[DEFEATED] Protection of Partially Born

[Liagolas]

"Her." Cornelia Schultz says.

The Mouth points at its hood.

"Invest," it says.

[Ovybia]

We have less than 21 hours to get the support of 88 more delegates. If you support this, please ask your WA delegate to approve it here: http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vie ... 1461369507

We reached quorum before so I know we have the support out there. We just need to let the delegates know about it.

[Louisistan]

I'm not touching this with a ten foot limbo pole.

[Excidium Planetis]

This will not make it to vote.

I told you you should have named it Partial Birth Termination.

[Happy People Land]

It's not at all commendable to approve every proposal, if everyone was like him the WA would be terrible. I'm sure he has done great things for the region, but he is also undermining a portion of the WA

[Separatist Peoples]

It's not at all commendable to approve every proposal, if everyone was like him the WA would be terrible. I'm sure he has done great things for the region, but he is also undermining a portion of the WA

OOC: do you mean to post to the Commend Vancouvia thread?

[Christian Democrats]

We have less than 21 hours to get the support of 88 more delegates. If you support this, please ask your WA delegate to approve it here: http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vie ... 1461369507

We reached quorum before so I know we have the support out there. We just need to let the delegates know about it.

Yeah, you'll need to submit this proposal again in a week or two and campaign for it.

[Separatist Peoples]

We have less than 21 hours to get the support of 88 more delegates. If you support this, please ask your WA delegate to approve it here: http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vie ... 1461369507

We reached quorum before so I know we have the support out there. We just need to let the delegates know about it.

Yeah, you'll need to submit this proposal again in a week or two and campaign for it.

OOC: Waiting is not a requirement in this case. A submission can be made immediately if there is no legality contest to adjust for.

[Christian Democrats]

Yeah, you'll need to submit this proposal again in a week or two and campaign for it.

OOC: Waiting is not a requirement in this case. A submission can be made immediately if there is no legality contest to adjust for.

OOC: Ovybia and United Massachusetts did a partial TG campaign, and I don't think they ought to bother delegates with telegrams about the same proposal twice in one week. They don't want to burn delegates out.

[Ovybia]

OOC: Waiting is not a requirement in this case. A submission can be made immediately if there is no legality contest to adjust for.

OOC: Ovybia and United Massachusetts did a partial TG campaign, and I don't think they ought to bother delegates with telegrams about the same proposal twice in one week. They don't want to burn delegates out.

OOC: Good point. I need to get an API going. I just learned that it's practically impossible to get anything to quorum without an API.

Thoughts on changing the name? I am leaning towards keeping the current one since it's already been campaigned for before and last time, not only reached but exceeded quorum in less than a day (before the mods pulled it.)

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: Good point. I need to get an API going. I just learned that it's practically impossible to get anything to quorum without an API.

I passed GA#338 with a manual telegram campaign. But that was when the requirement was only like 80 delegates, not the nearly 130 today. Also, I don't recommend manually sending hundreds of telegrams.

Another easy way is to spend the $3 for the stamps necessary to hit every delegate.

[Ovybia]

OOC: Good point. I need to get an API going. I just learned that it's practically impossible to get anything to quorum without an API.

I passed GA#338 with a manual telegram campaign. But that was when the requirement was only like 80 delegates, not the nearly 130 today. Also, I don't recommend manually sending hundreds of telegrams.

Another easy way is to spend the $3 for the stamps necessary to hit every delegate.

As a general rule, I don't spend money on online games but using an API should be fine, I think it'll get it to quorum. I'd estimate that together my coauthor, myself, and a few other members from my region sent out about 600 telegrams (we're not going through that again). Right now we have 62 approvals (about 50% of the necessary number) so we had a recruit rate of about 1%. Not bad, considering that many of those telegrams were sent in the last day or two.

Another thing I learned: Don't submit a proposal over a weekend.

[Christian Democrats]

Thoughts on changing the name?

Keep the current name.

Another thing I learned: Don't submit a proposal over a weekend.

The main thing to remember is to submit your proposals right after the update so that you maximize your time to obtain approvals. The update times are 12 AM and 12 PM ET respectively.

[Araraukar]

Thoughts on changing the name?

Keep the current name.

Change the name as was suggested before. The current one smells too much of trying to sneakily ban abortions of all sorts.

[Ovybia]

Keep the current name.

Change the name as was suggested before. The current one smells too much of trying to sneakily ban abortions of all sorts.

I'm starting to agree with that notion despite the fact that I have widely publicized the previous name. How about "Partial Birth Protection"?

I was told earlier that a proposal can only have one co-author. However upon reviewing the rules, I found the maximum co-authors to be three so I have re-added CD as a co-author. If I am wrong on this, please let me know and give a link to the rule.

[Araraukar]

I'm starting to agree with that notion despite the fact that I have widely publicized the previous name. How about "Partial Birth Protection"?

