[CONTESTED] Repeal: Reduction of Abortion Act

[Wiztopia]

Since CD is obviously playing coy with his reasons, the full mod telegram:

A review of your repeal proposal, Repeal "Reduction of Abortion Act" has found that your proposal is invalid on the grounds that the claims and basis for your repeal misinterpret the resolution in question.

To start off... .... misinterpretation is a grounds for deletion now? Since when? I do not believe I "misinterpret" the resolution and will argue to that effect below. However, in the words of the red guy: "Is that a crime?" The moderators have historically allowed the World Assembly to make its own decisions on otherwise legal resolutions, no matter how stupid or ill-conceived they might otherwise be. Off to a shaky start here then....

1. Your proposal lists a number of policies as "critical national health policies" that have been "removed from the purview of Member States". They haven't. The first operative clause of RoAA makes it very clear in no uncertain terms that abortion reduction services includes all of the following: (1) abstinence education, (2) adoption services, (3) contraceptives, (4) family planning services, (5) pre-natal, obstetric, and post-natal medical care, counseling, and services, (6) comprehensive sex education, and (7) education, awareness, prevention, and counseling programs to prevent rape and incest; . This is the first instance of misunderstanding on your part.

This paragraph actually does not contradict what I wrote. I listed a number of "critical national health policies" in my own words. After all, as Quelesh has pointed out, clause 5a: EXPANDS the mission of the World Health Authority and its offices in WA member states to include providing universal access to (1) abstinence education, (2) adoption services, (3) contraceptives, (4) family planning services, (5) pre-natal, obstetric, and post-natal medical care, counseling, and services, (6) comprehensive sex education, and (7) education, awareness, prevention, and counseling programs to prevent rape and incest, in accordance with national and local laws.

I'm not sure what the misunderstanding here is, much less what could possibly the first grounds of deletion here. Unless the moderators were made to misunderstand 5a.

2. RoAA includes a range of action to be taken in regards to reducing abortion. These actions include and are not limited to comprehensive education, which can include brief instruction on abstinence. Your clause on the subject states in no uncertain terms that this resolution [...]forces Member States to expose their children to so-called 'abstinence education' programmes[...]. This is, first, a reading based on the meaning of the term in a specific real-world situation, a RW program introduced during the term of a RW President in the RW United States. Your reading is not the generic meaning of the term.

Second, even if this restrictive, real-world meaning were admitted, this would be a valid point only if it were the sole requirement for sexual education.

I dealt with this Real World argument above already, so see my previous posts. It is based on a false interpretation of the perceived motives on my part, whereas my concerns are in fact based on 5a.

3. Your proposal also states that the WA shouldn't be "[...]responsible for all of these critical national health policies[...]", yet RoAA in clause 5.1 states that these services are not rendered by the WA but in accordance with national and local laws.

These three points demonstrate the repeal's clear misunderstanding of the original resolution by providing a list of statements unsupported by its text. It is the judgment of the WA lawyers that your proposal must be returned to the drawing board to address these issues. The points being raised are nothing new and have been previously raised by the delegates in your drafting thread.

And this last point demonstrates clear misunderstanding of the resolution. A service can be run by the World Assembly, in accordance with national and local laws. That is in fact explicitly what the Reduction of Abortion Act says must be done. The question of who renders the service and the laws that local governments might make to affect HOW that service is rendered are entirely different things. The resolution explicitly gives the authority to render these services to the "World Health Authority and its offices in WA member states".

So clearly, a case of the mod misunderstanding the text of the resolution, if not outright having been lied to by CD about what it says.

They're drunk obviously.

[Bergnovinaia]

Why does this still say in queue? Either I'm blind, or this proposal is not in queue...

[Wiztopia]

Why does this still say in queue? Either I'm blind, or this proposal is not in queue...

Because it should still be in queue.

[Bergnovinaia]

Why does this still say in queue? Either I'm blind, or this proposal is not in queue...

Because it should still be in queue.

But it's not in Queue... so thus the name is misleading and inaccurate.

[Wiztopia]

Because it should still be in queue.

But it's not in Queue... so thus the name is misleading and inaccurate.

It will be back in queue soon enough.

[Bergnovinaia]

But it's not in Queue... so thus the name is misleading and inaccurate.

It will be back in queue soon enough.

Once it's submitted to the quorum list, I suppose it could be, because Knoot is awful good at campaigning, along with his NatSov zombies minions.

[Wiztopia]

It will be back in queue soon enough.

Once it's submitted to the quorum list, I suppose it could be, because Knoot is awful good at campaigning, along with his NatSov zombies minions.

Maybe the moderators will be sober this time.

