Normlpeople wrote:"In any case, this will not be needed. It would seem the WA prefers the status quo here."
Yes, yes, we know. The wisdom of the voters cannot be denied when they do something we like. When they do something we don't, it's always "they didn't read past the title!" or "lemmings!"
At any rate, we were asked about clarity and precision in the text, and what exactly this would allow or disallow in member states. While I detest getting too specific in WA proposals, so as to avoid the constant scourge of micromanagement, I think it's safe to assume that the prohibition on "unnecessarily impugn[ing]" abortion rights leaves nations only the option of reasonable restrictions to protect patient safety and the public interest, as opposed to arbitrary restrictions that serve no other purpose than to infringe on the individual's rights. Bans on late-term abortion, or required counseling for patients seeking an abortion, would be entirely legal under this act. Banning abortions for redheads or "all women past the age of consent" or "all women past the first ten minutes of pregnancy" would not. If Reasonable Nation Theory is still a thing, that is.