The Supreme Court heard arguments in the Hobby Lobby case today. Do corporations have religious rights? How is social networking changing to accommodate privacy and anonymity? Later, KPCC reporter Elizabeth Aguilera joins Larry to discuss women and alcohol use.
Do corporations have religious rights? Supreme Court hears birth-control coverage case
The Supreme Court appeared split during today’s oral arguments weighing whether employers’ religious views can exempt them from providing contraceptive services in employee health plans, as required by the Affordable Care Act.
Under the law, religious nonprofits were exempted from this requirement, but for-profit businesses were not.
The companies involved in the high court case are Hobby Lobby Stores Inc.—a chain of craft stores run by an evangelical Christian family and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp.—a business operated by a Mennonite family that sells wooden cabinets.
These plaintiffs object to certain types of birth control which they consider to be abortion-inducing—like morning after pills and IUDs. They argue that a 1993 federal law on religious freedoms protects businesses as well as individuals—and the contraceptive mandate infringes on their religious rights.
The Obama administration and its supporters say a Supreme Court ruling in favor of the businesses could undercut laws governing immunizations, Social Security taxes and minimum wages.
The decision could hinge on perennial swing vote Anthony Kennedy, who today voiced concerns about the rights of female employees. He asked what rights women would have if employers ordered them to wear burkas—the full–length robe worn by some conservative Muslim women.
Kennedy also raised questions about the government’s arguments. The health care law states that health plans must cover all forms of birth control that have been approved by the FDA at no extra charge. Kennedy challenged the government on how that logic would apply to abortions. "A profit corporation could be forced in principle to pay for abortions," he said. "Your reasoning would permit it."
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan asked whether companies should be allowed to refuse to cover procedures like blood transfusions or vaccines, if employers had a religious objection to such medical treatments.
A decision in the case is expected by late June. How would you like to see the case play out? What do you make of the arguments on either side? Should for-profit businesses have religious rights? What might be the implications of this decision?
Guests:
Sarah Posner, Journalist with Religion Dispatches - a daily, online magazine that focuses on the intersection of religion, politics and culture; Posner was in the Court for today’s hearing.
David French, Senior Counsel, American Center for Law and Justice - an advocacy group focused on religious freedoms
Emily Martin, Vice President and General Counsel, National Women’s Law Center - an advocacy group focused on laws and policies that affect women
White House proposal would end NSA’s collection of Americans’ phone data
A new proposal by the Obama administration would end the National Security Agency's widespread collection of Americans' phone data, as reported first by the New York Times.
If approved by Congress, the legislation would end the program as it is and leave phone data in the hands of phone companies. The phone companies would not be required to keep records longer than the 18 months federal regulations already require.
The NSA would still be able to access phone data, but only after approval by judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Once given the green light, the data for a particular number would be available to NSA officials on in realtime.
The program would still only collect telephone numbers, call times and dates, not the content of the calls.
Is this change sufficient enough to ease American's anxieties about NSA data collection? Does this change hamper the government's ability to keep the U.S. safe? Should the program be scrapped altogether? Is this a step in the right direction?
Guests:
Rep. Adam Schiff, Democratic Congressman representing the 29th District, which include Atwater Village, Burbank and West Hollywood
Robert Turner, Associate Director of the Center for National Security Law at the University of Virginia
Women are drinking more despite the risks
Women in the U.S. are consuming more alcohol than they have in decades past, and they face greater health risks for doing so. For one, a woman's body has fewer enzymes for breaking down alcohol and less water weight to diffuse its effects. That means women are at greater risk for liver disease.
Researchers also say drinking increases a woman's chances of getting breast cancer, as studies have shown that alcohol can raise estrogen levels. They also say that the way women are drinking today — binge drinking, foregoing meals — is cause for concern. Experts say the rise in risky drinking is due to increased social acceptability, gender equality, culture and even a preference for hard liquor over beer.
Women are also being arrested at an increasing rate for driving under the influence. A recent report by KPCC analyzing 20 years of California DMV records shows a significant increase in the number of women being arrested for driving under the influence.
The DMV reports that women made up about 24 percent of DUI arrests statewide in 2011, the last year statistics are available. That's an increase over the 11 percent of DUI arrests in 1989.
What's behind this increase in alcohol consumption among women? Should more be done to educate women about the dangers of alcohol?
Guest:
Elizabeth Aguilera, KPCC Health Reporter