Explanation - Right to Know/Right to Privacy: Abortion PIC/DA
By: Alexandra Mork
This article is written with regards to our most recent card file on the abortion PIC or DA, for the Lincoln-Douglas November/December resolution, which you can access here.
The CP
The thesis of this position is that if candidates are forced to disclose personal information, they will be forced to disclose whether or not they have had an abortion, which is problematic. On the negative, you may either read this as a PIC (plan-inclusive counterplan) or an independent disadvantage to the aff.
Many affs on this topic will defend the entire resolution, meaning that they defend that generally the public’s right to information should be valued above candidate's right to privacy. Alternatively, some affs may specify that the public’s right to know candidates’ medical information should be valued over the right to privacy. This position will apply to either of these affs because of the cards under the header “right to privacy”, which argue that abortions are included within the category of right to know. If you only have time to read one card, we suggest that you read the second card under this header because it cites a Supreme Court case that explicitly uses the words in the resolution in the context of abortion.
If the you reads this as a PIC, that means that you defend the entirety of the aff plan except for abortion (i.e. that the public’s right to know outweighs the candidate's right to privacy in all instances except in cases of abortion). Reading this as a PIC is most strategic it allows you to co-opt the majority of affirmative offense, which means the aff can’t leverage their case against the plan, and the debate simply becomes a question of whether disclosing information about abortion is good or bad.
If you read these cards as a disadvantage, the thesis of the position will be largely the same. You should still defend that abortion is included in the right to know (the link to the DA), and that forced disclosure is problematic because it not only leads to sexist harassment, but also decreases the probability that qualified candidates who have received abortions will win elections. If read as a disadvantage instead of a PIC, it is even more important to read case defense because the affirmative will be able to leverage why their case outweighs the risk of abortion disclosure.
The Aff
The aff has three options to read against this position, any combination of which can be read in the 1ar, and any of which can be collapsed to in the 2ar.
The first argument is that abortion is not included in the right to privacy of candidates. If you win this argument, it means that there is no link to the DA, and thus the PIC is the same thing as the aff (if they read it as a PIC). The card under this header says that a circuit previous court ruling indicates that abortion is not considered part of the right to know because it doesn’t fall within The Vital Statistics Act.
The second argument takes the first argument a step further. This card draws a distinction between the right to privacy and the right to liberty. It argues that abortion falls under the right to liberty, and thus, Roe vs. Wade did not create a right to privacy. If the PIC were to be “fiated”, then it would force the federal government to acknowledge that abortion is part of the right to privacy, which means Roe v. Wade would be an unconstitutional decision, and thus be overturned. This would be terrible for many people who want abortions because it would allow many states to ban or heavily restrict access to abortion.
The third argument is a direct internal link turn to the net benefit of the PIC, meaning that the negative can still win that the aff results in forced disclosure, but that is actually a good thing because public discussions about abortion result in a stigmatization of abortion.
We hope this helps :) As always, feel free to email, facebook message us or comment on our facebook post with questions!