captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions >> woodruff:in a blow to the affordable care act, the supreme court ruled today family-owned corporations with religious objections are not required to pay for contraceptive coverage. good evening i'm judy woodruff, gwen ifill is away. also ahead this monday, general motors' new plan to pay families of those killed or severely injured in car accidents caused by ignition defects. we hear from the man behind the deal, kenneth feinberg, in his first live interview since the announcement. president obama pledged to act on immigration reform, without congress, after getting word that house republicans will not vote on any legislation this year.

plus: they beat cancer as kids, but face a lifetime of health challenges. >> a recent study found that adult survivors of childhood cancer are five times more likely than their siblings to develop new cancers, heart problems and other serious health conditions after the age of 35. >> woodruff: those are just some of the stories we're covering on tonight's pbs newshour. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> i've been around long enough to recognize the people who are out there owning it. the ones getting involved, staying engaged. they are not afraid to question the path they're on. because the one question they never want to ask is, "how did i end up here?" i started schwab with those people. people who want to take ownership of their investments, like they do in every other aspect of their lives.

>> when i was pregnant, i got more advice than i knew what to do with. what i needed was information i could trust, on how to take care of me and my baby. united healthcare has a simple program that helps moms stay on track with their doctors and get care and guidance they can use before and after the baby is born. simple is what i need right now. >> that's health in numbers, united healthcare >> supported by the john d. and catherine t. macarthur foundation. committed to building a more just, verdant and peaceful world. more information at macfound.org >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and... >> this program was made possible by the corporation for

public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> woodruff: president obama formally announced his choice today to run the troubled department of veterans affairs. robert mcdonald is a former executive at proctor and gamble and west point graduate who served as a captain in the army. the v.a. faces a scandal over health care delays, but the president said mcdonald would help create a "new culture of accountability >> bob is an expert in making organizations better. in his career, he's taken over struggling business units, he knows how to roll up his sleeves and gets to work, putting an end to what doesn't work, adopting best practices that do, restructuring, introducing innovations, making operations more efficient and effective. >> woodruff: mcdonald resigned from proctor and gamble a year ago, as investors pressed for

better returns. if he's confirmed by the senate, he'll succeed retired general eric shinseki, who left the v-a under fire last month. the bodies of three missing israeli teenagers were found late today in the west bank. prime minister benjamin netanyahu blamed hamas and warned of retaliation. the remains were buried in a field north of hebron. the teens had been hitch-hiking there when they disappeared two weeks ago. their abduction sparked a major manhunt by israel. militants in gaza struck back by firing rockets. there was celebration and condemnation today after sunni extremists declared a new muslim state, or caliphate, in iraq and syria. "the islamic state in iraq and the levant", or "isil" also known as "isis" made the announcement on sunday. jonathan rugman of independent television news has our report. >> reporter: this was how one jihadist from i.s.i.s. announced

the group's re-branding as i.s. or islamic state. >> now this is all one country. the group's latest videos show the symbolic bulldozing of the line between syria and iraq on the map. while a government building near the border is blown up for the camera. a medieval caliphate re-born for the social media age. your guide, a militant known as abu safiyya, claimed to be from chile in south america, though he says nationality doesn't matter. this is believed to be abu bakr al baghdadi the new ruler now known as caliph ibrahim. his spokesman blurred in the middle here has declared that all other jihadist groups are under his control. and though there were

celebrations on the syrian side of the border last night several senior sunni clerics have denounced the move as illegitimate. i.s.i.s. is apparently succeeding where al-qaeda failed. but it's ambition and extreme violence might turn out to be its undoing. there's already fighting between rival sunni militant factions along the syrian iraqi border, focused here in the town of boukkamal and that might begin to intensify. >> woodruff: there was also more fighting in the iraqi city of tikrit, as government forces struggled to regain control from the militants. and the pentagon dispatched another 200 troops to protect american citizens and the u.s. embassy in baghdad. that brings the overall force to nearly 800. fighting in southern afghanistan stretched into a second week today. afghan forces have been battling to hold helmand province.

