Obamacare’s Birth Control Mandate and its Fallacious Defenses

     It has been a couple of generations since logic has been taught in public schools. Since then, the voting age has been reduced to 18 from 21, and the number of people claiming their primary news source is Saturday Night Live or Comedy Central has exploded. With Facebook and Twitter becoming important sources of political communication, many voters are being persuaded by fallacious (bad) arguments.  When it comes to politics, it has been my experience that the greater the number of fallacies required to persuade voters to support a particular policy, the greater the odds that policy will cause more harm than good. For the sake of demonstrating how fallacious arguments are often employed to persuade social media adopters to support governmental policies, I will use as an example the Obama Administration’s recent mandate that requires religious institutions, against their religious and moral convictions, to provide birth control and abortion inducing drugs to its employees.

    Whenever we participate in a policy debate, it is important to first determine the main issue and its supporting arguments. In the case of the Obamacare birth control mandate, the main issue is whether or not the federal government can constitutionally use its powers of coercion to force citizens against their religious or moral convictions to pay for the birth control of their neighbors.  The arguments against using federal powers of coercion are primarily found in the U.S. Constitution. In Article I Section (8), the Constitution lists the powers of the federal government, and forcing citizens to buy goods or services against their will is not one of the listed powers. The 1st Amendment further states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In other words, the federal government can’t force people to practice or violate their religious beliefs. Now that we have looked at the arguments against the birth control mandate, let’s take a look at the arguments currently being used in its support.

     The first argument supporters of the Obamacare birth control mandate use is: “Obamacare doesn’t actually force religious institutions to provide birth control and abortion inducing drugs; it forces insurance companies to provide them.” This argument commits the “distinction without a difference” fallacy.  Similar to the statement, “I didn’t steal your car; I just took it without your permission intending never to return it,” the mandate’s outcome isn’t altered by changing the words used to explain it.  By (1) forcing all religious institutions to offer health insurance, and (2) forcing health insurance companies to provide birth control and abortion drugs, religious institutions are still being forced against their will to offer birth control and abortion inducing drugs to their employees , and  the 1st Amendment violation still exists. Unfortunately, many citizens untrained in critical thinking have been persuaded by this fallacious defense put up by the Obama Administration.

     A second fallacious argument supporting Obamacare’s birth control mandate is: “Because many insurance companies provide Viagra prescriptions for men, the government should force them to provide birth control prescriptions for women also.”  This statement commits the “false analogy” fallacy because the two cases aren’t similar enough to be analogous. The purpose of insurance is to transfer risk, not responsibility. The risk of erectile dysfunction treatment is considered in insurance theory to be uncertain and insurable; however, birth control is not. As such, insurance companies can actuarially price the risk of erectile dysfunction expenses in such a way as to not lose money; whereas providing birth control merely transfers the cost from some policyholders to all of them. Secondly, Obamacare doesn’t force insurance companies to provide erectile dysfunction treatment like the Obamacare mandate forces them to provide birth control. This is an important distinction when the main issue is about the constitutional use of government force.  In the Obama birth control mandate, there is no risk transferred, only expenses. Because erectile dysfunction treatment is seen as an insurable risk and birth control is not, the analogy between Viagra coverage and birth control breaks down, and the argument becomes fallacious.   

     The third fallacious argument proponents of the Obamacare mandate use is: “Most Catholics practice some form of birth control, so the Catholic church’s rejection of Obamacare’s birth control mandate smacks of hypocrisy.”  The Latin term for this type of bad argument is the “tu quoque,” or “you too” fallacy, but I will just call it the “hypocrisy” fallacy. The hypocrisy fallacy is not a rational argument because it attacks the source of the message as being faulty instead of the message itself. Here is an example:

Overweight health teacher: “It is important to eat portion controlled meals that include generous helpings of vegetables and avoid fatty or processed junk food.”

Cynical student: “Hey, Mr. Smith, your trash can is full of Twinkie wrappers and you are at least 50 pounds overweight; therefore, it must be a good idea for us to eat whatever we want.” 

     While it is more persuasive when a health teacher looks like a triathlete, his instruction on good nutrition isn’t less true just because the teacher is chubby. In the same vein, it would certainly be more persuasive if Catholics practicing birth control abstinence outnumbered those who professed it, but it doesn’t follow that the government has constitutional authority to force Catholics, in violation of their 1st Amendment rights, to pay for their neighbor’s birth control, just because a majority of Catholics use some form of birth control.

     Finally, I want to address the most logically deficient argument I have seen recently on Facebook to defend the Obamacare birth control mandate: the Rush Limbaugh/Sandra Fluke controversy. On February 29, 2012,  mega-popular radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh made boorish comments  about 30 year-old Georgetown University law student (and political activist) Sandra Fluke, airing that statements in her speech at an unofficial Democrat Congressional event in support of free mandated contraceptives at Georgetown University made her a "slut" or "prostitute". This fallacious counter argument is known as a “red herring,” because it distracts or misleads citizens from the main issue in much the same way that a rotten fish can be used to lead bloodhounds off the hot trail of an escaped convict.  Let’s look at how this bad argument was played out in the media:

 

Main issue: “Can the federal government constitutionally use its powers of coercion to force citizens against their religious or moral convictions to pay for the birth control of their neighbors?”

Premise of counter-argument: “61-year old multi-millionaire Rush Limbaugh, using his powerful access to the mainstream media, verbally assaulted a young college girl, calling her a “slut” and “prostitute” when she courageously stood up for her heartfelt beliefs.” Rush Limbaugh is an obnoxious, mean-spirited butt-head;" therefore,
Conclusion of counter-argument: "The federal government has the constitutional authority to force citizens, against their religious or moral convictions, to pay for the birth control of their neighbors.”

     While the irrationality of the red herring fallacy is obvious after we labor to identify the main issue and the supporting arguments, such faulty reasoning is extremely persuasive when the majority of Americans aren’t critical thinkers.

     Social media is here to stay, and political operatives will only increase their use of it to garner voter support.  As long as American voters remain void of the necessary tools for critical thinking, many will be persuaded not by truth, but by bad arguments and questionable promises. Unless we make a concerted effort to train our minds to think critically and vote rationally, we run the risk of losing our republic to the rhetorical skill of power seeking demagogues.