Michigan's "Rape Insurance Law" is unethical

Thanks again to rross for what promises to be a great discussion. At this time, I will address Con's core case. REBUTTAL -- When a law is unethical -- I think we can condence Con's analysis into three succinct points. A law is unethical when it (1) violates a higher law (e. g. the Constitution), (2) violates a higher moral principle, and/or (3) was passed in an illicit or inappropriate way. These points are not incompatible with my own framework analysis, i. e. that a law is ethical if it is "resonable and fair. " Each one of these three points is used to determine reasonability and fairness. Hence, these criteria are good standards by which to measure a laws justness. I would point out now, however, that should a law comport with 2 of these points, but not with 1, it would still be unethical. A law should meet all three of these points in order to be found ethical. -- Americans are strongly divided about abortion -- Firstly, I think it is important to restate that this debate is not about abortion per se. The Supreme Court has already mades its ruling on abortion [1] and has extended women a right to privacy [2]. Moreover, as Con noted, the act doesn't remove a woman's de jure right to abortion. Thus, the question of whether or not aboriton should be legal has already be settled. This debate, then, is not about the permissibility of abortion, but rather whether this law is unethical considering that abortion is already legal. Secondly it is important to remember that this debate is specific to Michigan, not the U. S. as a whole. Both of Con's sources are national studies, and do not contain regionally-specific data. Thus, they can give only very vague insights into Michigan's state of affairs. Moreover, if only 20% of all Americans think abortion should always be illegal, than 80% think that it should be permissible in some or all cases. This is a overwhelming majority of people. Despite a vociferous opposition, then, it seems as if this issue is less divisive than Con would have it appear. Con then asserts that many Americans object to takes being spent on abortions and that 51% think that private insurance shouldn't cover abortions. Yet, this study was from 2009 and the 51% statistic falls within its margin of error. There is a far more reliable, recent, definitive, and Michigan-specific study we can turn to for clarity [3]. It found that 47% of Michigan citizens oppose the law while 41% support it. The margin of error was 4%. This clearly indicates that more Michigan residents oppose the act than support it. Furthermore, an even larger percent of women oppose the law (49%). Since women are those most impacted by the law, their opinions should be carefully evaluated. -- The Purpose of the Act -- I think it is important here to draw a distinction between an opt-out and an opt-in. To opt-out is "to choose not to participate in something. " [4] An opt-in is the converse, where one choose to participate in something. This act is an opt-in, not an opt-out (despite the name). It forces people to buy into additional insurance, rather than simply allowing them to refuse to have a certain portion of the package. However, I think that this law also has a secondary purpose. It is likely also an attempt to inhibit people's ability to get abortions by pricing them out of the system. This--for teens and the poor--is incredibly unfair. -- Similar Legislation -- I fail to see the importance of laws elsewhere when we are considering an internal Michigan affair. Moreover, there are examples of States that enshrine abortion rights in law. Maryland, for instance, has passed legislation like several other states to protect abortion rights in the unlikely event that Roe v. Wade was overturned. [5] Con then claims that 17 states constitute a "wider legal trend in America. " Yet, all 17 of these states--with the exception of Wisconsin--are in the South or the central plains region of the U. S. Therefore, this seems like a regional phenomenon more so than a national trend. -- Rape -- Regardless of how many times rape occurs, it still represents an important impacted group of people. Many women--especially teens or the poor--may not have 60 dollars to spend on the pill or may be concerned about potential health effects (bleeding, allergies, etc. ) of the medication. Moreover, rape victims have endured a highly traumatic experience and, as a result, may not have the presence of mind to take the morning after pill. It seems ridiculous to say to women in general, though, that if you're raped or have an unplanned pregnancy that you have one chance--the morning after pill--and then you just have to deal with it. -- What the act doesn't do -- I will quarrel with Con's point that this act doesn't restrict "access to abortions. " For the poor and for teens, this act has a real deterrent impact on them. It prices them out of an abortion, and thus severly hampers their access to safe abortion services. The ACA would have increased the number of ensured abortions [6], but is no impeded by the unpopular Michigan legislation. It seems callous to force people to anticipate unexpected events like rape, incest, and unplanned pregnancies, and to force people to pay more money in anticipation of these events. Thanks to Con! SOURCES: 1 - . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2 - . http://law2.umkc.edu... 3 - . http://www.detroitnews.com... 4 - . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 5 - . http://www.mdrtl.org... 6 - . http://www.ncsl.org... Thank you!