we can talk about what the eeoc talked about title seven of the civil rights act. but you're right on the politics. i think ultimate think is a political winner for the democrats. and i think what you -- what will guarantee political defeat is to take all the flack and negative attention from issuing the rule and then walk it back. because then who will be happy? i think don't go wabbly. >> david boys sat in that seat and told the world, it's constitutional. there is no constitutional issue. i mean i learned a lot actually listening to him. it sounds like there might be. and he says this is just labor law. they have to comply with the minimum wage, all sorts of things. but the substance of it seems to make clear sense. the politics of this, i don't think there's any easy calculation to say here's what happens to your vote if you're here and here's what happens to your vote if you're there. because the polling indicates that there is a lot of support for this position in some ways. >> it's two sizes of the electorate that obama has a hard time with or questioning in

theeeoc ru -- the eeoc ruling. 28 states have laws like ththis.good argument being made b by the catholic churc but if you take it out of the area of contraceptives and say tt suppose u have a preschool that wouldn't do immunizatation, because religion didot allow immunization, and would not insure immunization, because we''re not talkibout paying, we are e talking about insurance the board ofof health would be in there. it is very t tricky question. >> immunization is a matter of public safety, birth contl is not. it is a a huge difference. at is doing, as mark indicated -- the catholic church is n only a chur, it has not reached and social services and does it works. the lls say that in the church you can appoint anybody you wanant and -- liberals say that in the church you can appoint anybody you wanand we will leave you alone, but w when you step out in society, you do it under our control. otherwise you are cut off. that is libera secular arrogance >> the susan g. ken foundatition, a leading breast cancer research group that you see with the

there's an eeoc ruling. 28 states have at laws like this. there is a good argument being made by the catholic church, but if you take it out of the area of contraceptives -- suppose you had a preschool that would not do it immunization because it would not allow or inshore for immunizations. we are talking about insurance. the board of health would be there. it is a tricky question and there are arguments to be made on both sides. >> in a decision is a matter of public safety, birth control is not. as mark indicated, the catholic church is not only a church. it has outreach and social services and does good works. liberals say ok, in the church you can appoint anybody you want and we will leave you alone, but when you step out into society, you have to be under our heels and you have to provide a morning-after pill, which for a catholic in the hierarchy in the church, is an abomination. otherwise you are cut off. that is liberal secular power against -- secular arrogance. >> the susan g. komen foundation says it is cutting funding for planne

there are 19 agencies that currently are called to be part of the eeoc -- eoc when it is activated. that is when we have drawn our line right now in terms of who can and cannot be an fallujah -- user on the system. that does include mta. it does include dpw, i believe and some of the other agencies that you would not think of as a strictly public safety agencies. supervisor avalos: for the purposes of homeland security, what they want to see a more restrictive definition of what the public safety function would be, or more expensive? >> it is hard to speak for homeland security. i can briefly speak for the other early builders of these networks. obviously, we feel that it is important to have an expansive definition as possible of the network. we believe it will be -- bring value in and out -- in a number of ways. we are advocating and lobbying for an expansive definition. from 0-- anne can talk about home security. >> there is a conference call and the cities who are involved in that. it is universal across the country there is an -- a desire to have the expanded definition. we hav

i went to the eeoc. i went to the dsc h -- dseh. management came after me like a lion, and i was wrongfully terminated in less than a year. i challenge you to go into sfmta and do an investigation and see what is going on. people are being wrongfully terminated who have 10 plus years and are african-american. i challenge you. sexual harassment -- there is wrongful retaliation. it has to stop. because you are a whistle- blower, i challenge you. do an investigation. >> steve zeltzer, united public workers for action. proposition c was supposed to defend the interests of public workers while making concessions, and change the health care structure. but we have learned with the redevelopment workers giving laid-off is including in proposition c is a clause getting rid of reciprocity, so public workers from san francisco could not transfer out and keep their health care benefits and their pension. workers to transfer in from other public agencies would not be able to use reciprocity. this is a serious attack on public workers. the cost d

