supreme court justices. it's a 5-4 decision in favor of hobby lobby. hobby lobby does not have to pay for the disputed birth control techniques. >> today, the president is asking congress for more than $2 billion to help stem the surge of people illegally crossing the border. >> more than 52,000 unaccompanied children have been caught illegally entering the u.s. since last fall. isis declared its territory in iraq and syria to be a caliphate or muslim state. >> it amounts to a declaration of victory. they now lay claim to about one-third of iraq. i think there's a lot of evidence to argue for medical marijuana. i think we should leave to in the states because nobody really knows where this is going. a lot of people think scandal is a hit because of kerry. and she's great in it. but the real reason "scandal" is a hit is because every thursday at 10:00, there's a white

president. white people get to tune in and feel good. like for one hour it's just back to normal. so corporations are people. supreme court for the first time today ruled that profit-seeking businesses can hold religious views under federal law. can that even be protected when those laws refer to people? that's the question at issue here. it says, quote, the federal government can't substantially burden a person's exercise rev lidgion. according to the court, companies like hobby lobby and constoga wood, both owned by families with strong religious beliefs don't have to provide the coverage to their employees mandated under obama care. moments ago, white house press secretary josh earnest weighed in. >> today's decision jeopardizes the health of women who are employed by these companies. we will work with congress to make sure any women affected by

this decision will still have the same coverage of vital health services as everyone else. >> remember, this is the same court that held on citizens united, that corporations were also people or at least what they call associations of citizens, with respect to political free speech rights during elections. so where does this latest decision leave women covered under the obamacare mandate and equally importantly, what kind of a future does it point to for the rights of american businesses. we're joined by our supersize panel, pete williams. nbc news justice correspondent. akil ammar, the constitutional law expert at yale, terry o'neil, president of the national organization for women, karen finney, board member of naral and an mbs nbc contributor and robert, an msnbc contributor. pete, i'll start with you. how broadly does this decision open the door to other businesses that have religious views n don't believe they should be bound by federal law.

>> i feel like i'm doing my oral exams. the courts in the past have said corporations have some rights of people. for example, corporations can sign contracts, they can own property. this is another example. and the court went out of its way to repeatedly distress how narrow it intended its ruling to be. number one it applies only to companies that are what are called closely held. meaning owned by a family or group of friends. not publicly traded. secondly, they have to have some kind of history of forming the company with religious principles in mind. and that's certainly true of the hobby lobby and the two other companies here. thirdly, the court said this is a balancing test under the federal law. you have the company's religious beliefs, the belief that if they provided coverage for these contraceptives it would violate their religious beliefs and be the equivalent of abortion. and you have the government's interest in making sure the women who work for these companies get contraceptive coverage. and when you balance those two things in these cases, the

supreme court said, it works out on the company's favor because there are other ways of achieving what the government wanted. what the majority says here is, look at what the federal government is already doing for people who work for non-profit religiously affiliated companies. they get the contraceptive coverage. the women won't lose out. therefore, the equities tilt toward the companies. they went out of their way to say this will not work for the majority of companies or other instances like refusing to serve certain people. >> they are clear in trying to narrow the types of companies. ginsburg in her dissent takes issue with the standard they lay out. this could apply to a whole other range of laws and corporations. do you think her critique is valid there, pete? >> well, you know, the majority opinion specifically addresses that and says she's just wrong that this is not going to say -- this is not a free pass for companies to disobey any law that they say violates their religious freedom. the dissenters chose to write it

that way. they could have said this is a very narrow ruling and tried to contain the damage, but they took the approach that they took. >> all right, pete, thank you. i know you have to go. you've done wonderfully on that oral exam you mentioned. >> thank you. >> we'll go to another person who has been through a lot of oral exams in court, out of court in the column. akim lamar. i want to talk about the solution the court proposes. companies actually don't have to pay for it because there are other examples of less restrictive solution of the government paying for it. and ruth bader ginsburg has some choice thoughts on that. she describes that as the public, i.e. taxpayers picking up the tab. is that a fair characterization of what the supreme court forcing the public to do here? >> well, that's the nub of the disagreement. pete gets an a-plus. let me just, in addition to emphasizing, remind you of his points, remind everyone that this is just a statutory case. it's not about constitutional

