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

I had a family emergency, so please excuse the rushed rebuttal to my opponent's statement. Anything that has gone unaddressed will be expressed in the next rebuttal. The first thing that we're going to look at in my opponent's case is the fact that the entirety of his case is focused on the court ruling Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which focuses only on the accessability of the abortions to women--only a small aspect of the entirety of my own case. If, therefore, even if my opponent proves his case to be 100% correct beyond a shadow of a doubt, it still does not account for all the other things mentioned in my case, thus showing to you that the law is more unjust than just--overall unjust. We move on toward his case.Undue burden: He has no definition whatsoever about what this means except for some meager examples about how the accessability of abortion has been severely hindered. He provides no threshold as to what can be considered an undue burden, meaning that we can't really begin to evaluate his case, and then at the point where I seem to be understanding that he's saying that undue burdens is what severely restricts the access to an abortion, even then, my first sub-point can be cross-applied. It's not just about the 24-hour waiting period and the tons of paperwork. I explained how only 8 counties out of the 67 in the state have 90% of all abortion proceedings allowed, and considering the distance that would need to be traveled, especially in the context of young women, women who live in rural regions, and women in poverty, this law would only further and severely restrict the accessability of an abortion to some severe degree, which could constitue as an undue burden. I'll have to assume that this is true unless my opponent can provide an official definition from the ruling.Violation of Privacy: My opponent seems to be misunderstanding my argument if he's saying that this places an undue burden. It's not about undue burdens but about the violation of privacy on the part of the government if they are clearly trying to motivate the women in question toward a decision by requiring them to watch their unborns on an ultrasound. This is, of course, what many of the people I stated in that sub-point of the case have concluded, which stands unargued by my opponent, so extend it across the flow. At the point where a government is trying to sway a decision supposed to be kept between a doctor and patient for abortion, as my case explains, this is violating the privacy of the decision because we have an external force trying to influence a decision.Contention 2: Moving down the flow, my opponent seems to be under the assumption that I support stamps on cigarrette boxes. The nutrition facts for every food on the market seems to be a paucity on the Internet, so a nutrition facts label may be needed. My opponent seems to be saying that the government has done plenty of other things to inform the public when it can be provided on the Internet. He doesn't prove that this is the government's responsibility in order to do so when we clearly have the information needed ourselves in order to make the personal decisions of our daily lives. All he's saying is that the government does it all the time, so they might as well continue, which is a fallacy all of its own.Contention 3: Then, the real kicker comes in this argument, where my opponent completely misunderstands what I am saying as just an argument of comfort. This is totally wrong. While ultrasounds are pretty safe, I'll admit, it still places a woman in a risk and takes the decision for ultrasounds out of the hands of doctors. Doctors determine to use ultrasound only when it is viable for them use it as such, but government wants to make it so that it is used every single time. As the doctors themselves clearly have argued agaisnt government, this places women in a dangerous situation as I explained in my case, which my opponent makes no real response to.