[Christian Democrats]

My GHR was a four paragraph statement about the reasons this proposal, as written, was illegal.

Before you submitted the GHR, the only post you made in this thread was to call TCT a zombie. You did not raise any legality questions in this thread. So, please, explain how this repeal is illegal. A carbon copy of your GHR would be preferable, but I would also accept a restatement.

I didn't keep a copy, and, considering that a copy of the moderators' telegram was posted, I don't see a reason to post a restatement of my GHR.

CD is an ardent defender of abstinence education

I can't recall ever defending abstinence education here on NationStates.

A review of your repeal proposal, Repeal "Reduction of Abortion Act" has found that your proposal is invalid on the grounds that the claims and basis for your repeal misinterpret the resolution in question.

To start off... .... misinterpretation is a grounds for deletion now? Since when? I do not believe I "misinterpret" the resolution and will argue to that effect below. However, in the words of the red guy: "Is that a crime?" The moderators have historically allowed the World Assembly to make its own decisions on otherwise legal resolutions, no matter how stupid or ill-conceived they might otherwise be. Off to a shaky start here then....

I haven't been here as long as you have, but, while I've been here, the moderators have ruled that a repeal proposal that misrepresents the resolution that's attempting to be repealed is illegal. (Such a ruling was made by Ardchoille during the first On Abortion repeal debate.)

1. Your proposal lists a number of policies as "critical national health policies" that have been "removed from the purview of Member States". They haven't. The first operative clause of RoAA makes it very clear in no uncertain terms that abortion reduction services includes all of the following: (1) abstinence education, (2) adoption services, (3) contraceptives, (4) family planning services, (5) pre-natal, obstetric, and post-natal medical care, counseling, and services, (6) comprehensive sex education, and (7) education, awareness, prevention, and counseling programs to prevent rape and incest; . This is the first instance of misunderstanding on your part.

This paragraph actually does not contradict what I wrote. I listed a number of "critical national health policies" in my own words. After all, as Quelesh has pointed out, clause 5a: EXPANDS the mission of the World Health Authority and its offices in WA member states to include providing universal access to (1) abstinence education, (2) adoption services, (3) contraceptives, (4) family planning services, (5) pre-natal, obstetric, and post-natal medical care, counseling, and services, (6) comprehensive sex education, and (7) education, awareness, prevention, and counseling programs to prevent rape and incest, in accordance with national and local laws.

I'm not sure what the misunderstanding here is, much less what could possibly the first grounds of deletion here. Unless the moderators were made to misunderstand 5a.

"Remove from the purview of member states" means that member states no longer have any control of the policies that are being stated. The Reduction of Abortion Act clearly does not deprive member states of control since "abortion reduction services" may be provided only "in accordance with national and local laws."

2. RoAA includes a range of action to be taken in regards to reducing abortion. These actions include and are not limited to comprehensive education, which can include brief instruction on abstinence. Your clause on the subject states in no uncertain terms that this resolution [...]forces Member States to expose their children to so-called 'abstinence education' programmes[...]. This is, first, a reading based on the meaning of the term in a specific real-world situation, a RW program introduced during the term of a RW President in the RW United States. Your reading is not the generic meaning of the term.

Second, even if this restrictive, real-world meaning were admitted, this would be a valid point only if it were the sole requirement for sexual education.

I dealt with this Real World argument above already, so see my previous posts. It is based on a false interpretation of the perceived motives on my part, whereas my concerns are in fact based on 5a.

3. Your proposal also states that the WA shouldn't be "[...]responsible for all of these critical national health policies[...]", yet RoAA in clause 5.1 states that these services are not rendered by the WA but in accordance with national and local laws.

These three points demonstrate the repeal's clear misunderstanding of the original resolution by providing a list of statements unsupported by its text. It is the judgment of the WA lawyers that your proposal must be returned to the drawing board to address these issues. The points being raised are nothing new and have been previously raised by the delegates in your drafting thread.

And this last point demonstrates clear misunderstanding of the resolution. A service can be run by the World Assembly, in accordance with national and local laws. That is in fact explicitly what the Reduction of Abortion Act says must be done. The question of who renders the service and the laws that local governments might make to affect HOW that service is rendered are entirely different things. The resolution explicitly gives the authority to render these services to the "World Health Authority and its offices in WA member states".

So clearly, a case of the mod misunderstanding the text of the resolution, if not outright having been lied to by CD about what it says.

