Michigan's "Rape Insurance Law" is unethical

Thanks to rross for a wonderful debate. I will use this round to present a final line-by-line of the round and present some concluding thoughts. This will be my first opportunity to respond to several of Con's points, and I will attempt to make those necessary arguments brief. -- BOP & FRAMEWORK -- Con tries to shunt the sole BOP on to me, saying "I reject his round 2 suggestion. " Yet, Con's refusal is hardly reason enough to skew the debate so heavily against Pro. Con says that she must only refute my arguments--but why then is she required to construct a case of her own? The reason why each side is asked to present their own case (without rebutting) first, is because they should advance and defend their own theories about the resolution. This means that Con clearly had to present reasons why the act was ethical and to defend those reasons as part of her case. Thus, inasmuch as why both had cases and have to defend them against attack, we share the BOP. I have asserted this shared burden since the start of R2. We have also, essentially, agreed to the evaluative mechanism proposed by Con in the last round as it was DROPPED. As stated in R3: "A law is unethical when it (1) violates a higher law (e. g. the Constitution), (2) violates a higher moral principle, and/or (3) was passed in an illicit or inappropriate way. .. I would point out now, however, that should a law comport with 2 of these points, but not with 1, it would still be unethical. A law should meet all three of these points in order to be found ethical. " -- This Debate is About Funding -- Con devotes a large portion of her last speech discussing the fact that this debate is about funding. Regardless of who is most affected by the legislation, we can still point to several problems that make it an unethical proposition. Con says that the cost of abortion should be borne by the men and women responsible--but in the case of a rape, it is not always possible to identify the man involved. Con also has failed to address the idea that many couples simply cannot afford this type fo funding. -- "Rape Insurance" -- Con states that any insurance policy on abortion included as part of a comprehensive package would be the same thing as forcing victims to pay for their own abortions, making my stance contradictory. Yet, we can draw a distinction. It is one thing to force a woman to buy a specific, added rider for abortions and it is another to simply include abortion services under the normal premiums women would otherwise be paying. Therefore, I am not forcing women to pay any more than they normally would for generic insurance because under this new ACA scheme, abortion would be included in that generic package. Con, conversely, is forcing them to pay additional fees. Con then asserts that 97% of victims don't use insurance to cover abortions. Con failed to address the point I made last round that the ACA's abortion coverage, which is designed to increase coverage rates, is due to come on line later next year. In this way, Con's point moot. The ACA would have gotten more people covered, and the situation Con is describing would no onger exist as it does today. This act stops that change from happening. -- Victims' Compensation -- 1. Con has gone totally off-topic here. We are focused on the specific act outlined in the resolution and are debating its morality or immorality in the status quo. We are not debating hypothetical alternatives to the problem. In the status quo, by Con's own admission, no compensatino is given to victims of rape--Con's says their "expenses should be paid from this fund" which simultaneously asserts that this fund is not currently doing that in the status quo. Since rape victims can get no money from this fund now, they need some way to defray the costs of their abortion services. That requires insurance--and this act is impeding their access to it. 2. Con can give no timeline for when such a change might be effected. What if it takes 20 years for this und to cover abortions? That would be too late for hundreds of victims. Con is just throwing out an example with no idea of its ability to be implemented. 3. Con says, "this money comes from criminal fines paid in Michigan's courts and in federal courts. " Yet, Con's source does not contain the words "fine, "fund," etc. COn fails to warrant this statement, and as it is the last round an I will have no chance to examin and critique her sources on this, it would be a bit late to introduce such evidence. 4. The fund only gives out money if no insurance is available to the victim [1]. Moreover, depending on how the fund determines things, it could rule that an abortion is not an "injury" and therefore is not coverable under thier auspices. This demonstrates again that Con's counterplan is not only extra-topical, but it is also nebulous and not necessarily realistic. -- Polling -- Con essentially drops that a majority of people in Michigan support abortion. She never once contested my statistical analysis of the facts. A government is also a representative of the people--another fact Con glosses over. Insofar as the people's will is clear, and insofar as the government violated that will, the government has acted unethically. Had this act simply allowed people to abstain from the abortion element, it may have been fine. But, instead, it forces people to purchase into the plan. It is one thing to simply allow people to decline a polciy for no charge, it is another to force them to obtain it with money. In this way, people who don't want the coverage to avoid it, while allowing those needing it to have it. I said in R3: "To opt-out is 'to choose not to participate in something. ' An opt-in is the converse. .. this act is an opt-in, not an opt-out. .It forces people to buy into additional insurance, rather than simply allowing them to refuse to have a certain portion of the package. " Ultimately, taxpayers pay for many policies they don't like--many dislike foodstamps or medicare, but the government is still ethically able to force people to pay into those programs. Why then cannot the same be done for abortion, a Constitutional right? -- The Poor -- Again, Con is missing out on the effects of the ACA. Nationally, the ACA is targeted at insuring the poor. So when Con says the poor don't have health insurance, she is missing the point. The law in the status quo has been created as a stopgap measure to prevent the ACA from taking full effect in 2014. More poor will be covered by insurers, and so more will be impacted. -- Citizen's Iniative -- The executive veto is a key component of the system of checks and balances of any government. Bypassing that check is problemativ because it allows the legislature to call the shots unimpeded. And when that citizen's initative represents only 4% of the State, that initiative is not the voice of the citizens, it is the voice of a zealous minority seeking to impose its beliefs on the state. -- DROPS BY CON -- 1. No abortion riders currently exist. So, women will be required to buy insurance that doesn't exists--this is patently unfair and a violation of the law as set down by Planned Parenthood v. Casey. 2. You can't get insurance one you're pregnant. 3. This law is not part of a broader trend. 4. This law has a secondary purpose of hindering accesst to abortions CONCLUSION 1. A law is unethical when it violates a higher law, as this does with the DROPPED Planned Parenthood v. Casey example 2. A law is unethical when it violates a higher moral doctrine (like fairness), as it does by requiring women to buy something that doesn't exist and by disadvantaging the poor 3. A law is unethical when it was passed unethically, as it was by an unjust "citizen's" initiative. If ANY SINGLE ONE of these three points goes in my favor, as per the CONCEDED framework, you must vote Pro. SOURCE . http://www.michigan.gov... Thanks!