Participants: Lincoln Steed (Host), Bruce N. Cameron
Series Code: LI
Program Code: LI000331A
|
00:28 Welcome to the Liberty Insider.
00:29 This is a program bringing you news, views, discussion, 00:32 up-to-date information on religious liberty. 00:36 My name is Lincoln Steed, Editor of Liberty Magazine 00:39 and my guest on the program is Professor Bruce Cameron 00:43 from a great institution in Virginia Beach... 00:47 Regent University School of Law, 00:50 that's right and I'm on staff 00:52 with the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. 00:53 Yes, and thank you for saying that 00:54 because we had some other programs 00:57 that I neglected to mention your connection with that... 01:01 which you'd mentioned. 01:02 Right, but I was talking about cases 01:04 that were funded there, they're all funded 01:06 by the Right to Work Foundation. 01:09 Let's talk again about the Supreme Court, 01:10 there's so many interesting cases 01:13 and, you know, way more than me 01:15 but in the years that I've been doing Liberty Magazine, 01:18 it's amazed me how many of the Supreme Court cases 01:20 bear on religious freedom and it's a mixed bag, 01:23 some very good, some very bad. 01:26 There's when that you think is very good, 01:27 I might not quite agree, quite the same way but... 01:30 It's a glorious decision. 01:31 Yeah, a very big case recently called the holly lobby case. 01:34 Right. 01:35 Explain it again for our viewers. 01:37 Well, the Hobby Lobby case involve the question 01:40 of whether or not business owners can be forced 01:44 to pay for abortion inducing drugs 01:47 of their employees. 01:49 Now you might stand back and say, 01:50 why am I forced to pay for your abortion anyway 01:55 but that's somewhat separate issue. 01:59 What happened was that the Green Family 02:02 who had established Hobby Lobby became very wealthy, 02:06 God blessed them no doubt and they're very religious, 02:09 and when the ObamaCare law 02:13 that is the new medical requirements 02:18 said that employers have to provide 02:21 as part of their insurance, 02:23 a number of birth control drugs. 02:26 Some of those, many Christians believe 02:32 are really a part of abortions 02:34 that is they cause the fertilized egg 02:38 to be aborted. 02:40 It's the way they function. That's the way they function. 02:43 And so the Green said, 'Look, we can't support that, 02:48 I mean, we think it's immoral, we think it's killing a child 02:52 and so we're not going to pay to kill someone else's child.' 02:57 And so they filed a lawsuit saying 02:59 that we have a First Amendment right 03:03 to refuse to kill children of our employees, 03:09 very bluntly put. 03:11 Yeah. 03:13 Okay, so how is that good though? 03:17 That's not good, what's good is that they won. 03:21 See, the US Supreme Court said 5-4 decision. 03:24 Conservative five said that we believe you... 03:28 you the corporation have a First Amendment right 03:33 to be free from being excessively burdened. 03:37 First Amendment right, this is actually, 03:39 you remember we were discussing 03:41 the Religious Freedom Restoration Act 03:42 in the past discussions. 03:44 This is actually a Religious Freedom Restoration Act case. 03:49 No, it is very good that the Supreme Court is sensitive 03:52 to religious practices 03:57 in this case of business analyst. 03:59 You can't read a bad intention of the court into this I think. 04:04 But I'll play the devil's advocate, 04:08 I shouldn't but I'll align myself with the devil. 04:11 But... 04:13 I'll align myself with God, so go ahead. 04:16 But I've often said that religious liberty 04:21 is very complicated for a lot of people 04:22 but one simple way to understand 04:24 that if there is coercion involved, it's not freedom. 04:29 That's right. I agree. 04:30 Now you're focused on the so called coercion, 04:34 argued coercion of the employer, 04:40 but that created a situation 04:42 where he's an employer 04:46 in a non-religious business 04:50 and all citizens are entitled 04:53 by thought to an insurance policy 04:57 that includes many, many things. 05:00 I mean, the whole gamut of medical treatment 05:02 is pretty wide, and it's been made wide 05:05 because this is the mandate for citizenry. 05:08 And here this person 05:10 because of their religious sensibility 05:12 will deprive their employees 05:15 of what all other employees would normally get. 05:19 And further, there's no guarantee 05:24 nor even a high likelihood 05:26 that these people would use that provision 05:28 of the insurance. 