rights. congress could change the statute to broaden the interest or the rights on either side. and what the court did say is that they really are workable work arounds and that certain, only a certain privately held corporations founded and staffed by lereligious folk could be treated more like the law treats churches and other full blown religious organizations. there are work arounds. so maybe this looms -- this case looms bigger in the culture wars than in the actual world. it doesn't throw a monkey wrench in the system. more like a pair of tweezers. >> it really is. it's a balancing test on both sides. and one question also is, of course, how much burden the exemption places on these employees. and it is actually cynics argue, people who support this ruling argue, a modest amount every month that individuals would

have to pay to get this coverage themselves. they could turn to the government. let's go to you, terry, on this question. your organization has said that you'll keep fighting on this. but do you think that it's an undue imposition on these individuals, the employees themselves, if the companies themselves aren't providing the coverage? >> look, we are going to make sure that women have access to reproductive health care. but let's be clear. the men who wrote this decision on behalf of the supreme court have entered into a war on women. they have become a blatantly politically activist anti-woman political organization. and i think it's very important. we take the position that there are some beliefs, people talk about how sincerely beheld -- how sincerely held this belief is. some are so heinous a government should not respect them. apartheid in south africa was

justified on religious grounds. the southern baptist convention justified slavery and later jim crow and segregation on religious grounds. we don't accept that as a society anymore and we should not accept plain out gender bigotry. withholding basic health care from women is bigotry plain and simp simple. we should not accept it. >> the aclu and a number of organizations laid out that history of what they view as oppression on the grounds of similar religious arguments. and the fact that maybe in the view of these organizations, those shouldn't hold water when it comes to corporations. going back to this question of corporate rights. where does this leave the court going forward? first citizens united, this case. where does it stop in terms of the reluctance to pierce the veil and hold individuals accountable and seeming willingness of this court to ascribe individual personhood rights of a positive nature to the corporations?

>> well, one thing is corporations don't get to vote on election day. at least not yet. and that's important because they can say whatever they want and run all sorts of ads but ultimately you the voter, the folks outside, are going to decide. mitt romney spent more money and he lost. so that is one place where it ends. and just to remind you, this is just a statutory case and it's only about a small group of corporations, closely held corporations and even us liberals should want some corporations to at least have some rights. "the new york times" is a corporation. random house is a corporation. those of white house believe in free speech have to -- 30 rock it's owned by a corporation and you don't want the government to just take the place over. so we still in america today, i believe the people are sovereign. >> but professor, it does seem reading the majority decision and the dissent there is confusion as to which corporations this should apply to, what constitutes a closely held corporation. terry in light of all that confusion and in light of we've

seen some recent numbers. take a look at a recent nbc/"wall street journal" poll that found 53% say employers shouldn't be exempt. in light of some of the confusion on the court and in light of these deeply held public opinions on it, do you think the public should press for new legislative solutions as was being pointed out? >> absolutely. i think actually what we need to do is revive the equal right s amendment to the united states. i don't think that hobby lobby could have been decided the way it was or the buffer zone case the supreme court announced on thursday. that would not have been possible if we had women's equality enshrined in the constitution. illinois has taken some steps toward ratifying the e.r.a. and if two more states were to do that as well as illinois, we might have very different political landscape. i think the message here is that the response has to be

political. we have a politicized supreme court. we will meet them on the political grounds. we will defeat them. we need to reverse the 30-year campaign by the right wing to take over the federal courts and that's my organization's job. and we'll be working with our allies. i think we'll succeed. >> we hear the white house coming out and saying they'll stand on this fight as well. that's a great jumping off point for us to get into the political side of the discussion which we're going to do just up ahead with karen finney and robert. thank you terry o'neil and khalil. much more hobby lobby coming up and particularly looking at the politics of it and how it will weigh into these big decisions for 2016. if you had chickenpox, the shingles virus is already inside you. you should know that 1 in 3 people will get shingles in their lifetime.

humans. we are beautifully imperfect creatures living in an imperfect world. that's why liberty mutual insurance has your back, offering exclusive products like optional better car replacement, where if your car is totaled, we give you the money to buy one a model year newer. call... and ask an insurance expert about all our benefits today,

like our 24/7 support and service, because at liberty mutual insurance, we believe our customers do their best out there in the world, so we do everything we can to be there for them when they need us. plus, you could save hundreds when you switch, up to $423. call... today. liberty mutual insurance -- responsibility. what's your policy?