a thousand taliban fighters attacked there 10 days ago. u.s. forces pulled out of the province in may. just across the border, in pakistan, government forces launched a ground offensive against a key taliban stronghold. it's the second phase of an operation in north waziristan that began with air strikes in mid-june. the army said 15 militants were killed today, in the initial advance. the offensive began after half a million civilians evacuated the area. the u.s. justice department slapped france's biggest bank with a record fine today -- $8.8 billion. b.n.p. paribah pleaded guilty to conspiracy and falsifying business records in a bid to circumvent u.s. economic sanctions against cuba, iran and sudan. federal prosecutors said the bank engaged in a long-term conspiracy. on wall street today, the dow jones industrial average lost 25 points to close at 16,826. the nasdaq rose 10 points to

close at 4,408. and the s-and-p 500 dropped a fraction to end at 1960. still to come on the newshour; the supreme court limits the health care law's contraceptive coverage mandate; and ruled some public employees can opt out of paying union fees; kenneth feinberg's first live interview after announcing g.m.'s payout plan for ignition switch victims; health risks for those who've survived a childhood bout with cancer; plus, the president's push on immigration, without congress; >> woodruff: a sharply divided u.s. supreme court today ruled that some corporations can opt out of the affordable care act's contraceptive coverage mandate because of religious objections. the five-to-four decision comes two years after the justices

upheld the president's health care law, and leaves the obama administration to look for another way to make sure all women who want it, have access to contraceptive care. >> woodruff: as word of the decision spread, cheers erupted outside the court, from opponents of the contraceptive coverage mandate. >> the main takeaway is that our government overreached, yet again. and our government cannot force individuals their freedom of conscience and freedom of beliefs. >> woodruff: on the other side, supporters of the mandate voiced disappointment. >> clearly the court is just out of touch on the will of the american people on this. birth control is not controversial. it's really not, except for a very small extreme religious minority. >> woodruff: two companies successfully challenged the mandate in the affordable care act: hobby lobby, based in oklahoma, is a national craft store chain with more than 600 stores and some 15,000 employees. it's owned by an evangelical

christian family. conestoga wood, a cabinet maker based in pennsylvania, is owned by a mennonite family, and has about 950 employees. both firms argued that having to cover contraception violates their religious beliefs. the court agreed, ruling that such companies, controlled by a small number of people, may opt out of the mandate. the decision does not apply to other provisions in the health care law or to larger corporations. lori windham is the attorney for hobby lobby. >> today's decision is a landmark day for religious freedom. the supreme court, the supreme court recognized that american families do not lose their fundamental rights when they open a family business. >> woodruff: the view at the white house was decidedly different. spokesman josh earnest. >> the ruling allows the bosses of these women to essentially step in and say, "well, i have a

religious concern, so you're not allowed to make your own decision about whether or not you'd like to benefit from these services. we're going to make sure they aren't provided." we strongly disagree with that. we believe that congress should take action to fix it. >> woodruff: the contraception mandate faces separate legal challenges from religiously affiliated hospitals, colleges and charities. >> woodruff: for more on today's decision, we turn as always to marcia coyle of the national law journal. marcia, welcome back to the program. final day of the court, final day to issue. this is a big one. so the court, the companies were saying, we're being asked to violate our religious beliefs. what, in handing down this decision, what did the court base the decision on? >> well, judy, the court starts with the law, the religious freedom restoration act. and that act prohibits the government from imposing a substantial burden on a person's exercise of religion unless the government has a compelling interest and uses narrowly...

the least restrictive means to further that interest. so justice alito, who delivered the majority opinion today for 5-4 court, started with the language of the law. "are for-profit corporations persons under the religious freedom restoration act." he looked to what's known as the dictionary act, what congress uses to define certain words and statutes. persons, he says, have always included corporation, and he noted that non-profit religious organizations have been allowed to bring lawsuits under this particular law. justice ginsburg wrote for the dissenters. on this particular point she did disagree. she said that it's true that non-profit religious organizations have been covered by the law, but that's because the court has always given special solicitude to religious organizations that are formed from a common community of beliefs and designed to promote that belief. that's not true of for-profit

corporations. justice alito then proved on, and he looked at whether this was a substantial burden on the hobby lobby and conestoga wood owners. he said they faced enormous fines if they did not provide this coverage. then he did assume that the government had a compelling interest in providing this care to women, but he said where the law failed was that the government did not choose the least restrictive means to further that interest. he suggested the government could pay for this itself, or the government could extend an accommodation that it now gives to non-profit religious organizations. they can just certify, signing a form, that they object, and then the burden shifts to their insurers or third-party administrators. >> >> woodruff: do you get a sense from listening to and reading what the justices ruled today, marcia, that this is a decision that's going to have broad implications for many other corporations? >> well, it depends on whose

