JUAN WILLIAMS: Dr. Krauthammer, are you saying that you think the Court therefore will rule in favor of the Obama administration in this case?
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: I say that when these cases arise, the ones involving the private corporations, it's probably, in my view, a 50/50 proposition.
WILLIAMS: I think you're being kind.
KRAUTHAMMER: Because of the employer issue whether it is an individual or --
WILLIAMS: You know, Charles, here's the thing I would say to you. In this Hobby Lobby case, the people involved say it's okay. They are willing to offer contraceptive services. They object to the morning after pill. This seems to me to be willy-nilly. You're opening the door to employers saying, well, you know, we don't like this, we like that.
SHANNON BREAM: For people believe that that is an abortifacient, that it
can cause an abortion and there's science that these folks cite, that's a different thing. They don't want to be funding an abortion. And there are guarantees in the federal law that they won't have to do that.
KRAUTHAMMER: You're presenting it as a trivial difference.
WILLIAMS: No, no. I'm saying that that is a substantive policy difference, but they are imposing their perception on their employees.
BREAM: But they're not telling their employees they can't get those pills, they're just saying we don't want to pay for them. That's different.
KRAUTHAMMER: They're saying the law is forcing us to be complicit with what we believe under our religion is a form of murder. And that is different from contraception, which doesn't involve the destruction of a zygote or an embryo. So if you have contraception that prevents implantation, that would be under, some theology, acceptable. It's not as if i'm going to pick and choose, I like this, I don't like this. It's actually a serious principle. For people who are serious about religion, this is not a trivial issue at all.