now you'll see those companies that want to claim a religious objection trying to push the envelope on so many different types of health care. >> that was congresswoman debbie wasserman schultz last hour on "andrea mitchell reports." some of these alarms being sounded by democrats as potentially being run amok. they have religious beliefs. they can't wait to have their own strong beliefs about that. mitch mcconnell released this statement. he said today the supreme court's decision makes it clear that the obama administration cannot trample on the religious freedoms that americans hold dear. obama care is the single worst piece of legislation to pass in the last 50 years. oh, my. the comparisons we could come up with to debunk that. harry reid said today's decision jeopardizes women's access to

essential health care. if they'll not protect women's access to health care, then democrats will. how are ordinary americans going to react to this increasing trend of individual rights and protections being extended to businesses. and how is it going to play into the forthcoming election cycle. you've been waiting patiently. i know you have a lot of thoughts on this. robert, on this general question of how much politically salable corporations are people as a concept can be in this upcoming election. we remember mitt romney getting reamed for saying back in 2011, well, why don't we just listen actually. >> the same administration said that churches in the institutions they run, such as schools and, let's say, adoption agencies, hospitals, that they have to provide for their employees free of charge contraceptives, morning after pills, in other words, abortive pills, and the like at no cost. think what that does to people in faiths that do not share

those views? this is a violation of conscience. we must have a president who is willing to protect america's first right, a right to worship god according to the dictates of our own conscience. >> for that argument, for his invocation of the phrase, corporations are people, he got really roundly ridiculed. do you think at this point the political mainstream will be more embracing of that set of principles? >> i think it's a little more narrow than that. i think pete williams did a brilli brilliant job analyzing this. it's statutory. we always hear the talking point that elections have consequences. they do. in this case, republicans elected republicans to appoint to the supreme court the american people spoke on this a couple of years ago when it came to ronald reagan, george h.w. bush and so forth. again, this is a very narrow decision. and it's only towards small organizations or small corporations that have those deeply held religious beliefs.

if in fact, a woman chooses or wants to have contraception and they work for hobby lobby or some other religious affiliated organization, the government can provide for that. the supreme court did not say that these individuals are denied contraception. it said these organizations can deny it based on their religious beliefs. if they want contraception, the government can provide for that. it's very specific. it's very narrow. and i understand the argument that this is an assault against women's rights. but what about the argument about an assault on religious rights. where is that a part of the sghfr conversation? we need to be transparent if we're going to have an intellectual conversation about a woman's right to choose but also the balancing act with religious rights and acts. >> robert, when you talk about them suggesting the government cover this, what that really means and ruth bader ginsburg points this out is the general taxpaying public covers it. >> absolutely. >> do you think the public will have some discomfort with that?

karen? >> do i? >> yeah. >> i should hope not, but let's just -- >> by the way, that's the only time i've seen you hesitate on tv. get in there, karen. >> i thought you said robert. i didn't hear you say my name. i never hesitate, ronan. there's a couple things really important i want to correct in what robert said. it is a narrow decision. but on the one hand, we're talking about corporations that are for profit entities. they are now saying when it's convenient for us, we want to be people. when it's convenient for us, we want to have the rights that we have as a corporation. and the whole point of the corporate structure is to allow these entities to have different tax laws and so forth. this company -- these companies are trying to have it both ways. for the 1st time in the history of this country, the supreme court of the united states has essentially created a carve out that disproportionately, because it only impacts women in the united states of america and what about the rights of those

individuals. we're talking about four specific methods that this company says they disapprove of. these are not practices that actually create abortion. they prevent pregnancy. so there's some junk science going on out there. and i think what people will react to is the individual that five men and some legislative branch get to tell you what it is that you are allowed to do or not do with your doctor. and i think that's the piece that's going to very much upset people. narrow or not, i think people are going to be very concerned about a slippery slope. >> they tried aggressively to narrow this. the big question is did they at all succeed. i think there are serious reservations to be raised on that front as the dissent does. now one of the big fallouts from this could be how we look at corporate rights and corporate largess in the upcoming election cycle. obviously, there's a big showdown over that in terms of general political sentiment.