05:31 They could exercise their own unreligious judgment 05:34 to use it or not use it. 05:36 I agree with you, Lincoln, 05:38 that the employee should be able to make her own decision 05:42 about whether or not she wants to take these drugs. 05:46 I mean, it's part of the freedom of choice 05:50 in the sense that I don't think 05:52 people should choose to kill their children, 05:54 I would outlaw people choosing to kill their children, 05:58 but when we come to religious freedom, 06:00 employees should have those rights 06:03 and employers should have those rights. 06:05 Here is the question. 06:06 Does the individual employee have a constitutional right 06:11 to force her employer to pay for her abortions? 06:15 The answer is 'no'. 06:17 I don't have a constitution right 06:18 to force you to buy me a Cadillac, 06:20 I wish I did but I don't, and so since you passed 06:27 is that all these other employees have these rights, 06:32 so why shouldn't the female employees of child-bearing age 06:37 for Hobby Lobby also have these rights? 06:40 The answer is they did. 06:41 Those kinds of birth controls were available free, 06:44 so the question is... 06:46 Oh, yes, I know that that's, but still, 06:47 they've been taken off the insurance schedule. 06:51 But they're free, so the question is 06:53 will we force the Greens 06:58 to kill the children of their employees. 07:01 Now if that's not an significant 07:03 and important religious liberty issue, 07:05 I don't know what is. 07:07 And if you tell me that their convenience of the employee 07:12 that's gonna be a part of the health plan 07:14 here's opposed to doing something 07:16 that is really, nearly effortless to get the drugs 07:20 otherwise would override their religious beliefs 07:23 about not killing. 07:24 It seems to me... 07:26 Well, there's a huge issue 07:27 and we need to have programs on this, you know, 07:30 about abortion and some of the related practices. 07:35 I think the religious right for one of the better term 07:38 had been right on this for a long time. 07:41 I'm uncomfortable with some ways 07:42 that they pursue this agenda, 07:44 but this is a moral disgrace in the western world 07:47 and in particular the United States 07:49 where medicines being complicit in a social agenda 07:54 to control populations 07:56 what amounts to infanticide which is very bad. 08:00 I think it's exactly with the Old Testament times... 08:02 But, you know, I'm talking about the issue 08:04 of someone's choice on a healthcare system. 08:09 Yeah, we can look at it and bury within these things 08:12 but there's just many, many things. 08:13 There's other medical practices, 08:15 remember Jehovah's Witnesses, would a Jehovah's Witness, 08:21 a business owner, he get the same rights 08:25 to disallow insurance to their employees 08:29 because they don't believe in blood transfusions. 08:31 I would say yes. 08:33 I mean it's a basic medical service 08:34 for someone else. 08:36 If you're telling me you can get the blood transfusion 08:38 for free without interfering 08:40 with the Jehovah's Witnesses religious beliefs, absolutely. 08:45 It seems to me, if we go back to a discussion 08:48 we had earlier, 08:49 that whenever the State infringes upon an employee's 08:52 or an individual's 08:54 or a citizen's First Amendment right 08:56 to freely practice their religious beliefs, 08:58 they have to have a compelling state interest. 09:00 There's no compelling state interest 09:02 to require the Hobby Lobby owners 09:05 to pay for abortions for their employees 09:07 where they can go get them for free some place else. 09:10 I don't get the letters anymore, 09:11 but for few years I had a lot of letters from people 09:14 who had a conceit 09:15 that they didn't need to pay their federal income tax. 09:18 And one of the main reasons they were giving was the things 09:21 that the government was doing with their income tax. 09:24 Well... 09:26 It clearly put your personal freedom at stake 09:29 if you withhold your income tax, 09:32 even though with your money, 09:33 the government may be waging a war you don't like, 09:35 may be running a birth control program 09:40 with federal funds in another country 09:42 where they're sterilizing women or whatever, 09:44 where do you draw the line on this? 09:47 If you are not directly doing it 09:49 and it's a general insurance or a tax thing, 09:55 how can you sort of say, I don't like the whole system, 09:58 I'm gonna opt out of it or worse, 10:01 deny someone else the right to participate. 