Michigan's "Rape Insurance Law" is unethical

Burden of ProofPro initiated this debate with a positive claim and he has sole BoP. He needs to prove that the Abortion Insurance Opt-Out Act is unethical. I do not need to prove that it is ethical, but only refute Pro's argument.In round 2, Pro suggested that we share the burden of proof, but the conditions of the debate were set out in round 1, and I reject his round 2 suggestion.This debate is about fundingThis debate is about who funds abortion, not about abortion itself. So I'm astonished that Pro says "women are those most impacted by the law". If the law were about abortion, it would make sense. Women are the ones who get pregnant and whose bodies are operated on when an abortion is performed. But I don't understand why women are necessarily the most affected by a law about abortion funding. After all, excepting cases of rape, an unwanted pregnancy is the responsibility of a man and a woman. One might even suggest that given the disproportionate physical burden the situation places on women, the men involved might - on average - assume more of the financial burden. But at the very least - in fairness - the cost of abortion should be equally split between men and women, at the population level.That would be fair, but it's possible that it is not what occurs in Michigan. Perhaps the people there think like Pro, and assume that funding abortion is a woman's responsibility. Certainly that assumption runs through all the objections to this new law, and is the main reason why I think these objections are unfair and hypocritical, as I'll explain below."Rape Insurance"Pro says that it strikes him as "callous that the state would force women to, quite literally, buy "Rape Insurance.""I absolutely agree. Rape victims should not have to pay for their own abortions, given that abortion is legal. And yet, this is exactly what Pro is arguing for. He thinks that abortions that are a consequence of rape should be paid for from the victim's own health fund. Of course, in Pro's model, it wouldn't be called "rape insurance". It would just be a general health insurance that covered abortions from rape, but it's the same principle. A woman is responsible for maintaining a health insurance so that she's covered in case of rape.As I showed in the previous round, 97% of abortions in Michigan are not covered by private insurance. This includes abortions from rape. That means that in Michigan, the vast majority of abortions from rape are paid for by the victim herself. If just under 1% of abortions are from rape (as I showed last round), then there are about 200 such abortions in Michigan each year. Six or seven of these would be covered by private insurance and potentially affected by the Opt-Out Act. Roughly 193 rape victims are paying for their own abortions. This is more than 25 times as many as are affected by the Act. If Pro thinks it's callous that women are forced to buy insurance, what about all these victims who don't have insurance or choose not to use it? Surely, it's equally if not more callous that these women have to pay for their own abortions.Victims compensationThe Michigan Department of Community Health will pay medical and other expenses to crime victims up to $25,000 [1]. This money comes from criminal fines paid in Michigan's courts and in federal courts. Rape victim expenses should be paid from this fund. If Michigan's victims compensation program is failing to support rape victims appropriately, then the outrage should be directed here, because raped women should not have to pay for their own abortions. And the implication that Pro is making, that women should take out private health cover for this eventuality, is unfair and sad. Not everyone can afford private health cover, and in any case, it's unreasonable to define crime-related health costs as the victim's responsibility.Some people are strongly against abortionIn Michigan, there are a large number of people who believe that abortion is wrong and even that it is equivalent to murder. Often this belief is associated with religion.Last round, I presented some statistics to illustrate this point. Pro has argued about margin of error, region of sampling, etc., in an attempt to show that these people are in a minority. He feels that if he can prove that 51% of the population of Michigan are pro-abortion then he has somehow won.But actually my point was quite different, and I will try to illustrate it by analogy.Imagine there is a large factory where 40% of the employees won't eat pork for religious reasons, but 60% are happy to eat pork. The canteen policy could be to mix bacon in with everything, since it pleases most people (Pro's position), or it could serve bacon separately for those who ask for it (my position).The Opt-Out Act is like that. People who oppose abortion for religious reasons are upset at the idea that their health fund premiums are going towards abortions. It is reasonable and fair that they shouldn't have to fund something that goes against their consciences.Saying that they can just refuse the abortion part of a policy is like saying that orthodox Jews can just pick out bits of the bits bacon from the casserole. They can't, because the whole thing is contaminated according to the way they see it.Also, importantly, policy-holders are potentially enabling their dependants to get abortions, including children up to the age of 26. Pro dropped this point. The Act requires employers who purchase the extra rider to inform all affected employees. This avoids the possibility of policy holders unwittingly supporting their dependants' abortions."the poor" are not affected by the ActThe Act only affects people who have private health insurance. Therefore, Pro's argument that the Act inhibits insurance by pricing out "the poor" is ridiculous. Poor people don't buy private health insurance. Either they have no insurance, or they are covered by Medicaid, which applies to people who earn up to 133% of the poverty level. [2] citizens' initiativeThe Act was introduced as a citizens initiative. This is a form of direct democracy that exists in Michigan as well as 23 other states [3], whereby a bill can go before parliament if it gets enough signatures. Pro argues that this is a case of "the minority imposing its beliefs on the majority", and that it is "bypassing normal legal processes," but he is wrong on both counts.It's true that the 300,000 signatures on the petition represents a minority of Michigan's population. However, this petition only served to get the bill submitted to the legislature. Then, it was passed by both houses of the Michigan legislature, which are democratically elected and so the vote does represent the majority.Citizens' initiative is a normal legal process in Michigan. It has existed for over a hundred years and has been used successfully on numerous occasions. [4]summaryPeople who are opposed to abortion shouldn't be forced to fund it, and nor should they be forced to cover their dependants' abortions without their knowledge. The Opt-Out Act aims to avoid such injustices from occurring.Pro has argued that the Act will place an undue burden on poor women, but as I showed, it doesn't apply to poor women. Only 3% of abortions in Michigan are currently covered by private insurance. The vast majority of women are paying for abortions out of pocket.No woman should have to pay for an abortion (or for childbirth costs, for that matter) that are a direct result of being raped, whether or not she has private insurance. It is a matter for victims compensation.Pro has failed to show that this law is unethical.[1] http://www.michigan.gov...[2] http://www.legalconsumer.com...[3] http://www.iandrinstitute.org...[4] http://www.legislature.mi.gov...