Back Home Button
The Rush Limbaugh Show
Excellence in Broadcasting
RSS Icon


Obama Could Easily Solve the Hobby Lobby Ruling, But His Party Chooses to Lie and Fundraise Off of It Instead


RUSH:  Ladies and gentlemen, as I knew yesterday was going to be the case today, I have had plenty more time since yesterday to digest all of the ramifications, the details, and the important relevancies of the Hobby Lobby case.  It is as I expected yesterday. It's actually hilarious to see Hillary Clinton denouncing the whole thing when it is one of her own husband's pieces of legislation that was used to uphold this ruling.  The Clintons are out basically bashing themselves while trying to make it look like they're bashing somebody else. 

It's exactly the same thing Obama does in terms of the Limbaugh Theorem.  Obama's responsible for things but he seeks to avoid accountability.  He does it by blaming others and acting like he had anything to do with it.  The Clintons are doing the same thing on this Hobby Lobby thing. Even Josh Earnest yesterday, White House spokeskid, and we had this (paraphrasing), "Well, as the Constitutional lawyer sitting in the Oval Office has said..."  This is not a constitutional law case.  The Hobby Lobby ruling involves statutory law, and it was a law -- let me find the name of this law for you.  It was a Clinton-era law.  Bill Clinton signed this law into effect. 

What's happening is that the Clintons are out there, both of them, ripping this to shreds because what they want out of this, they don't want to solve this, and there is an easy way to solve it.  Even Anthony Kennedy -- here's all you need to know about this. 

By the way, greetings.  We're in the Left Coast again, Rush Limbaugh here at 800-282-2882.  The e-mail address, ElRushbo@eibnet.com

Justice Anthony Kennedy -- and this is right here in TIME Magazine.  Get this.  "Justice Anthony Kennedy recognized Obama’s unilateral powers as a rationale for allowing the for-profit companies to opt out of the contraception mandate in the Affordable Care Act. 'In other instances the Government has allowed the same contraception coverage in issue here to be provided to employees of nonprofit religious organizations,' Kennedy wrote. 'The accommodations works by requiring insurance companies to cover, without cost sharing, contraception coverage for female employees who wish it.'"

Meaning, in nonprofits women are provided contraceptives.  And Anthony Kennedy is saying there's no difference here. If the president therefore has assigned to him unilaterally the ability to do that then he could simply do that here, too. Just simply say, "Okay, if Hobby Lobby now doesn't have to pay for it because the Supreme Court upheld their religious views, if Hobby Lobby doesn't have to pay for it, just make the insurance companies pay for it.  That's the way it happens with nonprofits." 

But Obama doesn't want to do that.  There are two reasons.  He doesn't want to appear to act unilaterally, but more than anything they want the fundraising.  The left has no idea what has happened here.  One of two things.  They either have no idea what really happened in this ruling and they're just knee-jerk reacting or they do know and are knee-jerk reacting, because everything to these people is political.  While the women of America are being told by the media and the Democrats: "What happened here is the Supreme Court denied women the right to have contraception. This is absolutely horrible, it's unacceptable, and the Supreme Court did it and the Republicans." 

So they want a fundraising issue off this.  There's a way to solve this for the women who work at Hobby Lobby.  Obama can just unilaterally make the insurance companies pay as is the law in the Affordable Care Act for nonprofits.  But he's not gonna do that.  He doesn't want to appear to be acting unilaterally in this case 'cause he wants the issue.  He wants to be able to fund-raise for it. 

Let me share with you this story that's in TIME Magazine on this.  I find all of this interesting because these people are acting exactly as I know they would act.  Everything is political. No matter who gets hurt, they whine and moan about the people who get hurt and then claim to be defending and caring and protecting those people and then don't do that.  They use the issue to fund-raise and campaign and so forth.  That's exactly what's happening here. 

TIME magazine: "This is a notable departure in strategy for the White House that is likely to increase the visibility of the issue in an election year." That sentence follows their headline.  The headline is:  "White House Chooses Congressional Fight Over Hobby Lobby Decision."  That's right.  It's astounding, but TIME magazine actually nails this.  Well, for them.  I mean, it's as close as TIME magazine is gonna get to nailing anything involving Obama.  But the whole subject of the piece here: "White House Chooses Congressional Fight Over Hobby Lobby Decision -- This is a notable departure in strategy for the White House that is likely to increase the visibility of the issue in an election year, while delaying the arrival of a solution for those women who will now be denied certain contraceptive coverage."