the newest edition lays it out. the dems are looking at one side. there's hillary with the word inevitable. on the other side, crowds cheering for elizabeth warren with elizabeth warren masks on. hillary's nightmare is the caption. the framing of how potential these candidates t s are to corporations. so if the country in this strings of decisions and pieces of legislation starts to fatigue of corporations being granted all of these rights, do you think, karen, they could turn to more populist, more anti-wall street candidates? >> you may see more populist ideas, certainly if there were to be a primary and that's if both of these women were to run and there was a primary. i think you'd see that become an issue. but again, i don't see that as something that would be a problem necessarily for secretary clinton because, ag e again, the issue becomes, what people care about, how is that going to affect me and my life. if we're saying in terms of the

corporations, in terms hough would that impact you and your life when talking about this decision, it's different than some of the other instances. so i think it may end up being a conversation that moves a little bit to the left in the context of a democratic primary. if we were to have one. ultimately, i think that's the kind of thing that will weigh in the benefit of democrats. >> and robert, could this be something that republican candidates tap into? that frustration with corporations being afforded too much leeway in the eyes of the law? the republican party was once supposed to be the populist platform. can they get back to that and tap into some of these frustrations? >> absolutely. look. i think karen is on to something here. it's not -- look. corporations are not people. corporations are things and oftentimes they are very big things with one interest. and that is to push their product, whatever their product is. the question becomes whether or not the average voter out there feels as though they are being one upped. if, in fact, they feel that the game is rigged against them and feel as though perhaps a corporation or some type of

organization is gaming the system. there's nothing wrong with corporations. that's part of our capitalist society. the question becomes whether or not people are being taken advantage of in an undue way, ronald reagan, elizabeth warren, bill clinton, they've tapped into that over the years. >> thank you both of you. it's a contentious issue. we'll have much more discussion of this all through the week. i'll sure we'll see your shining faces again. just ahead today, facebook getting all up in our stuff, mess with our news feeds. what's up with that? we'll talk about bad idea, bro, after the break. i'm randy and i quit smoking with chantix. for 33 years i chose to keep smoking... ...because it was easier to smoke than it was to quit. along with support, chantix (varenicline) is proven to help people quit smoking. it's a non-nicotine pill. chantix reduced the urge for me to smoke. it actually caught me by surprise. some people had changes in behavior, thinking or mood, hostility, agitation, depressed mood and suicidal thoughts or actions while

taking or after stopping chantix. if you notice any of these, stop chantix and call your doctor right away. tell your doctor about any history of mental health problems, which could get worse while taking chantix. don't take chantix if you've had a serious allergic or skin reaction to it. if you develop these, stop chantix and see your doctor right away as some could be life threatening. tell your doctor if you have a history of heart or blood vessel problems, or if you develop new or worse symptoms. get medical help right away if you have symptoms of a heart attack or stroke. use caution when driving or operating machinery. common side effects include nausea, trouble sleeping and unusual dreams. i did not know what it was like to be a non-smoker. but i do now. ask your doctor if chantix is right for you.

eachwon't have a claim.wners that's why allstate claim free rewards gives you money back for every year you don't have one. and why if you're part of the other 5%, allstate offers claim rateguard. so your rates won't go up just because of a claim. no matter what comes your way, your home protects you. ...protect it back allstate home insurance from an allstate agent. facebook. at it again. and it's not just those pesky privacy settings they are mess with. our pals at facebook conducted an experiment on a half a million randomly selected lab rats, shall we say? facebook placed more positive or negative stories in those news

feeds to test emotional contagi contagion. they wanted to see how emotions spread on social media. have they ever posted a contentious photo and seen it's all racism and sexism? it's a nightmare. facebook, what are you digging into? reaction has been, let's say, unlike jonathan mann tweeted this. what's most disturbing is that it seems like no one stopped to ask, hey, is this actually a good idea? facebook researcher who led the study published a public apology on facebook. karen finney still with us. also a tech hound in addition to everything else that's makes you. what's up with these guys? do they risk a critical mass of resentment? draconian privacy violations, this test now. are people just going to jump ship? >> i thing might. we already know that facebook is collecting all kinds of data on us that they sell and use. they say to improve their product. with so much concern about the

