ement may plant other crops. that is a pretty audacious statement. if you do not like our regulations, do something else. mr. kneedler: that is not the only option they have. they had the option of selling the grapes for other purposes. these greats that the overwhelming would -- grapes are -- have a variety of uses. that is one of the things a grower would take into account. justice roberts: if you don't like regulations, you can challenge them in court to see if they comply with the constitution. the answer is always you can do something else, it would seem we would never have these kinds of cases. mr. kneedler: this is a subsequent point i am making. the point is there is market regulation, people who are

growing crops in this industry know the regulation is and if they decide, and if they operated under this marketing work for 30 years before they challenged all of that. justice kennedy: i'm sorry. your argument is saying even if it is taken, it is ok, everything will work out. that is what i am getting from it. mr. kneedler: >> our argument is it is not a taking to begin with because the grower voluntarily submit a total amount of its raisins through the handler. the handler separates them into quarters -- one to be sold now and one to be sold later. they have to do with the timing of the sale which petitioners acknowledge the government could regulate the timing and manner of sales. there are two markets -- one is the free market and the other is the tightly regulated market for exports, other outlets that do not compete with the domestic market. justice roberts: we are going to say the pledge of allegiance in public schools and make everybody stand.

if you don't like it, go to a different school. i don't understand why that is not the same analysis here. this may be a taking of your raisins or not any be do not like it, grow something else. mr. kneedler: monsanto is not the only case -- i do not believe nolan cut back on the rationale of monsanto. what no one said was -- no one -- nolan said was we do not regard the ability to build on your property, your real property to build a house as a governmental benefit. in fact, reaffirmed the idea that there was an exchange in monsanto with the government was giving the benefit of clearing the product for use. justice scalia: you say that introducing raisins into interstate commerce is a government benefit, right? mr. kneedler: the regulatory program is a governmental benefit. justice scalia: not the regulatory -- you are saying the activity which is subjected to the taking is the introduction of raisins in a state commerce and you say that is something the benign government can give or withhold. mr. kneedler: >> it is permission to do it which is exactly what the court

said in monsanto. that is not the only case. yi said the same thing in respect to real property. that was a case involving the mobile home park. there was a claim of a taking because the mobile park owner was subject to rent control and it was argued that was just like loretta because that was the forced physical occupation and the court said a critical distinction is the yis voluntarily entered into a transaction and then the government could approve that. justice alito: mr. mcconnell was asking a bunch of questions about the letter case. i think that you don't think the leonard case has a very important bearing on this case because you cited one time in your brief as a passing reference on the issue of fundable goods.

mr. kneedler: we think it is a critical point. justice alito: you did not suggest that this case is just another version of leonard and therefore we should affirm based on leonard? mr. kneedler: leonard was about tax. this program was not identified as a tax because the raisins do not come from the government. they are going into a pool that belongs to all of the producers and divided among them. these are not appropriated for the government's own use. we think leonard is critically instructive with respect to property like this. the oyster shells are like raisins. their only value is for commercial sale. this is not like the ownership of real property which is unique and personally identified. these raisins are valuable only for sale and this order kicks in

only when the producer has committed the raisins for sale. justice kagan: put all the regulatory aspects of the program aside for a moment and just say this were a simpler program and the government says to the raisin industry we could tax you and say you have to deliver 2% of your net profits. we are not going to do that. we are just going to take 2% of your raisins. would that be constitutional? mr. kneedler: under leonard, it would be a tax. i don't think there is anything that would prohibit that being done. we think the fact that would be ok is instructive here as the court's discussion of leonard suggests. justice kagan: you said you don't think of this case in that way and why don't you? mr. kneedler: it is analogous in the sense that congress might be able to do this in a different way. the reason i said it is

different because the oysters -- the raisins are not being used for the government's program. they did not go to school lunch programs. if the government wants raisins they buy them. justice scalia: we don't usually allow committees of producers who are called the government to impose taxes. that is usually done by congress. this is essentially done by some committee. mr. kneedler: right, but it is a committee elected by producers. justice scalia: they can impose taxes, you are saying? mr. kneedler: what i was saying is the government may well be able to impose something as a tax but this is a regulatory program adopted by producers. it is important to recognize -- this goes back to the new deal. this court has had numerous cases involving these marketing -- justice scalia: i have to be bound by the agreements?

these people disagree. mr. kneedler: the disagreement does not convert into a taking. if they believe it is not operating correctly, there are other -- justice scalia: i'm just saying it does not carry much word to say this is a program adopted by producers. if 51% of the producers want to do it, there are 49% that don't want to do it. mr. kneedler: it is a pretty good indication the premises in which congress enacted this statute in 1937 operated then and now for the benefit of producers. it should not be necessary in any particular year the regulatory program is in place to calibrate whether the benefits outweigh the burdens. justice scalia: central planning was thought to be working very well in 1937. russia tried it for a long time. mr. kneedler: again, if this program is not working, it could be modified. the committee comprised of producers decided not to impose a reserve requirement.

justice roberts you have made : the point several times that the government sales of these raisins for the benefit of the producers. what if some of the producers think they can do a better job of selling them? they can get a better price because they are better producers, they have export contacts that others don't. mr. kneedler: this is just standard regulation. if you are going to sell, you have to sell in the manner that is set up in this program. justice roberts: that is not usually when you are talking that kind of regulation. i understand the reasons have to be so big or you cannot call them raisins and they have safety inspections, but you have been presenting this as a good program because we sell the raisins and give some of what is left to the producers. i don't think that is a very common approach to market regulation. mr. kneedler: there are two pools of raisins. how you implement the notion there are two different pools may vary.

where you have the similarities are much more fundamental. you have the raisins which the growers immediately pay for and the grower can immediately put on the market. there was a judgment made when this marketing order was established. the raisin association believed it was still true during these years that if you have a big surplus as there was around the turn-of-the-century, it would make the prices plummet if those extra raisins were put on the open market because the demand for raisins was elastic. what this order does is it estimates what the free requirement will be and that is completely open to the market. the reserve raisins, they are essentially valueless because you don't need them to satisfy the existing market. you take them off the market to prop up the prices of the free

raisins and then the committee will sell them when they will not -- in a manner that will not undermine the business. justice alito the program were : carried out to respect to real property -- would you provide the same answers? suppose that owners of real property in a particular area think the value of the property would be increased if they also rendered a certain amount of that property to the government for the purpose of producing or creating a park or for some other reason. so, they get the municipality to set up the program and one of them objects two -- to surrendering his or her land. would that not be a taking? mr. kneedler: i think property would be fundamentally different. justice alito you said you were : not arguing the result difference between property and personal

property. mr. kneedler: i think the lucas decision is very instructive. when the court was talking about the ability to regulate real property, there was a real difference between real property and personal property. at least personal property being used for commercial purposes which might even be rendered valueless. justice sotomeyer: what is the statute of limitations on a taking? mr. kneedler: six years, i think it would be. justice sotomayor have there : been any reserve created in the last six years? mr. kneedler: i think the last one was 2009-2010. i wanted to correct one fact -- justice scalia: explain to me why the market for raisins is inelastic. people will not buy more raisins if they are cheaper? mr. kneedler: it is just the quality of raisins. there are limited set of outlets. raisins are used as food ingredients and raisin bran and things like that. the price does not affect demand. therefore, if you put a great