That's it, folks, in a nutshell.  There is a way, based on the way Obama structured the law, to deal with employees of nonprofits.  The insurance companies pay, but they can't cost share.  Meaning the insurance companies cannot hide a bill-back to the nonprofit in order to cover the cost of the contraceptives.  They have to absorb it.  The White House could do that.  Anthony Kennedy said so in the opinion.  But as TIME points out, they're not gonna do that. They're not gonna solve the problem for the women that they're whining and moaning about, which is a notable departure in strategy.  No, no.  All signs Monday point to the fact that Democrats would rather stage a political fight over this than resolve it for the effected women. 

It's never been about access!  This has never been about access.  Well, particularly since the ruling came out.  It has never been about access.  It's about continuing the War on Women theme.  What it requires is the abject stupidity of Democrat voters.  In order to for it to work, it requires the abject stupidity of Democrat donors.  Or, if it isn't stupidity, it requires their complicity.  But I'll tell you what I did.  I looked at some comments on some of the social media last night after I came off the golf course.  


RUSH: I started doing show prep.  And it's classic but predictable, and it's also common.  The decision is announced, the media misreports what happened, and the leftist army -- and I'm gonna tell you something about this.  I don't know this for sure, but, you know, all these comments that you read, I don't care where, the Democrat Underground.  Hell, these poor slobs even started infecting the SCOTUS blog.  The SCOTUS blog is a blog that simply reports the news happening at the Supreme Court.  It is not a partisan blog.  It is not an opinion blog.  It's simply a blog that reports the news. 

Well, these little leftist commentators polluted that place thinking that it was a way to insult the justices.  They thought it was their blog and it's not.  But I actually think in all of this -- I don't care whether it's comments on an issue here or other things, I bet there's a handful of people that are making themselves look like there are tens and thousands and maybe hundred thousands of them.  The idea that there is this much conformity and stupidity on the Democrat side, I know there's a lot of, but to think it's this widespread, it's a tough sell for me.  I think these people are out there making themselves look far larger than they really are.  And anyway, that's another matter. 

The point is they were there. However many of them there were, they were just running crazy and making the most asinine, stupid comments about this.  And they were joined by such great minds as Elizabeth Warren and Harry Reid, who were also, "Well, this is the end of life as we know it for women in America.  Women have been taken back to the Stone Age, barefoot, pregnant, and being clubbed by Fred Flintstone in the kitchen."  I mean, that pretty much sums up what every comment said. 

I'm reading these and I'm just laughing myself silly, because they haven't slightest idea what happened.  But you can't blame 'em because their social Bible, the New York Times, told them that that's what happened, and Josh Earnest at the White House and the president told them that's what happened. Harry Reid told 'em that's what happened. Elizabeth Warren told 'em that's what happened. Everyone in the media told 'em that's what happened. 

It's not what happened.  The truth of the matter is the White House, it's almost like they wanted this decision so as to have the political issue to fund-raise on by continuing the so-called Republican War on Women allegation.  Now, TIME says that's a notable departure in strategy.  But I don't think it's a notable departure in strategy.  The Democrats do politicize everything, and they do try to fund-raise off everything.  That's why I say it's not a notable departure examine.  They do it all the time.  TIME magazine actually believes that Obama and the Democrats are actually interested in solving problems for people. 

How in the world can you think that?  We're six years into this mess and they're not solving anything for anybody.  Zilch, zero, nada.  Well, except their corporate buddies with whom they have the crony capitalist relationship with.  Other than that, the people out of work are not getting anything other than, you know, a meager existence.  But nobody's problems are being solved.  The idea that TIME magazine thinks that's what the Regime does is another myth.  What is common is politicizing everything and using it to fund-raise. 

Here's the next paragraph in the TIME magazine story.  "Both the Democratic Party and the White House Twitter accounts spend much of the day rallying people to outrage on social media over the decision."  Exactly.  That's what I saw.  That's what I was laughing myself silly over.  "It’s time that five men on the Supreme Court stop deciding what happens to women."  That was Harry Reid.  That's not what they decided.  This was not about women.  It was about the owners of "closely held" corporations and their religious freedom. 