nsa and data being collected about us, i think this really goes to the heart of why this is quite frightening because facebook would say, their intention is they want to put things in front of you that delight you. when you come to the page, they know what's going to delight you. that may not be what i want to say when i go to facebook. i may want to see what's going on in that news feed. so there again it has this big brother element that people are going to be very uncomfortable with. so i would not -- the backlash has already been pretty strong. >> and the most interesting potential implications, are we all going to be in little bubbles of our online ecosystems where we only see the news we want to see? scary future. >> make sure you read those terms and conditions, my friends. that's the big takeaway. >> karen finney with an important message. thank you for being willing to play along. up next on today's show, handicapping tomorrow's big game. everything you need to know about unloading a c-note or even two on that death match with belgium. instead of mailing everyone my vacation photos,

i'm saving a ton of time by posting them to my wall. oh, i like that one. it's so quick! it's just like my car insurance. i saved 15% in just 15 minutes. i saved more than that in half the time. i unfriend you. that's not how it works. that's not how any of this works. [ male announcer ] 15 minutes for a quote isn't how it works anymore. with esurance, 7 1/2 minutes could save you on car insurance. welcome to the modern world. esurance. backed by allstate. click or call.

welcome to the modern world. but we're not in the business of naming names. the volkswagen passat is heads above the competition, the fact is, it comes standard with an engine that's been called the benchmark of its class. really, guys, i thought... it also has more rear legroom than other midsize sedans. and the volkswagen passat has a lower starting price than... much better. vo: hurry in and lease the 2014 passat s for $199 a month. visit vwdealer.com today.

a stunt. that's president obama's response to speaker boehner's plans to sue him over his use of executive orders. boehner claims they are unconstitutional. president obama for his part says he's been left no choice in the matter. >> i'm not going to apologize for trying to do something while they are doing nothing. >> even if you get sued? >> you know, the suit is a stunt. but what i've told speaker boehner directly is, if you are really concerned about me taking too many executive actions, why don't you try getting something done through congress? >> so from the president's view, what else is a guy to do. and fair point. this congress is the least productive we've ever had. but here's the thing. on the underlying issues, john boehner actually isn't wrong. the overreach of executive power, including through those

orders is a real issue. and, in fact, it was president bush who vastly expanded that overreach. how much? try by 291 executive orders. that is how many president bush used. it declared them to declare anyone enemy combatants. and gave them authority to assassinate those enemy combatants at will. is john boehner's suit maybe more than just a stunt in trying to roll that back? joining me is congressman steve israel of new york. thanks for being here. we're going to get to the speaker's suit in just a minute. first, i want to get your reaction on today's supreme court ruling and hobby lobby. do you think this weakens the law? does it open the flood gates? >> i'm concerned it has that impact. you know, five male judges in the supreme court just dealt a severe setback to 48.5 million women in america who are

enrolled in private health plans that cover contraception. many millions more women who should have that right. those decisions, the decision whether to use contraception should be made by a woman, maybe in consultation with her family, maybe in consultation with a clergy member, but not in consultation with the boss. this is the last thing in the world that should be the subject of a memo from the personnel department. >> going to this subject of this contentious lawsuit from speaker boehner, does congress, in in fact, as the president implied, bear some of the blame for the president being forced into a position where the only way to get things sdn executive orders? >> remember when democrats had the majority, we were criticized for doing too much. now a republican majority that's done nothing. no immigration bill. no jobs. no infrastructure investments. nothing. other than to hire a bunch of lawyers to sue the administration. so this is, ronan, a stunning act of political hypocrisy. when george bush did it not a peep.

when barack obama evokes executive orders they hire a bunch of lawyers to sue the president. it's the totality of their jobs plan. hire lawyers to sue the president. >> as a member of congress, do you have concerns about the overreach of presidential power through these orders, setting aside politics, setting aside the bush era, the obama era. do we need to roll back the amount of leeway the executive has in making these orders? >> when you have a congress willing to compromise, find middle ground and move the country forward be the you don't needexecutive orders. this congress has been about objuct io obstru obstruction. it has said our only job is to obstruct the president. what do people expect the from the do? nothing? he's using the tools available to him in the face of a congress that won't lift a finger to improve our economy. >> it really is a stunningly unproductive congress. no offense to yourself. obviously, that comes from all sides to some extent but right now it's that majority of