surplus on the domestic market prices will crater. this has a very sensible approach. justice kagan: you don't have to convince us this is a sensible program for you to prevail, do you? mr. kneedler: no, i don't. you could think this is ridiculous but it has been around since 1949 and petitioner's argument says every grower has had a per se taking. justice scalia: it does not help you if it is ridiculous. [laughter] mr. kneedler: it is not -- let me be clear -- it is not a ridiculous program. justice kagan: this is a serious point because the sensibleness of a program is not for us to decide. mr. kneedler: i agree with that completely. this is a regulatory program. it should be under this court's regulatory --

justice ginsburg: i asked this before in your answer was not clear -- a reserve pool, eight or 10, have any others been operative as this one has been? this one started in 1949. mr. kneedler: most of them are not operative in the sense the reserves provision has been triggered. justice saw the meyer: -- set a meyer -- sotomeyer: the government is selling the reserves. mr. kneedler: i think it is true a several others. i not sure. am some have to do with the handler and producers. wanted to correct a factual error. in the one year, there was $810 as the field price and because of the calculations, the claim was the petitioners would have been better off without the

reserve. that is not correct. the assumption that all of the raisins would have been sold on the field price if they were put on the market. that is inconsistent with the premise of the wood are. -- the order. the only reason there is the free tonnage raisins is because the other ones are taken off the market so they would not have been recovered in that way. justice roberts how many of : these programs are there? marketing orders? mr. kneedler: scores of them. justice roberts i'm trying to : put the eight to 10 in relation to how many. mr. kneedler: i don't know the total number, but we can follow that up with a letter. this is not fundamentally different from the others. the government is not acquiring these raisins for itself. the government does not take it into its possession. that is not an appropriation of private property.

>> thank you, counsel. mr. o'connell, you have five minutes remaining. mr. o'connell thank you, mr. : chief justice. several things have been cleared up -- the government does concede that the government takes legal title to the raisins. the government does -- justice sotomeyer: this happens all the time to the extent we have -- taking formal titles to actual control or actual benefit. we take title but it is not for their benefit. it is for the benefit for the beneficiary. mr. mcconnell that is true, but : the taking -- the government is not a trustee here. justice sotomeyer: in its form, yes. it could sell the reserve raisins at the best price it can get given the limitations on the free market.

mr. mcconnell it sells for the : best price and uses the proceeds for its own regulatory purposes. justice kennedy: do you have any other points? mr. mcconnell as to the actual : point, it is not based upon selling all the raisins at the field price. our calculations are based upon being able to sell all the raisins at the price that the secretary has said would be the price in an unregulated market which is $747 per ton. it is certainly not true these reserve raisins are valueless. they have been extremely valuable commodity. most of the years, the producers of the reasons received nothing for them. the important thing here is it is not any less of a taking even if there is a benefit. i have no doubt, for example, in loretto the value of the

apartment went up because it became cable ready for its tenets. that did not make any less of a taking as this is a per se taking. any benefits only go to whether there might be some kind of implicit compensation as a result of the benefit. and, if this were in imminent domain proceeding, think that might be relevant. this is only an administrative enforcement action in which the question is whether the department of agriculture was entitled under the constitution to demand either the raisins or the monetary equivalent without any payment of compensation. justice breyer at last. : why isn't it for them to make that argument?

mr. mcconnell the regulation -- : if you look at the following. you will see that is a provision for what happens when the handler does not turn over reserve raisins to the department of agriculture. it has very specific provisions for what happens and the result provision and that for implicit compensation. justice breyer can they argue : that -- all producers are better off because of this program, including you but no free riders. that is what the competition is? could they argue that? mr. mcconnell under that : regulation, i do not think it is open to the department of agriculture to argue that. i think that would be a logical argument if this were an imminent domain proceeding and we were trying to figure out the proper value. reserving the point that we

believe this program does not benefit the producer. we believe this program actually makes the producers worse off. the only people who benefit from this program are the recipients of the subsidy of the export subsidies. justice breyer: the exporters. mr. mcconnell that's right. :justice kagan: let me take you back to the very first thing you said because you said typically the handler does not take the product and the handler does not pay for the product and you would think that they would only have a takings claim for the raisins that they produced and not for the raisins that other people produced. you said that is not correct in this case? mr. mcconnell it is not because : a check went out from the raisin marketing association to the producers for every raisin, not just the three tons of raisins but the reserves as well. the horns are actually the only

people with a financial interest in the raisins in this case. that is unusual. justice roberts this is probably : neither here or there, but what is the impact on the drought been for the producers? mr. mcconnell: it is not good. [laughter] justice roberts: very carefully guarded response. [laughter] mr. mcconnell i wonder if i will : be able to take a shower when i get home. >> focusing on the ability of low and middle income americans to receive subsidies to help them afford insurance under the health care law and whether to uphold the power of states to limit marriage to heterosexual couples. most of the comments we got today dealt with those two cases. >> i am concerned about the gay

marriage thing. in this country, we have faced so much the rest of this -- divisiveness that this little issue about gay marriage -- i am hoping the supreme court will say -- decide quickly one way or the other. i am hoping the decision will be one that will not create even more divisiveness in this country. we don't need it. i have gay members in my family. i'm not talking about reasonably, i am talking about 30, 40 years ago that nobody in my family ever said a thing and we are conservative republicans. we just sat there and said, that is their life. we have recent people that have come forward and said they were gay. we just believe that is their

life. the magic word here is marriage. i think if a person wants to get married, let them be. politically speaking if the supreme court rules in favor of gays getting married, what is the big deal? >> yes, the courts in texas about the gay and lesbian marriage. first of all, the word marriage means based on the bible. that is where the word came from and it is based on men and women being married. if two men or two women decide to marry then they can never be married. they can be civil union. you can call them on the other thing. they cannot be married. if the supreme court goes against god's law to say that

they are marrying these people, this country will be in so much judgment. it will be really, really horrible what will happen to this country. i pray that americans will wake up and stop thinking that it is a small matter like that men ♪an said. it is going against nature. it is not a small matter. it will really divide this country and i really hope and pray that they will stop that. >> the justices meet again thursday to hand down more opinion. they all missed -- almost always finish their work by the end of june. up next, a discussion on what kind of impact ruling against the obama administration could have on health care for the u.s. according to families usa, 6.4 million americans are at risk of

losing their health insurance. host: ron paul is their executive director. good morning. guest: good morning. host: what could happen if the supreme court sides with the plaintiffs in this case? guest: in one word -- chaos. we will see millions of people lose health coverage. 6.4 million people in the 34 states that are affected or not receiving subsidies and at the supreme court sides with the plaintiffs, they will lose those subsidies. the roman majority will not be able to afford health-care coverage. they will join the ranks of the uninsured. their lives, help will be in jeopardy but will -- what will also happen is when those

subsidies are withdrawn, the people who are most likely to decide not to get coverage are young, healthy people. you are going to have sick of all people. they will probably find a way to get insurance. when you have a pool composed of older and less healthy people and the younger people dropped out, guess what happens to premiums? they skyrocket. we are going to see what a lot of people call a death spiral. some of the justices called it a death spiral. in each year, as the premiums rise, more young and healthy people will drop out. the premiums will continue to escalate. some of estimated that the increase in premiums will be about 47%. it is going to mean for everybody the health-insurance market will be totally chaotic. host: you said that people who

are affected might have some avenues of recourse if the decision does come again. what are those avenues? where can they turn if they lose subsidies? guest: they're going to have to beg, borrow, steal. it is going to be really hard. for most people, the premium subsidies are very substantial. it means that there would be an increase of an annual basis of premiums of over $3000. in some states, more than that. for a lot of people, they simply will be unable to afford health insurance coverage. what one of the things that the affordable care act does that i think everybody likes is that it says for people who have the existing health conditions that they no longer could be discriminated against by insurers. they cannot be denied coverage, charge discriminatory premiums. those protections will stay but