10:04 Line drawing is easy for me because I have a Bible... 10:08 Yes, lawyers would divide an issue up 10:11 and I know that's part of the training, 10:13 you sort of put slivers into an issue. 10:16 No, actually lawyers want to create grey areas 10:20 so they'll have work and get paid 10:22 but because I've a biblical point of view. 10:25 The Bible very clearly distinguishes paying your taxes 10:29 from being forced to kill people and so, I mean, 10:35 I don't see any grey area over there. 10:39 The question is though, 10:42 should government be able to force the Hobby Lobby owners, 10:46 not simply to pay their taxes 10:48 and the government can pay to kill children 10:50 which it does in some places. 10:53 Can they be required to personally do it? 10:56 And that's where the distinction is 10:58 and so the Supreme Court thankfully came down 11:01 on the side of religious freedom. 11:03 It was very good that they had a sensitivity 11:05 to a conscience issue, there's no question. 11:07 Right, a 5-4 decision. That's the problem. 11:12 We discussed how the Supreme Court 11:14 is on the razor's edge right now 11:16 in this upcoming election. 11:18 Hobby Lobby would come down differently 11:22 if we had a 5th Justice appointed by Hillary Clinton 11:27 as opposed to Justice Scalia. 11:32 There is a nominee floating at the moment. 11:37 I've forgotten the judge's name. 11:40 Of hers. No, Obama's nominee. 11:44 Oh, yes, Judge Garland. 11:47 He wants to become Justice Garland, yes. 11:51 We don't know the future 11:53 from what you know of his record, 11:56 do you think he would destabilize if appointed? 11:59 I think he would evolve with the liberal side of things 12:02 with regard to the issue of particular interest to me 12:06 because I'm not talking about abortion 12:08 with regard to the Right to Work Foundation 12:10 because it's involved in that 12:11 but with regard to compulsory unionism, 12:14 we're convinced he would vote against us. 12:16 And so you don't think he is... 12:18 This is theoretical... 12:21 some value of discussing in. 12:23 Do you think it's even theoretically possible 12:27 that a Republican nominee 12:30 and victor in the elections would go ahead 12:33 and still appoint him? 12:35 No, I don't think that's possible. 12:36 You don't think he's acceptable. 12:38 No... 12:39 They haven't really focused on him, 12:41 they've just said that they wanted to hold off. 12:45 Well, that's, the only scenario... 12:47 They've never been clear whether it's him 12:49 they're against 12:50 or the administration's prerogative 12:52 to appoint him. 12:54 No, they're against him 12:56 and because of how they think he will vote. 12:59 Now here's the only scenario I see for him 13:02 getting on the court. 13:04 Let's assume 13:06 that Hillary Clinton wins the election 13:08 and in that period of time 13:10 when Barack Obama is still the President, 13:15 Judge Garland is still his nominee, 13:18 the Republicans in the Senate might say 13:21 he's better than whoever 13:23 Hillary Clinton's going to appoint. 13:25 Now I suspect though at that point 13:28 that the Democrats will withdraw his nomination 13:31 to allow Hillary Clinton to nominate whoever she wants. 13:34 It's a very strange situation 13:37 and I don't claim to be a legalist 13:41 but by any means but I've studied the American history 13:45 and the constitution. 13:46 It seems to me there's nothing 13:49 even slightly constitutionally right 13:52 for his nomination at the moment. 13:54 It's just obstructionism by certain faction 13:57 that don't want him and think they can wait it out. 13:59 No, President's... 14:01 Advising concern... 14:02 President Obama seems to think he can do things on his own 14:09 but for nominees to the Supreme Court, 14:12 it's required to have the consent of the Senate. 14:15 Yeah, this whole Supreme Court business 14:17 is very complicated, very much indicative 14:21 of the spirit of the times we live in. 14:23 We need to talk about it after the break. 14:26 We don't have time. 14:27 We've run out of time, but not the program, 14:29 so please stay with us, 14:31 we'll be right back to continue this discussion. |
Revised 2016-09-13