republicans that seems to be stymieing things. i think you are right there's some hypocrisy. i think it's worth looking at these underlying issues. we'll see if there's any productive conversation to come out of the stunt. >> the president's request for $2 billion to deal with that really startling surge of immigrant children over the border. he sent a letter to congress this morning. here is the response of your republican colleague bob good dld latte. >> president obama created this problem at our southern borders and now he's asking american taxpayers to foot the bill. >> bob knows that the law that requires that unaccompanied minors be turned over to the department of health and human services was signed by president bush. and so it's fair to say, and factual to say that this is a humanitarian crisis that the administration is required to act on as a result of a law passed and signed by president bush and rather than engaging in

hyperbole, let's figure out what to do. we need more immigration judges on the border. we need more immigration assets on the border to resolve these cases more swiftly. and in a way that's consistent with our humanitarian priorities. that's what we should be focusing on. not just blaming the president for something that bob goodlatte knows is a more systemic problem than anything else. >> certainly appears to be systemic. the president faces a mine field trying to do the right thing but facing these charges he's the deporter in chief. too many deportations as we tries to secure more security. up ahead, world cup fever. it's got every cool kid in town saying, hey, we've been into soccer for a long time. all lies. americans are new to caring about soccer. for parents it also brings up real concerns about what their kids are dealing with when they get out on the field. it may have surprising lessons for you and your family. stay with us. ♪

they lived. ♪ they lived. ♪ they lived. ♪ (dad) we lived... thanks to our subaru. ♪ (announcer) love. it's what makes a subaru, a subaru.

[ female announcer ] we love our smartphones. and now telcos using hp big data solutions are feeling the love, too. by offering things like on-the-spot data upgrades -- an idea that reduced overcharge complaints by 98%. no matter how fast your business needs to adapt, if hp big data solutions can keep wireless customers smiling, imagine what they can do for yours. make it matter.

all of us americans are obsessed with the world cup right now. actually kids middle and high school kids across the country have been into the sport for a long time as we know. we all grew up playing it, watching others playing it. wishing we were better at it. and, of course, all of this is hitting a fever pitch. that's making for some nervous parents. the growing number of sports related brain injuries hitting emergency rooms each year. the latest tally, 250,000, according to the white house. that's every single year. they are causing some parents to rethink the entire idea of putting their kids into jeopardy on the field. the white house just hosted a big summit on it. we're going to spend this week's call to action looking at it. for an overview, i'm joined by dr. robert cantu from the sports

legacy institute. and a clinical professor of neurology at boston university. thank you for coming on the show. one report of emergency rooms found injuries to the head were the second most common injury among young athletes in general. with that reported number way up, it's up 29% now over the last four years, are more kids experiencing more concussions or just more reporting of them? what's going on behind those numbers? >> i think mostly, ronan, it's a heightened awareness of it. better diagnosis of them. hopefully more knowledge on the part of parents to spot them as well. >> and what do you think the correct next step for parents to take is? i think a lot of people would be surprised to hear that middle school kids, ages 12 to 15, are the most at risk. they experience the largest number of sports related injuries. not even high school athletes. do you think that those kids, therefore, need more protections from their parents before they go out on the field. >> first of all, i'm very much

behind all kids playing sports. but i think we need to play some of the sports at high risk of head injury in a little bit safer way. and that is taking some of the most risky parts of those sports out of it and modifying them. >> we're looking at images there are girls on the soccer field head butting the balls. we've seen some pro athletes come out and say that practice should be banned. what do you think for people under a certain age anyway. >> i think for under high school age you can make the case because there now is emerging science showing just from heading the ball, even some concussive levels of brain trauma that don't produce any symptoms that individuals can have structural and functional changes in their brains as a result of it. >> bottom line, knowing the science as you do and looking at clinical cases like this, would you let your kids play contact sports? >> well, i think prior to high school, tackle football should be replaced with flag football. i think that soccer, the heading should come out of it.

and ice hockey has stepped up to the plate. you can't full body check until the age of 13. they are almost there. >> all right. dr. robert cantu, appreciate it. we want you to help raise awareness that the big change in the last few years is that there is a growing aware peninsula you can be a part of that. the cdc says the most important thing is get the facts out there. there's a big lack of research on this. go to our website and educate yourself, your family and school coaches and add your name to our game plan. information is power. share this website link using #teamup4safety. we want you on board. we want to hear about your story of participating. all right. up ahead on "rf daily." from his mouth to your ears. uruguay player luis suarez has taken to twitter for the message to the player he bit at the world cup. a four-month suspension from the game will make a man think. that story coming up. i had no idea i had shingles. there was like an eruption on my skin.

