[REPLACEMENT DRAFT] On Abortion

by **Charlotte Ryberg** » Tue Jan 07, 2014 1:51 pm

On Abortion
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

ASSERTING that it is the duty to protect the health of patients;

OBSERVING the controversy surrounding the legality of abortion;

NEVERTHELESS CONVINCED that it is inappropriate for member states to deny abortion to anyone at risk of death or serious mental distress, if their pregnancy is not terminated;

Therefore:

1. LEGALISES abortion for the following cases:
a) Severe foetal abnormality would result in the birth of a child with an untreatable condition that is either fatal or permanently painful.
b) A life-threatening physical or mental condition would result in the death or permanent severe disability of the patient if the pregnancy continued.

2. FURTHER LEGALISES abortion for the following cases, but only wherein the foetus is not viable and Section 1 does not apply:
a) The pregnancy came from involuntary sex wherein the individual was a victim.
b) The pregnancy came from sexual activity wherein the participant could not legally give consent to.

3. FURTHER REQUIRES member countries to ensure that abortion facilities are easily available to patients seeking abortion for reasons under Section 1 and 2.

4. MANDATES that:
a) By default, no one shall be forced to have an abortion.
b) If the patient is unable to make their wishes known, then the decision on whether an abortion would be in the interest of the patient’s wellbeing shall be taken in accordance with national and international laws regarding mental capacity.

5. DECLARES abortion to be a medical procedure, and hence subject to national and international laws regarding medical standards.

6. MANDATES that abortions must be carried out in a way that is as painless as possible, while preserving the patient's mental and physical health.

7. RECOGNISES the right of physicians not to perform an abortion on moral grounds.

8. DECLARES that it is neither a criminal offence nor a cause for civil suit to have obtained an abortion under Sections 1 and 2, and no inhabitant of a member country shall be subject to prosecution for having done so, nor otherwise subjected to harassment or persecution in law or at the instigation of the state in consequence.

9. ALLOWS member countries to determine the legality of abortion for cases outside Sections 1 and 2, and within the confines of previous World Assembly resolutions.

As of 21 January 2014 onwards, Ms. S. Harper insists that the allowance of abortion for sex without consent is not up for negotiation. I'm better now.

FAQs

1. Why did you introduce a rule about foetal viability?
I have reluctantly introduced the viability rule because of widespread concerns about the relationship between the foetus' survival access to abortion as a result of non-consensual sex. However, if the rape victim is a risk of severe mental distress or suicide, even with the adoption and the loss of the baby, then they may continue to seek a late-term abortion under Section 1b of this version, instead of Section 1a of GA#128. Therefore, we have been able effectively retain the same amount of help for rape victims.

2. How is section 9 not illegal?
WA proposal rules state that it is only illegal to have a proposal that simply blocks passage of abortion-related legislation, and do nothing else. This version complies with the rule by legalising abortion under critical circumstances.

3. How is legal abortion not an indirect ideological ban?
This version is not specifically banning a religion or ideology, or preventing any member country from having a state religion. If it was illegal to draft a proposal on abortion for ideological reasons, then proposals about access to healthcare, access to education, and even a ban on slavery would be illegal as well.

by **Auralia** » Tue Jan 07, 2014 2:01 pm

We are strongly opposed to any resolution that mandates the legalization of abortion.

Also, are you actually going to call this proposal "Second Abortion Resolution"?

by **The Dark Star Republic** » Tue Jan 07, 2014 2:12 pm

"The WA offers protections to patients seeking medical procedures under the Patient's Rights Act. Abortion is a legitimate medical procedure, and I do not understand why it should be treated any differently.

5. MANDATES that physicians who carry out abortions must satisfy the same accepted medical standards for all surgeons, and do their best to preserve the patient's physical health and welfare.

"Given that the majority of abortions in The Dark Star Republic are medical, we fail to see why a physician administering mifepristone should have surgical training. This seems a rather bizarre stipulation.

6. PROTECTS the right of physicians not to perform an abortion on moral grounds.

"This is extremely vaguely worded, and furthermore we simply don't agree with its premise. The WA does not otherwise give legal protection to people refusing to do their job; at the very least, this should be a national decision to make.

