First Constructive Speech

According to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid services, as well as research conducted by
the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, nearly 99 percent of women in the United States
have relied on contraceptive services at some point in their lives, but more than half, between the ages of
18 and 34, have struggled to afford it. After the recent Hobby Lobby case, certain religious employers
have been exempted from having to provide any forms of birth control, as the Affordable Care Act had
formerly required. Removing this benefit affects approximately one in six Americans, according to
Planned Parenthood, who get care under the Catholic-affiliated system. Altogether, the exemption causes
millions of hardworking Americans to lose access to this critical benefit that would have made an
essential health care service affordable. My partner and I believe that no one should be denied this
benefit; therefore, we resolve that a federal mandate should be issued that requires all employers to cover
contraception costs for their employees within their health insurance plans.
Our opponents claim that a mandate such as this would violate the first amendment rights of those
who refuse to provide coverage for contraceptives because of their religious beliefs. The Free Exercise
Clause states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Although this
clause implies special accommodation of religious ideas and actions, even to the point of exemptions to
generally applicable laws, these rights do not apply to corporations. Under the Dictionary Act,
corporations can be synonymous with person...unless the context indicates otherwise; which in this
case, it does. In the 1819 court case, Trustees of Dartmouth College vs. Woodward, Chief Justice
Marshall said that a corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in
contemplation of law(Ginsburg Dissent).The exercise of religion is characteristic of natural individuals,
not artificial legal entities. The first amendment also establishes separation of church and state. According
to Cornell University, the Establishment Clause prohibits the government from unduly preferring
religion over non-religion, or nonreligion over religion; therefore, when employers refuse to cover
contraception under the health insurance plans of their employees due to their personal religious beliefs,
they are imposing these religious beliefs on their employees, many of whom have different beliefs.
Another argument made by our opponents concerns the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of
1993. The RFRA states that the government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion
even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except...if it demonstrates that application
of the burden to the person...furthers a compelling governmental interest; and is the least restrictive means
of furthering that compelling governmental interest (RFRA). First, a mandate would not substantially
burden the employers free exercise of religion, because the requirement carries no command that
employers must purchase or provide the contraceptives they find objectionable. Instead, it calls on
the companies to direct money into undifferentiated funds that finance a wide variety of benefits
under comprehensive health plans. Next, the mandated contraception coverage and an array of other
preventive services for which the Affordable Care Act provides further compelling governmental
interests in public health and womens well being. Lastly, this exemption of some employers from a
widely accepted health care reform is not a least restrictive means; it is, in fact, a restriction of the
individual rights of employees, as it requires them to relinquish benefits accorded them by federal law.
According to our opponents, religious employers categorize some forms of birth control, such as
the morning-after pill and the intrauterine device, as abortifacients. However, research done by Princeton
University states that emergency contraceptive pills work before the pregnancy even begins, as do IUDs
which primarily prevent fertilization and implantation of the egg.

The evidence previously provided negates the opposing sides arguments completely. A mandate
requiring all employers to cover costs for contraception in their insurance plans would not violate first
amendment rights, would not go against the RFRA, and contraceptive devices can not be considered
abortifacients.