these folks who have those protections might not be able to afford health insurance coverage so it is going to be tremendous hardship for people and a lot of people will be at a great risk in terms of their health and lives. host: what is the role of congress if the decision goes against the administration? guest: congress clearly could fix this. this could really be fixed with a one-page bill that could be passed really in moments. i must say that those who have encouraged the burning of this lawsuit -- they have a special -- the bringing of this lawsuit -- they have a special responsibility. a 10 to be republicans who oppose the affordable care act. what we have seen in terms of proposals is that they don't really replace what exists today. a lot of people uninsured today or who lose a job, they will be able to get subsidies under

these proposals. the best that could happen is those are getting subsidies might be able to keep them. here is the key thing -- each of these proposals hold these partial fixes hostage to wholesale changes in the affordable care act. those changes are not going to beside by the president. i think for a republican -- republicans 11 kurds this lawsuit, they are probably going to want to say to their constituents -- we want to protect you. they will shed tears about people losing coverage. the proposal so far we have seen -- and there have been a number of them -- do not appear to either get the job done or they hold these partial fixes hostage in a way that will never happen. host: we're going to talk about those fixes and this pending decision from the supreme court

as a look at the topic of subsidies. if you have questions for our guest, called the lines. what about the idea proposed by some is that congress could pass a short-term extension of subsidies and give states a time to get a plan to handle this on their own. guest: anything that is left to the states will result in a bunch of states. that is true for states led by republican governors running for president. they will i am not very hopeful about what would happen in texas or louisiana or florida or wisconsin. if the supreme court rules with the plaintiffs, i think were

going to see lots of people who are just going to be left out in the cold. in texas, there are 800,000 people getting subsidies. i don't see a formula by which they would get those subsidies restored. in florida, 1.3 million people are getting the subsidies. we have not seen the governor or the house in the state legislature say they are willing to do something to restore the subsidies. some states may restore the subsidies. tensile vein yet delaware -- pennsylvania delaware, arkansas are thinking about running the marketplaces. it will be unclear how the states will come in and how many will not. host: calls from you, let's start with barry in michigan.

you are on. good morning. caller: i am curious when they talk about these subsidies. if they make this unconstitutional for the health care, does that mean all subsidies are unconditional? anybody? if that's not the case, how will they pick and choose what is constitutional for this person or not that person? i don't understand how this is going to work. guest: let me respond to his comment. constitutionality is not at issue.

what is at issue is whether the affordable care act allows us subsidies to be provided for all 50 states. in 34 states the state runs the marketplace. does the statute allows subsidies to be provided? it doesn't have any implications generally with respect to subsidies for other programs. as a former law school dean, i think this lawsuit is specious. you have to look at the entire statute. if you look at the entire statute, you have to conclude that the lawsuit is specious. the statute says that in all states, people can apply for the subsidies. why would people have the right to apply for subsidies in 34 spates if they will always be

turned down? that doesn't make any sense. the statute says that the federal government should report to the department of treasury who is getting subsidies, how much they are. why would the federal marketpl ace report this if they are supposed to be withdrawn? the statute says eligibility is based on income. people could be eligible for subsidies. none of these things make sense. i think the lawsuit is specious. we have to take this lawsuit seriously.

for justices decided to hear this case. they did it under extraordinary circumstances. there were two courts of appeals. they had already scheduled oral arguments on the exact same issue. the court leapfrogged those two circuit courts to hear this case. there were four justices who wanted to hear this case. host: margaret is from florida. you're next. it good morning. caller: i am so glad i tuned in. i find it interesting that you said anything with a straight face. you mentioned sarcastically about the house and shedding tears. when this was slammed through without a republican vote i

think it's interesting following justice roberts we walked all over and talked about how stupid the public is. you used to be the dean of a law school and suddenly this is a specious law case. how many people were against this monstrosity. you can be against this without having something alternative that they should have set up. i would remind you of the people who lost their coverage, who lost the insurance and the good things they had. i would remind you of the people who will not be covered by this monstrosity. our president says last week something very sarcastic about our supreme court.

now we are to talk about this today. i think everybody should talk about gruber. as you smile and smirk and act disrespectfully, they represent many people who were against this act. host: i get the impression guest: i get the impression margaret does not like the affordable care act. i would remind margaret and others of the great progress that has occurred as the result of the affordable care act. we have seen more than one out of three people with previously uninsured coverage, more than 16 million people gaining coverage, we have made significant progress, i think we are going to see the court uphold the provision of the second, and i think it will continue to make progress after 16 million people

getting coverage, many more well. host: steve is next from florida. caller: thanks for taking my call, you call this affordable care act when it has a $200 deductible. a doctor wants to run all kinds of tests on me. i have to pay $10,000 at the end of the year. now, they don't cover medical or dental or eyeglasses. what good is this affordable? why can't they just throw us all on medicare? thank you. guest: steve raised some important issues. i very much agree with him on it. the affordable care act does not cover people over 18 years of age with dental care, it does

not include eye care. those are things i hope would be changed sometime in the future. right now, neither dental care or i care is included. -- eye care is included. i hope we do much more in enabling people to get coverage without high deductibles. that is the next agenda item and many efforts are being made to include a variety of key services for drugs, primary care, that would be allowed to be provided in advance of the deductible. there is no question, we still have a lot to do to make the care more affordable. we have taken great strides in making sure it is affordable for the first time. host: were the subsidies always intended to be given for the health care program? or with the state have to take them over? guest: the subsidies we are talking about our permanent and

are provided on a sliding scale, what we mean is that the lower your income, and the greater need, the larger subsidies. the federal government picks up 100% of the cost, that is a permanent provision. host: from new hampshire, dan. good morning. guest: not only is the lawsuit specious, another example of the right wing claw reaching out. my main statement is that the states are all republican states and the ones with two previous calls, from florida they hate the law. what i would like to see happen is let the insurance are gets in these states collapse so they put pressure on the legislature

to set up an exchange. as far as the 31 million that lady is talking about, that is because a 44 states did not expand medicaid. that is my comment, thank you. host: he raised a number of issues, first he raised the question about whether the plaintiffs in this case are appropriately plaintiffs. i think he was referring to the lead claimant. there was a rather long article in the new york times that interviewed mr. king. he is eligible for veterans benefits, so it makes no difference how the court rules he will be in good shape. there is a question as to whether some of the plaintiffs have standing. dan is also right that one of the reasons we have a significant number of people uninsured despite the tremendous progress that has been made over 60 million people gaining coverage, is you have -- 16

million people gaining coverage, is you have 22 states that have not implemented the expansion. the poorest of the poor are not getting protection. this includes it states throughout the way up to virginia. that has been a significant part of the problem. despite that, we are going to continue to make progress. host: it could be an option though. guest: it is an option, and some of the states, i have hopes that they will decide to implement the medicaid expansion. we've had 10 states so far with republican governors who have decided to implement the medicaid expansion. these governors said they don't want the affordable care act but would love to see it repealed but it exists and i will make sure that people in my state receive a benefit. host: they get federal assistance? guest: well with the medicaid expansion, right now that is