"We'll endeavour to provide further comments on this draft, but our lack of faith in its author means we are not optimistic."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

by **Charlotte Ryberg** » Tue Jan 07, 2014 3:20 pm

Auralia wrote:We are strongly opposed to any resolution that mandates the legalization of abortion.

Also, are you actually going to call this proposal "Second Abortion Resolution"?

To be honest, I had a thought about this while I was out and I realise that if a woman can obtain an abortion overseas, and that we or Minoa can fund an abortion for anyone regardless of where they come from, then the only thing we have to mandate is: no forced abortions, particulars on legal consent, and immunity from prosecution or suit for getting one overseas. If on Abortion goes, I think this would definitely be the one to calm down this long heated debate.

Let's try that.

-- Ms. S. Harper.

by **Herzil** » Tue Jan 07, 2014 3:22 pm

Its a nicely written proposal but we have a problem with clause 1 as it lackings most simple reason for abortion.

For example: A Couple unmarried or married (doesnt really matter ) is having safe sex , the condom is not 100% BulletProof and it breaks down and the girl gets pregnant.

They, according to clause 1 do not fit any of the scenarios you listed, and given that wouldnt be able to terminate a pregnancy they truely do not want at this point.

The list in clause 1 only refers to: Rape, Minors, Retardation, and other complications during pregnancy or given knowledge of problematic parents Genes.

We request that you will amend the draft so it will include people that by accident got pregnant (and they are in the age consent, didnt get rape and the odds of complications are slim to none)

by **The Dark Star Republic** » Tue Jan 07, 2014 3:29 pm

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:
Auralia wrote:We are strongly opposed to any resolution that mandates the legalization of abortion.

Also, are you actually going to call this proposal "Second Abortion Resolution"?

To be honest, I had a thought about this while I was out and I realise that if a woman can obtain an abortion overseas, and that we or Minoa can fund an abortion for anyone regardless of where they come from, then the only thing we have to mandate is: no forced abortions, particulars on legal consent, and immunity from prosecution or suit for getting one overseas. If on Abortion goes, I think this would definitely be the one to calm down this long heated debate.

Let's try that.

-- Ms. S. Harper.

"If the Abacathean Right of Emigration proposal passes, that won't be the case, as it reserves the right of nations to prevent someone leaving their country for the purposes of a crime (including obtaining an illegal medical procedure), so I question how this really solves anything."

by **Charlotte Ryberg** » Tue Jan 07, 2014 3:38 pm

The Dark Star Republic wrote:
Charlotte Ryberg wrote:To be honest, I had a thought about this while I was out and I realise that if a woman can obtain an abortion overseas, and that we or Minoa can fund an abortion for anyone regardless of where they come from, then the only thing we have to mandate is: no forced abortions, particulars on legal consent, and immunity from prosecution or suit for getting one overseas. If on Abortion goes, I think this would definitely be the one to calm down this long heated debate.

Let's try that.

-- Ms. S. Harper.

"If the Abacathean Right of Emigration proposal passes, that won't be the case, as it reserves the right of nations to prevent someone leaving their country for the purposes of a crime (including obtaining an illegal medical procedure), so I question how this really solves anything."

I assume that you want me to strengthen this because it still appears to allow member countries to force their policy over women in some way. What about:

4. DECLARES that it is neither a criminal offence nor a cause for civil suit to obtain an abortion in a country where abortion is legal.

By decriminalising foreign abortions, I think that might address the issues caused by a formal proposal on table. Bear in mind that there has to be a mandate for all countries, otherwise it fails the optionality rule.

-- Ms. S. Harper.

by **Auralia** » Tue Jan 07, 2014 4:49 pm

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:1. DECLARES that member countries are free to decide whether to legalise abortion, and if so, to what extent, within the confines of ~~active~~ previous World Assembly resolutions.

2. MANDATES that by default, no one shall be forced to have an abortion. If the patient is unable to make their wishes known in a member country where abortion is legal, that member country will consider arguments from all involved parties and adjudicate if an abortion would be in the patient’s interest.

