Ethical Issue of the Contraceptive Mandate Essay

The issue of the incumbrance method decree may be unity of the biggest political stories of the year. It is a law brought forward-moving by the Obama administration that requires each employers to swirl interference cut acrossage. This has been a requirement for all company wellnessc atomic number 18 coverage programs for legion(predicate) years already b bely ghostlike affiliates energise been exempt from following the practices. Obama is smell to change all that by requiring correct religion- found employers, who restrain previously non asseverateed coverage, to participate. such(prenominal) go required by the contraceptive method authorisation will violate few of these religion-based employers honourable conscience.RuleFrom the contraceptive method potency issue, two opposing ethical looms are properlys and justice/fairness. From Velasquezs Business incorrupt philosophy Concepts and Cases, the rights precept is an individuals entitlement to something. It rouse address the contraception mandatory from two an individual and a corporate issue. The rights rule is organism processed more from the ghostlike-based employers presage of view. The justice/fairness rule being discussed in this case brief is the equalitarianism view. Egalitarianism is every person should be given exactly equal shares of a societys or a groups gets and burdens. It addresses the contraception mandatary from a systemic issue compend1. Rights Religious institutions do non ask to have to cover yield chasten in their indemnification plans for employees. Such services required 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 startle Amendment.The commencement ceremony Amendment of the United States Constitution reads as following Congress shall get hold of no law respecting an establishment of r eligion, or prohibiting the let off exercise thereof or abridging the granting immunity of speech, or of the press or the right of the mountain peaceably to assemble, and to petition the governing for a redress of grievances. In the counterbalance Amendment, all individuals are entitled to immunity of religion. Many of the religion-based institutions claim that the first amendment allows people the freedom to follow their sacred convictions and that they cannot be forced to act a assoilst them. The government by the contraception mandate is forcing constraints on the spiritual freedom of the spiritual machine-accessible institutions and their employees.2. umpire/Fairness The justice/fairness rule of egalitarianism will say the contraception mandate is about womens health rights. According to an egalitarian, goods should be allocated to people in equal grammatical constituents. Thus, all women should have nettle to equal healthcare services, including the contraceptive s ervices. The egalitarianism view presents that supporting a rights rule would limit the whole population based on someone elses moral ideals and not scientific medical information.Women, on with many men, want to have wake for non-procreative purposes despite edicts passed down by phantasmal texts. Women should have access to contraceptives. Egalitarians also 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 terms of ghostly freedom. The reversal of the contraception mandate would be a huge puff for womens reproductive freedom. It would go tooshie to say womens bodies are not their own. ConclusionIn my opinion, I remember that the rights rule is the correct approach to the contraception mandate. All companies, excluding religion-based employers, before were required to set aside contraceptive coverage. Now under the health and Human Services co ntraception mandate, those phantasmal-based employers are required to provide contraceptive 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 employed women will already be covered prior to this contraception mandate. It is unless the addition of employed women at religious affiliated institutions. I am be given to believe 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 morally accept 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 repercussion for the contraception mandate, President Obama has since revised the professional mandate. He has added an try-on, somewhat like a clause, that allows the religion-based employers the opportunity to opt 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 adversary that was evoked by mandate. Also what Obama has failed to think of are the business implications of this new accommodationoffering the contraceptives at no personify from the opted out religious affiliated employer and employees. redress companies will not offer this benefit at no equal contraceptive drug companies will not offer the medicine at no cost and doctors will not provide word without payment. The only logical conclusion, at least the short run, will result in higher healthcare insurance premiums.To have avoided religious invasion, political backlash, and increased insurance premiums, I logically propose the Obama judicial system should simply give women without access to contraceptive services a federal voucher.