Abstinence education is sexual education that focuses on promoting chastity. The Reduction of Abortion Act also defines comprehensive sex education and contraception as abortion reduction services. The Reduction of Abortion Act cannot possibly mandate all of these things because contraception and comprehensive sexual education are contrary to abstinence education; therefore, the Reduction of Abortion Act merely provides options. The World Health Authority acts in a supporting role; it helps member states administer their programs to reduce abortions. (The Cat-Tribe, the Reduction of Abortion Act's author, has stated in this thread that "Clause 5 empowers the WHA to help nations provide abortion reduction services.")

[Knootoss]

I haven't been here as long as you have, but, while I've been here, the moderators have ruled that a repeal proposal that misrepresents the resolution that's attempting to be repealed is illegal. (Such a ruling was made by Ardchoille during the first On Abortion repeal debate.)

Certainly the moderators should have added such a ruling to the Hackian rules. For those of us who wanted to keep their sanity intact and not read through that whole pointless bitchfight about abortion, it is not a "rule" that was ever seen. Still, there is quite a difference between not interpreting a resolution in the way that the original author intended and spreading outright lies about it. I've certainly not done the latter.

Abstinence education is sexual education that focuses on promoting chastity. The Reduction of Abortion Act also defines comprehensive sex education and contraception as abortion reduction services. The Reduction of Abortion Act cannot possibly mandate all of these things because contraception and comprehensive sexual education are contrary to abstinence education; therefore, the Reduction of Abortion Act merely provides options. The World Health Authority acts in a supporting role; it helps member states administer their programs to reduce abortions.

This whole statement defies all logic.

"The Reduction of Abortion Act cannot possibly mandate all of these things because contraception and comprehensive sexual education are contrary to abstinence education; therefore, the Reduction of Abortion Act merely provides options." - The resolution does mandate all of these things. Why? Because the resolution says that it does! Read clause 5a. That's all there is to it. I don't care whether you think the resolution is contradictory for doing all of these things. The resolution does what the resolution says. The resolution piling a whole lot of potentially contradictory goals together and getting the WA to vote for them makes it so. It's a bad package deal, not a completely optional pick-and-choose menu. If you think these aims are contradictory, that is just more reason to have the resolution repealed.

The World Health Authority acts in a supporting role; it helps member states administer their programs to reduce abortions. (The Cat-Tribe, the Reduction of Abortion Act's author, has stated in this thread that "Clause 5 empowers the WHA to help nations provide abortion reduction services.") -- I have a complex legal counterargument here which, in the end, boils down to this: I don't give a flying fuck what The Cat Tribe states in his thread. I don't give a fuck what the Cat Tribe states in his "FAQ" that he includes with his resolution to get people to vote for it. And I certainly don't give a fuck what the Cat Tribe chooses to 'highlight' in his ranty wall of text defences in this thread. What matters is what the resolution itself actually says. The resolution does not say "the World Health Authority acts in a supporting role" it does not say that it "helps states administer their programs". If The Cat Tribe wanted it to be that way, he should have put those words in the resolution itself.

Clause 5a: EXPANDS the mission of the World Health Authority and its offices in WA member states to include providing universal access to (1) abstinence education, (2) adoption services, (3) contraceptives, (4) family planning services, (5) pre-natal, obstetric, and post-natal medical care, counseling, and services, (6) comprehensive sex education, and (7) education, awareness, prevention, and counseling programs to prevent rape and incest, in accordance with national and local laws.

That is what is at stake here. And shame on you for defending your unpopular cause, not by reason and persuasion, but through litigation and obfuscation.

[Christian Democrats]

I haven't been here as long as you have, but, while I've been here, the moderators have ruled that a repeal proposal that misrepresents the resolution that's attempting to be repealed is illegal. (Such a ruling was made by Ardchoille during the first On Abortion repeal debate.)

Certainly the moderators should have added such a ruling to the Hackian rules. For those of us who wanted to keep their sanity intact and not read through that whole pointless bitchfight about abortion, it is not a "rule" that was ever seen. Still, there is quite a difference between not interpreting a resolution in the way that the original author intended and spreading outright lies about it. I've certainly not done the latter.

I agree that an addition should be made to the "Rules for GA Proposals."

Abstinence education is sexual education that focuses on promoting chastity. The Reduction of Abortion Act also defines comprehensive sex education and contraception as abortion reduction services. The Reduction of Abortion Act cannot possibly mandate all of these things because contraception and comprehensive sexual education are contrary to abstinence education; therefore, the Reduction of Abortion Act merely provides options. The World Health Authority acts in a supporting role; it helps member states administer their programs to reduce abortions.

This whole statement defies all logic.