3. MANDATES further that member countries where abortion is legal must protect the right of anyone to seek an abortion in confidentiality.

4. PROHIBITS member countries, where abortion is illegal, from prosecuting or bringing a civil suit against a person that had an abortion in a country where abortion is legal.

I could live with this draft, though I would prefer my own replacement. I have made one small change to ensure the first clause is a blocker.

by **Charlotte Ryberg** » Tue Jan 07, 2014 5:02 pm

Maybe try:

1. DECLARES that member countries may decide whether to legalise abortion, and if so, to what extent, within the limitations recognised by international law.

One thing I learned from 5 years of WA experience is to cut down the nonsense. As a result I am now down to 952 characters, and yes I know the blocker rule: it cannot be all what any resolution does.

by **Auralia** » Tue Jan 07, 2014 5:16 pm

The point I am trying to make is that the clause, as currently written, is not a blocker because it permits additional World Assembly resolutions on the topic. The clause should make it clear that it is only limited by previous World Assembly resolutions.

by **Charlotte Ryberg** » Tue Jan 07, 2014 5:59 pm

Auralia wrote:The point I am trying to make is that the clause, as currently written, is not a blocker because it permits additional World Assembly resolutions on the topic. The clause should make it clear that it is only limited by previous World Assembly resolutions.

Yes, I got it. I'm terribly sorry for the misunderstanding.

-- Ms. S. Harper.

by **The Dark Star Republic** » Tue Jan 07, 2014 6:03 pm

"This drafting process is utterly bizarre. Your present draft permits nations to ban abortion even if carrying the pregnancy to term would literally kill the mother. How has that suddenly become your idea of an acceptable compromise in the space of a little over 3 hours?"

by **Mosktopia** » Tue Jan 07, 2014 6:11 pm

The Ryberg delegation now seems to be less pro-choice than even the Auralian delegation, and I would be disinclined to support their replacement.

Allowing a person to travel internationally for an abortion is not really a suitable compromise. Most of the women who need these services the most are not going to be in a position to afford a transnational vacation for the purposes of securing an abortion. If a particular member nation does not legalize abortion, abortion services are effectively denied to the women living within that nation's borders.

by **Charlotte Ryberg** » Tue Jan 07, 2014 6:53 pm

The supporting staff of the Rybergian delegation look completely bemused. For a country that is firmly pro-choice, it turns out that Ms. S. Harper, who had been Charlotte Ryberg's troubled resolution writer for generations was finally coming apart. Empress Helena, head of state for both Minoa and Charlotte Ryberg walked into the chamber, after hearing of Ms. S. Harper's stumbling. It was clear that Harper's era was on borrowed time and actually trying to please pro-lifers was the give away:

"Ms. Harper, I heard while channel surfing that you wandered off our tried and tested policy. You can't go on to please everyone in the chamber. In fact, you done too much of that to such an extent that Charlotte Ryberg has been driven to the backbench through your deteriorating health. I can see it: you are totally knackered. The ambassador from the Dark Star Republic is right: your debating has gone totally and utterly bizarre and it's because you have done enough. I don't know how one could possibly be a representative for 6 years (OOC: which is generations in NS time). And now you propose that Charlotte Ryberg to give into the pro-lifers?

"You can't expect more countries to love Charlotte Ryberg just by doing this. That version of the resolution is fine as it is and we've won hearts and minds of more women from that. Why stop now?" ~ Empress Helena

by **Charlotte Ryberg** » Tue Jan 21, 2014 10:26 am

Bump due to recent events. I will actually just make minor revisions to clear up the consent to be less dependent on the next of kin and that's almost it apart from minor tweaks.

by **Christian Democrats** » Tue Jan 21, 2014 11:44 am

Looking at Section 7, I'm not sure why you consider this to be a settlement to General Assembly abortion debates.

by **Charlotte Ryberg** » Tue Jan 21, 2014 11:58 am

Christian Democrats wrote:Looking at Section 7, I'm not sure why you consider this to be a settlement to General Assembly abortion debates.

