things that the color is describing? -- caller is describing? guest: they can certainly advise. the caller has a good point. there was an instance.

i am trying to look it up. small rounds of targeted sanctions have gone after russian billionaires and vast companies. one man got wind of the sanctions that were going to go after him and he ended up selling his shares and a commodity trading firm, this huge commodities trading firm that has a lot of ties everywhere. he was able to escape the sanctions. always advise -- they will try to push against any harmful press or action against foreign clients. leading up over this past year there were lobbyists for the european center for modern ukraine, which is

basically a nonprofit group based in brussels linked to the ukrainian president, the prior ukrainian president who has since fled kiev. they were pushing back against several nonbinding resolutions that were asking ukraine or the ukrainian government to release an opposition leader. of concept same kind of going against u.s. sanctions. there are plenty of instances where there might not be sanctions happening at the time, but your time is a lobby firm is to create the environment where they do not end up taking place. one great example is right after that aboutme out 15-19 of the hijackers were saudi arabian or had saudi arabian passports. later, they had

a contract with a pr firm. they ended up spending $15 million. the saudi arabian government. it was a radio ad campaign, tv ads, they were involved in saying that saudi arabia has always been a great u.s. ally. that perception campaign helped mood where u.s. sanctions and saudi arabia would not take old even though they had links to terrorist attacks. host: if there are sanctions that are put in place that end up impacting some of the firms, what are the penalties associated with doing some of these work for this company? how much could this cost them? guest: when you think about ketchum and how much they have made from the contract, you have to think that was factored in

the decision to stay with russia. it has spent about $26 million. they make about $2 million every six months. they can no longer represent russia, it is a decent chunk of change that they would no longer have. like i said earlier, i think they could seek a license to keep the contract and it would be very interesting. host: that would allow them to keep working despite sanctions. guest: there is no guarantee they would get the license either. it is very delicate and very hard to come by. i was able to talk to someone who has one of these licenses to do legal work for sudan. he got accused of lobbying for sudan by congressman frank wolf 2011, 2012. very murky process.

it is unclear if ketchum will be able to get it to influence the american public. host: anthony in new jersey. democrat line. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i am 60 years old. i grew up with the fear of the soviet union. russia lost 20 million people and world war ii. perhaps they are a little bit hair annoyed about having made paranoid about having nato so close. is there any difference about the u.s. being in guantanamo bay than the russia thing in the blacks he? -- black sea?

putin is a very stern nationalist in the old communist line. perhaps he is just worried that his country is going to become nonexistent down the road or irrelevant, at best. up livingony brings through the cold war. where there lobbying groups doing lobbying work for russia during the height of the cold war? guest: not to the same degree, i would say. i looked through records and there was some representation and started to take off more and more as the soviet union crumbled, starting in the early 1990's on. tatian --sh' sent representation on k street grew with the catch him contract -- ketchum contract. that is when their influence presents to go -- took old.

-- hold. host: let's go to miriam in virginia. democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call. am i on? host: go ahead. caller: i read a political article a couple of weeks ago about russia in 2012 and that the wealthy there to cut $60 million to buy yachts and places in europe and the united states. with everything being global, all our companies being multinational, how do we now say we have sovereignty, when everybody's interest is money? how do we protect the united states? our own interests for the people here, not the wealthy who are

all interconnected globally, but for what is going on for the american people here. we can say patriotism, we can say all these words, but if we thely are connected or wealthy are connected globally, how do we have sovereignty anymore? that is my question. thank you. host: a little outside the lobbying. any thoughts? guest: i can drag it back in a little bit. you are seeing the sanctions are targeted on is because essentially what is going on is u.s. business groups have a lot of energy interest and other interests in russia. there is so much more trade that is going on between russia and the united states than there was in the cold war. they have made it clear that these sanctions is start off --

should start off small if at all. that fits into the interconnect did global place -- interconnected global place than we were 30 years ago. we will see if the sanctions expand. there is a feeling they will. that is not great news for russia. it is no longer a g8. it is a g7 this week. it is a little murky on what happened there. it seems that more repercussions are happening for russia as we go forward. as you see the sanctions expand, you will see more u.s. businesses get affected by these penalties. viewers ofowed our this story this morning. it is the lead story in today's wall street journal. we are talking with kevin

bogardus of "the hill" newspaper. he specializes in lobbying. we will go to william and joplin, missouri. good morning. caller: good morning. i hear about mccain going over there, newman. i have a friend whose parents live there. american mercenaries in that group. saying that kerry the government better not do nothing to the peaceful , which makes him the highest-paid lyre in america because a month ago there were peaceful protests around the white house in 100 people were arrested.

