The Ethical Debate of Free Contraception and Birth Control Essay

The Ethical Debate of Free Contraception and Birth Control Essay

If you watch or read the reports today, you will find that there are many moral and politics issues that plague the United States. Several of these issues entail politicians discussing over what is right or wrong intended for the country. One particular issue that particularly found my interest was the big debate above President Obama’s Health Care Reform Law needing insurance plans to supply women with free contraception and contraceptive. The honest issue which it presents is that many religious institutions and employers think that it infringes on their constitutional rights of spiritual freedom, and they are opposing this law due to their religious sights regarding birth control. The honest problem that it can make is forcing religiously connected employers, just like Catholic hostipal wards and colleges, to provide their very own female employees with insurance that provides cost-free contraception, which is against their very own religious philosophy. The honest debate above free contraceptive and contraception for women has now become a political debate over religious liberties versus women’s health. Simply by examining this kind of law while using various honest theories, it could be proven that the law can be beneficial to everyone concerned, and should always be supported to improve the overall point out of medical for all ladies. This specific law in question is in reality a mandate in President Obama’s Health Care Reform under the Sufferer Protection and Affordable Treatment Act. Under this mandate, women will probably be provided with usage of free contraception and birth control through their particular insurance, given by their business employers. Those who are at odds of this legislation are people that religiously disagree with contraceptive and contraception, and believe it is a infringement of religious flexibility, and their faith based beliefs. In our text, the first change is stated as this, “Congress shall make zero law improving an business of religion or perhaps prohibiting the free workout thereof” (Mosser, 2010, 2 . 3). The ones that oppose this kind of law states that it is in violation of their constitutional privileges because the require requires all employers, including religiously-affiliated companies, to provide their very own female employees with insurance that offers free contraception. In an article eligible “Obama or the House of worship, ” the debate is put in more simple terms. “The requirement runs counter for the teachings with the Catholic Cathedral. While church buildings themselves are exempt, a huge swath of Catholic institutional your life, from Catholic hospitals to Catholic colleges, has just recently been told by the government to practice what it does certainly not preach” (Lowry, 2012). Catholic leaders, particularly, have contended that this sort of a require will in the end force them to provide free of charge contraception, which is against their religious techniques. Another content that demonstrated the resistance from Catholic bishops, “The bishops believe the require would force religious corporations to pay for insurance plan of contraceptives, including several that can trigger abortions, and sterilizations” (Roewe & Ryan, 2012). However , these sights should not be the only views taken into consideration when evaluating this issue ethically. This issue influences two functions in particular; the employers as well as the employees. Right now, let us discuss the views of people who support this law. The other side of this debate impacts the female employees of this sort of religiously-affiliated organizations, or girls in general. With this mandate, women will be provided with contraception and birth control, free of charge from their employer’s insurance providers. Many supporters for this mandate argue that it really is less about religious freedoms and more about women’s wellness. An article inside the National Catholic Reporter says the following, “The mandate for women’s well being services — contraception is merely one element of it — was suggested by the Company of Medicine. Supplying women, especially poor girls, greater use of health companies makes women and their families healthier. If the directly to conscience may be worth battling pertaining to, so too is usually health care for females. ” (Coday, 2012). Followers also make the argument there is no infringement on spiritual liberties because no one is being forced to employ contraception against their will. The corrected mandate will never require religiously affiliated corporations to take part in the change, and in this sort of, their feminine employees will probably be provided with contraception and contraceptive through co-payments through their particular insurance, if perhaps they needed such companies. One article in favor of the mandate explained, “And for the issue of contraception on its own, studies show that a unbelievable 98 percent of Catholic women not simply believe in birth control but have ever done it. How is it possible to describe this problem as a infringement of individual onscience, when no one will use contraception against their very own will, and a lot Catholics have already consulted their conscience, are fine while using pill, and want it protected? ” (Sullivan, 2012). Followers for the mandate likewise feel that in many ways, it will lessen health care costs because it provides preventive solutions for unexpected pregnancies that may result in too expensive prenatal costs, abortion and social providers for usage. So , given that we have mentioned both quarrels, let us look at the integrity involved in both view points. On one hand we have the issue of faith based freedom, and the furthermore, we have the void of women’s wellness. It is my opinion that both the moral theories of deontology and utilitarianism will help solve this problem, and show how this legislation can be beneficial to all parties involved. The theory of deontology examines the morality of the issue by weighing the reason why for the situation at hand. Also this is a theory that is applicable the Golden Rule, which is to do on to others, because you would have these people do on to you. Religiously affiliated establishments oppose the mandate totally free contraception due to their belief it infringes on the freedom of faith. Looking at this from the deontologist perspective, it could be unethical to adopt away a person’s independence of religion. In the text, it states, “The deontologist states that we have a duty, or a duty, to treat others with esteem; human beings include dignity, and we must have that pride into consideration the moment dealing with them. (We as well expect other folks to value our pride when they deal with us. )” (Mosser, 2010, 1 . 