Maybe it's the way the clause was worded at the time, limited by the now defunct GA#44.

What about:

7. ALLOWS member countries to determine the legality of abortion for purposes not covered under the preceding clauses, and within the confines of previous World Assembly resolutions.

I might also think about tidying up the language in section 1:

1. LEGALISES abortion for cases where:

a) The pregnancy resulted from involuntary sexual activity.
b) The pregnancy resulted from other sexual activity where at least one person involved could not legally give consent.
c) Severe foetal abnormality may result in the birth of a child with an untreatable condition that is either fatal or perpetually painful.
d) A life-threatening physical or mental condition may result in the death or life-long severe disability of the patient if the pregnancy continued.

Disability implies both physical and mentally. GA#29 covers confidentiality.

by **Christian Democrats** » Tue Jan 21, 2014 12:30 pm

I have only one thing to say: if you are going to submit this, make sure that it blocks all future abortion proposals.

by **Charlotte Ryberg** » Tue Jan 21, 2014 12:35 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:I have only one thing to say: if you are going to submit this, make sure that it blocks all future abortion proposals.

That is how I got to "within the confines of previous World Assembly resolutions."

by **Bananaistan** » Tue Jan 21, 2014 12:38 pm

Bananaistan generally supports this resolution and the proposed amendment to section 1 in the submission just prior to this.

3. MANDATES that:
a) By default, no one shall be forced to have an abortion.
b) If the patient is unable to make their wishes known in a member country where abortion is legal, that member country will consider arguments from all involved parties and adjudicate, without undue prejudice, as to whether an abortion would be in the interest of the patient’s wellbeing.

Could we suggest that b be changed to refer to member states's legislation or medical practice regarding medical proxy, medical power of attorney, or some such reference which would remove the spurious next of kin argument regarding GA#128? In our opinion, any decision made by a “next of kin” should be made in accordance with the laws and practices already existing in the member state, whereas the above draft will require new legislation completely just to deal with these “next of kin” decisions regarding abortion. Also, as drafted, a rapist could well be an involved party. They should have no say whatsoever.

This rather unwieldy mouthful was the best I could come up with:

“Where a patient is unable to give their consent for an abortion; whether that abortion is further to Section 1 of this resolution, (further to any other international law ???), or further to the laws and practices existing within the member state regarding abortion; a decision whether an abortion would be in the interest of the patient’s wellbeing shall be taken in accordance with the member state’s laws and/or medical practice regarding medical proxy, medical power of attorney, and/or decision making by a patient’s next of kin.”

We were also concerned about the freedom of conscience exemption provided to medical practitioners under section 5 but upon further study we are satisfied that member states can legislate that any medical practitioner exercising a freedom of conscience decision must facilitate the arrangement of a timely alternative for the patient. We would prefer an additional rider that the freedom of conscience exemption is only applicable where a timely alternative can be arranged, but it is not a major issue.

by **Charlotte Ryberg** » Tue Jan 21, 2014 12:48 pm

Try this for size:

3. MANDATES that:
...
b) If the patient is unable to make their wishes known, then the decision on whether an abortion would be in the interest of the patient’s wellbeing shall be taken in accordance with national and international laws regarding mental capacity.

by **Bananaistan** » Tue Jan 21, 2014 12:50 pm

Much better than my effort!

by **Charlotte Ryberg** » Tue Jan 21, 2014 12:55 pm

Bananaistan wrote::clap: Much better than my effort!

Thanks. Looking at the title, it's one of the shortest in World Assembly history. It's worth checking if a proposal can take on a the title of an repealed resolution.

Minor copyedit and consistency improvement:

1. LEGALISES abortion for the following cases:
a) The pregnancy resulted from involuntary sexual activity.
b) The pregnancy resulted from other sexual activity where at least one person involved could not legally give consent.
c) Severe foetal abnormality may result in the birth of a child with an untreatable condition that is either fatal or perpetually painful.
d) A life-threatening physical or mental condition may result in the death or life-long severe disability of the patient if the pregnancy continued.

