share it with us. >> you know, one thing i wonder about is would you get a real replacement for ruth bader ginsburgough the senate with the way president obama stands with the senate now? that's one issue. you might not be able to get someone who is as good as ruth bader ginsburg from the liberal perspective. the other thing is, the next president, as we sit here tonight, if you're playing the odds, is very likely to be hillary clinton based on what we know about all the possibilities of running for president as of right now. and to the risk factor that justice ginsburg is playing with seems to me, if you're doing political risk factoring, to be quite minimal at this point. >> i agree. i think i really want to go back to your first point, which is in the same week that justice ginsburg wrote a uniquely ginsburg-ish dissent in the hobby lobby case, someone that no one else i think could have written, we're not going to get another former aclu lawyer confirmed at the court. we'll be lucky to get a moderate confirmed at the court. so a bird in the hand in this case is worth a lot, and ginsburg represe

ruth bader ginsburg is the talk of the interwebs after issuing a blistering dissent in the hobby lobbyase. jonathan mann even put ginsburg's dissent to music. ♪ any decision to use contraceptives ♪ ♪ is not propelled by the government ♪ ♪ it's the woman's autonomous choice informed by her doctor ♪ >> but the dark side is also rearing its head in the form of unsubtle suggestings. the 81-year-old liberal justice should ride off into the sunset. the rapturous ginsburged a ration on the left ignores an uncomfortable reality in this current moment. namely, the celebrations of her brilliance failed to recognize that the best thing ruth bader ginsburg could do for the liberal movement right now is arguably to call an end to a sterling and trail blazing legal career and step down from the court. he points out ginsburg is 81 years old and has survived cancer twice. some court watchers argue that given the risk her health fight falter again, she should step down now and give the democratic president a chance to name her successor. at bloomberg view, jonathan bernstein at least puts one of the co

in a biting dissent, ruth bader ginsburg objected to what she called the decision of startling breadth, which could open the door for corporations to opt out of practically any law they say conflicts with their religious beliefs. josh house spokesperson earnest responded to the ruling. >> today's decision jeopardizes the health of women who are in played by these companies. know first of women hand, contraception is often vital to their health and well-being. that is why the affordable care act ensures that women have coverage for contraceptive care along with other preventative care act vaccines and cancer screenings. we will work with congress to make sure that any woman affected by this decision will still have the same coverage of vital health services as everyone else. >> we will have more on the decision with cecile richards, head of planned parenthood federation of america, after the headlines. in a setback for public sector unions, the supreme court ruled monday in another five to four decision that thousands of home health care workers in illinois do not need to pay fees to co

still ahead, ruth bader ginsburg breaks her silence on the hobby lobby case. up next. female announcer: you're on the right track to save big during sleep train's triple choice sale. for a limited time, you can choose to save hundreds on beautyrest and posturepedic mattress sets. or choose $300 in free gifts with sleep train's most popular tempur-pedic mattresses. you can even choose 48 months interest-free financing on the new tempur-choice, with head-to-toe customization. the triple choice sale ends soon at sleep train. ♪ sleep train ♪ ♪ your ticket to a better night's sleep ♪ >>> it's been a month since the supreme court issued its controversial hobby lobby ruling. and we're now hearing from one of the dissenting justices on the case. here's ruth bader ginsburg explaining why she ruled the way she did. >> the decision that an employer could refuse to cover contraceptives, meant that women would have to take care of that for themselves. contraceptives, protection is something that every woman must have access to, to control her own destiny. they have no cons

ruth bader ginsburg, elena kagan, sotomayor and stephan briar voted to uphold the mandate. that's hard to believe because religious freedom is the mall mark of the constitution. if you sincerely believe that abortion is morally wrong you have the the ability to opt out. these four justices would deny you that right. absolutely contradicting the constitution. again, that's frightening. the other matter decided today by the supreme court is that the can't force people to join unions. intrusion. again it was a-4. liberal justices believing the feds should be able to force american workers into a union situation. talking points is concerned that if one more liberal supreme court justice is appointed, one more, freedom in america will be compromised forever. you know what? most americans do not understand that at all. on a practical basis, what are these four liberal judges thinking about? do they not standard that the obama administration has screwed up just about everything. do they not understand that the federal government in washington is not solving the nation's problems.