100% paid for by the federal government through 2016. it is 100% paid for by the federal government. 2017, it is 95%. the state picks up 5%. then it goes down, but it never goes below 90-10. host: from nashville, tennessee grant joins us. caller: good morning, there is no option for socialists and i am one of those medicaid persons who is not covered in tennessee. you forgot the answer to the question, but he put it a different way. why can't they lower the age of medicare or why can't they put the people who cannot get medicaid on medicare? guest: that is a good question, i failed to answer steve's question. they keep reminding me. -- thank you for reminding me. it is possible from a legal standpoint that we could change the medicare law and make it

eligible for people under 65 years of age. from a political standpoint, i think that will be difficult. there are a number of people who wanted what many call a single-payer health care system, and that is what you are talking about. there were precious few votes and the congress for such a single-payer system. it could be done, but politically it is difficult. host: the new york times wrote in terms of the subsidies being lost says that large for-profit insurance companies benefited from the law with subsidies enabling millions of new customers to sign up for employer-based coverage stalling. as the market -- this could be a possible growth engine. in your experience is that what is going on? guest: that is accurate, we have seen a reduction. it has not been huge of,m but we

have seen an increase in the number of people with employer-sponsored insurance. that is the dominant way people have health coverage. there is been a reduction over the last few years. insurance companies understand that a marketplace that is likely to grow, is also the marketplace that allows individual coverage. that is what the affordable care act allows and with the subsidies, it makes it a whole lot more affordable for people to gain coverage. host: is that reduction due to what the affordable care act did when it comes to the insurance companies? guest: no, this reduction occurred way before the if a affordable care act happen. costs of insurance have risen substantially, some employers stopped coverage others kept it that they charged more for premiums and the dr.'s and other out-of-pocket costs.

increasingly, and players are feeling burdened by the cost of health care and to players are diminishing their commitment, by and large, in small increments with each year. as a result we are seeing more people now interested in the individual market place. host: here's victor from maryland. caller: hi, i have a question for you. is this affordable health care -- if it is so good, why is obama and his democrats, wire they exempt? -- why are they exempt? guest: we have seen people in government, whether it is the president or numbers of congress hitting subsidies -- getting subsidies as part of their federal employment. this affordable care act, which provides opportunities for people to get coverage in the

individual market, is mainly for people who do not get coverage in the workplace. whether it is the president or members of congress, they have been getting coverage in the workplace. the affordable care act really is there as a safety measure as more and more people need coverage outside of employment. host: chesterfield, new hampshire, this is ron. guest: good morning, welcome. he hit the nail on the head, the hypocrisy of the republican party is laughable. most of the senators and most of these congressmen are millionaires. that they receive subsidies and have tried 50 or 60 times now to do away with subsidies that will help the poor, sick, and elderly , it is ridiculous. the have boxee is laughable. -- the hypocrisy is laughable. all of the hypocritical things

the republicans are doing drive me nuts. they are so self-righteous but cannot look in the mirror. the affordable care act, i think every republican senator and congressman should lose their subsidies and their free health care. they don't need it, they can afford it. other people could use help. guest: it will be interesting if the court rules against it, which i don't think could happen -- would happen, then it would be a question of whether these members of congress who encouraged his lawsuit are going to bemoan the fact that their constituents are losing coverage. will they actually take affect to continue getting them the subsidies? i think the jury is out on that question.

so far, i cannot say i am terribly encouraged by those that i have seen. it will clearly not become the law of the land. host: someone was on our program talking about the same topic and taking a look at what might happen in the supreme court and weighing in on what might happen if the supreme court does decide to hear his response. >> if the court rules for king, in eight hours resident obama will say you can fix this, just change a few things in the statute and everybody that has received a subsidy will be secure. it will send a strong and direct message and will be one that will be heard. then the republican-controlled congress will respond in a way that is not quite as certain. there are basically three different points of view among republicans, one is that this is the moment that will allow them to repeal, and hopefully lopez

-- replace, the affordable care act. some say it goes too far as a means of taking the law apart so why don't we just ask for a lot of changes in exchange for those three words? and also there are those that say let's pass a temporary fix and after the election we will have the ability to go back and do it the way it should be done and like it to be done. host: the former secretary said a message would be heard but the responses on short, he seemed up the about it. -- upbeat about it. guest: i have to complement the former secretary, here is a key health care leader in the republican party and very responsible. i don't think we know yet how congress is going to respond. what we have seen is not encouraging. this can be fixed, and easily. there is a will to do it. i think right now, the three groups that secretary leavitt

was talking about, so far it seems likely that members of congress are not going to want to change and allow this fix to happen without undertaking a real slashing of the affordable care act. the president will not sign it. if we don't get any accommodation and congress, the question raised the floor in the new york times article is that this will be dragged out state by state and i think maybe half the states or more might come in and start running exchanges but the other states like texas or florida where there are huge number's of people getting coverage and the subsidies those people would be left out in the cold. host: talking about the supreme court as it considers the subsidies. francis from new york, hello. caller: a couple of questions, i

have heard the german say that the government is paying for this. according to our laws, the people are the government. the majority of the people don't like this law. i am a 60-year-old man living in a gated community and i have to pay for maternity care? not only for myself, but for other 60-year-old males? i don't understand how the government can step in and, this is like them saying no more gas engine cars, you have to buy electric. how can they dictate what we want to buy? guest: what francis is raising certainly the subsidies are paid for with tax dollars. there is no question, that's how it is financed. what it does, is for the first time it makes health coverage

affordable for many millions of people. i think that is a positive thing. francis may disagree with that i think it is very positive. it is true that one of the things the government did with respect to the affordable care act is it provided more standardized plans. it plans to make sure that substandard plans would no longer be the way people get coverage. much of what people used to have , for those that had health coverage, some of us call swiss cheese insurance policy. it had a hole in nutrition. the whole idea was to establish and ultimately we also want to make sure that women are not discriminated against when they get insurance. that is why, as part of that standard, we have maternity coverage. host: from springfield, virginia, here is my. -- mike. caller: thank you for taking my call.

most of them have laws, they have id. they are charged -- what can we do about that? host: hold on my, hang on the line. could you repeat that? caller: what i said was immigrants. they are not supposed to go through central insurance. most of them came and were given good numbers. they pay their taxes. some of them also have ids. if they pay taxes, at the end of the year, they should have

insurance, i know you are supposed to go into the marketplace for insurance, so what are they going to do? guest: so, he is right, those people that are undocumented they cannot get coverage in the marketplace. those people who are immigrants that are documented cannot going to the marketplace. they also can't if they are poor get medicaid coverage. mike raised a very tough question. if undocumented immigrants cannot get coverage through the marketplaces, what can they do to get health coverage? it means that for those who are undocumented if they have a job, perhaps they will be able to get coverage in the workplace because an employer may be providing it. they can go to community health centers. community health centers are in communities across the country

and they provide health coverage for people who cannot get it otherwise. so that is a recourse for undocumented immigrants. they can at least go to primary care from a community health center. california is beginning to do something interesting last week california adopted a measure that allows children under 18 years of age who are undocumented to start getting coverage in california. that is a step in the direction that i think mike is looking for. until that happens nationwide, and it is not clear that it will the best choice is for people to go to a community health center or if they have an emergency, go to the emergency room. host: if the court decides for the plaintiff, what recourse does the president have in resolving this? guest: i think the president is going to say what he already has, that is that this is an easy fix.

