Resolved: The Pennsylvania governor's mandatory ultrasound law is just.

The first thing that the judges will take note of is the forefeit by the part of my opponent in this debate, meaning that not only is the entirety of my previous rebuttal extended, but I am already winning the conduct vote considering that I have been punctual throughout the course of this debate. Since I feel that my previous rebuttal was a tad underexplanatory considering it was written at the very last minute, I'm going to go over my case again and my opponent's rebuttals with more clarity:Besides the conduct point, the argumentation point should go to the CON in this case because of the following:1. My opponent's case provides fewer reasons as to why this piece of legislation would be just in contrast to my case, where the things that he talks about are addressed in my sub-point 1a. 2. My opponent also really fails to address anything that I'm talking about in my contentions, as I explained in the previous rebuttal. 3. To add to the conduct vote, the fact that my rebuttal has been extended across the flow means that I'm already in toward winning the argumentation vote in contrast to my opponent. Spread of Opponent's Case: Going back to my first point, I explained to you that even if my opponent's entire case is 100% true and fine with no sort of rational argument against it, the only thing that it would disprove would be the sub-point 1a in my case considering that Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) is mostly talking about the accessibility of abortions based on what my opponent has only vaguely defined as "undue burdens." While my case does touch a bit on the other Supreme Court case, it is not solely focused on the rulings of Supreme Court and looks at the morality of the legislation as well as the actual right of the abortion rather than only the case, unlike my opponent's case.Undue burdens: My opponent describes many different situations that would be considered to be due burdens in the limitations of abortion, but he provides no definition nor threshold as to what would be considered an undue burden. The only assumption that we can draw is that an undue burden is anything that would severely restrict the accessibility to abortions, and even then, my sub-point 1a can speak on that behalf. It is not just th 24-hour waiting period and the tons of people that creates a hassle, but as I explained, only 8/67 of the counties in Pennsylvania have 90% of the abortions in the state, creating a great distance for women who live in poverty or rural regions and have less access to the abortion as a result, significantly hindered. At the point where even one woman's rights are hindered through undue burdens created through this legislation (whatever it is the my opponent defines it as), it can be considered unconstitutional.Sub-point 1b (My case): Again, there's no definition of undue burdens in this scenario, so there really is no way to evaluate anything my opponent has said against my case, for one thing. While the woman is still able to make the decision, that decision is being pushed to some proclivity, as I have argued in my case. Presenting information can violate the right of privacy when the intention of the information is to move a bias in a decision sanctioned to be private by their Constitutional rights. The doctor is acting as an involuntary agent of the government trying to move women toward a decision, meaning the government has some presence in the decision meant to be private between doctor and woman, violating the privacy of the decision. This fact is only further substantiated by the idea that women are also required a permission slip by the government in order to proceed. This is not Constitutional in any way, shape, or form according to the Roe v. Wade (1973). Contention 2 (My Case): Again, my opponent is making the insinuation that I believe that any of those things should have information provided by the government, meaning that he's making a strawman argument in this scenario. Just because a government is doing something now doesn't mean that they should continue doing it, like the provisions of certain information that can be readily available online with an equal degree of credibility, if not more, and a much stronger level of maintaining the privacy of the woman. Furthermore, I made the explanation as to how the provision of this mandate in order to provide information to the woman was dubious considering the idea as to why this information provided is in any way practical to the decision of the abortion. My opponent has yet to argue against that, so the judges may kindly extend this across the flow as well. Contention 3 (My Case): Either my opponent makes a strawman here or he completely failed to read anything in my contention. I explained in my evidence how an ultrasound can raise complications in pregnancies, which are done before the woman can make a decision on whether she wants to have an abortion or not. Ultrasounds, as the doctors from Virginia and Pennsylvania alike have argued, are only done in necessary circumstances when medically indicated, and at the point where the government places a woman at risk because they take the decision out of the hands of medically-trained doctors, this is immoral (and an undue burden, if I'm understanding correctly what that is). My opponent takes something completely out of context and believes it to be a smoking gun against the entirety of my case. I spoke about the possible risk of infection through the use of ultrasounds and the fact that ultrasounds can cause physical effects to the fetus. There is a risk to every single medical procedure, and just because there are many precautions taken in order to ensure safety does not mean that the risks are just completely eliminated. Moving on to the discomfort argument, my opponent downplays this completely. The colonoscopy analogy is completely flawed to make a comparison to this scenario for one main reason: the colonoscopy is voluntary. You have willfully agreed to take it. In contrast, in order to be able to attain the accessibility to an abortion declared to be a Constitutional right, you have to unwillfully subject the body you own to something you may or may not want to do. Through this case, I have not only proven to you, the judges, that this is violating one right, but also two considering that the government is trampling over the rights to your body through this mandate. No matter how my opponent downplays this completely and provides no reasons as to why this should be downplayed, at the end of the day, it is unjust and only substantiates to the idea that this legislation is unjust.