cheers, ruth bader ginsburg.to say, she didn't expect a ply and told nbc news, i creed but they were very happy news. another powerful woman is next in the rewrite. they're delicious and an excellent source of fiber to help support regularity. mmmm. these are good! the tasty side of fiber. from phillips the cadillac summer collection is here. ♪ ♪ during the cadillac summer's best event, lease this all new 2014 cts for around $459 a month or purchase with 0% apr and make this the summer of style. if you don't think "feed the then you don't know "aarp". our drive to end hunger has donated 29 million meals, and counting. find more real possibilities at aarp.org/possibilities. if your denture moves, it can irritate your gums. try fixodent plus gum care. it helps stop denture movement and prevents gum irritation. fixodent. and forget it. and prevents gum irritation. 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

well, a lot of it came from the dissent of ruth bader ginsburg.he said, quote, the court i fear has ventured into a minefield. that was just one of her choice rejoinders. no surprise many oerls are rising up. a musical rendition. ♪ there's note that the cost of an iud is nearly equivalent ♪ ♪ to a month's full-time pay for workers making minimum wage ♪ >> notorious ruth bader-ginsburg living every day like a hustle. >>> all right. up next, annie get your gun. bring it almost anywhere you want now in georgia. stick around as we head to the wild, wild south? >>> don't ask for a shot at a bar in georgia today. it's because today is the day that that state's so-called guns everywhere law takes effect. that's the safe carrie protection act to allow guns in bars because the best way to ensure gun safety to give them to drunk people. you can also extend to churches, schools, airports even libraries. many establishments are confused about how it's going to be enforced, something georgia courts may have to clarify and good thing that courts are ramping up

cheers, ruth bader ginsburg.e didn't expect a reply and told nbc news, i creed but they were very happy news. another powerful woman is next in the rewrite. another powerful woman is next in the rewrite. ife's biggest questions. like, if you could save hundreds on car insurance by making one simple call, why wouldn't you make that call? see, the only thing i can think of is that you can't get any... bars. ah, that's better. it's a beautiful view. i wonder if i can see mt. rushmore from here. geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. let's show 'em what a breakfast with whole grain fiber can do. one coffee with room, one large mocha latte, medium macchiato, a light hot chocolate hold the whip, two espressos. make one a double. she's full and focused. [ barista ] i have two cappuccinos, one coffee with room, one large mocha latte, a medium macchiato, a light hot chocolate hold the whip, and two espressos -- one with a double shot. heh, heh. that's not the coffee talkin'. [ fema

justice ruth bader ginsburg wrote the dissenting opinion. the case is burrell versus hobby lobby.ing she fears the court, and i'll quote her, has ventured into a minefield. the concern is whether the ruling will allow companies to just discriminate in other ways. like for instance not hiring gay people because it might be against their religious principles. it's kind of the classic slippery slope argument, if you ask some people. supporters are calling this a victory for religious freedom. joining me to hash out what this opinion means for the future of equal protection in america is cnn political commentator sally cohen and cnn legal analyst sunny huston along with our next guest an far and blogger. why is it i am hearing from two different camps that is completely narrow and it only pertains to that very narrow issue, those drugs deemed to be abortive, and others saying the union going to float away? >> because the supreme court obviously was deciding one question, but the rules and the reasons it gives for reaching that decision are going to apply more broadly. a lot of people

and justice ruth bader ginsburg called it a startsing breadth.t could be perceived as favoring one religion over the other. it was designed to preclude. the court i fear has ventured into a mine field. hillary clinton called the court's ruling disturbing and sets a dangerous precedent. >> there are companies closely held by people who don't believe in blood transfusions. that's a religious belief they hold. your insurance policy doesn't have to cover it? this is a really bad slippery slope. >> that brings us to the twitter question. the hobby lobby ruling dealt a blow to the mandate. tweet us your best answers. we will put on later in the show. >>> and house speaker john boehner's pending lawsuit against president obama against executive actions is not stopping the president from taking action on his own. he will overhaul parts of the immigration system, changing as much of it as he can by himself. he has no other option since the house will not consider legislation on the issue for the rest of this year. >> our country and our economy would be s