decision you read, whose opinion you read. justice alito stressed in his opinion and from the bench when he read a summary that this was limited to closely held corporations and the contraceptive insurance requirement in the affordable care act. justice ginsburg said, uh-uh, "closely held" does not mean small, and the way the law was read so expansively, she said, also means that large corporations may be using this as well. she predicted that there would be a host of "me too" claims following. this how do you decide, she said -- what do do you if a corporation comes in and says it doesn't want to pay the minimum wage because of its religious beliefs? >> woodruff: mar sharks does this open the door more or close the door a little bit to further challenges to the affordable care act? >> justice alito suggested in

his opinion that one of the things the government could have done was extend an accommodation that it gives now to non-profit religious organizations. but the truth is that is already under attack in the courts, many courts around the country, and it's going to get to the supreme court. the supreme court has not yet ruled on the constitutionality of that. there are also other challenges to the affordable care act that are unrelated to the contraceptive insurance requirement. they're pending in federal appellate courts. this was the second time, the second challenge the court has taken up concerning this law. and i think there are going to be more down the road. >> woodruff: okay, mar shampey we'll come back to you in a minute about the other major looking from the court today. for right now we want to talk about the hobby lobby decision and what it's going to mean practically. joining us are elizabeth wydra. she is chief counsel at a left leaning think-tank and law firm that filed an amicus brief in

support of the obama administration in today's case. and kevin baine. he is a lawyer in private practice in washington, d.c. he filed an amicus brief siding with the corporations. we welcome you both to the news howmple kevin baine, to you first. how do you interpret what the court ruled today? >> i think court's opinion was narrow. there were two issues before the court. first one was whether a for-profit corporation, a closely held for-profit corporation that was formed in part to advance religious objective has any religious interests that can be asserted. the government argued that it did not. the court rejected that by 5-2 vote with two justices not taking a position on that. then the courtesy. ly held that -- then the courtesy. ly held that once you recognize first amendment issues in this cases, the government has to show there is no other means of accomplishing this. the government painted itself into a corner by saying on the

one hand, there are no religious interests at all here, but we want to accommodate genuine religious interests by offering this accommodation, which is offered in the regulations. so once the supreme court said there was a religious interest, all the court said was, well, give those employers the same accommodation that you give to others. >> woodruff: elizabeth wydra, you see this very differently. >> i agree with justice ginsburg who said in her dissent that the majority's ruling was startlingly broad. i think that's right. for the first time in more than 200 years of free exercise law, the court has said a for-profit privately owned corporation can exercise religious free exercise rights, something that has been thought to apply only the living, breathing individual human beings and not to artificial corporate entities. even with respect to that part of the decision, the ruling was already very broad. and then while the court tries to limit its ruling, trying to say it won't impact claims

against vaccinations or blood transfusions or anti-discrimination law, while it says that, as justice ginsburg says in her dissent, there's nothing that prevents the extension of the majority's reasoning to those important claims that are incredibly important to workers across the country. >> why isn't that a correct interpretation, kevin baine? >> well, in large part because the court says it's no. you have to pay attention to the majority opinion. justice alito, writing for the court, was very clear. this is a very narrow ruling. the dissent suggested, oh, now people will say we have religious objection to anti-discrimination laws. justice alito said,, no that's not the case. there is a compelling government interest in enforcing those laws. there is no less restrictive way to do. so so i think it's incumbent on those who think it's broader than judge alito says it is needs to make a case. >> woodruff: why doesn't what the majority justice says hold?

>> i think it would be great to take the roberts' court at their word, but look to the legal reasoning. with respect to limiting it to closely held corporations, the majority opinion actually doesn't expressly limit the recognition of corporate free exercise rights to closely held corporations. they say that it's unlikely or improbable that a publicly traded corporation would be able to make these similar claims, but they could still bring them in court. they might lose, but it's still a right that is so broadly extended in an unprecedented manner. >> woodruff: why couldn't this happen again or something... why couldn't a case similar to this, kevin bane, be brought say on behalf of a firm with employees with different religious views who happen to have a different set of beliefs in one way or another? >> let me say three things. first of all, the women who are employed by these corporations will continue to receive these contraceptive services at no cost to themselves. secondly, there are --. >> woodruff: let me stop you.

there you're shaking your head. no. >> i think that's unclear. what would need to happen for female employees of these companies, tens of thousands of women across the country just involved in this case alone, who knows what it could mean when other companies come in, but the government would have to engage in an accommodation like the one suggested by the majority where the government pays for the contraception, but if the government doesn't pass some new regulations, then the women will be stuck with not being able to access all forms of f.d.a.-approved contraception unless they can afford to pay for it out of pocket. >> woodruff: kevin baine, why are you convinced the government will take care of this? >> you have to believe the obama administration would allow these women to not have access to these services. there's no doubt at all about what the obama administration will do. they have a regulation that accommodates religious objections. the supreme court has said to the administration, you should accommodate these religious objections, as well, in the same way. of course they will do so. >> woodruff: all right.