people are begging to back to protect them from the government and now this morning, the head of the neo-nazi, they killed them. host: all right, william. u.s. leaders going overseas and international pressure. can you talk about the role of members of congress when it comes to these lobbying contracts for foreign countries and what kind of pressure they can put on the companies themselves when we get into a tense relationship with another country? lobbyists for foreign governments are always under pressure trying to seek out who can protect the interest of their clients. that could be some member of congress who is either for a use sanction --

ease sanctions or penalties. a classic example is egypt canceled its contract or three lobby firms decided to part way with egypt during the midst of the arab spring. after and a half later, the aid got pared down to egypt, they hired another huge lobbying firm who is trying to readjust the perception of egypt and hopefully get that u.s. foreign aid flowing. host: firms move out of the lucrative contract, there are firms ready to move-in? guest: sometimes happens very quick. it seems that ecuador parted ways with the huge lobby firm and about a month later another one was with them. this was during the controversy

about the nsa leaker edward snowden, who might have been seeking asylum in ecuador. he has ended up in russia. it is hard to keep track of all of these firms and what they're doing and why they are doing it at the time. they tryingcenes, to affect u.s. policy. host: we have a couple more minutes with kevin bogardus. we will go to chris in new haven, connecticut. democrats line. caller: good morning. calls.ou for taking my ,evin, when i hear your name all of a sudden i hear the bells of saint mary and i see ingrid bergman and bing crosby and that was a really good example of great public relations. i just can't understand this firm that is lobbying for the what has beenst done to the ukrainian people.

starting with chernobyl. this terrible accident. they went on to poison the ukrainian president. [indiscernible] host: we are losing you a little bit. i want to give kevin bogardus a chance to jump in. interesting that there has been not a pleasant history between russia and the ukraine. it is a difficult choice that these firms make. it is always a question between the option of choosing potentially controversial ,oreign client, such as russia against the income they can bring in total which is typically millions of dollars. foreign government contracts for k street are some of the most

lucrative, if not the most lucrative agreements a loft -- lobbyist firm can sign up for. host: huntington, new york. independent line. caller: thanks for taking my call. lobbyists usually affect elections, i think. million togive $1 someone who lost an election five years ago and doing much to get elections going this year. the election in crimea was televised. it seemed perfectly legal. crimea was always an autonomous state with its own prime minister. what is wrong with elections? host: anything you want to pick up on a caller? guest: i don't think there is anything wrong with that election. people of questions the results.

it happened for a quickly after an armed incursion into the country. you have to wonder how the population was feeling at the time. i still think this is shaking out. it will be something president obama will have to deal with for the rest of his second term. the story is definitely not over. tweet. how closely are these lobbying firms watching tweets and statements from numbers of congress as they are looking at these contracts they have? are good, there watching them very closely. to get a real good idea of how members of congress are feeling or doing from their twitter accounts. their quotes in print as well. that is something the people and

influence are always keeping a close eye on. it will help them figure out which way lawmakers swinging and then they can figure out whether they need to get the lawmaker to swing back the other way. host: that was senator dan coots of indiana. one more call. john is in connecticut on our line for independents. guestcaller: good morning. i am curious about your thoughts about obama and the government trying to defund the military in certain aspects. they're worried about the obamacare situation, the employment situation. putines anyone think that is going to take obama or john kerry seriously when they can't even get their own house in order? the american people are tired of war situations anywhere in the