. >> reporter: but liberal justices lefd by ruth bader ginsburg said the court lists a disadvantage fore who do not share the faith. cecile richards is president of the planned parenthood group. >> the similar, the particular religious views of a ceo trump the right of employees of that company to have access to family planning services. >> now, the court insisted that the decision was focused on closely-held businesses and owners have severe religious beliefs. but opponents said that today's ruling, nonetheless, it going to open the door to many other legal challenges. jan crawford, cbs news, the supreme court. >>> straight ahead, robot writers. and yet another recall by gm involving millions of vehicles as it announces plans to pay clash victims. details in "moneywatch." and country crock makes sure your mashed potatoes will be creamy and delicious every time. it stirs in easily, to give mashed potatoes that rich buttery flavor and smooth, creamy texture. no wonder your family loves it. welcome to crock country. where good habits are delicious. this is kathleen. setting up the perfect

but justice ruth bader ginsburg sharply disagreed with the five conservatives on the court, deliveringathing, 35-page dissent and defense of mandatory contraception coverage. decision, the court had contraception has now unfairly shifted to women whose bosses' religious beliefs conflict with their own. ruled that the provision in the affordable care act that requires for-profit companies to cover contraception in their substantial burden on their ability to exercise religious corporations are not significantly burdened by having to include certain coverage in lobby and conestoga woulddeny legions of women who do not hold their employers' beliefs access "religious organizations exist persons subscribing to the same religious faith. not so of for- profit corporations. workers who sustain the operations of those drawn from one religious "approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of 'risk the establishment clause was designed to preclude." her doctor is in no way compelled by her employer and is not equivalent to a moral action controversial decision compelled by her em

still, in a sharply-worded dissent, justice ruth bader ginsburg warned that in the wake of the ruling, new religious freedom claims "will proliferate." >> i do believe that more corporations, starting with closely-held corporations, will now try to get into court, making an argument that some allegedly deeply held religious belief does no longer require them to obey other federal laws. >> reporter: supporters of the decision believe those concerns are overblown, arguing that this ruling was narrow and balanced. >> this is really a decision that reflects common sense and a lot of times you don't win on common sense, but this one really was. >> reporter: meanwhile, analysts are debating the impact of this ruling on what is expected to be the next wave of cases in the pipeline. more than 50 lawsuits filed by faith-based non-profits who claim the contraception mandate doesn't adequately accommodate their religious beliefs. >> we want to discuss all this now with kim lawton, of this program, along with kevin eckstrom, the editor-in-chief of religion news service. welcome to you both. so ki

that's what she said, ruth bader ginsburg. she points out the court's decision is a very, very slippery slope. it opens the door to endless possibilities in which the board room trumps employees health coverage. that is why i support this bill which clearly establishes a woman's right to quality health care. by passing the "not my boss's business act" the united states can knock down a significant barrier for women's equality. regardless of what republicans in congress will tell you, we have a long, long, long way to go before american women are equal in all aspects of the law, as they should be. the bill before us is a step in the right direction. it will help undo the damage done by the supreme court. but more importantly, not my boss's business act will help ensure american women have access to the health coverage they need and deserve and should be entitled to by law. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: we hear the president is planning to spend the week calling for co

. >> reporter: but liberal justices led by justice ruth bader ginsburg frame the issue as one of women's rights saying the court discounts the disadvantages to those who do not share the corporation owners' religious faith. lucille richards is president of planned parenthood. >> the supreme court is saying that a for-profit company has the same rights as a church, that somehow the particular religious views of a c.e.o. trump the right of the employees of that company to have access to family planning services. >> reporter: now the court insisted that its decision was focused only on closely held businesses whose owners have sincere religious beliefs and not the large publicly traded corporations. but scott, opponents said this decision nonetheless is going to open the door for many other legal challenges. >> pelley: and the census bureau tells us about half of americans work for those companies. jan, thanks very much. for general motors it is a growing crisis. today, just hours after g.m. announced its plan for compensating victims of crashes linked to an ignition defect, the car maker r

justice ruth bader ginsburg, writing for the court's liberals, including its three women, wrote an impassioned dissent warning that many religious corporate owners might now seek to opt out of all kinds of laws. what if corporate owners opposed vaccinations, or antidepressants or blood transfusions as some religious people do? "the court, i fear, has ventured into a minefield," ginsberg wrote. justice alito dismissed that notion but justice ginsburg and many women around the country feel that this ruling could limit women's access to affordable contraceptive healthcare, but the court did propose a solution to that. instead of asking employers with religious objections to pay, the taxpayer could pick up the tab. david? >> terry, thanks. >>> to another breaking headline involving women and their health tonight. this involves a visit to the doctor many make every year. it's about one exam in particular tonight, the pelvic exam. we have reported here before on "world news" on another big change, that was for pap smears. instead of every year, the new recommendation every three years. tonight a maj

