Ethical Issue of the Contraceptive Mandate Essay

The issue of the contraception mandate may be one of the biggest political stories of the year. It is a law brought forward by the Obama administration that requires all employers to offer contraceptive coverage. This has been a requirement for all company healthcare coverage programs for many years 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. Such services required by the contraception mandate will violate some of these religion-based employers’ moral conscience. Rule: From the contraception mandate issue, two opposing ethical rules are rights and justice/fairness. From Velasquez’s Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases, the rights rule is â€Å"an individual’s entitlement to something.† It can address the contraception mandate from both an individual and a corporate issue. The rights rule is being processed more from the religious-based employers point of view. The justice/fairness rule being discussed in this case brief is the egalitarianism view. Egalitarianism is â€Å"every person should be given exactly equal shares of a society’s or a group’s benefits and burdens.† It addresses the contraception mandate from a systemic issue Analysis: 1. Rights: Religious institutions do not want to have to cover birth control in their insurance 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 First Amendment. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution reads as following: â€Å"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.† In the First Amendment, all individuals are entitled to freedom of religion. Many 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 government through the contraception mandate is forcing constraints on the religious freedom of the religious affiliated institutions and their employees. 2. Justice/Fairness: The justice/fairness rule of egalitarianism will say the contraception mandate is about women’s 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 limit the whole population based on someone else’s moral ideals and not scientific medical information. Women, along with many men, want to have sex for non-procreative purposes despite â€Å"edicts† passed down by religious 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 basis of religious freedom. The reversal of the contraception mandate would be a huge setback for women’s reproductive freedom. It would go back to say women’s bodies are not their own. Conclusion: In 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 provide contraceptive coverage. Now under the Health and Human Services contraception mandate, those religious-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 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 morally 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 backlash for the contraception mandate, President Obama has since revised the original mandate. He has added an â€Å"accommodation,† 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 institution’s 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. Also what Obama has failed to think of are the business implications of this new â€Å"accommodation†Ã¢â‚¬â€offering the contraceptives at no cost from the opted out religious affiliated employer and employees. Insurance companies will not offer this benefit at no cost; contraceptive 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 result 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 federal voucher.