7). In this case, the imposing of basic liberties such as faith based freedom is definitely treating persons without admiration and dignity, thus it can be wrong. The federal government should deal with all people and the beliefs with respect, and thus, should not impose on the constitutional right of spiritual freedom; nevertheless , the question of whether or not the government is really infringing on the religious liberties of these faith based institutions is what needs to be examined a little further. Some proponents of the free of charge contraception requirement feel that the right to religious freedom is certainly not taken away with this medical law. All their argument is that no one is being forced to hand out contraception and birth control against their can, and no the first is under restriction to practice their very own religious philosophy; therefore , faith based freedoms are generally not being affected. This emotion is explained by an advocate for the mandate in an on the web article that states, “There is nothing at all in the Affordable Care Action that requires Catholics to use contraception. There is practically nothing in the regulation that prohibits Catholics-lay or perhaps clergy-from preaching against contraception. The lodging that President Obama declared moves the mandate through the Catholic establishment to the insurance providers. So , it is hard to see just how this is a prohibition of the free work out of religion. ” (Dixon, 2012). This article also states that there is a clash in civil liberties between the rights of religious freedom as well as the rights of equal treatment for women. “if the Obama administration had not made the mandate applicable for all employers, it might have broken the 14th Amendment, the equal security rights of girls. This variation says simply: “nor shall any Condition deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due means of law; nor deny to any person inside its legislation the equivalent protection from the laws. ” In this debate we have a clash of rights. ” (Dixon, 2012). Supporters also argue that this kind of mandate will help women by giving preventative solutions at affordable costs, or no cost in any way. So beneath the theory of deontology, will probably be unethical to deny females the freedom of preference in this subject and have their choices restricted to their employers. The different views of the mandate infringing on spiritual freedom may be examined while using theory of ethical egoism. Ethical egoism is when ever parties dispute their morals based on how it might increase their own happiness. Inside the text, their states, “Egoism – specifically ethical egoism – argues that our meaning evaluations must be made in terms of our wishes and desired goals. Something that promotes what I desire is regarded as proper; something that decreases what I want, or helps prevent me by reaching my personal goals, is certainly wrong. ” (Mosser, 2010, 1 . ). Perhaps the debate against the require for free contraceptive comes from a lot of religious organisations hoping to enforce their sights and philosophy against contraception onto their female employees. Perhaps the disagreement for the mandate originates from those who wish to impose the importance of similar rights relating to women’s wellness. Ethical egoism can show the viewpoints of both parties since selfish, proclaiming that each party have their individual agenda in mind while discussing this issue. The question is, how can one select which argument is best? Thus, ethical egoism does only show what potentially inspires the basis with the arguments available. The best theory to examine the arguments for and resistant to the mandate for free contraception is definitely utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the theory that looks at the issue based on how it benefits the greatest number of individuals. Utilitarianism examines the outcome of the situation rather than the morality of the issue. The written text states it best that, “the fundamental principle of utilitarianism: you should choose to do what produces a better outcome for the largest number of people. ” (Mosser, 2010, 1 ) 7). The text also declares that, “According to utilitarianism, one should often act in a manner that produces the best good for the highest number of people relative to any other approach one may well act, or act in a manner that maximizes the utility of affected by an act, in accordance with any alternative to that act. ” (Mosser, 2010, 1 . 7). Since, one could argue that this kind of mandate would not infringe upon religious liberties, and can prove that it is good to the legal rights of women’s health; in that case this requirement can be proved to be beneficial in line with the theory of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is also the idea that I support the most relating to this issue. I believe that this requirement will be good for many women since it will provide these a choice to work with contraception as preventative services for unplanned pregnancies. Ladies will be able to employ their own ethical conscience think about whether they ought to use cost-free contraception or perhaps not. I actually do not feel that this mandate imposes about any spiritual freedoms, since churches or perhaps other carefully affiliated corporations will not be accountable for providing contraceptive; the insurance corporations will provide contraceptive should the staff feel the need to use these companies. I as well feel that it can be unconstitutional pertaining to employers to hold their morals over their particular employees, and restrict these people from the privileges that additional employees might have. It is additionally my opinion that this requirement can eventually reduce the quantity of unplanned pregnancy that cause abortions, which is often viewed as good for religiously connected institutions. Basically, I feel that utilitarian’s will concur that the mandate for free contraceptive and contraception for women may be beneficial to all parties involved. It helps the greatest number of individuals involved, it will improve the general state of health care for a lot of women.

Related Essays