There are 20 contraception, contraceptive, "medications" that are available and Hobby Lobby provides 16 of them.  Run a test.  Find the nearest Democrat Looney Toon who thinks that this decision sets women back a hundred years and tell them.  "Do you know that of the 20 contraceptions available for women, Hobby Lobby provides 16 of them?"  And they'll look at you, "No, you're lying, not true."  They don't even know.  The four that Hobby Lobby objected to were those that cause an abortion after conception.  They didn't want any part of those. 

But in this ruling, as we pointed out yesterday, those women are not denied the conception.  It's just that the Hobby Lobby people were told by the court, "You don't have to pay for it.  It violates your religious views."  But they're not denied contraception.  Women can go get it anywhere they want, like buy it themselves.  (gasping)  I know that's easy for me to say.  But they're not denied anything.

"Legal observers say..." Here's one of the money paragraphs in the TIME magazine story: "Legal observers say it would not be difficult for the [Regime] to resolve the situation unilaterally. The Department of Health and Human Services has already taken unilateral executive action to ensure that women employed by religious nonprofits get contraception coverage in cases where the employer declines to pay."


"'There was nothing in the statute that specifically allowed them to create the exemption for non-profit organizations so I don't see why they couldn't extend that to for-profit corporations,' said Timothy Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University and an expert on [Obamacare]’s regulations. 'I don’t know why they couldn't do it themselves,'" meaning the Regime.

I have to translate this stuff.  Journalism today is not nearly as easily understood.  "Legal observers say it would not be difficult for the [Regime] to resolve the situation unilaterally. The Department of Health and Human Services," that would be Sebelius, "has already taken unilateral executive action to ensure that women employed by religious nonprofits get contraception coverage in cases where the employer declines to pay."

The insurance company has to buy it for them, and they can't bill it back to the people that run the nonprofit.  Mr. Jost says, "There was nothing in the statute that specifically allowed them to create the exemption," meaning they just did it unilaterally like Obama's been doing everything else. "There was nothing in the [law] that specifically allowed them to create the exemption for non-profit organizations..." So if nobody objected when they did it then, do it now.  But they're not gonna do it. They're not gonna exempt it so that the women can get coverage paid for by insurance company.

They want the issue.  


RUSH:  You know, it might be useless for everybody to remember that all of this stuff about contraceptives was put into Obamacare after it was written and after it was signed into law.  That is what the lawyer Jost said, and that's what Anthony Kennedy wrote about. When it occurred unilaterally, it occurred with executive action.  He actually had Sebelius do it, who was the Secretary of Health and Human Services, 'cause Obamacare mentions "the secretary can" or "at the secretary's discretion" thousands of times, practically, or hundreds of times in the bill. 

So it was Sebelius that did it.  But all of this contraception stuff went into Obamacare after it was written and signed into law.  This contraception stuff was not in the bill that Congress passed.  Sebelius added it to Obamacare via regulations 'cause Obama needed to placate his base -- and is in the middle of a war with the Catholic Church at the same time, by the way, and this was a poke in their eye. 

But it is an example, another one, of Obama bypassing Congress.  "Justice Anthony Kennedy recognized Obama's unilateral powers as a rationale for allowing the for-profit companies to opt out," and he pointed out that in other instances the government's allowed the same coverage in issue here to be provided to employees of nonprofits.  Why won't they do it here?


RUSH:  Look, folks, we mentioned this yesterday, Justice Alito, in his majority opinion, wrote that their ruling affirming the right of Hobby Lobby not to pay for these four abortifacients should not be a problem because of Obama's previous accommodations.  Here's what he wrote.  "The effect of the HHS-created accommodation," meaning the effect of Kathleen Sebelius writing a regulation after the law was signed -- "on the women employed by Hobby Lobby and the other companies involved in these cases would be precisely zero. Under that accommodation, these women would still be entitled to all FDA-approved contraceptives without cost sharing." Meaning all it takes is somebody else to buy it for them. 