in a 35-page dissent, justice ruth bader ginsburg called it startling breath adding approval some religiouslaims could be perceived as favoring one religion over another. the very risk the establishment clause was designed to preclude. the court, i fear, has ventured into a minefield. former secretary of state hillary clinton called the court's ruling deeply disturbing and says it sets a dangerous precede precedent. >> there are companies that may be closely held by implies that don't believe in blood transfusions. that is a belief that certain people hold. does that mean if you have a need for a blood transfusion your insurance policy doesn't have to cover it? this is a bad, sliply slope. >> i think it went the way leach predicted it would. what is your takeaway? >> a significant ruling. this is a new legal precedent for the first time extending a sort of religious identity and a religious set of rights to some types of companies. some corporations. these are not churches and not religious groups but for-profit corporations. that means in lawyer land they get exceptions to laws that most p

you have heard the drum beat from the far left insisting that the very liberal justice ruth bader ginsburg resigned from the supreme court. yes, her pals on the far left or maybe now ex-pals are pushing for her to step down. now, it's hard to believe after all she has done for them. just today in her 35 page dissent in the hobby lobby page she smacked the conservative justices with word. telling her scram. loyalty doesn't exist in a town that's a snake pit. right now the far left is terrified that come november, republicans will regan the majority in the senate. which means if something does happen to ginsburg after november. serious health problems. justice ginsburg, moderate liberal who can get confirmed by moderate senate. the far left wants to strike now while the senate is still democrat. so they can cherry pick 'the next justice. it's all politics. it's not loyalty. maybe justice ginsburg should heed president harry's advice. if you want a a friend in washington. get a dog. that's my off-the-record comment tonight. >> this is a fox news alert. israel says it's going to make hamas pay

that sound you hear is ruth bader ginsburg. after the first big supreme court decision after roe v.he decision upholding mi missouri's strict law, women came out in droves. some analysts think that could happen again in november and even more so in 2016. especially since while abortion remains controversial, even among women, birth control is not. meaning the conservatives on the supreme court may have held their corporate and religious allies win a battle against the sexual revolution but may have hurt them. >>> that wraps it up for "the reid report." i'll see you back here on monday at 2:00 p.m. eastern. join us online at msnbc.com. >>> "the cycle" is up next. what have you got going on? >> we've got a big show today. the latest on hurricane arthur barrelling up the coast. what that is going to mean for the holiday weekend. we have jared bernstein on to duke it out. we are spinning on that facebook post that everyone has been talking about. do we have any privacy anymore? we're going to talk about what that means legally. we're going to talk about hot dogs. we have this great book

in a stinging 35-page dissent, justice ruth bader ginsburg called it, quote, a decision of startling breadth, declaring that, quote, the exercise of religion is characteristic of natural persons, not artificial legal entities. reminding her colleagues of the importance of women's autonomy on this area, she quoted the 22-year-old decision that arefirms women's right to abortion in this country. the ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives. it is precisely that control that critics of today's decisions believe was sacrificed by the five justice majority with samuel alito. joining me, elise hogue, president of naral pro-choice america. i've heard two different kinds of reactions from people that are on the other side of this from you. so i want to walk through them. one is this is not about birth control. this is about religious freedom. it's about narrowly construes a statute to protect the religious exercise of the family that happens to own hobby lobby. birth control

in her dissent, justice ruth bader ginsburg said approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be perceived as favoring one religion over another. the very risk the constitution's establishment clause was designed to preclude. as always, reaction from washington's political class was predictable. john boehner issued this press release. "today's decision is a victory for religious freedom and another defeat for an administration that has repeatedly crossed constitutional lines in pursuit of its big government objectives." ted cruise, "this ruling is a repudiation of the obama administration's untenable position that people with sun seerly held religious beliefs should be forced to comply with an unconstitutional mandate." debbie wasserman schultz, head of the democratic national committee, said this. >> it sure is a rallying cry. it's very clear to american women, yet again, that republicans want to do everything they can to have the long hand of government, and now the longhand of business, reach into a woman's body and make -- make health care d

