Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

New York's Sugary Drink Ban Ruled Illegal; MH-370 Refined Search Area; Supreme Court Strikes Down Abortion Buffer Zones; Hobby Lobby Fights Obamacare

Aired June 26, 2014 - 10:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN Breaking News.

CAROL COSTELLO, CNN ANCHOR: You know, a lot is happening this morning. Here's more breaking news coming into CNN. The New York -- the New York Court of Appeals has -- has said it is illegal to ban large sugary drinks in New York City.

As you know, Mayor Bloomberg, then Mayor Bloomberg, had wanted to ban large sodas from restaurants and from convenience stores. Well, the Court of Appeals has said that ban is illegal. You can't do that.

Let's bring in CNN legal analyst Paul Callan.

Hi, Paul. Are you surprised?

PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Good morning, Carol.

COSTELLO: Are you surprised?

CALLAN: Well, yes, and no. I mean, I'm somewhat surprised in that everybody would concede that these 23-ounce soda concoctions are unhealthy and at New York State Department of Health had banned it. But on the other hand this idea that the Department of Health can regulate commerce in New York rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. And in looking at what the Court of Appeals did (INAUDIBLE), in New York the Court of Appeals is really the Supreme Court of New York. That's what we call it here in New York. So this is the highest court in New York.

And what they said basically was, you know something, this rule isn't fair because it doesn't ban milkshakes, it doesn't ban 7-Eleven from selling 16-ounce Big Gulps. It only focuses on a very small group of stores that sell these sugary soda drinks and hence it's not really a health regulation, otherwise you should be banning all this stuff. It's really a commercial regulation and that's up to the legislature not the mayor of New York and the Department of Health to set social policy like that.

So that's the thinking of the lawyers on the court, the justices on the court and I think there's a logic to that.

COSTELLO: Yes. I was just going to say, so unless you banned everything that's bad for you, you can't ban a single item. CALLAN: Yes. You can't single out a particular item and say all

right, we're going to get rid of that, but you can go with a milkshake down the road. I mean, I -- you know, I'm sitting here, Carol, in a cafe right now on Madison Avenue having coffee and a bacon and egg sandwich. I mean, you know, they might want to take me away because of that bacon and egg sandwich. But I think I'm safe now, so as are those who like those Big Gulp sodas.

COSTELLO: Well, enjoy your brunch.

Paul Callan, thanks so much. I appreciate it.

CALLAN: Thank you, Carol. Thank you. Bye.

COSTELLO: In other news this morning, a bombshell new theory in the Flight 370 mystery. Australians authorities now say the doomed airliner was likely on autopilot and the crew in an unresponsive state and that means the new search area moves and mushrooms in size. From a mere 330 square miles in that red circle to a vast 23,000 square miles in the new search are to the south of the old one. It's like comparing the size of Louisville, Kentucky, to the entire state of West Virginia.

Let's head to Washington now, Rene Marsh has more for you.

Good morning, Rene.

RENE MARSH, CNN AVIATION CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Carol. You know, this really is the most detailed dump of information we have received yet. Now the search teams who have been refining the data, determining where the plane entered the water, they believe most likely scenario is that the crew was unresponsive due to a lack of oxygen and the plane was flying itself for more than five hours. Meaning it was on autopilot, flying at a constant altitude until it simply ran out of fuel.

Now if the autopilot was engaged, the thing that we do not know is the precise moment that it was engaged or who even turned it on, but it is very important to point out that these are all assumptions that the experts made in an effort to fill out the unknowns in this equation. They believe those assumptions, coupled with a very little data that they have, provided them the likely path for Flight 370.

Now you mentioned the new search area. We know it moves further south. You had a map there, that orange area is the preferred area where they will be focusing.

We want to point out, now this orange area is an area they already did aerial searches. They found no signs of debris on the surface. But remember those pings, those sounds that they heard under water, well, that just threw everything off. They left this orange area to go investigate those pings. It turned out those underwater signals were not from the black boxes and here we are again back in that orange area.

We do know that the underwater search, they say, will start in August -- Carol.

COSTELLO: So it goes on. And who knows how long, right?

Rene --

MARSH: Right.

COSTELLO: Yes. Rene Marsh, thanks so much.

MARSH: That's right. Sure.