"The Reduction of Abortion Act cannot possibly mandate all of these things because contraception and comprehensive sexual education are contrary to abstinence education; therefore, the Reduction of Abortion Act merely provides options." - The resolution does mandate all of these things. Why? Because the resolution says that it does! Read clause 5a. That's all there is to it. I don't care whether you think the resolution is contradictory for doing all of these things. The resolution does what the resolution says. The resolution piling a whole lot of potentially contradictory goals together and getting the WA to vote for them makes it so. It's a bad package deal, not a completely optional pick-and-choose menu. If you think these aims are contradictory, that is just more reason to have the resolution repealed.

The World Health Authority acts in a supporting role; it helps member states administer their programs to reduce abortions. (The Cat-Tribe, the Reduction of Abortion Act's author, has stated in this thread that "Clause 5 empowers the WHA to help nations provide abortion reduction services.") -- I have a complex legal counterargument here which, in the end, boils down to this: I don't give a flying fuck what The Cat Tribe states in his thread. I don't give a fuck what the Cat Tribe states in his "FAQ" that he includes with his resolution to get people to vote for it. And I certainly don't give a fuck what the Cat Tribe chooses to 'highlight' in his ranty wall of text defences in this thread. What matters is what the resolution itself actually says. The resolution does not say "the World Health Authority acts in a supporting role" it does not say that it "helps states administer their programs". If The Cat Tribe wanted it to be that way, he should have put those words in the resolution itself.

Clause 5a: EXPANDS the mission of the World Health Authority and its offices in WA member states to include providing universal access to (1) abstinence education, (2) adoption services, (3) contraceptives, (4) family planning services, (5) pre-natal, obstetric, and post-natal medical care, counseling, and services, (6) comprehensive sex education, and (7) education, awareness, prevention, and counseling programs to prevent rape and incest, in accordance with national and local laws.

That is what is at stake here. And shame on you for defending your unpopular cause, not by reason and persuasion, but through litigation and obfuscation.

The key phrase is "in accordance with national and local laws." If a nation provides that only comprehensive sexual education or abstinence education shall be taught in schools, then that is all that will be taught. The only real mandate of the Reduction of Abortion Act is the second active clause, which "AFFIRMS the right of individuals to access information regarding abortion reduction services" (i.e., nations cannot eliminate access to information about certain services).

[Knootoss]

The key phrase is "in accordance with national and local laws." If a nation provides that only comprehensive sexual education or abstinence education shall be taught in schools, then that is all that will be taught. The only real mandate of the Reduction of Abortion Act is the second active clause, which "AFFIRMS the right of individuals to access information regarding abortion reduction services" (i.e., nations cannot eliminate access to certain services).

This is just more logic based on what you would like the resolution to be seen as, rather than what is actually written down in the text.

The phrase "in accordance with national and local laws" actually means just that. It does not mean "we just said the WA would run these programmes but what we really mean is the WA really just likes to provide a helping hand, when you like it". The first part of clause 5a establishes in no uncertain terms that WA missions in member states run these programmes. The Member States can, in accordance with the last part of the clause, set rules on how the WA runs these programmes. Possibly governments can try to sabotage these programmes by defining abstinence as cheese, or by making it very difficult for the WA to do its job, but the WA has a responsibility to provide universal access to abstinence education, adoption, etc programmes which by its own mandate are run by the WA.

And can you please cut down on the quote pyramids?

[Christian Democrats]

This is just more logic based on what you would like the resolution to be seen as, rather than what is actually written down in the text.

The phrase "in accordance with national and local laws" actually means just that. It does not mean "we just said the WA would run these programmes but what we really mean is the WA really just likes to provide a helping hand, when you like it". The first part of clause 5a establishes in no uncertain terms that WA missions in member states run these programmes. The Member States can, in accordance with the last part of the clause, set rules on how the WA runs these programmes. Possibly governments can try to sabotage these programmes by defining abstinence as cheese, or by making it very difficult for the WA to do its job, but the WA has a responsibility to provide universal access to abstinence education, adoption, etc programmes which by its own mandate are run by the WA.

Universal access means just that -- access. Providing access to abstinence education can mean having a nonrestrictive national internet policy; it doesn't mean it has to be taught in schools. Under General Assembly Resolution 44, nations retain full freedom to determine the curricula of their public schools. Nothing in the Reduction of Abortion Act dictates how schools should structure their courses.

[Knootoss]

Is it such a difficult concept for you to actually stick to the text of the resolution you're ostensibly defending? Because you and The Cat Tribe both excel at thinking up pie-in-the-sky resolutions that you didn't actually write, in order to defend the resolution that you did submit.

"Under General Assembly Resolution 44, nations retain full freedom to determine the curricula of their public schools"

As it stands, the WA has full authority to set up its own abstinence education and sex education programmes in WA Member Nations, whether these are run from schools or WA offices throughout the country. (After all, universal access!) The resolution implies the latter -- that all of these fancy programmes will be run from WA Offices. Kindly point me to the part of the resolution which states anything to the contrary. The actual resolution. Not the propaganda that your posse created to sell it to the WA.