he will probably produce a bill that shows in one page how you can get this fixed. he is smart and realistic. i think he recognizes that the republicans in congress cannot pass that one page bill. what the president and administration will do is work with the state that are considering expanding marketplaces and try to help them so that they can get to this quickly. time is of the essence because starting november 1, there will be a new open enrollment. under the affordable care act. those states that are seriously considering setting up marketplaces will need help quickly and the administration will have to try and help. host: no executive action or recourse? guest: the president cannot wave a magic wand with an executive order that has all 34 states extending coverage. what he can do is help the states by making sure the

procedures the states need to go through in order to set up a marketplace, for example, the most difficult thing is setting up a website. as you know, the administration had great difficulties in the early. of the affordable care act. -- early period of the affordable care act. possibly, they might be able to use the healthcare.gov website. those are the kinds of things that would make it easier for estate -- a state. caller: medicaid expansion means an increase to the taxpayers in that particular state, eventually. if it is covered by government subsidies, that also is an increase to american taxpayers because we are the government. this is a whole can of worms

that obama opened from day worm when he pushed -- day one when he shoved it down congress's throat with nancy pelosi when she said you must pass the bill so you can read what is in it. guest: brenda is of course right about the fact that medicaid is paid for with tax dollars, no question about it. florida is interesting. the governor and the house in florida have rejected the medicaid expansion. today, florida would be able to expand the program with 100% funding from the federal government paid for by taxpayers across the country. florida today has a medicaid program which has been operational for close to 50 years. florida, currently with its medicaid program, gets $.60 out of the dollar from the federal

government. florida has decided to do that. now they are being offered 100 cents on the dollar for expansion and the governor is saying no. i don't understand, it seems like a no-brainer. there are so many things the state gets out of this in addition to being able to get federal dollars coming in and set of just going to california or new york or kentucky. they now get those federal dollars. in addition, states often pay for what we call uncompensated care, when somebody is uninsured and goes to a public hospital and it picks up some of those costs. perhaps, even more importantly in every state, we have seen reports and analysis about what it means in terms of jobs. that impacts the health care factor. florida would benefit very significantly by expanding medicaid. host: if they decide for the

plaintiff? what is the likelihood that subsidies would end immediately? guest: i don't know what the answer to that is, there has been a lot of speculation. justice alito who seems to be siding with the plaintiffs, suggests there should be something like a six-month delay. it is not clear what the court will say. there are a good number of people saying we will need some time so we can figure out what to do and get congress and the states to the opportunity to work this out. the answer is so far unknown. caller: hi, there are three points i would like to make. first of all, those three words were intentional. all you have to do is listen and you know that they were intentional. blame obama for this.

secondly, billions of people lost their insurance and they were forced onto the registries. some had to receive medicaid when they were paid zero four their health insurance. their employers were paying it. the third point is that deductibles are so high for some people that they cannot afford to go to the doctor anymore and you will in the future sea depths result -- see deaths result. guest: i want to take her last point first, she talked about high deductibles and she is right, too many people have high deductibles. we at families usa support the affordable care act but issued a report a month ago that said even though we made tremendous progress in getting people insured, over one out of four people who had year-round

insurance could not get necessary care because of out-of-pocket costs when they needed it. often it is deductibles. there are a variety of things we hope would be done in the future to deal with this problem. brenda is right, a lot of people sometimes feel it is unaffordable to get the care they need. one thing that can be done is that we can exempt more services like primary care from the deductible. if you want to get a checkup from the doctor, you can get that and don't have to pay the deductible. we are hoping that more such critical services are made available. host: who covers the cost? guest: it is picked up by the insurance company because they will have to pay the primary care physician. the other thing is we can increase the protections that people have when they have coverage, such that right now

for those people who are poor, those below 250% of poverty they have a cap on how much they have to pay out-of-pocket in a year. we can improve those protections. host: jerry is from pennsylvania talking to ron pollack of families usa. caller: yes, i have a few questions and comments. first of all, when nancy pelosi said you have to pass this to see what is in it or you have to pass it to see what's in it, i am glad that the republicans didn't sign that because i don't think any of you people try anything before we read it. and we have bloomberg telling us how busy we are that they have to lie to us to pass this bill. the we have president obama taking billions out of medicare

to pay for this. then we have billions of dollars to put this into place. and people are not getting affordable care. that is a joke. if this health care is so wonderful, i would love to see all of the senators and congress , i would love to see them all pay for it and to have the same insurance we have. they should have to live by the laws they pass. they give. -- thank you. guest: she also raises a number of points. one thing i think is porton to understand -- is important to understand we have seen surveys of people dissipating as a commonwealth foundation, family foundation, what we find is that

the people that are participating are very happy with the coverage they are receiving. they feel it is something they don't want taken away. the other thing is that it is true that if you look at public opinion surveys, there is a mixture in view on whether the affordable care act is good or bad and slightly more are opposed to it than favorite. -- favor it. when you look at two other sets of questions, it is a different story. when you asked the public if they want the program to be repealed or stay in place or improve, there is only a minority that say they want to see it repealed. it is clear that the affordable care act is something that the american public would like to see stay in place. host: eventually, how you deal with sustainability and costs and expenses? guest: one of the things that is

a lesser-known stories of the affordable care act is that in the last few years since the affordable care act past, we have seen a slowing down of health care costs. i don't think anyone, even people like myself who support the affordable care act, say the affordable care act is totally responsible. heart of it was clearly the economy has slowed down but clearly the affordable care act has had a beneficial effect. what we saw before it was passed was a skyrocketing cost. that's why employers were dropping coverage and we are seeing a deceleration and cost. so far, the record is good. caller: good morning c-span. host: you're on charles. caller: i'm talking about that obama care and i have heard a lot of republicans say they want to repeal it but obamacare has

been doing really good for people i know, even my wife has it. she only has to pay $10 a month. they won't raise the minimum wage. obama, one of the good perks we had, he is trying to make things better. a lot of people, they have some much money, but they don't think about the poor people. i hope the supreme court, the court of the land prevails for people like me. these people have had insurance all their life. they could afford it. some people can't afford it because they have to go to the hospital and don't have insurance and they give you a prescription and send you right out. all of the republican colors need to sit down. look at all the poor people in this country, we have a big

problem right here and right now and we have to take care of the people here because poor people count two. -- too. you will have a blessed day today, anytime i know the supreme court is going to go along with obama, he is a good president. the republicans are be ashamed of themselves. they didn't but for him but i wish everybody has a good day. guest: charles makes a good point but i want to add onto that. there is no question the affordable care act has helped lower income people and families. medicaid has been a key instrument in doing that. charles talked about his wife getting coverage and paying a pretty small premium.