COSTELLO: Still to come in the NEWSROOM, soccer fans skipping work today for a World Cup viewing party. Will anything get done in the office across the country today? We'll talk about soccer next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COSTELLO: Need an excuse to get out of work to watch today's big World Cup match between the United States and Germany? Not to worry, Coach Jurgen Klinsmann got you covered. U.S. soccer is tweeting out a form that got us laughing this morning. You just fill in your name, take it in to your boss and you're good to go, right?

Coach Klinsmann is also telling your boss to, quote, "Act like a good leader and take the day off as well."

We have one of those hooky playing fans with us now, Kelsey Haney is in Chicago and CNN's Alison Kosik also joins us to talk about how U.S. businesses are affected today.

But, Kelsey, I must start with you because I'm admiring your outfit.

It's awesome. So are you blowing off work today, Kelsey, to watch this soccer game?

KELSEY HANEY, U.S. SOCCER FAN: Yes.

(LAUGHTER)

COSTELLO: Why did you decide to be brave enough to do that? Because I don't know that I would.

HANEY: I love America and this is a perfect opportunity to come together with my fellow patriots and support them.

(LAUGHTER)

COSTELLO: Were you a soccer fan previous to the U.S. team doing so well?

HANEY: No. But my friend who's here with me, she's a really big fan and so it's really exciting to be here with her because she absolutely loves it. She's been following them since the beginning of their season. So it's been really great.

COSTELLO: No. If the U.S. team and, I don't want to jinx anything, but if the U.S. team doesn't do so well, will you continue to watch soccer?

HANEY: Oh, yes. Oh, yes. Definitely. Any chance I have to come and support my country, show my patriotism, I'm there.

COSTELLO: Well, Kelsey, thanks so much. I'll let you join the others because I see they're starting to gather there in Grant Park in Chicago. It's fun talking to you.

Alison Kosik, a lot of people will be doing what Kelsey is today?

ALISON KOSIK, CNN BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Yes. But they're going to be doing it at work. And the way I kind of see World Cup is like it's cyber Monday where everybody kind of thinks they're sneaking it in to kind of look for, you know, the latest deals. This is like, you know, the World Cup, and what I -- my advice to bosses is look, if you can't beat them, join them, and at least embrace it.

Because here's the harsh reality, bosses. More than 50 percent of working professionals have so far this year watched or listened to the World Cup matches. So this is the reality. But there's also the other side of the reality. Yes, it is making us less productive at work.

There's this group that actually following these stats called the Captivate Network and it did this informal poll and found that 23 percent of people who responded to it, they admitted yes, they were distracted. They did everything but working. Productivity went down because of the World Cup. Funny enough, it was mostly men and senior managers who were more likely to say productivity took a hit because of the game.

This group also puts a dollar amount on it, Carol. Over the two weeks during the World Cup, $1.6 billion will be lost in productivity in the U.S.

Here's what I find kind of funny. This group also said that financial services companies, they're kind of more buttoned up and they're less likely, this group says, to be watching on TVs and in their offices. I disagree. Down at the New York Stock Exchange, that's all that's on every TV. You see these traders glued to their sets, watching the World Cup and you hear them cheer, you hear the roar of their cheers throughout the game.

That's exactly what's going to happen today starting at noon eastern -- Carol.

COSTELLO: OK. I'll be watching.

Alison Kosik, and I know you will be, too. Don't lie.

KOSIK: Yes, I will.

(LAUGHTER)

COSTELLO: Alison Kosik, thanks so much. I just have to put on my American flag shirt. ANNOUNCER: This is CNN Breaking News.

COSTELLO: More breaking news to pass along to you. The U.S. Supreme Court has just ruled on a key free speech case, which challenges Massachusetts law restricting the discussion of abortion on public sidewalks within 35 feet of an abortion clinic entrance. Now the court ruled in favor of the protesters, but again this ruling is not so cut and dry.

Pamela Brown is outside the U.S. Supreme Court to parse it out for us.

Good morning.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, good morning to you, Carol. Another unanimous ruling here at the high court today. The justices saying that this Massachusetts law requiring 35 feet buffer zones outside of reproductive clinics that perform abortions violate the First Amendment rights of anti-abortion protesters.

Out here in front of the Supreme Court there are several anti-abortion protesters right next to me and they had been cheering this ruling. It's a big loss for the state of Massachusetts. The state said that it put these 35-feet buffer zones in place outside of these health clinics to protect the patients.