Also, how is access to the Internet going to provide universal access to pre-natal, obstetric, and post-natal medical care, counseling, and services? To name just one of the many points being mandated by this resolution.

[Hirota]

Once it's submitted to the quorum list, I suppose it could be, because Knoot is awful good at campaigning, along with his NatSov zombies minions.

You can drop that nonsense right now. I'm as intFed as they come, and I endorsed this repeal.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: I do have concerns about the RoAA's intrusions on sovereignty, and agree that considering the term 'abstinence education' to be a RL reference seems rather excessive even by my standards for that rule which several mods have previously said were too strict. However _ [/OOC]

There is nothing illegal about it. You just want it gone because of your pro-life viewpoints.

"So what do you have, a 'pro-death' viewpoint?!?"

Also, read the act, it calls for abstinence education AND comprehensive sex education. These are mutually incompatible programmes,

"Hrreally? And just how is pointing out to young people that they don't have to engage in sexual activity whenever anybody else asks them to do so, and that abstaining from such activity is one reliable way of avoiding both unwanted pregnancies and sexually-transmitted diseases not rightfully a part of any truly comprehensive sex-education programme? Unless, maybeso, your government actually regards sexual activity as mandatory?!?"

[Hirota]

"Hrreally? And just how is pointing out to young people that they don't have to engage in sexual activity whenever anybody else asks them to do so, and that abstaining from such activity is one reliable way of avoiding both unwanted pregnancies and sexually-transmitted diseases not rightfully a part of any truly comprehensive sex-education programme? Unless, maybeso, your government actually regards sexual activity as mandatory?!?"

Perhaps a better way of viewing it is abstinence should be taught as a valid part of any sex ed. Implicit in that is the idea that abstinence education on it's own is redundant.

[Knootoss]

Hirota worded it better than I did. Telling girls they can say no isn't the same as telling them not to have sex till they reach maturity.

[Mousebumples]

First off: I support this repeal. While I can understand some of the arguments made in the mod TG against this repeal, I don't believe they were sufficient to pull the repeal. However, I think that the repeal text can be amended accordingly and hopefully resubmitted and passed.

Your proposal lists a number of policies as "critical national health policies" that have been "removed from the purview of Member States". They haven't. The first operative clause of RoAA makes it very clear in no uncertain terms that abortion reduction services includes all of the following: (1) abstinence education, (2) adoption services, (3) contraceptives, (4) family planning services, (5) pre-natal, obstetric, and post-natal medical care, counseling, and services, (6) comprehensive sex education, and (7) education, awareness, prevention, and counseling programs to prevent rape and incest; . This is the first instance of misunderstanding on your part.

Purview has ... different interpretations, but I like to use dictionary.com as my reference - for consistency across proposals/resolutions.

Purview: the range of operation, authority, control, concern, etc.

As the WHA (and its offices) are the ones providing universal access to these services (per the original resolution - which I can quote as well as anyone, but I figure everyone here can follow a link and read), the providing of those services is arguably removed from the operation/day-to-day control of WA member nations. However, since such services are being provided in accordance with "national and local laws," that does give the individual member state authority over the services, to whatever extent is applicable. I would think that the Reasonable Nation Theory would prevent any assumptions that Abstinence Education is the equivalent of cheese on a global scale, but I do believe that a simple rewording of the clause in question could rectify this legal issue.

2. RoAA includes a range of action to be taken in regards to reducing abortion. These actions include and are not limited to comprehensive education, which can include brief instruction on abstinence. Your clause on the subject states in no uncertain terms that this resolution [...]forces Member States to expose their children to so-called 'abstinence education' programmes[...]. This is, first, a reading based on the meaning of the term in a specific real-world situation, a RW program introduced during the term of a RW President in the RW United States. Your reading is not the generic meaning of the term.

Second, even if this restrictive, real-world meaning were admitted, this would be a valid point only if it were the sole requirement for sexual education.

While I think that this is a ridiculous ruling, if the mod ruling stands, I would think that it could be negated by inserting some "weasel words" into the repeal. Others have covered already why this statement is so out there, so I won't rehash that again here.

Further, for those who state that "abstinence education" could be included in the "comprehensive sex education" ... I agree that that would make sense, but the wording of the resolution in question clearly separates the two items into separate services that both need to be provided by the WA. This is another downfall of the resolution as written.

3. Your proposal also states that the WA shouldn't be "[...]responsible for all of these critical national health policies[...]", yet RoAA in clause 5.1 states that these services are not rendered by the WA but in accordance with national and local laws.