red and puffy and itchy and burning. i'd lift my arm and the pain back here was excruciating. i couldn't lift my arms to drum or to dance. when i was drumming and moving my rib cage and my arms like this it hurt across here. when i went to the doctor and said what's happening to me his first question was "did you have chickenpox?" i didn't even really know what shingles was. i thought it was something that, you know, old people got. i didn't want to have clothes on. i didn't want to have clothes off. if someone asked me "let's go dancing" that would have been impossible.

we're back with some breaking football news. uruguay's luis suarez apologized for biting the italian player at the world cup match last week. the bite heard around the world. after fifa banned suarez for four months. apparently now he's reflecting on it. he took to twitter saying in part, i deeply regrets what occurred. i apologize to giorgio and the entire football family. i vow to the football public there will never be another incident like it. the world cup isn't just rampant shoulder biting. also a numbers game and a whole lot of people are putting a whole lot of money on the line for those games. team america has a 20% chance of beating belgium on tuesday which they need to do to advance. the number crunchers at nate silver's five thirty eight group of predicting the u.s. will win it. how reliable are the odds and

how to the predictions affect players as they go into the games? let's ask professional soccer player maurice edu. he's featured on the cover of the fifa world cup video games. and ed fang who uses an algorit algorithm. he's getting to us on this numbers question. i'll start with that. ed, you have an interesting interactive feature an your website with the odds of making the finals for each team. can you explain why we went and used that team and found team usa isn't favored at this point? >> team usa isn't favored. they probably shouldn't be the favorite. we have teams like brazil that is not only one of the best teams in the world but has home field advantage. teams like germany, u.s. fans just found out how good germany was in the last game we played. so we're hanging in there. it was great to get out of that group. i think i got about 2% odds

right now. so it's -- that's not zero. >> it's not zero. and that's got to be encouraging for the players on the field. maurice, when you see numbers like that and robust number crunching systems in place, telling players, look, you aren't going to make it to the end of this, how does that affect morale going into the field? >> to be honest, you can use it just as motivation. at the end of the day, that stuff we know is going to go on people are going to label you as underdogs. the game isn't. you have to go out there every day and compete. when the final whist cell blown, that's when you know who the winner is. at the end of the day, who you have on your team you have to go out there and compete for 90 minutes on what happens in that game. >> we all know there can be big upsets. how does the reality of what the numbers tell us stack up against that mind-set of anything can change once you get to the field?

>> they shouldn't even be thinking about it. they should even be ignoring their coach juergen klinsmann. it should not no effect on what they are doing. >> this is an improvement from what they were of lat they were hearing from their coach. we've seen a lot of under the table passing around of dollars. >> i live in michigan. i cannot legally place a bet. it is illegally to do that. you can go to nevada. i believe it's a billion dollar market over there and not all of it is over the table. we talked about that comment from coach klinsmann. team usa cannot win this world

cup. is that a way to motivate his team and make up for some of those statements? >> i don't think it's making up anything. as a group from the beginning of camp they've had the belief. at a time, focus all your energy and all your commitment into that one game and then from there you continue on just taking it one game at a time. >> seems like all of these comments swirling around have a potential effect on morale, what you bring into the field. another thing commentators are saying is ramadan starting. that may pose a threat to muslim players who can't hydrate during the match. ed, how do these oddsmakers take that into account? do you integrate those

intangible factors? >> i personally don't. my algorithms are based on the results of matches and not only whether a team won or lost but what the score was. so it's a lot different beating a team 4-0 than 2-0. but there's obviously a lot of other intangibles. the lack of hydration is a huge one. the u.s. plays belgium tomorrow, who's going to be missing one of their central defenders, which is a huge factor my numbers don't account for. those things all definitely need to be considered. >> maurice, what about the reality of that factor on the field? you've played in some of these difficult conditions. it's obviously sweltering heat. it's a lot of humidity they're dealing with there. you add to that for teams like algeria, which is made up exclusively of muslim player, this potential nonhydration situation. how hard is that going to make the game for them? >> it definitely is going to be difficult. you know, obviously a soccer game at this level on its own is going to be difficult. then you throw in those kind of conditions, and then you add in that last factor of them not being able to hydrate and not