he says all this other bad stuff that ruth bader ginsburg in her dissent unspooled the horribles, jehovah's witnesses, blood transfusions, scientologists, mental health air. he said none of that is going to happen because it's not going to happen. it's a little bit strange reading the opinion. you wait for him to explain some legal principle or rule that both cabins this to closely held corporations, you know, small family corporations like the greens. and that cabins is to contraception and it's not there. it's just kind of we really feel good about this one. that's a little worrisome to the dissent. >> and to that point, i guess they're saying it doesn't apply to blood transfusions or mental health care or vaccines or any other thing. there's also the issue about whether it applies more widely to contraception. i mean, if you've got a family held corporation with devoutly roman catholic family members running it and they are opposed to not just contraception they believe is abortion but opposed to all contraception, doesn't this ruling essentially open the door that they can establish tha

ruth bader ginsburg issued a scathing descent is known as notorious rbg, a bad ass for standing up to rights. sally a political commentator for cnn and rachel the author of "stay home, stay happy." >> i'm the national spokesperson for the libida initiative. >> thanks so much. rachel i'll start with you. do you see the hobby lobby decision as empowering to women? >> look, this was the obamacare versus the first amendment and the first amendment won, and what i see with young women in particular is that they're trending libertarian and they understand it, they can't have it both ways. they can't on the one hand ask for the government to stay out of their lives and out of their bedroom and on the other hand expect for their employer to subsidize their birth control at the expense of their religious liberty. they're very smart, they're very savvy and although i can see how and why the democrats are going to try and use this to gin up support among young women, i think it's a mistake because women care the same as the rest of america about the economy first and foremost, and what they're s

i agree with the justice ruth bader ginsburg who pointed out all it does is violate establishment clauseand elevate one religion's interpretation of emergency contraception over other people's interpretations. this has nothing to do with religious liberty and freedom but everything to do with the ee ven gel cals and catholics who make up the majority opinion in this case. >> defended liberty. what do you think he meant by that comment? the conservatives are out there saying that corporations should have liberty over people. i don't know if corporations vote. i don't know -- >> corporations don't vote. >> your interpretation of that is what? >> my interpretation of it is it's just another -- it's false. it's to feed into the persecution complex that gets their base really riled up. anyone can look at this case and understand why it's a huge violation of everyone else's liberty and religious beliefs. the thousands of women and millions of women around this country who work for the 90% of corporations that are quote, closely held, their beliefs and liberty are violated by the hobby lobby de

ruth bader ginsburg said the vast majority of the cases that come to the u.s. supreme court and death cases are. what they called. it inappropriate representation bad representation by. an attorney for the defense. we have bad lawyers we have lawyers who are doing this job that are pointed by courts and both appointed by cronies who have no business doing defense work and in the case of life and death case but every study every study that's been done and the one of the famous cases was the mccluskey case where the supreme court justice who wrote the. majority opinion denying that race was involved substantially in the application of the death penalty admitted to in a biographer after unfortunately after his retirement that the one case he wished he had decided the other way it was. the fact is racial minorities are the vast majority of those who are. given the death sentence and racial particularly black people who kill white people or latinos who killed by white people or caucasians are are considered to be the most likely to get the death at least so race in

affordable care act's birth control coverage requirement and continued to venture into what ruth bader ginsburgnefield. in granting temporary, just temporary injunctive relief to wheaten college, a religious not for profit school. the court indicated the religious accommodation they called reasonable last monday in hobby lobby is no longer that reasonable and easy to work with, so wheaten college is not required to go through that accommodation, which is to say, fill out the necessary forms to apply for the religious exemption. they don't even have to apply for it. the college told the justices that "as a religious matter, signing the form would be impermissibly facilitating abortions and is therefore forbidden." justice sonia sotomayor, with whom the other two women on the supreme court joined in the wheaten dissent, wrote, just earlier this week in burr well versus hobby lobby stores, inc., the court concluded that the accommodation constitutes an alternative that achieves all of the government's aims while providing greater respect for religious liberty. those who are bound by our decisions

let me play our friend katie couric interviewed ruth bader ginsburg. let's watch this from yahoo!.stices truly understood the ramifications of their decision? >> i would have to say no. but justices continue to think and can change so i am ever hopeful that if the court has a blind spot today, its eyes will be open tomorrow. >> so there still is a blind spot when it comes to gender issues on the court. >> it's really fascinating. a colleague of mine who is now on the council of foreign relations wrote a wonderful book about tracing the lives of a group of women entrepreneurs in afghanistan. one of the things she said to me, how is it that half the population became special interest? >> we'll have to leave it with that question. but we'll continue to look and listen for your voice wherever it is. >> thank you. >>> and now to some major casting news. with this report from a very proud "nightly news" anchor on the role his daughter was born to play. >> just today, nbc announced allison williams will play the role of peter pan. the actress and singer is currently in the cast of "girls"