The state said it's had a history of violence from protesters outside of these reproductive clinics that perform abortions and so it put in these restrictive zones where protesters have to stay outside of. But the anti-abortion protesters said that it violated its First Amendment rights, that the buffer zones were too big and the justices agreed with that.

What's important to note here, though, is that this is a narrow ruling. This still allows the state to protect the patients entering these reproductive clinics that perform abortions but the state now has to go back to the drawing board and could possibly craft a new buffer zone that's perhaps less restrictive, less excessive -- Carol.

COSTELLO: All right. Pamela Brown, thanks so much.

Do we have Jeffrey -- Jonathan Turley. Jonathan Turley right now. He's a constitutional expert.

Jonathan, does this mean that a protester at an abortion clinic can now walk right up to the door and talk to women as they go in?

JONATHAN TURLEY, PROFESSOR OF LAW, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Well, in terms of talking, I think there is a legitimate claim for that. You know, this Massachusetts law was facially unconstitutional, was poorly written, poorly conceived. Most of the free speech community denounced it at the time. You can't just pick these different areas of free speech zones like abortion clinics. It's a limitation of free speech.

The fact that you could get such unanimity of the court reflects how completely outside the bounds that is. This is a normally very divided court on issue s of abortion. They were quite united for good reason against this law. Now that doesn't mean, as the opinion says, that you can't put other types of protections. You can -- you can keep people from blocking these clinics. You can -- there's obviously existing laws to keep you from abusing people who are going in, in a very direct, certainly a physical but also an obstructionist way.

So there's still protections for the clinics. What you can't do is start to regulate speech as a state of this union.

COSTELLO: So -- Jeffrey Toobin is here now. He's our CNN Supreme Court expert.

So I'm just curious about something. Would this ruling apply to maybe political protests? Because often the police will keep people away from, let's say, the Democratic National Convention because they want to keep the people safe there.

Would that ruling apply in those cases as well?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, there's no question that the local authorities can establish areas to preserve good order. I mean that doesn't change in this opinion. But this just was -- this was too big. It was too big a restriction on speech.

You know, the court has gone back and forth a little bit on this issue about how big is too big a zone. I think states can take the direction from this opinion and actually craft laws that protect both sides, that allow women to go unimpeded to abortion clinics if they prefer, but also for people who oppose abortion to express their views. There is room for reasonable compromise and reasonable laws in light of this opinion.

COSTELLO: All right. Jeffrey Toobin, Jonathan Turley, Pamela Brown. Thanks to all of you.

I'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COSTELLO: We've already seen two big decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court come down today, but this is the ruling that everyone is waiting for.

Will Hobby Lobby, a Christian owned company, be forced to provide emergency contraception as part of its health insurance plan?

The U.S. Supreme Court expected to hand down that decision soon. Now Hobby Lobby already covers birth control for its employees, it's issue is what's requirement in Obamacare to cover emergency contraception as well.

The company, Hobby Lobby, objects to four drugs, the Morning-after pill, Plan B, Ella and two forms of IUDs. Hobby Lobby asserts these drugs are potentially life terminating, although there is no scientific basis for that assertion. But Hobby Lobby is taking no chances. It's lobbying its position on YouTube. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: While the Green family has no objection to providing 16 of the 20 FDA approved drugs and devices under the federal mandate, providing four of the drugs and devices that have the potential to terminate a life conflicts with their faith.

STEVE GREEN, PRESIDENT, HOBBY LOBBY: This is an issue of life that we cannot be a part of taking life. And so to be in a situation where our government is telling us that we have to be is incredible.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COSTELLO: So let's talk about this now. Joining me are Jonathan Merit, senior columnist for "Religion News Service" and the Reverend Jacqui Lewis, a senior minister for Middle Collegiate Church in New York.

Good morning to both of you and thank you for being here.

JONATHAN MERRITT, SENIOR COLUMNIST, RELIGION NEWS SERVICE: Good morning.

REV. JACQUI LEWIS, SENIOR MINISTER, MIDDLE COLLEGIATE CHURCH: Good morning.

COSTELLO: Good morning. Jonathan, I want to start with you. You wrote an article in the week questioning why Hobby Lobby calls itself a Christian business in the first place when it does business with China. After mentioning the minimum wage in Shanghai is less than $10 a day you say, quote, "The bible is replete with calls with economic justice. Can you call yourself a Christian business when you leverage your profits to support an economic system that blatantly perpetuates injustice?"