world. and they want to give all these funds to countries. let's concentrate on home. patent into international affairs. but not try to flex muscle that obama does not have. you know what i mean? i am curious how he is supposed to fix something across the ocean when he can fix things in d.c. host: that comment. patent into what is happening at home. how does k street view comments like that? aret: i think lobbyists also trying to figure out what angle they can pursue for their clients. when it comes to foreign clients , they try to see how they can their foreign clients interest with the united states to try to match them up. basically, my foreign client is on the same page as the united states. they do not have separate

interests. they can be a great partner to america. one k street executive i talked said, weese stories don't take on a client unless they seem to have good relationships with the state department. any kind of road government -- rogue government is not going to get signed up by a lobby firm. kevin bogardus of "the hill" newspaper. you can follow him on twitter or see his stories that thehill .com. we appreciate you coming on this morning. guest: thank you for having me. host: we will be right back to open up the funds free to ask questions. , do you viewers earlier want more or less religion in public life? we will be right back.

>> i do recognize that islam-phobia exists. it is an irrational fear of islam. i am absolutely against it. it is part of xenophobia. it is nothing more than xenophobia versus one group. any other foreign phobia. it is part of it. what is happening is that the islamist lobby, the brotherhood lobby, they have hijacked the notion and made it into a weapon. anybody who is criticizing a policy issue that has nothing to , they have been accused of islam-phobia and this

is close to what the natural nationals -- socialists in germany would have accused anyone who is against their policy in germany. at the international level, this has become very dangerous. >> saturday night at 10:00 eastern and sunday night at 9:00 on book tv. on april 6, more discussion on the middle east with bing west. live in depth starting at noon eastern. book tv, every weekend on c-span 2. >> washington journal continues. host: we are back this morning on the washington journal. we are asking our viewers the same question we ask that the top of the show. should the be more or less religion in public life? that is a shot of the supreme court and the crowds outside the supreme court, where supreme court justices will be hearing

arguments in the hobby lobby case. you can talk about that case over the course of the show. we are taking your thoughts. you could also answer the question for us, should the be more or less religion in public life? here is the lead editorial in today's "washington post."

that is the editorial board of the "washington post." we are showing you protesters outside of the supreme court. we are opening up our phones to you. until the end of the show. the phone lines on the democrats, (202) 585-3880. republicans, (202) 585-3881. .ndependents, (202) 585-3882 outside the u.s., (202) 585-3883 . we will start with faye from kentucky on our line for independents. caller: good morning. i am a christian. i want to seeat everyone go to heaven, ok? but i think that we can keep, you know, keep our views quieter. the lesbianseciate

gays being so open about everything. they should be kept more personal. i think you can live a more private life. i don't have to be exposed to all of this other stuff like how they want to flaunt it. we need to get back to what really matters. a tweet from senator roy blunt. we will go to bobby in grove town, georgia. independents line. you will check hasughout history, religion

never done anything but make things worse and created problems. people need to mind their own business. but they cannot do that. they have to get into everybody else's business. i have my own faith. i am not anti-religion. i would not join the church for anything. thank you. bobby answering our question. should there be more or less religion and public life? our phone lines a rope in. reading tweets as well. of the see a live shot supreme court there with the snow coming down. congresswoman yvette clarke writes on her twitter page. to bob in bridgewater, massachusetts. our line for democrats.

caller: thank you. good morning. i think there should be a lot less religion in society. hateion causes war, causes . it is divisive, submissive, and it is not good at all. all religion, ladies and gentlemen, please remember. it is man-made religion. religion is a personal, private thing. we need to do away with all religion and society. if we did not have religion and society in the world, there would be a lot less war and hate . it causes war and hate in the christian right are notorious for causing problems. with a hobby lobby situation, no, no business has a right to discriminate against anybody. this is a free market. we all need to learn to get along and keep our personal god to ourselves. do you want to know something? nobody knows. from here is a tweet

congressman tim huelskamp this morning. that is from yesterday. sorry, not this morning. let's go to washington on our line for independents. caller: good morning. if they want to take care of , if theyigious zealots want to have their own special rules, if they don't want health care for women, if they don't want contraception for women at their businesses, no viagra either. if you take the erectile dysfunction thing out for the men, i bet they won't mess with the women as much. thank you. host: we want to read you a couple of other headlines. this story from the supreme

court. house ethics panel releases details of charges against two republican lawmakers. here is the story from "the wall street journal."