Here's the thing.  There's nothing in the world to be offended by here.  There's no political ground that's even been lost, as far as the left is concerned.  If the issue is contraceptives for women, if the issue is something else, then the left might think that they've got a defeat here.  But if this is really about somebody else paying for every woman's birth control or abortions, with the morning-after pill and some such thing, then there's no loss here.  The only thing that happened is that the Constitution's religion clause was upheld for a "closely held" corporation.  They have the freedom to continue to practice their religion.  But that freedom does not extend to their female employees being denied these medications. 

Alito has referenced it and Anthony Kennedy has referenced it and TIME magazine is pointing this out now and goes so far as to say that in the nonprofit companies, the religious oriented, the insurance companies buy these contraceptives, and they can't bill 'em back, and everybody here says, "Why don't you just do that, Obama?  It's no big deal.  Okay, so Hobby Lobby doesn't have to pay for 'em, but just make somebody else."  And they don't want to do that. 

Back to the TIME magazine piece: "But the White House has chosen to first try for a legislative fix in Congress, where the chances of success are slim at best. Republicans are mostly united in praising the Supreme Court result, all but foreclosing chances that a change in the law makes its way through the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, where most GOP lawmakers still back repeal of the Affordable Care Act."

So what does that mean?  Fundraising!  The White House has chosen to first try to go through the Republicans to fix it.  What do you think's going on here?  In a nutshell, the women who work at Hobby Lobby have not been denied contraceptives.  The only thing is that four of them will not be paid for by Hobby Lobby.  They can get somebody else to pay for them that's already been established through unilateral Obama regulations and executive actions, executive orders. 

But rather than take the easy way, see, if this is really about women getting their abortion pills, they can do that in the next five minutes.  It could have been done already.  But instead Obama doesn't want that.  He wants these women to continue to believe they've been denied their birth control because of an evil Republican Christian company and the Republican Congress, and to prove it he's gonna demand that the Republicans fix this, and there's no way they're gonna fix it because they don't believe in it.  They believe in the ruling. 

Besides, none of this that we're talking about was in the original Obamacare bill that Obama signed.  It was all added in later.  So the fact that Obama wants to take this to the Republican House where he knows it's gonna die means that he is choosing a political issue and fundraising rather than meeting the desires and demands of his own voters, the women who vote for him who, for some reason, don't think they can pay nine dollars a month for birth control.  Pure and simple. 

And furthermore, TIME magazine: "Polls suggest that the issue could benefit Democrats in the election year. A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted over the last month found that only 35% of the country believes that employers should be able to decide what kind of contraceptives their health plan provides for employees based on religious beliefs.

So Obama's got a poll out there in TIME magazine that he's on the right side of this.  Only 35% agree with what Hobby Lobby wanted to do.  So 65% of the American people are ticked off at Hobby Lobby and Obama wants to capitalize on that by politicizing the issue. 

"The White House, meanwhile, is leaving open the option for unilateral executive action, but only once Congress fails." And they can't wait for that.  Look, I know this may sound repetitive.  I've just learned that it's necessary to drill things home in order for people to get 'em, particularly with the spoken word, and all of this is unnecessary.  The women that work at Hobby Lobby who were denied their abortion pills yesterday could have already been furnished them with no cost to them, just somebody else paying it.  Precedent already set in the nonprofit entities who are religious in their orientation, already established. 

Instead, Obama wants to go where he knows it's gonna die, where the women are not gonna get their pills for a while, all so he can blame the Republicans on something they had nothing to do with.  The Republicans had literally nothing to do with this.  This was added after Obamacare was signed into law.  The Republicans had no fingerprints on this whatsoever, and that's what Obama wants is Republican fingerprints all over this.  The New York Times editorial today helps spread these lies, helps spread this myth:  "How Hobby Lobby Ruling Could Limit Access to Birth Control." That is journalistic malpractice.  That is absolutely untrue.  It is not possible that it's true. 

The New York Times is trying to spread the lie that the Hobby Lobby ruling will restrict women's access to birth control.  And again, in reality the ruling will only stop family owned companies from being forced to provide these pills and IUDs and other things that work as abortion devices.  Hobby Lobby is going to continue to provide coverage for 16 other kinds of contraception to its employees.  However, the New York Times claims that this ruling will restrict morning-after pills and IUDs for women, and they say that morning-after pills can cost up to 45 bucks and that IUDs are over a thousand dollars, which of course is nonsense. 