well, continuing with your point you, were saying there are other reasons why... >> my second point is that there are very few corporations who will be able to make the showing that these corporations made that they really were founded in large part on religious principles. ibm, exxon, google, apple aren't going to be making those points. the third point is that there are very few laws like the affordable care act. this was a very unusual mandate imposed by the government, sown usual that the court came within one vote of striking it down altogether some this law does not have too many parallels. >> well, if we're going to count 5-4 decision, we came within one vote of having the traditional understanding of free exercise rights be upheld today. i think what's important is that kev season doing a valiant job of trying make this decision seem narrow, but first of all, closely held doesn't mean small. the largest private companies across the united states employ hundreds of thousands of people, and this mandate isn't that unusual. you know, essentially the

supreme court said in its majority today that the government should pay for these coverage items in the affordable care act, but the government was trying to use the existing employer-sponsored health insurance plans. i think what's important is that women across the country will see this ruling and think that the supreme court thinks that the interest in providing contraception coverage to them is a second-class come peg government interest. >> woodruff: kevin baine, explain why they shouldn't draw that conclusion. >> there are not two classes of compelling governmental interest. when the court says something is a compelling governmental interest, that means it's an interest of the highest order. the majority said women's right to these services is a compelling governmental interest of the highest order. i don't think it could have been any more clear about that. there is a temptation to present this case as a conflict between religious freedom and reproductive rights. i don't see it that way. there is a first amendment and statutory right to religious

freedom in this country. there is no right to have the government, much less a private employer, pay for reproductive services. >> woodruff: very brief response. >> i think you don't see it that way, but a lot of women across the country will see it differently. it's important note as justice ginsburg did, that the full range of approved contraception be provided to women without cost sharing so a decision about what is the safest, most effective means of family planning is a decision made by a woman and her doctor. >> woodruff: we hear you both. elizabeth wydra, kevin baine, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> woodruff: as we said a moment ago, the supreme court also decided a case today that could have implications for the future of public sector labor unions. the court found in another 5-4 decision that some public sector home health workers did not have to pay union dues. the court did not go as far as some conservatives wanted, but it did deliver a setback to organized labor. back with us again to talk about what the justices did, marcia

coyle. you're still here at the table. marcia, give us a little background on this case. what was the origin of the suit that was brought? >> there were eight illinois home health care workers who filed a lawsuit challenging the so-called "agency fees" that they had to pay to the union that represented home health care workers. agency fees are charged non-union members in order help cover the costs of collective bargaining negotiations. the union cannot use the fees for any other reason, for example, to advocate a political position. the non-union members wanted the court to overturn a 1977 decision which had upheld agency fees against a challenge based on the first amendment, and the court back then said, yes, there's a burden on free speech, but two reasons uphold these fees. one is labor peace, and the

other is you don't want free riders. why should non-union workers get the advantage of collective bargaining but not contribute to the cost? well, today in another 5-4 decision, written by justice alito, the court refused to overturn that 1977 decision. instead it had a lot of negative comments about that decision, but it said that these particular home health care workers were not what he called "full-fledged public employees." they aren't like schoolteachers or police officers. their try employers were their customers, the people they cared for. they did get paid through the medicaid program, but that was the only real connection to government. and so he felt and the majority felt that this was not enough to overcome the burden on their free speech and association rights. >> woodruff: but the upshot is that there are now... unions will see some limits to what

they can expect members, dues-paying members or as you say the agency fee to be paid to them. >> about half the states have what is known as "right to work" laws, where this probably won't affect non-union members, but the other half of the states will probably have to examine the category of public employees they have to see if any are like the eight who challenged the illinois requirement. so the impact may be felt there. it was narrower decision than what unions feared. if the unions had suffered the full defeat and had that 19 77 decision overturned, that would have been extremely damaging to their ability to unionize as well as to do effective collective bargaining. >>hat was the dissent arguing in this case? >> the dissent, which was written by justice kagan said basically that 1977 decision settled the matter.