so this has vast implications that, you know, as justice ruth bader ginsburg said, this is a minefieldand i'm just not sure people understand, you know, where on the land these mines have been laid. >> in addition to that, you did have samuel alito saying the ruling was limited. then the court turned around and within 24 hours said, oh, by the way, it's a lot broader than we said it was a couple days ago. >> absolutely. you've got republicans out here because they now understand that there are political consequences to this coming this fall and coming up on 2016. can you imagine, you know, a row of eight to ten republican candidates one by one being asked, where do you stand on wheaton? where do you stand on hobby lobby? and all of them, because of the republican base and some of the extremism that lies there, would have to answer, i agree with the court on this. can you understand what kinds of reactions single women, married women, even republican women may have to a cast of candidates who would all have to say publicly they stand behind a ruling like this for political purposes? i t

. >>> now to ruth bader ginsburg, a fan website called notorious rbg got some great press. with a recent interview with katie couric, the 81 reer-year- rbg is a star for her strongly worded dissents. she approves of the tough-talking moniker and the creator of that web page. >> i think she has created a wonderful thing with notorious rbg. i will admit i had to be told by my law clerks what's this notorious, and they explained that to me. >> i love that so much. you are sending tweets with more favorite ginsburg quotes from the interview like this one. all i can say is that i am still here and likely to remain for a while. i, for one, am glad that she is sticking around. join the conversation with fellow readers on twitter, facebook, instagram and msnbc.com and keep telling us what is important to you. >>> and now this news, an important deadline today for former nsa contractor, edward snowden. >> if we can't understand the policies and programs of our government, we cannot grant our consent in writing. as someone very clever said recently, we don't have an oversight problem

substantial burdens and quote placed on their religious beliefs this decision was a huge mistake as ruth bader ginsburg pointed out in her dissent she wrote the exemption exception exemption sought by hobby lobby would deny legions of women who do not hold their employer's believes access to contraceptive coverage. there are a lot of things to talk about when it comes to the hobby lobby case in fact the hobby lobby's arguments were not based in scientific fact the fact that hobby lobby actually invest in companies that make the same birth control it says it goes against its religious beliefs the fact that it's more than ready to pay for male birth control procedures like the sec to me is the fact that much of what they sell comes from china the home of forced abortions you name it all of these things are important and show just how insane and fundamentally hypocritical this court's decision really was not to mention hobby lobby's but in the end the most damning thing about all of today's ruling is that it shows that one branch of our government the supreme court believes that the rights of not non-bree

that were beginning then and weren't culminated for women until we finally got ruth bader ginsburg on the court and sandra day o'connor in the 1970s litigation had worked its way through the courts. it's not just that belva lockwood is a remarkable foremother here, i think. my excitement wasn't because of that exactly. it wasn't -- although she is extraordinary. and it wasn't really because i lack familiarity with the sort of 3wr0d outline and maybe some of the important details of this hit torquele time period and what women were up to on their own behalf to make themselves full citizens of the country. and indeed, i've been teaching a course on this for years at georgetown. the thing i love jill, is that you put her in her historical context in such an encompassing and careful and satisfying way. i loved the way you told this story. you take an extraordinary woman and you put her in her social, professional, family and political context in a way that connects her to the other important things that are going on in her time period. and shows both how she absorbs some of the possibilit

as justice ruth bader ginsburg noted in her dissent, "the result of this case could be to deny -- quote -- "legions of women who do not hold their employeemployer's beliefs, acceo contraceptive coverage that the a.c.a. would otherwise secure." and the case is a first step on the slippery slope that could eventually allow corporations to deny health care coverage to their employees for other medical care, including immunizations that protect our children from deadly disease, h.i.v. treatments that save lives, or blood transfusions needed in surgeries. the hobby lobby case is stunning but not entirely surprising. giant corporations and their right-wing allies fight every day in congress to protect their own privileges and to bend the laws to benefit themselves. they devote enormous resources to the task. sometimes we beat them anyway. we beat them when they tried to pass the blunt amendment and we beat them when they tried to shut down the government over birth control. but when corporations lose in congress, they don't just give up. they know they can often turn defeat into victory if th