2. FURTHER REQUIRES member countries to ensure that abortion facilities are easily available to patients seeking abortion for a case under Section 1;

6. DECLARES that it is neither a criminal offence nor a cause for civil suit to have obtained abortion for a case under Section 1, and no inhabitant of a member country shall be subject to prosecution for having done so, nor otherwise subjected to harassment or persecution in law or at the instigation of the state in consequence;

7. ALLOWS member countries to determine the legality of abortion for cases outside Section 1, and within the confines of previous World Assembly resolutions.

I could not use "reason" because it would have looked as if the WA was legalising abortion for all cases because of the following reasons, so I used "case", which is probably more descriptive than "situation". Thoughts?

by **Aligned Planets** » Tue Jan 21, 2014 2:02 pm

OOC: I'd like to preface my involvement in this thread with the comment that, in RL, I am fully supportive of a woman's right to choose and am certainly pro-choice over pro-life. As a Brit where it isn't even an issue, I think the only sensible thing for America is to enforce Roe vs Wade, override "states' rights" and allow abortions across the country. However, as a player who consistently takes a NatSov'ist approach to my involvement in the WA, I must on this occasion argue in favour of member states retaining the right to decide this question themselves.

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:ASSERTING that it is the duty to protect the health of living persons;

A question here is to the definition of living persons; this could include the foetus itself. At what age does an as-yet unborn cluster of cells attain the same rights as a birthed / hatched / etc child?

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:ACCEPTING the controversy surrounding the legality of abortion;

Okay - good to hear. There's lots of debate on both sides, which is why it is best left to sovereign national governments to legislate.

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:NEVERTHELESS CONVINCED that it is inappropriate for member states to deny abortion to any pregnant female who are at risk of death if their pregnancy is not terminated;

Fair enough. In this one instance, and because of the wording "deny abortion" to the person at risk of death if pregnancy not terminated. This makes sense, and gives power to the person at risk. We assume that this right of termination would transfer to next-of-kin / guardian / etc should pregnant individual not be able to make coherent judgement for whatever reason?

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:1. LEGALISES abortion for the following cases:
a) The pregnancy resulted from involuntary sexual activity.
b) The pregnancy resulted from other sexual activity where at least one person involved could not legally give consent.
c) Severe foetal abnormality may result in the birth of a child with an untreatable condition that is either fatal or perpetually painful.
d) A life-threatening physical or mental condition may result in the death or life-long severe disability of the patient if the pregnancy continued.

This is a big expansion of the outlined provisions above in NEVERTHELESS CONVINCED. Our thoughts on each point:
a) Alternative options where life is not at risk is adoption; additionally the United Federation regularly conducts foetal transports to remove unwanted pregnancies from individuals and incubate the young in neo-natal chambers.
b) Again, same reasons.
c) Agreed.
d) Agreed.

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:2. FURTHER REQUIRES member countries to ensure that abortion facilities are easily available to patients seeking abortion for a case under Section 1;

Could a nation not facilitate transport to neighbouring nations who have the desire to fund such facilities? We have spectacularly fast starships these days which can zip people around lickety-split. They even get as many miles-per-gallon as a Prius.

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:3. MANDATES that:
a) By default, no one shall be forced to have an abortion.
b) If the patient is unable to make their wishes known, then the decision on whether an abortion would be in the interest of the patient’s wellbeing shall be taken in accordance with national and international laws regarding mental capacity.

a) Agreed.
b) Referring to my earlier point, I understand the NatSov'ist intentions of this point (and, in a way, appreciate the attempt) but in this case I'd have to suggest that something clearer here is laid out. What if the national policy for people declared mentally unwell is to through them into the darkest dungeon and throw away the key, without access to legal representation? Or something less extreme but equally incapacitating.

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:4. FURTHER MANDATES that physicians who carry out abortions must be trained to the same accepted medical standards that all surgeons are held to, and that abortions are carried out in a way that is as painless as possible while preserving the mother's physical health;

The first part of this clause may be unnecesary; it would be accepted practice for legalised abortions, carried out by medical professionals, would have the same high standards as other areas of medical healthcare. The second part about painlessness is fine.

