Michigan's "Rape Insurance Law" is unethical

ConclusionsThere has been a kind of craziness in the way the Abortion Insurance Opt-Out Act has been reported in the media. It's been called a "rape insurance law" and part of a war on women. In fact, it's a very modest change, that will affect very few people and it's fair. A substantial number of Americans are deeply opposed to abortion. They don't want their tax or their insurance dollars to go towards abortions. Also, they want to make sure that they are not inadvertantly enabling their dependants to get abortions. The Michigan Act has been put in place to protect these people from such occurrences. Pro has not argued with any of this. I assume he accepts it as true. The new structure of private healthcare in Michigan means that if people want abortions, they need to either pay for them directly (as 97% of women already do), or purchase a an additional rider on their basic health insurance. Neither Pro nor I know what these additional riders will cost, or how much the price of a basic health package will drop now it doesn't cover abortion. However, purchasing extra cover on insurance for particular services is nothing new. As I showed above, abortions typically cost between $400-$500, and so the cost of the extra rider is not likely to be astronomical. The Act does not affect Michigan's poorest families, who are covered by Medicaid. I will expand on this point below. The Act was passed by the state legislature, a democratically elected body that represents the people of Michigan. It was submitted by citizens' initiative, a process of direct democracy that has existed in Michigan for over 100 years. This is all legitimate. Pro argues that because most people in Michigan are pro-abortion, the Act is undemocratic. But the Act does not affect women's rights or access to abortion. It only affects who will fund it in a small proportion of cases. The Burden of ProofPro did not mention a shared burden of proof in Round 1. He did not mention that I would need to prove that the Act is ethical. Now he is arguing that a shared burden of proof is implied in the structure of the rounds, because in Round 2 I had to present my case without any rebuttals. I don't think that this structure implies a shared burden at all. In Round 1, Pro provided links for the Act and its context, and I assumed that in Round 2 I would put forward a case that the Act is not unethical. If Pro had other intentions for this debate, he should have articulated them in Round 1. Therefore, the burden is solely on Pro to prove that the Act is unethical, and he has not done so. Victims CompensationThe vast majority of abortions that are a result of rape (about 97%) are not covered by insurance and are not affected by the Act. Pro has failed to respond to this point, and presumably accepts it as true. No woman should have to pay for her own medical expenses as a result of rape, and that is why there is victims compensation. In the resolution, Pro referred to the Abortion Insurance Opt-Out Act as "Rape Insurance Law". He claimed that "women will be forced to shell out more money to prepare for the possibility that they will be raped. " But now he says that victims compensation is "off topic". Not at all. Victims compensation is responsible for making sure that women don't have to buy insurance in case of rape. As far as I know, it works effectively, but - to repeat my point - if it doesn't, then the outrage about rape victims should be focussed on victims compensation. Because it covers all women, and not just 3% of them.1-2. Rape victims do get money from victims compensation. I have no idea why Pro is claiming otherwise. The source I provided last round especially mentions sexual assault victims. 3. Pro argues that my source does not contain the word "fine". This is quite untrue. In the "who pays? " section it says, "The state also receives money to help crime victims from criminal fines collected in federal courts. " [my emphasis] [1] He's right that the source doesn't use the word "fund", but it does say "money to support this service".4. Pro suggests that victims compensation "could rule that an abortion is not an "injury" and therefore is not coverable". Of course abortion is not an injury. It's a medical procedure in response to an unwanted pregnancy. Further, an officially defined "injury" isn't needed to be eligible for victims compensation. Pro is just making stuff up. The ACAIn Round 3, Pro stated:"The ACA would have increased the number of ensured abortions [s.6], but is no impeded by the unpopular Michigan legislation. " [my emphasis]I took this to mean the ACA aimed to ensure a greater number of abortions but would not be impeded by the Michigan Act. I thought this comment was irrelevant and, if anything, favorable to my side. But now, in the final round, Pro starts proclaiming, "Con failed to address the point I made last round that the ACA's abortion coverage. .. is due to come on line later next year" and that "This act stops that change from happening. "I would like to point out that he never made that claim at all. And nor does his source, which says that,"The law allows states (through legislation) to prohibit abortion coverage in qualified health plans offered through an exchange. If insurance coverage for abortion is included in a plan in the exchange, a separate premium is required for this coverage paid for by the policyholder. " [my emphasis] [2]Pro has totally misrepresented this issue. Poor women are not affected by the ActPro dropped the point that poor women are covered by Medicaid and unaffected by the Act. As I showed in previous rounds, Medicaid applies to women under 133% of the poverty level. These women do not and will not get private insurance, subsidized or not, at the health exchanges under the ACA. Medicaid is administered separately, and is publicly funded [3]. From Pro's Round 1, the Act only applies to "a qualified health plan offered through an American health benefit exchange"[4]. It does not apply to anyone on Medicaid. Things I did not dropWith one exception, I did not drop the following points:1. No abortion rider currently exists. As I stated in the final paragraph of Round 2: it will not take affect until March next year. This gives insurance companies time to structure these riders. After all, that's the way legislation works. It's passed and then businesses and individuals make changes accordingly within a specified timeframe. Pro subsequently dropped this point.2. It's true that it won't be possible to get abortion coverage for existing pregnancies. I did drop that point because I agree, and also I don't see how it's relevant to whether the Act is unethical.3. The law is part of a broader trend. This was never rebutted by Pro. He argued that it's part of a regional trend rather than an America-wide trend. I don't see how this in any way negates the idea that the Michigan Act is part of a broader trend, so that statement still stands.4. The Act does not hinder access to abortions. Pro's argument was that poor women could not afford the extra abortion rider. As I have clearly shown, this argument is absurd because poor women are not and will not be on private health insurance. They are on Medicaid, and therefore not in any way affected by the Act. The Act does not limit access to abortion. SummaryThe Michigan Abortion Insurance Opt-Out Act was passed in a normal, democratic process. It fairly protects citizens from being forced to fund things they find unconsciable. It does not limit access to abortion. It does not affect poor people. There are plenty of injustices in the US to get angry about. But this really isn't one of them. [1] . http://www.michigan.gov...[2] . http://www.ncsl.org...[3] . http://www.aafp.org...[4] . http://michigansvoice.com...