Michigan's "Rape Insurance Law" is unethical

As per the rules I shall be presenting my case preceded by some framework analysis and definitions, as well as a brief synopsis of the law itself. FRAMEWORKUnethical - not conforming to a high moral standard; morally unacceptable [1]Moral - conforming to a standard of right behavior [2]The best way to evaluate this round is through an analysis of justice, using this as our standard of right behavior. Justice is defined as "fairness or reasonableness, especially in the way people are treated or decisions are made" according to Encarta. Prefer this weighing mechanism for two reasons:1. A government that does not act, on balance, justly, is not legitimate. Tyranny is, by it's nature, unfairness and unreasonableness in government decision-making.2. Fairness (and trust) is a integral component of public and governmental ethics. [3]It is also important to note that this is NOT a topic about abortion. The resolution is posing a question about insuring abortions, not about the practice of abortion itself. Therefore, this debate should be focused only on the law and its immediate effects, nothing else. BOP is shared too--Con should show the law to be ethical as I endeavor to illustrate the opposite. OVERVIEWJust to give voters a brief insight into the law, the law "will ban all insurance plans in the state from covering abortion unless the woman's life is in danger. The law. .. will force women and employers to purchase a separate abortion rider if they would like the procedure covered, even in cases of rape and incest. " [4]A full text of the law can be found at the link I provided in R1. PRO's CASEContention One: Subversion of normal democratic processesIn Michigan, "citizen's initiatives," or laws introduced by petition, cannot be vetoed by the Governor. While this sounds nice in the abstract--giving voters a voice--only 4% of the state's voting populace signed the petition. Polling shows that more voters oppose the measure than support it [5]. Moreover, the petition was often misrepresented as an attack on Obamacare, when it is, in fact, applicable to all insurers, not just insurance arising from the ACA's exchanges. [5]In this way, a small group of anti-abortion activists used misinformation to get a small fragment of the population to pass a bill more voters don't like, bypassing normal legal processes like the veto do so. This strikes me as incredibly undemocratic, and more so the minority imposing its beliefs on the majority. Contention Two: Nonexistent insuranceInsurers don't have "abortion insurance" riders that can be bought separately in the manner prescribed by Michigan law. [6] Moreover, if you refer to Section 5 of the law itself, the law doesn't require insurers to offer such riders. Therefore, this law is putting women in an impossible situation:1. If you want to get coverage for your abortion, you must buy the rider2. No riders exist3. Therefore, you cannot get coverage for your abortionThe Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot impose undue impediments on obtaining an abortion--for example, they cannot make it legal, but then proceed to make it impossible to attain. It must be legal and accessible both from a de jure and de facto standpoint. It seems that this law violates that doctrine. (See: Planned Parenthood v. Casey [7])Furthermore, it is highly unfair and unreasonable to require women to get something that does not exist to cover an important medical procedure. It flies in the face of justice. Contention Three: No rape and incest exceptionsWomen do not always expect to simply become pregnant, and so this is not something that can be planned for. This is even more so the case in instances of rape or incest. Once you're pregnant, you cannot get the insurance [8] [6] and so this creates serious problems for many women. To buy into a separate rider could cost more than simply purchasing an all-inclusive plan. Women will be forced to shell out more money to prepare for the possibility that they will be raped. This strikes me as callous that the state would force women to, quite literally, buy "Rape Insurance. "CONCLUSIONUltimately, fairness is about giving each their due, impartiality, and reasonability. It is not impartial to favor the interests of a very small minority over the will of the many. It is not reasonable to coerce women into buying something that does not even exist. It is not giving women their due when they are forced to pay extra money for "rape insurance. "Creating an "opt-out" might be fine for those so strongly opposed to abortions, but this is not an opt-out, it's a "buy-in;" the nature of which makes it hard on women to go about their lives with security and peace of mind. That is wrong. This law is inherently unjust, and, as a consequence, totally unethical. The resolution is affirmed. SOURCES1 - . http://www.merriam-webster.com...2 - . http://www.merriam-webster.com...3 - . http://www.youtube.com... See Video (3:23)4 - . http://www.huffingtonpost.com...5 - . http://www.msnbc.com...6 - . http://www.bing.com... (3:12)7 - . http://www.pbs.org...8 - . http://www.rawstory.com...Thank you!