there is an eeoc ruling. 28 states have laws like this. there are very good arguments being made by the catholic church, but if you take it out of the area of contraception and say supposing you had a preschool that wouldn't demonization because it's religion didn't allow it, at so it wouldn't insure for immunization, because we're not talking about paying, we're talking about insurance that people can avail themselves of. the board of health would be in their bank rate is a tricky question and good arguments are being made for both sides. >> immunization is about public safety, birth control is not. it is a huge difference. what this is doing -- as mark indicated, the catholic church is not just a church. it does social outreach and good works. liberals say that in the church you can appoint anybody want and we will leave you alone, but when you step into society, you have to be under our heel and you have to provide a morning- after pill, which for catholic in the hierarchy of the church is an abomination, otherwise you are cut off. that

the eeoc ruled in 2001 that birth control has to be afforded under these kind of health care plans. there is some mixed judicial ruling on it, but many employers now comply with that ruling. this kind of provision really affords individual women the choice, and that is the key here. $500 or even $600 per year is a lot of money for women to spend on women's health care, and their health plan should cover it. any health plan that provides that kind of coverage will be acceptable. but employers cannot discriminate. that is the law. and so the kind of exemption that exists for churches, 335,000 of them, affords religious -- respects those convictions. we have a respectful balance here. no one is required to use birth control. no institution is required to dispense it, simply to cover it in their health care plan. that is why the message today is, hands of women's health care. we will fight anyone who interferes with it. >> we will be glad to take questions. [unintelligible] >> we are not going to go into detail, but all would say it is our clear understanding from the administration tha

>> in 2000 the eeoc issued a ruling this would take effect. the largest catholic university in the country started providing this coverage in their healthcare policies. we know 28 states -- >> in the year 2000? >> december of 2000 the ruling occurred. no complaints. in georgia the catholic church has to provide as in 8 other states. obama hasn't done anything that hasn't been going on for a very long time. this is a political issue but legally the precipice supports everything he said. >> let me mare from mark. >> efrl issues i would like to address. taking them in order. won the decision he sited has been held to not have the force of law. that's why everybody ignored it. secondly -- >> i agree with you. sally makes a point some catholics are okay with birth control. but it's not a popularity contest. the second was over ruled the religious freedom restoration act. the supreme court said it applies to all actions by the federal government. third the president's compromise, the alleged compromise is not neutral at all. it says there will be so

whether his the academy verses the eeoc are hospitals told if you don't provide all services we will not reimburse you for any services, this is systematically happening. this just happens to hit at the heart of the big institutions that provide health care and education, they are driving the debate. not us. it is the catholic bishops that sent a letter to every person in america in the last two weeks or the catholic chaplain of the army that sent a letter initially that would not re-read. this is a huge issue if you listen to what they're saying they're just trying to change the subject and ticket down the road which is why they gave it one year to start with. >> [inaudible] >> the short answer is we discuss the appropriate response those senators are involved in the discussions we will let you know, what we decide with the approach that we will take. >> [inaudible] >> could you repeat the question? >> [inaudible] >> on a that topic he vetoed the bill. that is not what this is about. it is about religious liberty, these institutions. you could turn into all the political discussion

determine who a church's ministers are for the purposes of determining whether they're exempt from eeocabor laws. he said the government should make that choice. that went all the way to the supreme court. there are a few liberals on the supreme court. they voted 9-0 against president obama. his position -- his position on religious tolerance, on religious conscience is clear and it's one of the reasons the people in this country are saying we want to have a president who will stand up and fight for the rights under our constitution, our first right, which is for freedom of religion. >> let's focus the time we spend on this on a role of the president and your personal views and question the role of government. senator santorum, yes, it's come up because of the president's decision in the campaign and also because of some of the things you said on the campaign trail. campaigning in iowa, you told a blog, if elected you will talk about, quote, what no president has talked about before -- the dangers of contraception. why? >> charles murray just wrote a book about this and it's on the fron

we have rules that the eeoc and national labor relations board said it's okay to say critical thingsabout your boss on your facebook page or company if it's part of a lobbying effort to change conditions. so we have the backbone for protecting it. i don't think it is that big of a reach to see keep it off limits. >> i think the reality of the new world as we try to live on our smart phones and we'll always checking our e-mail, we are always kind of connected to work and on the web when we are moving around we tend to move around with our employer attached to us and it's not true for everybody but where we work on facebook link in on twitter whether you see it as a good thing or a bad thing, we have come to represent and the attached to our employers all the time and so i think this is a part of the education is you have to think about that. there will be repercussions for what you put out there, and he might be fired some people need to be cognizant of that in their decision making and what they do online. >> at the new york times when i was the social media editor there was a big qu