Any woman working for a place like Hobby Lobby could always buy Plan B over the counter for far less. An IUD is not a grand, I can tell you that.  On top of all this, the New York Times claims the scientific consensus is that neither these abortion pills or IUDs cause abortions.  But that, too, is a lie.  The whole point here is that they do cause abortions, and that's what the Hobby Lobby people don't want to pay for.  You know, before Obamacare, every company had the right to choose what they covered with their insurance coverage and what they didn't cover.  It's been the practice since time immemorial. 

Before Obamacare, every corporation had the right to determine what it was gonna provide, and mostly it was based on economics, based on what they could afford.  Then as the competition for quality employees ratcheted up they had to make the benefits packages more attractive.  If they needed a lot of classy, high quality female employees and they learned they wanted this coverage, they had to provide it. But, anyway, it's important to note, before Obamacare, every company had the right to choose whatever they provided, and women survived.  I know this because I can look back to the past.  I know that there were not mass deaths of women prior to Obamacare.  Women were alive and thriving and dominating and doing what they always do. 

Women were not in pain, they were not suffering, they had rights to abortion.  Obamacare's only muddied this up and made it much worse, and Obamacare has created even more partisanship. It's pit more people against each other, when it did not exist to this degree before he took office.  He is the agent of the divided country.  He is the agent of the rampant partisanship.  Barack Obama brought it.  He is not a unifier.  He is a divider and has done so purposely.  And just one more thing.  I referenced at the top that even the Clintons have gotten in on this.  They're out there ripping this thing to shreds and in the process Hillary Clinton is ripping legislation her own husband signed into law.  


RUSH: Here is Carol of Vienna, Virginia, as we head to the phones today.  I really appreciate your patience in holding on.  Hello.

CALLER:  Hello there.  How are you?

RUSH:  I'm fine.  Thank you very much.

CALLER:  I'm so glad to be able to speak with you.  I wanted to tell you, first of all, that I love your first children's book.  I bought it for my grandson and I'm looking forward to the second one.


RUSH:  Rush Revere and the Brave Pilgrims was the first book, and the second book is Rush Revere and the First Patriots, and it's out now.  You don't have to wait for it.  It's out there now.

CALLER:  Oh, I know, I know. I just haven't had a chance to get it yet, but I will.

RUSH:  Oh.

CALLER:  And so, anyway, it is so nice to speak with you.  I thank you for everything you do.

RUSH:  Thank you.  I really appreciate that.

CALLER:  There are two things I wanted to say.  Yesterday I was following this Hobby Lobby case fairly closely.  And from a good source I heard two things which the left will never, ever know or say if they do know, and that is that Hobby Lobby pays twice the minimum wage to their employees which, you know, all things being equal, would be one of the things that supposedly the administration would absolutely love.

RUSH:  No, no, no, no.  It doesn't matter.  Doesn't count.  It's like the Koch brothers giving $25 million.  Doesn't count.  They don't appreciate it.

CALLER:  That's right.  You will never hear about this.  It was like when President Bush tried to defeat AIDS in Africa and sent all of the help, all of the financial help, and you never heard about that, either.  But the second thing was that Hobby Lobby has been giving employees birth control with their health care plans long before Obamacare.

RUSH:  Well, this is a point that I made.  I did it in two ways.  Long before there was Obamacare, employers were free to provide whatever kind of benefit they wanted.  It depended on how competitive the job market was.  What did they have to offer as a benefits package to get the best people.  As feminism took hold and women became more assertive and powerful, these kinds of birth control medications were demanded, and some companies provided 'em and some didn't.  Hobby Lobby provided 16 contraceptives as part of their health benefit package, 16. 

There are 20 approved FDA contraceptives and Hobby Lobby provides -- yes, current, present tense -- provides 16 of them.  The four that they didn't want to have to provide because of their religious beliefs were those contraceptives that killed a human embryo, i.e., caused an abortion.  That's what this is all about.  But the Hobby Lobby are on the right side of this.  They pay a minimum wage much higher than what the national average is, but none of it matters because they're religious people, which means they're probably conservative.  They're the enemy, Carol.  It's just that simple.



Rush 24/7 Audio/Video

Listen to the Latest Show Watch the Latest Show
Listen to the Latest Show Watch the Latest Show



Most Popular

EIB Features