These three points demonstrate the repeal's clear misunderstanding of the original resolution by providing a list of statements unsupported by its text. It is the judgment of the WA lawyers that your proposal must be returned to the drawing board to address these issues. The points being raised are nothing new and have been previously raised by the delegates in your drafting thread.

This is flat out incorrect. Just because the services are rendered "in accordance with national and local laws" does not mean that they are not rendered by the WA. Clause 5 clearly states (as Knoot has said previously):

5. EXPANDS the mission of the World Health Authority and its offices in WA member states to include:
a. providing universal access to abortion reduction services in accordance with national and local laws,

Yes, national and local laws are relevant. And, I suppose, all WA member nations could pass laws stipulating that the member state - not the WA - will be providing access to these services. However, presuming that a VAST number of WA member nations are doing such a thing - without any guidance to do so from the resolution in question - seems to fly against the reasonable nation theory.

I hope that the appeal will result in the overturning of the original ruling. However, if it does not, I look forward to working with Ambassador Koopman to amend the repeal text as necessary to get this atrocity off the WA books.

Yours,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador of the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Wiztopia]

There is nothing illegal about it. You just want it gone because of your pro-life viewpoints.

"So what do you have, a 'pro-death' viewpoint?!?"

[Ardchoille]

Okay, let's take this point by point:

To start off... .... misinterpretation is a grounds for deletion now? Since when?

Since the Proposal Rules were posted (bolded emphasis added):

• Honest Mistakes
  
  This usually happens with Repeals. Someone will misread the Resolution and submit a Repeal that supports the Resolution, or tries to undo a Resolution because they think it does something it doesn't (WA Taxation Ban comes to mind...)

That's been in operation since, what, 2004? 2005? So it was somewhat surprising to read that this was an unprecedented reason for deleting a repeal. Almost weekly, repeals of Freedom of Marriage Act are kicked out of the queue because they misunderstand the position of religious marriage under its terms. That should surely have given you all a hint that such a provision existed. True, the violation is labelled "Honest Mistakes" when there is often reason to suppose that the "mistake" is deliberate and the "honesty" is questionable, but Hack, like the rest of the WA mods, no doubt took into consideration that proposal authors often come to believe their own rhetoric.

The only real /rule/ cited is that abstinence education as mentioned is a "Real life reference" somehow.

There was no specific real-life reference that would justify the removal of the repeal under the RW violation. Just as well, then, that we did not remove it on the grounds of RW violation.

There was, however, a consistent attitude on your part that "abstinence education" must mean, to quote your earliest definition in this thread, a program that

... does not promote the goal of getting teenagers to abstain from sex. Teenagers who pledge abstinence have similar rates of STD's. It sends confusing messages about sex to teenagers, while flying in the face of everything we know about teen sexual behaviour. Oh, and of course, it's your taxpayer money at work to push private and most often religious morality.

Your description is clearly influenced by a particular program used in the real world. Repeatedly, other players pointed out that "abstinence education" does not necessarily mean anything of the sort in NS (note, also, that the original does not call for "abstinence education programs", as described above and in your repeal, bur merely "abstinence education"). A simple "if you abstain from (unprotected, penetrative, ejaculative) sex, you won't get pregnant" would meet the terms of the original resolution. So would,"This is how you abstain from baby-producing/potentially abortion-requiring sex: gain sexual satisfaction by instead doing this and this and this ...".

Further, neither of these would conflict with the requirement for comprehensive sex education (indeed, the second interpretation could be extremely comprehensive). "Abstinence education" and "comprehensive sex education" are expected to go hand in hand in reducing abortion. The two are not mutually exclusive. The opening language of the first clause enforced this by stating that the services include all of the services listed.

Thus, while your "real-world" cast of mind contributed to the deletion, it was only because it apparently made it impossible for you to see any other interpretations. Much of your repeal argument depended on yours being the only possible meaning of the term:

DEEPLY CONCERNED that the 'World Health Authority' forces Member States to expose their children to so-called 'abstinence education' programmes, even though such programmes send confusing messages to teenagers, promote hypocrisy and dishonesty, and do nothing to reduce unplanned pregnancy;

RESOLVED that 'abstinence education' may therefore inhibit the normal development of children, and create dangerous social taboos;

If there were other interpretations -- which, clearly, there are throughout the thread -- your argument that the original referred only to your version fails.

(You might also note that we didn't delete on the grounds of "extra legislation" in that "resolved" clause. There were other, more substantial, grounds; nonetheless, you should clean that up before you resubmit.)

