The Supreme Court ruled that religious companies can opt out of covering certain contraceptives in healthcare coverage. But, how does this ruling extend beyond issues around contraception? Also, influx of unaccompanied migrants raises questions about new immigration reform. Then, should Facebook be allowed to use your data for psychological research?
SCOTUS rules: Religious companies can choose to not cover certain contraceptives
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Oklahoma based craft chain store, Hobby Lobby in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores. The Green family that founded and runs the privately owned chain said due to their deeply held Christian beliefs, they could not support providing coverage for four of the twenty contraceptive drugs and devices covered in the Affordable Healthcare Act. By suing, the Greens took on a federal law passed in 1993, stating the “[g]overnment shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability." So, the Greens asked their company to be considered “a person” -- a person that feels their beliefs are compromised to the point of “burden.” The Supreme Court’s answer is, privately held companies who take issue with certain kinds of birth control options, can choose to not provide coverage for their employees.
Should companies with religious conviction, have to support contraceptive drugs and devices that go against their religious beliefs? What about the rights of the employees who may not share those same religious beliefs? How does this ruling extend beyond issues around contraception?
Does this ruling affect other laws? Are civil rights being impinged? Are civil rights being upheld? What recourse does an employee have? What kind of impact does this have on a company that takes issue with what it must cover under the Affordable Healthcare Act?
Guests:
Lisa McElroy, professor at the Drexel University School of Law and Supreme Court Scholar
Rev. Barry Lynn, Executive Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Lori Windham, Sr.Counsel for The Beckett Fund, the law firm representing Hobby Lobby
What Supreme Court ruling means for labor unions in California
The Supreme Court today ruled in a 5-4 decision that some government employees don’t need to pay fees to labor unions representing them. The case was brought by a group of 8 home care health workers in Illinois. Even though members of public employee unions don't have to pay union membership dues, Illinois and other states including California do require government workers to pay “fair share” agency fees to help pay for a union’s collective bargaining efforts. Today’s decision lets home health care workers out of paying those agency fees, based on the finding that home health workers are not fully state employees. The ruling is narrow by applying only to home health care workers and didn’t go so far as to strike down a decades-old law requiring many public-sector workers to pay union fees, but could this lay the legal foundation for future cases that could deteriorate union membership in California?
Guests:
Eileen Boris, Hull Professor in the Department of Feminist Studies at UC Santa Barbara and author of Caring for America: Home Health Workers in the Shadow of the Welfare State 2012
Scott Shackford, Associate Editor at Reason.com for Reason Foundation Reason supports the Supreme Court decison
Influx of unaccompanied migrants raises questions about immigration reform
The number of minors crossing the border into the US from Central America has shot up since October 2013, with an estimated 52,000 children entering the U.S. illegally. New shelters in border towns are full of children smuggled to the U.S. – many say they are here to meet family living in the country, and that they are fleeing violent conditions in their homelands. Once detained in the processing facilities, these children enter a process towards deportation.
The Obama administration has declared the influx a humanitarian crisis, and blames the increase in child migrants on instability in Central America. The White House requested that Congress approve policy changes and funding to assist in sending back Central American children, but House Speaker Boehner said the House won’t vote on immigration overhaul this year.
The issue remains politically fraught, with critics of the president arguing that lax border policies and unclear messages about the legality of children entering the U.S. contributed to the problem. For children crossing illegally into the U.S. from Central America, the issue of deportation is complicated – currently, Border Patrol can only hold minors for 72 hours, and a court hearing is required to determine whether they will be deported or allowed to stay. A massive backlog of cases can turn that deliberation into a years-long processes.
How should the United States address the influx of unaccompanied minors immigrating illegally? Could expediting the legal process help the situation? What kinds of reforms may be necessary?
Guests:
Leslie Berestein-Rojas, KPCC’s Immigration and Emerging Communities reporter who’s been following the story locally
Alex Norawsteh, immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity
Wendy Young, president of Kids in Need of Defense
ISIL declares Islamic state in Iraq and Syria
The al-Qaeda splinter group ISIL (Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant) has proclaimed the areas in Iraq and Syria already under its control as a new Islamic "caliphate". The group has also changed its name to "Islamic State."
An ISIL spokesman said the group's leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, is the leader of the new Islamic state and said that all Muslims should swear loyalty to him. The group is reportedly comprised of 7,000 to 10,000 fighters and supported by a variety of insurgent groups. Since taking over control of the Iraqi cities of Mosul of Tikrit in mid-June, ISIL's influence has spread throughout the region.
What are the implications of its latest declaration of an Islamic state?
Guests:
Aaron David Miller, Vice President for New Initiatives and Distinguished Scholar Middle East Program at the Wilson Center
A look at the six measures on the November ballot
Six measures have qualified for the November ballots, including an initiative that would give the state insurance commissioner power to reject health insurance premium hikes, and one that to raise the $250,000 cap on medical malpractice damages.
The deadline for measures to qualify for the ballot was last week, but legislators have more flexibility. In the past, they have introduced measures on the ballot past the cutoff. This year state lawmakers have already put two measures on the ballot: a bipartisan rainy-day fund plan, and a contentious multibillion-dollar water bond.
Guest:
Chris Megerian, Sacramento reporter for the Los Angeles Times. He covers state politics and the budget
Can Facebook use your data for psychological research?
Just in case you didn’t read the fine print: Facebook can use your data on its site for research. A study published this month in an academic journal relied on an experiment conducted on the social media site, prompting criticism about ethics and transparency.
For one week in 2012, Facebook manipulated hundreds of thousands of users’ news feeds to hone in on happy or sad updates from their friends. The results show that users who see more happy updates are more likely to post their own -- the same goes for sad posts.
Users are upset about having their emotions toyed with, saying that Facebook didn’t get informed consent from the subjects of the research. For most academic studies, there are review boards established to ensure that researchers don’t harm their subject and receive consent. In this case, researchers and their editors claim that consent is written into Facebook’s sweeping terms of service.
Was the way Facebook and it’s academic partners went about conducting this research ethical? Do changes to the News Feed constitute a violation, or are they part of Facebook’s routine? Do you have an expectation of privacy or consent when it comes to research conducted on a social media site?
Guest:
Zeynep Tufekci, assistant professor at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, faculty associate at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University