there is no question that for those people who really need help the most, they are getting the most help. in the marketplace, the subsidies are provided on a sliding scale. the thing i want to add on to what charles is saying, this is not just for people -- poor people. some of the people getting subsidies are middle income people. some of the subsidies go up to forge a percent of the federal poverty level. of course, the higher income you go on that scale, you are going to get less help. this really helps middle-class people and increasingly, middle-class people are finding health insurance has been unaffordable and need help. yes, it is helping the poor but it is also helping others who are working, cannot get coverage through the workplace, cannot afford health insurance, and the subsidies are making them affordable. host: let's take a call from one

more viewer, jerry from new york. caller: think you for taking my call. i have a perception for my ophthalmologist. the aca is in my deal has, the steel house. my purpose in calling as an independent is to comment on the dialogue that has gone back and forth. to make the short, the bill was passed by a reconciliation something that is a backdoor manipulation rather than an up or down vote, i happen to be neither for or against the aca but that is a point that is often missed. there is a significant difference between medicare and medicaid. medicaid, and law, it is important when court decisions is not a payback of a payment of tax dollars as a benefit otherwise unearned. there are technical realities to medicare, block box and the

like, that have it coming out of taxes essentially paid for by people to whom it returns by the state. medicaid as distinct from medicare is like the aca in many parts which is a chimeric of two -- chimera of two. pardon the intended pun, as it sees fit. that is a reason that medicare is not a third rail necessarily politically perhaps but medicare is law and it will be very hard to manipulate other than perhaps by changing the retirement age but not the entitlement versus medicaid. what happens in these discussions is each party has its perspectives. so mr. pollack when asked about mammograms, a man in a gated community asked about maternity

leave. the point of the caller which is built into the aca, which has been come to be known as a group or ask -- gruber-esque backdoor. the supreme court found you being the person who does not need this health service, in order to pay for someone who does. i truly would not call it subterfuge but expedients that tends to make people on both sides, republicans and democrats , otherwise upset and revert to partisanship. host: i have to cut you off there because we are running short on time. guest: he opened up, jerry mentioned about reconciliation. it is important to understand that there were votes in the senate that passed the affordable care act and it got 60 votes out of 100.

ultimately, it passed on this process of reconciliation, but at that point it was 59 votes. this past with a substantial -- passed with a substantial majority. it is not fair to call it subterfuge. i am going straight to the court right after here. we have a number of people who are coming into town who are getting the subsidies who will talk about their own situation and how they would be affected, depending on how the court rules. caller:host: >> more hearings are scheduled this week in the security reach of the office of personnel management. affecting millions of records of federal employees and others who have government contracts.

director archuleta will talk about spending for information technology that could help prevent their breaches from happening again. that is live tomorrow morning at 10:30 a.m. on c-span3. then at 2:00, a subcommittee hearing on a proposed epa regulations for carbon emissions and their impact on energy costs. that is also on c-span3. another case still pending before the street -- the supreme court could stop same-sex marriage in many states. in 20 of the 36 states where same-sex couples can now marry judges invoke the constitution to strike down marriage bans.

keith: good afternoon. i am keith hill. i am a former press club vice president and a member of the newsmaker committee. i will be today's moderator with glad president and ceo, circuit -- sara kate ellis. after the speaker's presentation we will take questions for the remaining time. once a members of the press have asked of their questions, we will invite non-press club members to ask the questions . please keep your questions brief and to the point inspeeches please, so we can get in as many

questions as time allows. anyone with questions should identify themselves and stay to -- state the agency and organization they represent. i would like to bring up an event. on july 8, coach jerry -- coach barry traut will speak at a luncheon. turn off all cell phones to vibrate. the u.s. supreme court will soon decide oberg are failed riches -- obergerfeld versus hodges, which will require ohio to recognize same-sex marriage lawfully entered into in another state. what will happen to the movement after the decision is handed down? today's guest will discuss ramifications for our against the plaintiffs. sarah kate ellis has been president and ceo of glad, the nations lesbian, gay, bisexual

transgender media advocacy organization since january 2014. before taking the position, she was an award-winning executive and communications strategist whom it programming the spotlight to the diversity of the lgbt community. the floor is yours. ms. ellis: thank you very much. thanks for having me today. so there is one way a can come -- so there are three ways that the ruling can come down. one is affirmative, which is a yes. if that happens, it will be a great celebration. but we will be back on monday or the following day. because there is still much to be done. number two, the way the ruling can come down is that the states that do not have marriage equality will have to recognize marriage equality from other states. that is a half win you can look

at that way. the third way as we get it now -- a no altogether. which means we will be having to do a lot of work in the future. any way in which they come in, there's still a lot of work we have left to do. at glaad we just commissioned a poll of over 2000 americans and asked them how they really feel about the lgbt community. it is an understanding of what the culture is out there for the lgbt community. we asked them on a five-point scale and then we asked about everyday situations such as bringing kids is that powerful -- bringing kids to a same-sex household for a play date, bringing your kid to a same-sex wedding, finding out that a

child is a transgender child. well we've found is that one out of three americans is still uncomfortable with the lgbt community. when you look closer. any look at the south, they go even higher. 10 to 20 percentage points. when you look at the community -- when you look at the transgender community, those levels increase up to 40%, so 90% of americans are very uncomfortable with the transgender community. from there, we have a bus tour in the south. why we do that is because we want to accelerate acceptance of the lgbt community. no matter the way scotus rules , we have to create a culture in which americans can live. -- in which lgbt americans can live. so we traveled from states, 10 cities in seven days and we met with community leaders. we premiered to many -- two mini- documentaries and

we met with church and faith leaders and had very vibrant conversations on how to help accelerate acceptance. additionally, we've been working closely with visibility. those are two points that i'm making out of this entire study. when you look globally we have real challenges globally and as acceptance is moving forward in america, discrimination is being exported globally. we are working closely with advocates on the ground across the world to accelerate acceptance. i think that's about it. keith did a wonderful job of introducing me. i am sarah kate ellis. i have been at glaad for a year and a half. i come from the for-profit side and we do media advocacy, so it is about raising the stories of everyday americans, but also people who are well known who are supportive of the lgbt

community because we know and understand, to build acceptance in this country, that you need to know somebody because it opens your heart and mind and change public opinion. we work hard to change public opinion in this country. without icann take -- in this country. with that, i can take questions. keith: i'll take the moderators prerogative and ask a couple questions before you open it up. first, a couple controversies in the last several years. in 2011, glaad supported at&t in the eventually canceled merger with t-mobile when it was reported that glaad had received $50,000 from at&t. second, in 2013, glaad gave

former president bill clinton -- he was noted as an advocate for change by glaad. my question is have either of those controversies effected how you broadcast your message in any way? ms. ellis: fortunately, none of them happened under my watch. that being said, when you deal with corporate america, do you want -- do you want best me to start over? fortunately, none happen under my watch. i am the leader they are now and i feel at this stage that bill clinton gave, he talked about coming onto his journey of acceptance for the lgbt community. -- it was a powerful platform for him to talk about that.

moving forward, glaad is the advocator and we have been known as a watchdog. there's always a lot of controversy around glaad because we do call people on things when they're not going well. i have to say the media and i've -- and us have a really good relationship now. glaad was formed out of protest in front of "the new york post" almost 30 years ago this october when the post was reporting on aids and calling it the gay man's disease. we have always had an advocacy and advocacy arm to us. keith: on the journey of self-discovery what about situations wary of recognized

individuals who may have talked against gay marriage at one point but are now coming around. how do you address the so-called dichotomy or that kind of flip-flopping? ms. ellis: i think it is a journey. acceptance is a journey. and we talked about a recently and they're bringing their congregations along with them to the place of acceptance. we have to give room for people to discover, to understand, to educate, to meet people who are lgbt and go on this road of discovery and acceptance. it takes time and we've seen that in the lgbt community and we talk about that openly that it is a journey to acceptance. keith: i would like to shift gears a little bit.

it was reported a week or so ago most american airlines and wells fargo took some had -- took some hits for their lgbt rainbow. american airlines has a rainbow flag on the tail of their planes. how do you approach her how do you help the corporate community and advocating for lgbt acceptance. before the ruling comes out or up until the ruling has come out, how has glaad gone about trying to change the corporate mindset and get them to accept the community? >> you know, the thing we know is being diverse and inclusive is very good for business. once the business case scenarios

were made, most of corporate america got on board in supporting the lgbt community because they understood not only does it affect their bottom line, they retrain great talent and recruit great talent. with corporate america, and they got the memo on the business case came out that it would help their business and they've been very pro-lgbt and they realize taking some of the heads -- some of the kids -- some of the hits, the bigger social impact is really important in the business impact is really important. keith: at this point i will open the floor for questions. >> you mentioned what happens as it got work to do. if you get a ruling that is a half loaf or a ruling that makes it more difficult, how will you

go about doing that work? ms. ellis: first, i mentioned one out of three people are still uncomfortable with the lgbt community. that is focused on raising the stories, meeting lgbt people through the media because we find a lot of people who don't accept or not pro-lgbt don't know anybody who is lgbt. but the other thing is, from a media standpoint, what we would do is probably raise the story of these couples being hurt by not having a positive ruling we would talk about attacks that were put on them with the human side, that is our job to raise awareness on what the human toll would be for not having a positive ruling.