Which brings us to your recent, post-submission dependence on Clause 5 (a) of the original. You assert that moderators have been "made to misunderstand" this clause (by threats? by bribes? I appear to have missed out on both. Tch, very sloppy corruption services these days). No, we have understood your new argument. We also understand Clause 3 (emphasis supplied):

3. STRONGLY URGES member states to research, invest in, and provide universal access to abortion reduction services;

Because of the parallel with Clause 5a ...

5. EXPANDS the mission of the World Health Authority and its offices in WA member states to include:

a. providing universal access to abortion reduction services in accordance with national and local laws

... an argument on the grounds of redundancy -- two parallel services -- would be sustainable. An argument that the italicised caveat in 5a could reduce the effectiveness of the WA-provided services could also be sustainable. But your argument that it "remove(s) critical national health policies from the purview of Member States" is unsustainable.

We accept your new argument that 5a does mean that these services do have to be rendered by the WA, but that does not make the WA "responsible for these critical national health policies". If a nation chooses to ignore Clause 3 -- which it could, since it merely "urges" -- an argument saying that the combination of clauses could put the WA to unnecessary expense, via nations that are well able to provide these services choosing to rely, instead, on the WA to do it, would be acceptable.

In closing, please note:

• It is not morally wrong, as you appear to believe these days, to submit a GHR. Nations may well feel compelled to do so when you give every evidence of ignoring advice given by a number of Delegates, or of abusing those who give it.
• The popularity of a proposal is not, and never has been, reason for mods to refrain from deleting it.
• Please do not bandy about the term "liar" so irresponsibly. Doing so OOC is flaming.
• Before describing anyone as "mod friends", you really should check their posts/Moderation forum appearances.

[Hirota]

That seems to explain it pretty clearly. Thanks for taking the time out to write all that.

[Knootoss]

There was, however, a consistent attitude on your part that "abstinence education" must mean, to quote your earliest definition in this thread, a program that

... does not promote the goal of getting teenagers to abstain from sex. Teenagers who pledge abstinence have similar rates of STD's. It sends confusing messages about sex to teenagers, while flying in the face of everything we know about teen sexual behaviour. Oh, and of course, it's your taxpayer money at work to push private and most often religious morality.

So you are citing an attitude in the debate thread, which came up when I was challenged on the subject of abstinence education, as evidence for this supposed Real-World-Reference-But-Not-The-Reason-For-Deletion reason-but-not-reason? After conceding that there is no real world reference in the resolution? What is the relevance to the question of whether to delete or not?

Your description is clearly influenced by a particular program used in the real world. Repeatedly, other players pointed out that "abstinence education" does not necessarily mean anything of the sort in NS (note, also, that the original does not call for "abstinence education programs", as described above and in your repeal, bur merely "abstinence education"). A simple "if you abstain from (unprotected, penetrative, ejaculative) sex, you won't get pregnant" would meet the terms of the original resolution. So would,"This is how you abstain from baby-producing/potentially abortion-requiring sex: gain sexual satisfaction by instead doing this and this and this ...".

Further, neither of these would conflict with the requirement for comprehensive sex education (indeed, the second interpretation could be extremely comprehensive). "Abstinence education" and "comprehensive sex education" are expected to go hand in hand in reducing abortion. The two are not mutually exclusive. The opening language of the first clause enforced this by stating that the services include all of the services listed.

Thus, while your "real-world" cast of mind contributed to the deletion, it was only because it apparently made it impossible for you to see any other interpretations. Much of your repeal argument depended on yours being the only possible meaning of the term: If there were other interpretations -- which, clearly, there are throughout the thread -- your argument that the original referred only to your version fails.

See, I've made it a point that I want to engage people constructively. I do not wish to interact with people whose strategy in my opinion consists mainly of litigation, manipulation and below-the-belt personal attacks. I cannot stop such people from posting in my thread, of course, but you are carrying it as some sort of fault against me that I do not wish to humour their legal twisting. Some players have a deliberate strategy of wearing you down with page after page after page of rehashing the same misguided point, again and again, to the point where nobody else gives a fuck about the thread anymore. I've seen this happen time and again, and have made a concious decision that I'll state why I think a point is flawed once and then not engage it any further if I do not think it has merit. Nobody should have to engage a deliberate strategy of derailing threads with contentious argumentation for the purpose of getting a perfectly valid goal, the repeal of their own resolutions, declared illegal.