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:5. DECLARES that no physician may be compelled to perform abortion against their moral stance;

Or prosecuted by plaintiffs for refusing to treat a patient, medical negligence, etc.

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:6. DECLARES that it is neither a criminal offence nor a cause for civil suit to have obtained abortion for a case under Section 1, and no inhabitant of a member country shall be subject to prosecution for having done so, nor otherwise subjected to harassment or persecution in law or at the instigation of the state in consequence;

This is fine. I think it could maybe be tidied up a little; I'll have a think.

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:7. ALLOWS member countries to determine the legality of abortion for cases outside Section 1, and within the confines of previous World Assembly resolutions.

This is fine, apart from "previous[..]".. that includes repealed. Rather than "ALLOWS", which makes the WA seem rather paternalistic, I would suggest "AFFIRMS that this Resolution shall not reduce the continued ability of member states to legislate for abortion outside of Section 1, within the parameters of current World Assembly Resolutions."

by **Charlotte Ryberg** » Tue Jan 21, 2014 2:54 pm

OOC: I am actually British as well.

IC: The first one intended to refer to everyone who is alive right now so I have changed this to "patient" for consistency.

Fair enough. In this one instance, and because of the wording "deny abortion" to the person at risk of death if pregnancy not terminated. This makes sense, and gives power to the person at risk. We assume that this right of termination would transfer to next-of-kin / guardian / etc should pregnant individual not be able to make coherent judgement for whatever reason?

That should be automatic under 3b. Minor copyedit:

NEVERTHELESS CONVINCED that it is inappropriate for member states to deny abortion to anyone at risk of death or serious mental distress, if their pregnancy is not terminated;

Aligned Planets wrote:This is a big expansion of the outlined provisions above in NEVERTHELESS CONVINCED. Our thoughts on each point:
a) Alternative options where life is not at risk is adoption; additionally the United Federation regularly conducts foetal transports to remove unwanted pregnancies from individuals and incubate the young in neo-natal chambers.
b) Again, same reasons.
c) Agreed.
d) Agreed.

Aligned Planets wrote:Could a nation not facilitate transport to neighbouring nations who have the desire to fund such facilities? We have spectacularly fast starships these days which can zip people around lickety-split. They even get as many miles-per-gallon as a Prius.

The alternative options to 1a would be a matter for the Reproductive Rights draft, which I think should be about family planning. I asked them if they could leave the legality up to me because legality is more to do with women's rights than the social justice side that family planning addresses.

Aligned Planets wrote:a) Agreed.
b) Referring to my earlier point, I understand the NatSov'ist intentions of this point (and, in a way, appreciate the attempt) but in this case I'd have to suggest that something clearer here is laid out. What if the national policy for people declared mentally unwell is to through them into the darkest dungeon and throw away the key, without access to legal representation? Or something less extreme but equally incapacitating.

World Assembly Resolution #227 might have got that. I can't duplicate what #227 says.

Aligned Planets wrote:The first part of this clause may be unnecesary; it would be accepted practice for legalised abortions, carried out by medical professionals, would have the same high standards as other areas of medical healthcare. The second part about painlessness is fine.

I could try:

DECLARES abortion to be a medical procedure, and hence subject to national and international laws regarding medical standards for all physicians;

MANDATES that physicians must carry out abortions in a way that is as painless as possible, while preserving the mother's mental and physical health.

Aligned Planets wrote:Or prosecuted by plaintiffs for refusing to treat a patient, medical negligence, etc.

That might be automatic as well by protecting the right to conscientious objection, but what about:

DECLARES that:
a) No physician may be compelled to perform abortion against their moral stance.
b) Physician who object to performing abortions because of their moral stance shall not suffer prosecution for misconduct.

For No. 7, I had to make it so as to prevent restrictive options from having a chance to pass in future.

[REPLACEMENT DRAFT] On Abortion

[REPLACEMENT DRAFT] On Abortion

[REPLACEMENT, DRAFT] On Abortion (with minor changes)

Who is online