>> do you have a game plan prepared? do you have something that you will immediately rollout depending on what the court does? ms. ellis: we have all three scenarios covered in terms of how we will proceed. we are not a policy organization, right? our plan is a media plan and how it would raise those stories and make sure that there is enough awareness if there is a negative ruling, how that hurts american families today. >> you talked about how there is lingering problems for lgbt -- lingering problems for acceptance of lg db lgbt people. i am wondering what is the mechanism by which we get people to be more accepting any issues to be more exposed and how you envision getting

people there. ms. ellis: i think a lot of it is by meeting lgbt people appear to do it through movies. movies are one of america's biggest cultural exports. we are doing a lot of work with movie studios to have them be more inclusive because they don't get a good rating on being inclusive and high productions judeo movies. another is telling stories of everyday people we now and you have done extraordinary things are live ordinary lives in the face of adversity. this way, people get to know people who are lgbt. with caitlin jenner coming out recently, before caitlyn came out, we knew that 8% of americans knew people who are. now we are in the market seen how did that move the needle is such a high-profile and coming out as transgender. getting people like that who can do positive portrayals is really

important to moving acceptance forward. [inaudible] >> i don't -- >> let's say they're pushing an idea on a larger populous who may or may not have agreed with that? >> that's a great question. 39 states having marriage equality is over majority ask that doesn't seem very top down. it seems bottom up actually. when you look at the landscape and how we've been fighting for marriage equality it's been

gradual and slow building to this moment now. so, i think it's been very much a bottom up strategy in order to get -- and also if you look at the statistics over 60% of americans are pro american equality. so that's a super majority at this point. it's really -- it's definitely a bottom up move. >> certainly nationwide but would you say it's a bottom up in those states that are not on board with marriage equality? >> each state could be its own country in america. we often sometimes say that. but i think that you know, the people of america have spoken and are ready for this with over 60% saying that they are for marriage equality. so i think that the states are ready. i do think that we have our statistics over work

cut and especially in those states where southern and the middle of the country where it might be a little bit slower to move in that direction. but overall we're in a good place. >> they say you have to recognize out of state marriages but you don't have to perform your own in ohio and the states that have resisted doing that. wouldn't that basically legalize it because all the people would have to do is go out of state and then come back and they would still be able to have the benefits of marriage. >> yes, but you also have to think about in theory, correct. there are people who can't leave their state whether they're sick whether they don't have the means to, so it's not -- out for us across the

country it could get into an socioeconomic issue as well. and it's not fair to those people that are in those states. in theory yes, but in practice it's important that we have mire rapblg marriage equality in those states and we will be pushing for that if we get the second ruling. >> i in 2015 is the betrayal of gay characters a plus minus or wash? >> it all depends on what media you're talking about. in the network front, the networks do a good job actually of media portrayal. inch incorporating them into storylines and giving a diverse viewpoint. when we get to transgender there is one show the bold and the beautiful which is a soap opera that is exported more than it is

viewed in the united states. the only recurring transrole. so we have to pick up the transrepresentation. when we look at the studios i mentioned studios don't do a very good job. they're a very low numbers of portrayals and usually they're the joke, victim phaoeuzed killed all those things. and then when you look at the news media, i think the news media does a fairly very actually pretty good job at portrayals. they give diverse representation and good interviews. i think some media institute or news segments that could do

better. >> what could glad do or what other things can glad do to get the film industry to change its mindset as far as hg lbgt community is concerned. >> i'd love them to take a page from corporate america who understands it's better for business and i think that the film industry would see it's better for their business as well. however, one of the things that we are doing right now is not only do we measure them every year so we have a place, a baseline to have the conversation. but the other thing that we're doing is compiling the past two years the representation of lbgt people in films to show how negative it really is. we're figuring if we play it

back for them then they'll be able to see what we're talking right now is not only do we measure them every year so we have a place, a baseline

so so i think it's an important for them to be inclusive because i think it it will add to their bottom line and not detract. >> recently ireland became the first country in the world to accept gay marriage of the is there anything that glad could learn from the irish experience as well as other countries a better acceptance of gay marriage the lbgt community than we do? >> what's interesting about ireland is that it was popular vote.

i don't believe that a minority's rights to be voted on by a majority. it went very well. we worked on that actually at glad. when we do global work we help get the questions right and the answers right and get as much media around big events as possible. so, i think that, yeah, we should take a page from their book. i don't think voting on it is the page to take but that a very catholic country has beaten america to the punch here is why i'm cautiously optimistic we'll get a positive ruling from the supreme court. we just saw it in mexico last week. so we're seeing a lot of really positive affirming lbgt movement as we are seeing as much resistance and i don't want to

downplay that as tall because it is still criminal in many countries to be lbgt. >> ireland as a country on some social issues is wrong and sex self marriage they moved to the rare knowledge how do you take these traditionally right or left wing positions and get to where you want to get in places without necessarily trying to say we're moving left or right? >> see i don't think it's a left-right issue. it's an issue of love. it's an issue of family and that's one thing where i think ireland took what we do really well which is when we first started on the marriage equality road we talked we talked about rights and protections. when we realized those weren't resonating we started talking

about love and family and appealing to what we all have in our -- in our nature is to protect our family and love our family. and ireland actually took that and upped it even a notch. some of their campaigns were sheer brilliance where they had a grandson calling his grandmother and coming out it her. it's about love what we're talking about and not left-right. and i think it gets moderate in the left-right when it's about family. it's about making this country even better because when you have love and strong families a country thrives. >> let's see where you see a case where a southern baptist preacher says he doesn't want to perform same sex marriage, could he be sued? or is that somehow -- there is a

gray area in that? how does that work? >> you know freedom of religion is critical to this country. i think where it gets shady and tkpraeu gray is when it gets out of the place of worship and gets into businesses denying services. that gets into a gray area. it could be the next life or death emt services. i think it's really important right now there's over 80 anti-lbgt aring freedom bills pending. what we want to be careful about those are about denying people services every day. and that's business. when you're talking about the churches within your confine of your church you have your

religion. >> let's focus on the transgender community for a minute. i had a discussion with someone yesterday because she didn't know the difference between transvestite and transgender. do you clarify that for us. i gave her what i thought my definition of both of those were and hopefully that was correct. >> it started a national dialogue and it's so important to have these conversations. so someone who is transgender is someone that my definition has been -- feels that they are -- they feel different inside than their body shows. so they want to align their body with how they feel in their heart and their mind and that's what transgender is. it's been a very impactful

