Businesses Providing Birth Control Products

Rebuttal 1: 'Employees have earned their health care benefits' As long as employees have performed the tasks their job requires, then they earn their wages and health care benefits. But the employers, who set the required tasks, also get to set the rewards as they please. If potential workers don't like what's being offered, then they don't have to take the job. Rebuttal 2: 'Employers do not have the right to restrict how employees spend their salary' My opponent second point is that employers can't tell their employees how to spend their money. This is definitely true, however I don't believe this should sway anybody's opinion in favor of Pro. And it is for this reason: employers can still decide what to give their employees. They can't tell their employees what to do with what they give them, but they can control what they give them. What is given lies in the responsibility of the employers, what is done with what is given, is the responsibility of employees. The next thing I'd like to refute is a single sentence out of this argument, whose refutation I think needs a little space. "Employers cannot take away part of the employee's indirect compensation that they are legally entitled to." The part of this that needs discussion is the mention of legal entitlement. I don't think this is something that needs to be considered when deciding whether or not the situation at hand is right, because if it is wrong, and if enough people bring the argument to others and convince them, the law can be changed. In this debate, it doesn't matter what the law is, because this is over whether or not the law is right. Next my opponent makes several examples to illustrate his point, and after finishing them says, "This kind of logic does not make sense." I assume my opponent is referring to how his examples cannot be acceptable and yet the one at hand should be. If that was what my position was, then yes, it wouldn't make sense. However, I don't think his examples are showing employers acting in the wrong, or potential tax payers acting in the wrong. I see people acting according to their beliefs. Certainly, a Jehovah's witness employer can restrict access to a service he believes is immoral. And no, a pacifist should not have to help fund violence. I have more to say on this but I will save it for my closing round. Rebuttal 3, 'price of non-compliance' I return to my idea of this debate about this being about whether or not the law should be around, or whether or not it is right. To say my opponent says the democratic process should be used to change the law. Yes, I agree. I do not believe this argument changes anything within the debate. Rebuttal 4, 'Religious freedom of employees' Next my opponent gives an example of an employee whose religion mandates they get an abortion in a certain scenario. I do not believe this situation puts the argument in my opponent's favor however. The nice thing about America is that through our freedoms allowed to us, there is a host of options out there for people. Not every employer is religious, or allows their religious preferences to influence insurances services. People can review the options for insurance and choose what's best for them.