# Reach of Sibelius v. Hobby Lobby?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [March 21, 2014, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201 "2014-03-21T01:54:51Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 5\
**Page:** 41

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rsa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/839c29/32.png) [@rsa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsa)\
**Post date:** [July 8, 2014, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/801 "2014-07-08T02:30:04Z")

</div>

> [@Bricker](#):
>
> But even in those states, previously established levels of Medicaid funding continue, yes?

Other than any state-by-state non-ACA changes I would guess so. So what? I believe the original point by **Hamlet** was that _ **new** _ legislation to expand federal funding of contraception is virtually impossible in the current environment. What is the solution for those in the Medicaid “coverage gap”.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rsa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/839c29/32.png) [@rsa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsa)\
**Post date:** [July 8, 2014, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/802 "2014-07-08T02:32:10Z")

</div>

> [@Nars\_Glinley](#):
>
> I understand that anecdote \<\> data but my governor did not expand Medicaid and my daughter, who is currently unemployed, gets her BC through it for free.

The Medicaid expansion was not for what type of medical care was covered, but rather how many people are covered by expanding the eligible population.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\
**Post date:** [July 8, 2014, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/803 "2014-07-08T02:37:10Z")

</div>

> [@rsa](#):
>
> Other than any state-by-state non-ACA changes I would guess so. So what? I believe the original point by **Hamlet** was that _ **new** _ legislation to expand federal funding of contraception is virtually impossible in the current environment. What is the solution for those in the Medicaid “coverage gap”.

The solution is they pay for their own contraception.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\
**Post date:** [July 8, 2014, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/804 "2014-07-08T02:44:57Z")

</div>

> [@Bricker](#):
>
> The solution is they pay for their own contraception.

What a new and refreshing concept.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Nars\_Glinley](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nars_glinley/32/8177_2.png) [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)\
**Post date:** [July 8, 2014, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201/805 "2014-07-08T02:59:27Z")

</div>

> [@Bricker](#):
>
> The solution is they pay for their own contraception.

Why do you hate women?

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reach-of-sibelius-v-hobby-lobby/684201.md?page=40)