there was no difference here. these were public employees and justification for the agency fees still existed and should have applied to these employees. >> i guess coming out of this, what a lot of folks are going to be looking to and what you just referred to is whether unions are going to see this as clipping their wings. >> i think they probably felt some amount of relief, but it's pretty clear that that 1977 decision is on life support. >> woodruff: okay. marcia coyle. two big decisions from the court today. this is the end of the term. >> it is. that's right. >> woodruff: all right, marcia. thank you very much. >> woodruff: general motors announced far more safety recalls today, this time an additional 8.4 million vehicles worldwide. the auto-maker said it is aware of seven crashes, eight injuries and three fatalities related to

the recalled vehicles. g.m. said it knows of problems with the ignition's key's rotation. the models, which include cadillacs, chevy malibus and impalas, among others, were sold between 1996 and 2014. that news came just hours after terms for a victims' compensation fund were announced. that fund will have no cap and the fund's administrator said he will do "whatever it takes" to resolve each and every claim. jeffrey brown has our coverage. >> brown: more than 250 million cars are on american roads, and six months ago, general motors recalled 2.6 million of them, for potentially deadly ignition switch problems. the auto-maker had known about the problem for more than a decade, and ultimately acknowledged it's role in at least 13 deaths. today came the details on a compensation fund for victims. >> i want to explain a bit the dollars and the compensation available under the program.

>> brown: kenneth feinberg has previously run a number of high- profile funds for victims, including after 9/11 and the gulf oil spill. now, he'll administer the g.m. program. he says there will be no cap on damages for anyone who's eligible. >> the driver, any passengers in the automobile. any pedestrian. any occupant of a second vehicle involved in the accident. all eligible to file a claim. >> brownthe fund covers chevrolet cobalts, saturn ions and other models. it will pay at least $1 million for all deaths, plus $300,000 dollars to surviving spouses and children. some of the relatives were on hand for feinberg's event in washington, including laura christian and rose cortinas, both of whom had children killed in g.m. vehicles. >> it's not about the money, it really isn't.

it's about making sure that each and every person that died is acknowledged. >> and i just want general motors to be responsible for all the deaths of others who cannot speak for themselves. that is the reason we are here and making the sacrifice of being here. >> brown: today's recall announcement applies to older mid-size cars. g.m. and it's c.e.o. mary barra have also announced other recalls this year, now covering 28 million cars. >> brown: we dig into the questions surrounding this settlement fund with its administrator, ken feinberg. welcome back to the show. >> thank you. >> brown: one obvious difference from past instances you've been involved with, these are old case, right, with little physical evidence left? >> yes. >> brown: so how do you resolve them? >> that's challenge. a good portion of the automobiles are long gone. there may still be black box data from the e.d.r., from the

computer in the car, but police reports, insurance reports, warranty and maintenance reports, photographs of the accident very important. some of these cases have been litigated. let's look at the trial testimony or the depositions that were taken. we will work with every claimant to try and maximize the likelihood that we'll look at all the evidence. >> brown: to what level of certainty will you require? >> we will require that the ignition switch be found by the administrator, not gm, by me, to have been a substantial cause of the accident. and if we find that, for not only the driver but these other individuals that you referenced in your... or i referenced today, they're all eligible to file a claim. >> brown: it is different. you are more of a decision maker in determining cause and effect. >> that's right. i have sole discretion under this program, agreed to by general motors. once i make a final

determination as to eligibility or value, gm cannot second guess it. gm must honor my decision. >> brown: do you have... do you know how many claims there will be, how many victims? do you have any idea? >>ly not speculate. until people file and demonstrate what it is that they're alleging, i'm extremely reluctant to speculate about deaths or catastrophic injuries like paraplegics or brain injuries. we'll have to take a look at each file. >> >> brown: one issue it seems as though you batted away quickly is this contributory negligence. that's whether a person, for example, was drinking when this happened. >> that's right. >> brown: you're taking out as factor? >> absolutely irrelevant, drinking, speaking, texting on a cell phone and not paying attention, contributory negligence. a big issue in the courtroom. here under this fund we have no interest in looking at that... >> brown: why? >> this is a program designed to

compensate victims with an automobile defect they didn't know about at the time. and whether they contributed to the accident or whatever is really irrelevant to the issue at hand -- did the defect cause the accident. >> brown: so people could get from a few thousand dollars perhaps to millions? you've done this so many times. what's the formula in a case like this? >> the basic formula is the same formula you see every day in the courtroom, at least for the deaths and the most catastrophic injuries. what would the victim have earned over a lifetime but for this tragedy? second, what about pain and suffering and emotional distress? add those numbers together and it might be millions and millions of dollars. we'll see based toon nature of the claims that come into the program. >> brown: but it is a formula, so that takes away some of your