having proper nutrition to sustain the levels they need to win a game like that. it's going to be a difficult game. hopefully they're able to overcome those things and still come out and make it a proper game that we all enjoy watching. >> i got to say, i have so much respect for players like yourself that deal with those extrinsic factors that would defeat most of us mere mortals and stay in the game. it's inspiring for us to watch at home. so one thing that's less inspiring is that bite. we just read the apology. what do you make of that? >> i think it's good he's come out and apologized. initially he said that i think he lost his balance or something like that. most people didn't really believe that story. so for him to come out -- >> lost his balance and his teeth just fell into that shoulder. >> yeah, so i mean, this is the game we all love. it's a game we're all very passionate about. we call it the beautiful game. for something like that to take place t kind of put a blemish on the game for many people watching worldwide. it's a good gesture for him to come out, publicly apologize,

and vow to never to do it again. we hope that's the case. we can just get back to enjoying this beautiful game of soccer. >> sounds like for players and people watching the game that's the sentiment. and back to you, ed, on the last question here. what's the odds-on favorite overall? do you agree with nate silver's prediction? >> i think he's in the high 40s as well. my numbers say 46% for the u.s. to advance past belgium. so that's -- i think the number you mentioned earlier in the show, that 22%, was just the win during regulation. so this 46% that i'm talking about is for the u.s. to advance beyond belgium. >> all right. well, appreciate both of you joining here. it'll be interesting to see how this shakes out. i want that shirt, sir. that is a cool getup. got to get me one of those. thank you all for joining me. now time for "the reid report" with my colleague joy reid. who are you betting on? what's your favorite team? >> i agree that i think the u.s. will advance, but you know, you got to believe that brazil is the favorite to win the whole

thing, right? that's where the smart money is. >> that's a safe choice, joy. >> i know, but you know what? why take chances when you're talking about money? well, i'm not really betting money. >> joy has all her money in this game. you heard it. >> thanks a lot. appreciate it. coming up next on "the reid report," the supreme court snips away at a key part of the affordable care act and deals a blow to unions. we'll explain the consequences for women and working americans. then the controversial way facebook tried to get into the heads of its users. oh, irony. remember when mark zuckerberg was the guy railing at the federal government about privacy? yeah, that. "the reid report" starts minutes from now. .. here it comes... there you go... good catch. perfect! alright now for the best part. let's see your pour. ohhh...let's get those into the bowl. these are way too good to waste right? oh yeah. let's go for it... around the bowl. share what you love with who you love. kellogg's frosted flakes®

they're g-r-r-reat!tm good catch dad. that's why allstate gives you money back every year you don't have one. [ alarm wailing, dog barking ] whoops. claim-free rewards from allstate. your home protects you, protect it back. ♪ [ male announcer ] if you want to hear how their day went, serve manwich. and wait til they come up for air. [ laughs ] [ male announcer ] hold on. it's manwich.

chances are we're already there. be or what you want to do, [ male announcer ] hold on. 12 brands. more hotels than anyone else in the world. like super 8, where every destination is super. save up to 15 percent and earn bonus points when you book at wyndhamrewards.com and cialis for daily use helps you be ready anytime the moment is right. cialis is also the only daily ed tablet approved to treat symptoms of bph, like needing to go frequently.

tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as it may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, or any allergic reactions like rash, hives, swelling of the lips, tongue or throat, or difficulty breathing or swallowing, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis for daily use and a free 30-tablet trial. welcome to "the reid report." i'm joy reid. we've got a lot to get to on this monday. >> hobby lobby wins! hobby lobby wins!

>> you can hear the cheering as the supreme court announced that the government cannot force certain companies to provide contraceptive coverage to employees, because according to the court, those corporations are people with religious beliefs. we'll break down the court's ruling and talk about the long-term impact of the decision. plus, the crisis in iraq where isis has declared itself an islamic caliphate. and facebook is facing a major backlash over a major psychological experiment conducted on its users without their knowledge. but we start with the reaction to the most anticipated ruling of this supreme court term. >> today's decision jeopardizes the health of women employed by these companies. we'll work with congress to make sure any women affected by this decision will still have the same kormg of vital health services as everyone else. >> this is one of the most significant religious freedom victories from the court in a decade, frankly.