Many players have already pointed out it is insane, drunk or not of this world to reason that 'abstinence education' somehow means something entirely differently in the world of NationStates. I'm deeply disappointed that you do not realise this is the argument borne from convenience that it really is. TCT made a deliberate knee-fall to the Christian lobby on these forums at the time, and now he and his allies pretend this isn't the clause they most certainly intended it to be. Worse, this non-ruling-ruling also betrays ignorance of my own motivations. I am not an American player and I do not live in the United States. To suggest that I am somehow referencing an American Real World programme is more than a little US-centric. George W. Bush did not even pop into my mind until it was mentioned in the ruling.

This alternative presentation of what 'abstinence education' might mean in the resolution does not match the resolution text. True, abstinence education can be a small part of comprehensive sex education. However the resolution explicitly mentions them separately, implying that they are not the same thing. The order in which the different 'abortion reduction' services are mentioned gives further evidence for that more fact-based interpretation of the resolution. The resolution itself, not hypotheticals that anyone trying to defend it conjures up after the fact, should be relevant here. The resolution clearly holds 'abstinence education' and 'comprehensive sex ed' to be different things. I should be allowed to make this claim in the repeal, and not see the truth defanged by the convenient fairy tales of its apologists.

(You might also note that we didn't delete on the grounds of "extra legislation" in that "resolved" clause. There were other, more substantial, grounds; nonetheless, you should clean that up before you resubmit.)

I see no point for that snide remark. As it stands, that clause legislates nothing. I am happy to pick a different verb, if it pleases Your Modliness, but this is either illegal or it is not.

Which brings us to your recent, post-submission dependence on Clause 5 (a) of the original.

Please refrain from misrepresenting my case by referring to it as "post-submission dependence". Clause 5a is the main impetus behind the repeal. It always was. I just didn't feel compelled to point this out by bold-texting it, underlining the relevant parts, and slowly step-by-step pointing out how the resolution does what it actually does until my resolution got pulled for it. See above about me not wanting to indulge in contentious debates when I feel I am right.

You assert that moderators have been "made to misunderstand" this clause (by threats? by bribes? I appear to have missed out on both. Tch, very sloppy corruption services these days). No, we have understood your new argument. We also understand Clause 3 (emphasis supplied):
Because of the parallel with Clause 5a ...
... an argument on the grounds of redundancy -- two parallel services -- would be sustainable. An argument that the italicised caveat in 5a could reduce the effectiveness of the WA-provided services could also be sustainable. But your argument that it "remove(s) critical national health policies from the purview of Member States" is unsustainable.

We accept your new argument that 5a does mean that these services do have to be rendered by the WA, but that does not make the WA "responsible for these critical national health policies". If a nation chooses to ignore Clause 3 -- which it could, since it merely "urges" -- an argument saying that the combination of clauses could put the WA to unnecessary expense, via nations that are well able to provide these services choosing to rely, instead, on the WA to do it, would be acceptable.

Please explain this. I'll happily claim that dual services are not sustainable, but your ruling seems to be based on the idea that WA-provided services are superior to services provided by the nation itself. Why is it LEGAL to say "It is bad that the Member States can duplicate the WA" but ILLEGAL to say that "it is bad that the WA is providing a service that could be done by Member States"? As long as the resolution does not solely rely on a NatSov based argument, I believe that is perfectly legitimate.

[Glen-Rhodes]

... What does it matter that Knootoss' interpretation of abstinence education isn't the only one? It is a valid interpretation. In fact, most people are going to read 'abstinence education' and think exactly what Knootoss thinks. Even if they didn't, his interpretation is still a valid one and it's not reasonable to say that the repeal is illegal because there are other interpretations. That has never been part of the Honest Mistakes doctrine.

[Wazkyraque]

RESOLVED that 'abstinence education' may therefore inhibit the normal development of children, and create dangerous social taboos;

Wut?
If you explain that... I'll be in full support of this

[Christian Democrats]

The resolution clearly holds 'abstinence education' and 'comprehensive sex ed' to be different things. I should be allowed to make this claim in the repeal, and not see the truth defanged by the convenient fairy tales of its apologists.

Your repeal proposal claims that the Reduction of Abortion Act "forces Member States to expose their children to so-called 'abstinence education' programmes" when it doesn't do this. The Reduction of Abortion Act, if it requires anything at all, merely requires member states to make abstinence education available (i.e., access); it doesn't require it to be taught in schools.

the original [resolution] does not call for "abstinence education programs", as described above and in your repeal, bur [but] merely "abstinence education"

The Reduction of Abortion Act cannot require school programs in both comprehensive sexual eduction and abstinence education because comprehensive sexual education and abstinence education are mutually exclusive. The former kind of education primarily focuses on "safe sex" and contraception while the latter focuses on promoting chastity; therefore, the meaning of the Reduction of Abortion Act is clearly that access to information on both kinds of education must be made available to the general public. (There is nothing in the resolution that dictates public education or school programs.)