if you want to read more on that , that is in "the wall street journal" this morning. we're asking, should there be more or less religion in public life? what are your thoughts on the hobby lobby case? lucy is in mclean, virginia on the republican line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i was listening earlier to the .onversation and

host: yes. go ahead. things that ithe think is wrong with all of this debate about all of this it is not really brought into when they say they are against all forms of contraception and it is part of the war on women. no. the fullst problem is range of the fda forms of contraception. the pill should not be a moral or ethical problem. also, within that fda approved ed's, which to allow

contraception's and the morning-after pill and other things. abortions are legal, but it gets to be a big problem if you do them after five months. it is a fully formed baby. it is nonspecific in the way the media reports things. think in terms of religion being more religion in public life, i don't think there should be -- i think there should be more morality in public life. if we sat down and examined some of these things, people might realize there is a right or wrong. there in, i visited 1989 and they said we all have

abortions. they use it as a form of birth control. tweet.e want to read a nancy pelosi on the hobby lobby case. her twitter page from a few minutes ago. speaking of house leadership, we want to point out a front-page story in oa in the "washington post" about eric cantor. a profile piece about a softer pitch. .e is trying to remain

we have a few minutes left. we want to get in shelley in virginia on our line for independents. caller: hello. hi. sometimes i think that religious people are viewed as being able to take their religion off like a coat when they leave the nk people needhik to take a little deeper look at it. it is more akin to taking off your skin. if it is our belief that it is your religion, or do something you live on a daily basis and i don't think it should be trivialized. nk that it also should be looked at like as long as you are accepting the chosen lifestyle of the gay and le sbians as a choice, we might

want to consider our religious choices as being equally as important. that is pretty much all i have to say. host: we have been talking about the affordable care act and the hobby lobby case. here is the front page of the business day section of "the new york times." talking about the march 31 deadline to sign up for health care coverage under the affordable care act. if you want to read more on that story, "the new york times." let's go to ed in arizona on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: what we need is a lot less religion in society. this hobby lobby, as far as i'm , he is thethe owner biggest hypocrite going. most of the stuff that is in those stores is bob from china, imported from china.

he supports a communist regime that allows only one child per family. birth control. against the affordable health care act in this country. most of the people in that store our women. they just opened the hobby lobby here. drive 75 miles to go to michael's and tucson. thank you. host: a couple of stories on the campaign front and speculation over 2016. here is the "washington times." two supposedly tenders for the 2016 -- suppose it contenders for the 2016 election. speaking at the global education

conference yesterday. that story is an "the washington times." they also noted that texas governor rick perry will allow another presidential bid. he did not announce any he willtial bid, but keep the option open. he said he will be focused on being as competitive a governor as he can through 2015. some names who are being watched in the election. lexington, kentucky. our line for republicans. caller: good morning.

what i wanted to say about hobby lobby and the rest of these companies is that they can do whatever they want as companies. however, if they're going to violate what our government is setting forward as a standard, then they just don't get any tax breaks, well we impose a tax penalty. they can do whatever they want, but they pay more money for it. we need to stop giving our churches tax breaks and all of these businesses. there was a business in kansas that did not want to serve lgbt folks. that is fine, but they need to get not tax benefits from the government, no federal help, and you pay a higher tax fine. it is very public and everybody knows that you are a company that does not support diversity and inclusion in the united states. to me, that seems like a simple solution. everybody can win. hobby lobby can do what they want, but they get no federal support and they pay higher

taxes. and the story. story.- and host: here is a statement from house speaker john boehner on hobby lobby. that is his statement from yesterday. let's go to castlewood, virginia on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. most people don't realize that hobby lobby is not opposed to birth control.

they provide 16 pills with their insurance. the four pills they have objection to are not birth control, they are abortion pills. including the morning-after pill. i agree with them. there is nothing wrong with birth control. they have provided it for years. the only objection i have is to the four pills that are abortion pills. host: that is going to be our last caller. we want to take you live to the house floor. the house is meeting. morning hour and then. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]