discretion in a sense. >> some of it, but any claimant, it's an interesting issue you pose, any claimant who says, mr. feinberg, your formula doesn't take into account extraordinary circumstances. i've heard some cases, one lady has lived for ten years with a felony conviction for reckless driving because no one knew at the time, they blamed her. nobody knew at the time it was the switch. that lady has extraordinary claim here, and we will go outside the formula and take a look at those unique characteristics. >> brown: this is a case, and i think b.p. was also, where you were hired by the company to help settle. gm, of course, has been under extreme criticism for keeping this to itself. what is your relationship with gm? what is your experience so far in terms of their cooperation? >> first of all, they've been extraordinarily cooperative. mary barra has lived up to her promise in terms of cooperating

completely with me and the team that we've assembled in trying to design this program. i have no complaints whatsoever. i think the plaintiff's lawyers around the country, bob hilliard and lance cooper and elizabeth cabrese and others have been extremely cooperative. the center for auto safety, joan claybrook's group, very, very cooperative. so everybody's cooperated. i don't think, a, that anybody is perfectly satisfied with my plan. the perfect is the enemy of the good to me. and secondly, the fact i am being paid by gm is challenge. >> yeah. >> people look at that and understandably are sceptical. >> brown: right. >> the only way you get around this scepticism is get the money out. >> brown: i was going to say that, did hit you in b.p., for example, where you faced some criticism. >> between the eyes. the way we got around this, the way we got around this in b.p., you'll recall, in 16 months we

paid out $6.5 billion and honored over half mailon claims. and the same thing here. until we actually get money flowing, and this is a voluntary program, nobody has to participate, until we get money out the door, that scepticism is sure to continue. >> brown: just to be clear, beyond your purview of what you're doing, but none of what you're doing ends investigations that might lead to criminal charges against the company. >> this has nothing to do with that. this is all about compensating innocent victims through no fault of their own, and we're determined to try and maximize that compensation once they demonstrate that they have an eligible claim. we'll work with them in trying to get that demonstrated. >> briefly, what's your time line? how quickly do you want to get this done in. >> we'll begin accepting claims august 1st. people can file a claim until december 31st of this year. so they have a quick time line. and once that claim comes in and

we find that it is complete, it's substantially complete with documentation, we'll pay these claims, the simple claims within 90 days, and the more complicated claims, no more than 180 days, which contrasts i think very well with the alternative, which is litigating in the courtroom. >> brown: all right. kenneth feinberg, thank you so much. >> thank >> woodruff: almost 80% of children who are diagnosed with cancer today in the u.s. survive, thanks in large part to advances in treatments like radiation and chemotherapy. but a growing body of research indicates survivors are at greater risk for a host of health problems in later life, due to the very treatments that saved their lives. the newshour's cat wise has our report. >> reporter: laura allaire has

her hands full these days. a former nurse, she's now a stay-at-home mom raising two young daughters in orinda california, just outside san francisco. allaire, who is 33, exercises often and does yoga. in many ways, she is the picture of health, but a decade ago she was in a very different place. >> i was diagnosed when i was 12 years old with hodgkins lymphoma. >> reporter: allaire was in 7th grade when she learned she had cancer. she kept a journal detailing a grueling year of hospital visits and treatments. >> after the doctor checks me, she says i can get my keepo. i go see melody. she gives me my chemo through a port. the chemotherapy and radiation allaire received are well-known weapons in the battle against

cancer. powerful chemicals in chemotherapy drugs attack cells that are rapidly dividing. and high-energy beams used in radiation kill cancer cells by damaging their d.n.a. >> i had a mass in my chest and so the radiation was directed there. and my doctors actually gave me a small tattoo after i was done with the radiation so that i would always know exactly where the radiation was directed towards. >> reporter: but ironically, the same treatments that saved allaires and so many other cancer patients lives, also come with a downside. in the process of killing the cancer cells, they can damage surrounding healthy cells, which can lead to other health problems known as late effects. that's particularly dangerous for those who beat cancer when they are young and have years to develop the late effects. a recent study found that adult survivors of childhood cancer are five times more likely than their siblings to develop new cancers, heart problems and other serious health conditions after the age of 35. >> the good news is more people

are surviving cancer, the bad news is those that survive, more than half have a long term issue. >> reporter: dr. robert goldsby is a pediatric oncologist at the university of california san francisco benioff childrens hospital. he directs the survivors of childhood cancer program, also known as the survivors clinic. it's one of a number of similar programs around the country that are caring for the more than 300,000 survivors of pediatric cancer and studying their long- term health. in addition to getting frequent checkups, survivors and their families are educated about health risks they face, based on the specific treatments they received, and where they received them. >> the organs in our bodies can be beaten up by the chemotherapy, the radiation, the surgeries, so we have to monitor heart function, lung function, liver, kidneys, all the organs. some survivors deal with

