- All right, Brody Carter,thank you very much.

And here with us now is Roger Severino,

a Senior Fellow at the Ethicsand Public Policy Center

and former director ofthe Office of Civil Rights

at the Department ofHealth and Human Services.

Roger, welcome.

It's great to have youwith us this evening.

So what do these mandatesmean for businesses?

- Well, it depends if your covered.

It's an incredible overreachby the federal government

to say under OSHA Health andSafety Occupation Standard

that any business over 100 employees

must follow this new mandate.

This is such a stretch of federal power.

We have not seen somethinglike this before,

since, I guess, Obamacarewhen the government tried

to take over healthcare.

So if you are above thatcap, it's an open question

as to whether or notthe federal government

has the power to do this.

And now think about what OSHA's about.

It's about chemicalexposures in the workplace,

hard hat regulationson construction sites.

Never do they go into a person'spersonal medical records

to find out what theirimmunization history is.

This is conduct outside ofthe workplace that they say

must be part of the workplace.

This is a real stretch andwe live under a constitution

of enumerated powers,separation of powers,

and federalism.

This is not the way it should be.

And under the cover of emergency powers,

I just don't see enoughlegal support for this

overreach on the part ofthe Biden administration.

- Roger, in your career, youfought for religious freedom

and freedom of conscience for years.

Can you give us someexamples of religious reasons

for posing vaccine mandatesthat you think will be able

to hold up in court asreligious exemptions?

- Yes and people are entitledto religious accommodations

under Title 7 of employmentdiscrimination law.

People need to exercise their rights.

Now it has to be absolutely sincere.

And for those who objectto the taking of human life

and abortion and the useof aborted fetal cells

in the development ortesting of these vaccines,

then they have a legitimate,sincere, religious claim

and they should be accommodated.

Other religious beliefs vary tremendously

and it could bepersonalized to the person.

It doesn't have to be basedon a hierarchical religion,

it is an individualized,sincere assessment.

And if your religious beliefs say I cannot

in good conscience acceptthis, I should not be pressured

to accept this, thenthat should be respected

to the extent allowed under the law.

Now the test has to bestrengthened and that's why

we need a strong Supreme Court

to say religious accommodations,

even under these circumstances,need to be respected.

We already give accommodationsfor medical reasons,

we need to do it for religion, as well.

- How are those backed up, though?

You say sincerely heldreligious beliefs which we know

the courts have upheld, buthow do you back that up?

- What we want to avoid isemployers and worst of all,

the federal government becomingsome sort of star chamber

inquisitorial board probinginto people's religious beliefs.

If a person says these are my reasons,

I disagree with abortion,sanctity of human life,

I know that the aborted fetalcells are part of the testing,

that should be it.

That should be the caseclosed on whether or not

they have a sincere belief.

You don't need a letter from your pastor,

you don't need a letter from a synagogue.

Your statement of yoursincere religious beliefs

should be the end of the matterunless they have some reason

to think your lying, butmost people of faith don't.

These are things thatare, things that cost them

to put themselves out thereto tell their employer

if they're, or face retaliation.

So it should be taken on itsface as sincere in most cases.

- All right, Roger Severino,we have to leave it there.

We appreciate you joining us, thank you.

It's good to see you.

- Thank you.