Please expound.

MERRITT: Yes, well, you -- you know, not everybody found this article interesting and even fewer people I think from the right particularly enjoyed this article or agreed with this article and the reason is Hobby Lobby has become sacrosanct among conservatives. It's an organization that cannot be challenged but I raised some questions in this about their dealings in China. I mean, here you have an organization who says they cannot be forced to invest their money in a system that might provide for abortions, but they're spending tens of millions of dollars every year in China who has a one-child policy.

There are over 35,000 abortions performed in China every single day, many of these have the look of rape as has been purported, so they've got women there who are being forced to have abortions and they're investing their moneys there. They're the 20th worst country in the world for child labor.

So I don't understand how you can invest tens of millions of dollars in things like child labor and cheap labor so that you can provide cheap trinkets for customers and then say somehow that you have to be a consistent spender of your money in the marketplace according to Christian values.

COSTELLO: So, Reverend Lewis, why doesn't Hobby Lobby just boycott China's products and not sell them if it's -- you know, if it's so concerned about abortion?

LEWIS: I think, Carol, that Jonathan raises really important questions about their ethics, the Christian ethics, that Hobby Lobby is claiming to hold. For example, Steve Green says that he can't spend money when he believes it's causing the end of life, but, in fact, as Jonathan points out so well, women in China commit suicide at high rates, girls' bodies in China don't matter and so there's a really important question in there to be raised.

But I think perhaps even more important is the way that we're talking about Hobby Lobby as though they are a Christian person. You said it earlier, this is a -- this is a company that is owned by a Christian person and a certain kind of Christian person, an evangelical white Protestant Christian person, and research shows that all across Christian dome, minority, Protestants, white Protestants, even Catholics, the majority of the folks that are Christian believe that women have a right to have contraceptive offered to them by their health care provider.

It is only evangelical white Protestants who disagree with that, only at 40 percent. So I think we need to stop talking about these companies as people. They are not people, they are owned by people who might be Muslim, Christian or Jew, and if we don't really pay attention to this, the problem is, that not only will bosses be in the bedrooms, bosses will also be withholding perhaps other health care. Maybe they'll withhold contraception and blood transfusions and that kind of thing.

COSTELLO: Right. Right. And just one clarification because I am Catholic. Catholic is against all contraception, period, nothing. That's the Catholic Church, but most Catholics do take contraceptives. So there you have that.

LEWIS: Yes, they do.

COSTELLO: Jonathan, can a company be Christian?

MERRITT: Well, let me say, I am -- I'm pro-contraception. Those that do not cause abortions. I'm also pro life. I'm evangelical. I've never opposed Hobby Lobby's case before the Supreme Court. I'm a little bit torn on that issue. But I think the reverend actually brings up a very important point. What's interesting is, is that the evangelicals who claim that Hobby Lobby is a Christian business also say that the bible should be their supreme guide for life and for practice the way that they talk and the way that they live.

If you read the New Testament you will find that the phrase "Christian" is never applied to a business, to an organization, or to a government. So the phrase is nonsensical from a biblical perspective. It is only applied to individuals in all of the scripture. I think additionally, you have a really weird question that you have to ask then, exactly what makes a Christian business Christian? Is it that they have a Christian CEO? OK. Well, in that case FedEx is a Christian business.

Is it that they do Christian things? So they're closed on Sundays or they oppose abortion. They do something that you consider to be Christian. Well that sort of has this quasi corporate feel of work's righteousness, that you earn your way into Christianity. And so I think it's sort of a weird theological thing but I think the reason for this is, is that many evangelical Christians, particularly on the conservative side, are more political than they are theological and they're more capitalistic than they are Christian.

COSTELLO: Yes. I wish we could continue --

(CROSSTALK)

LEWIS: I would like to jump in there.

COSTELLO: But I've got to go for the next show but this has been a fascinating conversation.

LEWIS: OK.

COSTELLO: And thank you so much. Jonathan Merritt and the Reverend Jacqui Lewis.

MERRITT: Thank you.

LEWIS: Thank you, Carol.

COSTELLO: Thanks for joining me today. I'm Carol Costello. "@ THIS HOUR" with Berman and Michaela after a break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)