infertility, post-traumatic stress syndrome. >> reporter: laura allaire knows all too well the possible side effects of the radiation and chemo treatment she received as a child. on a recent day she was at the survivors clinic for a regular check-up with dr. goldsby. last year allaire had her thyroid removed after an ultrasound revealed a suspicious growth. and she's been on medication for a heart problem, conditions dr. goldsby says are likely caused by her cancer treatments as a youngster. but about 5% of all pediatric cancer survivors face a far more serious repercussion: secondary cancer. that risk increases with age and with certain therapies. eleven-year-old samantha schwarz is battling cancer for the second time in her life. the bone cancer discovered in her temple last year was most likely caused by radiation she received in the same area as an

infant to treat a tumor behind her left eye. >> it's been a little tough coming to the hospital every two weeks, its been tough not seeing my brother, and my dog, and my dad. dr. goldsby helped to diagnose samantha's second cancer while she was being seen at the survivors clinic at u.c.s.f. benioff childrens hospital in san francisco. >> the fact that they have to go through therapy again may increase their risk for other long term related issues. marilyn schwarz is samanthas mom. >> the doctors did tell us about some of the after effects of chemotherapy and radiation, but for us there was no choice, we just knew that our child needed help right away. so when the doctors told us the second cancer was here in the head, in the same spot, i think

for both my husband and i our hearts just dropped. >> reporter: besides just living longer than adults treated for cancer, there's another reason pediatric patients are more at risk for recurrences, according to dr. jean nakamura, a radiation oncologist at the university. >> young children have developing tissues. they undergo rapid proliferation of multiple organs are growing, there's a lot of cell activity, so that probably is a basic reason that contributes to second cancer risk uniquely in young children as compared to everybody else. >> reporter: dr. nakamura is leading a team of scientists who are studying the genetic makeup of second cancer tumors to understand why they form in some patients after treatment. >> if one could identify genes or molecular pathways that are specifically altered in second cancers, we might actually be able to screen for second

cancers and not have to wait until something develops and its visible. >> reporter: but as research continues to unfold into secondary cancers and other late effects caused by chemo and radiation, doctors treating critically ill patients today must still rely on those same treatments. dr. mignon loh is chair of pediatric molecular oncology at benioff children's hospital. >> i would say that most families are really focused on getting their child to feel better, i think that's where their focus should lie. i think as physicians we have the responsibility to inform them about potential late effects, not to completely overwhelm them. but i would say our priority currently remains curing the first cancer. >> reporter: for her part,

survivor laura allaire says she doesn't like to dwell on what might lie ahead. >> i don't think about it on a daily basis because that's not how i want to live my life. i've been through a lot and i understand that this isn't something that most people go through. but i'm in a unique situation and i need to be proactive and make sure i take care of myself. >> reporter: and she goes forward, more knowledgeable about what she went through as a child, and hopeful for a healthy future. >> woodruff: on our web page, you can see what all patients of u.c.s.f. survivors clinics receive, a health passport which gives detailed information about their past treatments, and follow-up care they need in the future. >> woodruff: president obama announced today that he will take steps on his own to address the country's immigration crisis, after being told that

the republican controlled house of representatives will not vote on the issue this year. the president said he was directing more agents to the southern u.s. border in response to the thousands of children coming here from central america without parents or relatives. he is also seeking recommendations for other executive actions from his team of immigration advisers by the end of the summer. here's some of what he had to say: >> i believe speaker boehner when he says he wants to pass an immigration bill. i think he genuinely wants to get something done. but last week he informed me the republicans will continue to block a vote on immigration reform, at least for the remainder of this year. some in the house republican caucus are using the situation with unaccompanied children as their newest excuse to do nothing. america cannot wait forever for them to act. that's why today i'm beginning a

new effort to fix as much of our immigration system as i can on my own. without congress. if house republicans are really concerned about me taking too many executive actions, the best solution to that is passing bills. pass a bill. solve a problem. don't just say no. >> woodruff: for more on the president's announcement we turn to julia preston who covers immigration for "the new york times." welcome back to the "newshour," julia. we know the senate did vote a year ago. why isn't the house going to pass or deal with immigration legislation? >> well, there has been a lot of division and dissension within the house about what to do about this issue. speaker boehner has indicated that he would like the move ahead, but in recent days, the defeat of the majority leader

