Resolved: The HHS Mandate is unjust. (STRICTLY VALUE LD)

I thank lddebate234 for his clear outline of the resolutions and definitions. Rather than undergoing a cross I will proceed with my constructive. I must, however, quibble with the proposed definition of the HHS Mandate. As I understand it's "reality" is that some religious organizations may be able to gain exemptions. I think this is still under consideration (SOURCE: http://www.hrsa.gov... which explicitly notes some possible exemptions as "note **"). However I believe that the mandate even without the need for "exemptions" is "just", per se. To that end I would like to continue the debate under the rubric that the "Mandate" includes mandatory coverage of all of the listed FDA approved forms of birth control in all instances of the mandated coverage. Lddebate234 defined justice thusly: "…as equality of individuals relating to principles, doctrines, concepts, etc" I affirm this definition as written with a caveat as noted later on. I would also like to propose an additional definition which will be of importance to my position. Insurance is generally understood to function precisely because those involved in the program are pooling resources and spreading risk. As such it is not desirable for a generalized insurance scheme to work if some members of the pool opt out of shouldering certain of the risks. This is at the heart of the mandate under this rubric. Point #1 As the core of my negative advocacy I would like to provide the criterion of justice in terms of utilitarianism. Justice must be maximized for all, not simply a small group. The HHS Mandate is proposed for the American system and as such is being applied to a plural society with a great deal of heterogeneity in values. Absolute equality within this framework is impossible since many things that are available to some are of no value while others may take it as a negative and yet others require it. Equality of access to healthcare is among the "etc" I would list in lddebate234's ealier stated definition of "justice". Justice as applied to a pooled risk construct (insurance) then becomes a matter of sharing the burden. This means that any mandate applied to such a pooled construct will require a utilitarian approach to achieving justice. Further to the point justice is not disserved so long as those people who object to a given medical procedure are not, themselves, forced to partake of the procedure. It would be a clear violation of one's individual rights of conscience to force them to personally undergo a procedure they fundamentally disagree with. Justice is served in which all members of society are allowed their personal conscience and morality while not abrogating the right of healthcare for others. In its extreme let us hypothesize a group that feels a moral opprobrium is attached to blood transfusions. Should they "opt out" of coverage for blood transfusions in others who do not share this moral stricture, then it weakens the insurance scheme. At the end every sub-group would be allowed to chip away at the overall pooled risk causing the system to collapse rendering no one covered by affordable healthcare thus resulting in a much worse scenario. And the alternative is notthat the group with a moral objection to blood transfusions is forced to undergo blood transfusions, but rather that an unknown and unknowable portion of the money they put into the pool may (or may not) go to support a blood transfusion for someone who needs it and does not feel any moral problem with it. Point #2 As for lddebate234's second point of inequitable coverage for women and men if we work under the assumption that there is no "exemption" and that the FDA listed means of contraception are in effect. That appears to include "barrier methods" which would include condoms. (SOURCE: http://www.fda.gov...) As such this appears to render the second point moot.