Ethical Issue of the Contraceptive Mandate Essay Example for Free

Ethical Issue of the Contraceptive Mandate EssayThe issue of the contraception legislation may be one of the biggest political stories of the year. It is a law brought forward by the Obama administration that requires exclusively employers to offer contraceptive coverage. This has been a requirement for all company health care coverage programs for galore(postnominal) days already but religious affiliates have been exempt from following the rules. Obama is looking to change all that by requiring even religion-based employers, who have previously not offered coverage, to participate. much(prenominal) assists call for by the contraception enactment testament violate some of these religion-based employers moral conscience. RuleFrom the contraception enactment issue, two opposing honourable rules are rights and justice/fairness. From Velasquezs Business Ethics Concepts and Cases, the rights rule is an individuals entitlement to something. It can engineer the contraception mandate from both an individual and a corporate issue. The rights rule is being processed to a greater extent from the religious-based employers point of view. The justice/fairness rule being discussed in this case brief is the egalitarianism view. fittingitarianism is each person should be given exactly equal get bys of a societys or a groups benefits and burdens. It addresses the contraception mandate from a systemic issueAnalysis1. Rights apparitional institutions do not want to have to cover birth control in their insurance plans for employees. Such services essential by the contraception mandate will violate these religion-based institutions moral conscience. Thus, the contraception mandate can be viewed as an obstruction of the constitutional rights presented in the First Amendment.The First Amendment of the United States character reads as following Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free send awayment thereof or a bridging the freedom of speech, or of the press or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to supplicant the Government for a redress of grievances. In the First Amendment, all individuals are entitled to freedom of religion. many an(prenominal) of the religion-based institutions claim that the first amendment allows people the freedom to follow their religious convictions and that they cannot be forced to act against them. The political science through the contraception mandate is forcing constraints on the religious freedom of the religious affiliated institutions and their employees.2. Justice/ candour The justice/fairness rule of egalitarianism will say the contraception mandate is ab place womens health rights. According to an egalitarian, goods should be allocated to people in equal portions. Thus, all women should have access to equal healthcare services, including the contraceptive services. The egalitarianism view argues that supporting a rights rule would limi t the whole state based on someone elses moral ideals and not scientific medical information.Women, along with many men, want to have sex for non-procreative purposes despite edicts passed down by religious texts. Women should have access to contraceptives. Egalitarians excessively argue everyone is entitled to practice their own religion and refrain from taking birth control, but every employer is prevented from discriminating against their employees on the basis of religious freedom. The reversal of the contraception mandate would be a commodious setback for womens reproductive freedom. It would go back to say womens bodies are not their own. mop upIn my opinion, I believe that the rights rule is the correct approach to the contraception mandate. All companies, excluding religion-based employers, before were required to permit contraceptive coverage. Now under the Health and Human Services contraception mandate, those religious-based employers are required to provide contrace ptive coverage. The First Amendment promises the entitlement to religious freedom and the practicing religious convictions. I believe forcing this healthcare service onto religious affiliated institutions is obstructing their right to practice religious convictions, hence their moral convictions.The larger portion of occupied women will already be covered prior to this contraception mandate. It is only the addition of employed women at religious affiliated institutions. I am inclined to think the female employees of religious affiliated institutions would share the same religious and moral views of that religious affiliated institution. If a religious affiliated institution believes it is virtuously accepting for the use of contraceptives, good for them. But for a religious affiliated institution that believes it is against their religious convictions to provide employees with contraceptives, the government should not have any authority to force such a mandate.Following political b acklash for the contraception mandate, President Obama has since revised the original mandate. He has added an accommodation, somewhat like a clause, that allows the religion-based employers the prospect to select out and not have to directly cover birth control in their healthcare insurance plans. The insurance company hired to cover the religious affiliated institutions employees cannot opt out. The insurers themselves would be required to make contraceptives available free of charge to women anyway.This is a clear political move to gain more favoritism in hopes of a reelection. I see this move by Obama as an attempted reversal of the mandate after viewing the religious opposition that was evoked by mandate. in any case what Obama has failed to think of are the business implications of this new accommodationoffering the contraceptives at no greet from the opted out religious affiliated employer and employees. Insurance companies will not offer this benefit at no cost contracep tive drug companies will not offer the medicine at no cost and doctors will not provide treatment without payment. The only logical conclusion, at least the short run, will way out in higher healthcare insurance premiums.To have avoided religious invasion, political backlash, and increased insurance premiums, I logically propose the Obama Administration should simply give women without access to contraceptive services a national voucher.