eric cantor and the surge of migrants across the border have really discouraged many house republicans from moving forward on immigration reform. >> woodruff: so what is the president saying exactly that he wants to see done? and when he says this, how much of a change is it for him? >> well, what he said today was that he has been informed by speaker boehner that there will be no votes in the house on immigration reform this year. so the president announced that he's going to use executive action to, as he put it, fix the immigration system as much as he can within the powers that he has. and the first step that he announced is that he's going to be shifting enforcement resources from focusing on deporting people from the interior of the country down to the border where there has been a big surge of illegal

immigration across the border in south texas. and in addition, he is going to ask secretary jay johnson of homeland security to continue a review that he's been carrying out the find other measures to slow the pace of deportations and make other fixes to the immigration system. >> woodruff: so how much of a shift does today's announcement represent? >> i think it represents a significant change of attitude by the president. the republicans in the house have blamed the president for creating this surge of illegal immigration across the border by past executive actions that he's taken. for example, in 2012, the president offered deportation deferrals to young immigrants who had grown up undocumented in

the united states. and there's a feeling in the house that that action has partially contributed to unleashing this surge of new illegal immigration across the border. the president today rejected that analysis and he has put the republicans in the house on notice that he's going to move forward with his own actions to reduce the pace of deportations, perhaps to give deportation deferrals to much broader group of people and he is going to go ahead and change the system to the extent it's possible within his authority. >> woodruff: well, is it within his authority to do what he's doing? as you know, there's a lot of discussion and debate recently, in fact, the supreme court ruled on how much power the president has. does he have the power to do what he announced today? >> well, there's certainly a great deal of argument about that, but the president seemed to indicate today that he thinks

he has quite substantial powers. he didn't mention specifically any other measures that he will take, but he did say that he expects this review by the homeland security secretary to be done by the end of the summer, and he did suggest that there would be broad measures that he would be taking. >> will there be opposition to what the president is saying he wants to do now? >> there is great opposition within the republican caucus, particularly in the house of representatives. speaker boehner has said that he is going to introduce legislation that would allow him and the house of representatives to sue the president over past executive actions that the president has taken. so this is really going to be a tremendous flash point between the white house and the republicans in the house where there is already a great deal of

polarization and difference of opinion. >> woodruff: does that mean the republicans disagree with the move of sending more agents to the border? >> no, i don't think they disagree with that, but they disagree with the president acting on his own without getting legislation from congress. and the reason that republicans have given for not passing immigration legislation this year is because they distrust the president to enforce the current immigration laws. so this is the argument that the republicans have made and that has stopped the process of legislation moving forward this year. >> woodruff: well, it's certainly something that's gotten all of our attention. julia preston with "the new york times," we thank you. >> thank you. >> woodruff: again, the other

major developments of the day. the supreme court ruled, 5 to 4, that closely held companies with religious objections do not have to cover birth control under the health care law. president obama nominated former proctor and gamble executive robert mcdonald to be secretary of veterans affairs. and the president of ukraine ended a cease-fire with pro- russian rebels. he said, "we will attack, we will free our land." on the newshour online right now, the devil is frequently in the details. especially when it comes to web- sites' terms of service agreements. it was revealed facebook performed psychological experiments on thousands of it's users. find out how simply singing up for the social media giant gave the company permission to collect your data for research, on the rundown. all that and more is on our web site, newshour.pbs.org.

and that's the newshour for tonight. before we go, we'd like to salute robert macneil and jim lehrer, our founding fathers. tonight is the last edition of this program produced by the company they created to support what we call "macneil lehrer journalism." as of tomorrow, we welcome w.e.t.a. the washington d.c. public television station as it takes over. robin and jim, we know you're watching, your legacy lives on, our journalism will rema the same, and you have our everlasting thanks. i'm judy woodruff we'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening. for all of us here at the p.b.s. newshour, thank you and goodnight. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by:

♪ ♪ moving our economy for 160 years. bnsf, the engine that connects us. >> united healthcare-- online at uhc.com. >> carnegie corporation of new york. supporting innovations in education, democratic engagement, and the advancement of international peace and security. at carnegie.org. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and... >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs

station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions captioned by media access group at wgbh 9 access.wgbh.org

this is "nightly business report" with tyler mathisen. >> recall crisis. general motors calls back another eight million cars related to the faulty ignition switches and says it will take a massive charge in the second quarter. this on the same day it outlines compensation for victims. decision day. the supreme court hands down rulings on two important issues for business. unions and health care. taking stock. investors close the books on the month, quarter and the first half with the s & p 500 notching the second best quarter gain since 2009. we have all that and more tonight. it's "nightly business report" for monday, june 30th. first half of the year is already over. good evening, everybody. i'm in tofor tyler mathisen aga. >> we begin