ruth bader ginsburg called the decision sweeping and asked can an employer in business for profit opt out of coverage for blood transfusions, vaccinations, anti depressants or medications derived from pigs based on religious beliefs? at the white house, the president declined to comment but his spokesman said mr. obama feels the decision puts women's health in jeopardy. >> we believe the owes of for profit companies should not use religious views to deny benefits. >> it is called an attack on the rights of women. republican leaders called it religious freedom. >> those representing hobby lobby insist the decision is a narrow one. >> this opinion is voluntary focused on closely held family-owned businesses that have a religious objection to the contraception mandate. it does not apply to i.b.m. and exxon-mobil. >> still, the president and democrats are looking at actions they might take to insure all women get full contra septemberive coverage. lisa stark, aljazeera, washington. >> coming up at 7:50, we will talk to a member of the legal team that represented hobby lobby before the sup

that is ruth bader ginsburg dissent on the hobby lobby case. it's inspired a t-shirt design. that. it's hilarious. notorious rbg. it even has its own song. listen. ♪ any decision to use contraceptives is not propelled by the government ♪ ♪ it's the woman's autonomous choice informed by her doctor ♪ >> i mean, look, you've got acoustic music going along with this. is this something that is going to rally democrats? >> not the song. >> good point. >> but i think the issue is a big one. i mean, you know, republican party ought to be a little careful talking about contraception considering how much trouble they've gotten into in the past elections on these issues about abortions in indiana, in missouri. this is a case where you know, women's employers are deciding what sort of contraception that they can get. and you know, i don't think that's a winner for them politically. >> and this is why the democrats are going to bring it up on the senate floor knowing full well that they will take a vote that they will lose but they will bring it up because they want women to come out and

justice ruth bader ginsburg, stice sonia sotomayor, justice kagan, our three justices stood against theourt's decision in the hobby lobby case. they sit on the highest court in the nation and by no coincidence the three women's dissent is representative of what i heard from the women i talk to in my district. i ask women at home to send me in three words how they feel about the court's decision. this is what they shared with me. jennifer from melrose, sad, disappointing, disturbing. anna from framingham, backwards, scary, hurtful. jeannine, disgusted, wrong, outraged. usan from cambridge, need more ginsbergs. the court's decision to strike down women's access to basic health care is only the latest and systemic efforts to unwind the progress women have made. why aren't we demanding equal pay for women from our employers rather than giving a woman's boss the right to make the most personal health care decisions for her and her family? congress has an obligation to correct this course. the amendment and the protect women's health from corporate interference act makes certain that a woman'

are the concerns, ruth bader ginsburg on the court herself even talking about the breadth is startlingk the concerns of how far the negative implications in their view could go are overblown? >> yeah, you're right. i mean, alito and ginsberg said two different things, alito said not to worry, this is a very limited ruling. it won't get out of control just because we're allowing corporations for the first time to -- to say they can opt out of laws based on their religious beliefs, we don't believe there are very many cases where this is actually going to happen and ginsberg came in and said you're wrong. you've opened the floodgates for giving corporations all kinds of excuses. she actually mentioned what if a corporation said it was against their religious beliefs to -- to support the minimum wage. >> she listed out a bunch of things, blood transfusions, anti-depress greeceants, vaccinations, a whole list of things. >> kate, even beyond just medical procedures and stuff that relates to the health care law, she started to say, well, what about the minimum wage, what if you think that vi

that was an opinion -- that wasn't written by ruth bader ginsburg. that wasn't an opinion that was written by justice sotomayor, though i have great respect for those two particular justices from the great state of new york. hose words were written by ant anyone scalia -- by antoni scalia, one of the most conservative justices in the history of the supreme court. you can't just pop into court because you have a policy disagreement with the president. and so i think we've dealt with the issue of the frivolous nature of this lawsuit, the fact that we're wasting the time and the treasure of the american people on a political joyride that will ultimately crash and burn in an article 3 court. but in the meantime, we're neglecting our constitutional responsibilities here in the house of representatives to actually deal with issues that impact the american people, and to touch upon what some of those issues could be, let me now the to the co-anchor of c.b.c. special order mitigating circumstance good friend, representative steven horsford from the great sta