filed by the nonprofit beckett fund to challenge this mandate and other related rulings by the obama eeoc service providers, and schools that refuse to compromise their own religious principles on this. this is -- it is, to use an overused word, fundamentally a usurpation of religious freedom. >> gretchen: that story is it far from over. off big announcement of your open because you have endorsed somebody. you have endorsed rick santorum. why? >> i did. and i laid out the case very carefully in a blog post on monday. i think i'm like a lot of grassroot movement conservatives who have weighed all of the flaws and all of the pluses and minuses of all these candidates carefully. i think it's very important to send a message to people who think that this race is somehow between only two people, mitt romney and newt gingrich, that there is an alternative. i don't agree with rick santorum on everything. i'm not a purist by any means. i think it's kind of funny because i've been tagged as such the there are a lot of votes that he took during the bush administration that i disagreed with. but i t

we have rules that the eeoc and national labor relations board said it's okay to say critical thingsabout your boss on your facebook page or company if it's part of a lobbying effort to change conditions. so we have the backbone for protecting it. i don't think it is that big of a reach to see keep it off limits. >> i think the reality of the new world as we try to live on our smart phones and we'll always checking our e-mail, we are always kind of connected to work and on the web when we are moving around we tend to move around with our employer attached to us and it's not true for everybody but where we work on facebook link in on twitter whether you see it as a good thing or a bad thing, we have come to represent and the attached to our employers all the time and so i think this is a part of the education is you have to think about that. there will be repercussions for what you put out there, and he might be fired some people need to be cognizant of that in their decision making and what they do online. >> at the new york times when i was the social media editor there was a big qu

about all these things that we grew up with a long time ago, we learned how to deal with osha and the eeocnd the nlrb and erisa, and now in the last decade or so they've loaded on top of us hipaa and ada and all the rest of these things. and, you know, we grew up absorbing those things every couple of years something new would come down the road. if you're starting a business today and had to deal with all these things, it's very difficult. and the bottom line is then you've probably got to hire a whole team of lawyers to get you through all these processes. all these various and sundry acts were undoubtedly done for good reasons, but the cumulative effect paralyzes business, and it takes you, as tom said, it takes you off track instead of paying attention to strategies and developing your business and your people. you're worried about crossing the ts and dotting the i and following all this regulation. and i can't imagine what it would be like trying to borrow money today compared to what it was in our day. we had a hard time borrowing money when we got our company going, and today you he

we have rules that the eeoc and national labor relations board said it's okay to say critical thingsabout your boss on your facebook page or company if it's part of a lobbying effort to change conditions. so we have the backbone for protecting it. i don't think it is that big of a reach to see keep it off limits. >> i think the reality of the new world as we try to live on our smart phones and we'll always checking our e-mail, we are always kind of connected to work and on the web when we are moving around we tend to move around with our employer attached to us and it's not true for everybody but where we work on facebook link in on twitter whether you see it as a good thing or a bad thing, we have come to represent and the attached to our employers all the time and so i think this is a part of the education is you have to think about that. there will be repercussions for what you put out there, and he might be fired some people need to be cognizant of that in their decision making and what they do online. >> at the new york times when i was the social media editor there was a big qu

list last night about all of the things we grew up with and we learned how to deal with osha and that eeoc and all of that and in the last decade or so, they have a loaded on top of us all of the rest of these things and we grew up observing those things every couple of years. if you are starting a business today and have to deal with all of these things, it's very difficult. then you have to hire a whole team of lawyers to get you through all of these processes. all of these various and sundry acts were done for good reasons, but the cumulative effect is one that paralyzes business and take you off track instead of paying attention to strategies and developing your business. you are worried about crossing the t's and dotting the eyes and following all of this regulation. i can't imagine what would be like trying to borrow money today. we had a hard time borrowing money when we got our company going and today, you hear stories about how it is nearly impossible. i retired from tractor supply five years ago and created a leadership institute. we have had hundreds of students come from all so