couple of years in the media for the transgender community and we've seen a lot of visibility grow out of that. but i also want to warn what we've also seen is eight murders of transgender women. so while we're seeing a lot more visibility we're also seeing an an up tick as reported. so many people are misgendered or not out, so eight is what we know of this year which is more than one a month. so we're really focused in on accelerating acceptance for the transcommunity. >> and transvestite? >> there's a lot of no minute clay cher around it. >> it tends to be someone who dresses in women's clothes but doesn't identify as a woman

full-time. >> we've mentioned caitlin jenner several times. before that it was rene richards who was a professional tennis player. and before rene richards there was christine jorgensen in the 19 fifties. i have two questions but first, how specifically if you can talk about it would this case help the transgender community if the first option holds true, the first option that you mentioned earlier where you say, yes you have to accept the same sex marriage, period. how would that help the

transgender community; do you see a direct assistance? incorrect? both? neither? >> any time that we've seen marriage equality come it a state we've seen the acceptance rates in that state of the lbgt community go higher. so i think what we know if this positive affirming ruling comes in, acceptance will be excel rated just by ruling coming in for the lbgt community. >> my second question i'd like to focus on an article that was published in my company's human resources report written by genevieve genesis. and two things that struck me in this article first they quoted

that there are an estimated 700,000 transgender adults in the u.s. workforce. 700,000. second thing, she quoted a consultant who said, "when you transition you don't transition in a vacuum. everyone in your life transitions with you, whether you like it or not." my question is, does there need to be -- does a critical mass need -- does a critical mass need to be reached before the transgender community gets the same level of acceptance as the -- as gay lesbian and bisexual? in other words, i'm thinking

that -- this old commercial if you tell two friends they tell two friends and so on and so on. if there's a number above which a turning point could occur and then the transgender community begins to be accepted by the general public, do you think that the numbers need to i crease before that will happen? >> well, i always get a little nervous around numbers just because, especially when it's self-reported and it's in the transcommunity. when we were on the southern bus tour i had a young come up to me and said, i didn't even know who i was until two years ago. she didn't see it and hadn't heard of it. she knew what she felt inside wasn't lining up with her body but she wasn't affair of what transgender even meant.

so i think even building visibility about what transgender is increases hopefully the people who are living in pain right now who are potentially suicide candidates understand who they are, accept who they are and see that they can live in this world happily. i worry about the numbers quite frankly but i do think that as we see people transition, as we hear their stories and as we learn about their lives and family we become more open and more accepting to them. i think we're on that road. i do believe we're on that road and i think that laverne cox is a great example. we worked with laverne cox for a number of years, over five years and was on the cover of "time magazine" as the transgender

tipping point and then with caitlin coming out that interview with diane sawyer was viewed by more than 20 million households. for the first time in millions and millions of households they met someone who was transgender and that does a miraculous thing for acceptance. >> have you seen any change in the numbers since caitlyn jenner did the -- oh was on the cover of "vanity fair." >> we don't have automatic reporting for that. but i -- my professional guess is we'll see more people who say they know someone who is transgender and we'll see more people identifying as transgender because they know who they are. they've been struggling very quietly in the recesses of the country and now they'll have

something to put a name to -- and feelings against that they are. >> you talked about a bus tour that you've done throughout the south. could you talk a little bit more about the bus tour and people you've met, any negative impressions or any negative experience that you had during the bus tour? >> it was a phenomenal bus tour. we did six cities -- i mean six states, ten cities in seven days. we started in nashville and we did the first ever country music concert for the lbgt affirming concert with ty herndon who is an out texas artist. we had to stop taking artists on because it was going to be an

all day affair. that was the first of its kind and it was accepted really, really well. no pro tests or anything of that nature. we were thrilled with that. we went on to alabama where we met with community activists and then we went on to meet with military families, lbgt . /* military families, families and how we could bring stories to light and shine the light on any issues they were still having. and then we premiered two mini documentaries one on south carolina. we were in charleston and then we were in coloradombia and then umbia and then georgia.

but i think we met with a lot of faith leaders and that was interesting to me. because they really are at a point of acceptance and they're trying to figure out how to bring their congregation along and most of the most successful people or faith leaders have done about a year or two journey with their congregation, having these conversations about who are we and what do we stand for and how do we be inclusive and diverse as a community. so, i found that really fascinating. the other thing i found in as fascinating a lot of the activists or people on the frontline who are living their every day lives aren't organized. so i think a lot of organizing happened in those smaller towns across the south which i think already could you see the light bulb go off for a lot of these

community activists where they realized they weren't talking to each other and more power in numbers. it was a fascinating trip. >> we talked about ireland earlier. let's go to the other side of the globe. do you have any statistics on the lbgt community and how they're treated or the views of the lbgt community in asia? >> well, i think one of the challenges that we have globally and i touched on this a little earlier was that our opponents in the state have taken their message, their anti-lbgt message and exsupportingport exporting it. not only that in a little less than ten countries you could be punished by death for being lbgt so there is a crisis abroad.

i don't have the specifics but i could get those for you. but i think overall what we want to be really mindful of is that we have a challenge that's global now. we started recognizing it at glad and we've been working on the global oh for years and we started to get really involved last year's round the olympics and making sure that the stories of russian lbgt people were being told while all the cameras were on sochi. and we have quite a few other projects on the horizon. but we can't keep up with all the advocates on the ground who are asking for your assistance to help them understand how to work with the media and build a relationship with the media and

so it's a very active space right now with a lot of need. >> are you doing anything specifically related to the olympics in brazil next year? >> we're always looking. i think that we're always analyzing where -- who needs our help and how we can help and when the national spotlight is on a country we'll always be there and active and talking about the issues that we're having globally for sure. >> do you believe transitioning should be included in a basic healthcare package? >> well, i think it's been proven it is should go that should be medically covered and i think there's documentation -- there is documentation on that. and it's -- when somebody is not

matching up or aligning and it's causing stress, it's not good for anybody. and i think that having that kind of coverage is critical. >> do you have any specific partnerships with companies here in the united states? are you doing a blanket presentation regarding the lbgt community? >> can you just clarify that? >> are you saying -- i'm not going to mention any names -- with a specific company here in the united states, are you working with them to try to -- in trying to get them to generate more acceptance with the lgbt employees that they have within the company or are you doing -- is your

presentation a general one that will effect or touch most of the companies here in the united states? >> you know, one thing that we found out when we did our accelerating acceptance harris poll is what we definitely need to pay attention to in the future more so than we have in the past are our allies and a lot of corporate america can be our allies. within their companies have a number of allies. so it's about engaging allies and bringing them along to support us and to help us along. i think that our -- glad as a whole is been accelerating acceptance for the lbgt community. whether it's in private framework or corporate we're always trying to do that.

corporations understand. it's good for bottom line and talent and gaining new talent and so it's in their best interests and they understand that now. so i think i find that they're very clued in to the lbgt community and how powerful acceptance can be. >> are there any specific policies that you would like to see corporate america adopt regarding the lbgt community. somebody mentioned healthcare. pensions, wages, i mean, there are a whole range of issues where corporate america could benefit their lbgt community. are there any policies you'd like to sea corporate america put in place to help the lgbt community here in the united states? >> yeah, i mean i think it's

really important especially when it comes to the transgender community to think about how healthcare and also important to think about what transitioning is and any services that they can help provide to make that easier to help them do it while they're still at work. andone thing we didn't touch on is policy beyond marriage equality. you can still get fired in 21 states for being lgbt. you could be evicted from your homes, and you can be denied services. we have a lot of work on the policy front. you cannot legislate acceptance. that is why we are so focused on accelerating