That sounds like you wanted to protect births that only happen partially (aka the baby gets stuck in the birth canal).

EP had, I think, the best suggestion:

I told you you should have named it Partial Birth Termination.

Of course, if you want to annoy some people, you could always make it "On Partial Birth Termination". Even "Partial Birth Termination Act" is just (at 29 marks) short enough for a name. After all, you're wanting to (OOC: against all sensibility and mods saying it still counts as an abortion and thus contradicts previous legislation, I might add) to make the partial birth termination illegal.

[The Sheika]

Change the name as was suggested before. The current one smells too much of trying to sneakily ban abortions of all sorts.

I'm starting to agree with that notion despite the fact that I have widely publicized the previous name. How about "Partial Birth Protection"?

I was told earlier that a proposal can only have one co-author. However upon reviewing the rules, I found the maximum co-authors to be three so I have re-added CD as a co-author. If I am wrong on this, please let me know and give a link to the rule.

I do have to agree that a change of the name would help. I know that you had publicized exactly what you intend, unfortunately there are those who only see the title and only go skin deep. "Partial Birth Protection" is an idea, but look for other suggestions that pop up and get opinions on all of them just to be certain.

[Ovybia]

I'm starting to agree with that notion despite the fact that I have widely publicized the previous name. How about "Partial Birth Protection"?

That sounds like you wanted to protect births that only happen partially (aka the baby gets stuck in the birth canal).

EP had, I think, the best suggestion:

I told you you should have named it Partial Birth Termination.

Partial Birth Termination is not descriptive enough. It could be anything including an act to allowing child destruction.

Of course, if you want to annoy some people, you could always make it "On Partial Birth Termination". Even "Partial Birth Termination Act" is just (at 29 marks) short enough for a name. After all, you're wanting to (OOC: against all sensibility and mods saying it still counts as an abortion and thus contradicts previous legislation, I might add) to make the partial birth termination illegal.

OOC: Why is it so hard to understand that, using the English language, child destruction is not an abortion? For ease of access, I even included the definition of pregnancy in the proposal to make it blatantly obvious.

I'm starting to agree with that notion despite the fact that I have widely publicized the previous name. How about "Partial Birth Protection"?

I was told earlier that a proposal can only have one co-author. However upon reviewing the rules, I found the maximum co-authors to be three so I have re-added CD as a co-author. If I am wrong on this, please let me know and give a link to the rule.

I do have to agree that a change of the name would help. I know that you had publicized exactly what you intend, unfortunately there are those who only see the title and only go skin deep. "Partial Birth Protection" is an idea, but look for other suggestions that pop up and get opinions on all of them just to be certain.

Thanks. Will do.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Why is it so hard to understand that, using the English language, child destruction is not an abortion? For ease of access, I even included the definition of pregnancy in the proposal to make it blatantly obvious.

OOC: So you don't want to criminalize "end[ing] a child's life during birth [which is] the passing of a child from the uterus and through the birth canal"?

[Leppikania]

Change the name as was suggested before. The current one smells too much of trying to sneakily ban abortions of all sorts.

I'm starting to agree with that notion despite the fact that I have widely publicized the previous name. How about "Partial Birth Protection"?

I was told earlier that a proposal can only have one co-author. However upon reviewing the rules, I found the maximum co-authors to be three so I have re-added CD as a co-author. If I am wrong on this, please let me know and give a link to the rule.

That was actually a very recent change. When I said to limit it to one co-author, the rules still said one co-author only.

[Excidium Planetis]

That sounds like you wanted to protect births that only happen partially (aka the baby gets stuck in the birth canal).

EP had, I think, the best suggestion:

Partial Birth Termination is not descriptive enough. It could be anything including an act to allowing child destruction.

That's great. The ambiguity could potentially lure more pro-life voters to your side.

Or, if you want to make it obvious "Partial Birth Termination Ban".

[Ovybia]

OOC: Why is it so hard to understand that, using the English language, child destruction is not an abortion? For ease of access, I even included the definition of pregnancy in the proposal to make it blatantly obvious.

OOC: So you don't want to criminalize "end[ing] a child's life during birth [which is] the passing of a child from the uterus and through the birth canal"?

And pregnancy according to the common definition is "the state of an individual having an offspring develop within the uterus" as it says in the proposal so killing a child outside of the uterus is, logically, not "termination of pregnancy."

Partial Birth Termination is not descriptive enough. It could be anything including an act to allowing child destruction.

That's great. The ambiguity could potentially lure more pro-life voters to your side.

Or, if you want to make it obvious "Partial Birth Termination Ban".

I think you mean pro-choice voters. "Partial Birth Protection" is more positive and concise than "Partial Birth Termination Ban." Why do you think "termination" is a better term than "protection"?

And I'm open to other suggestions or thoughts on the name change.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: nobody is going to mistake this for a pro-choice proposal. I wouldn't even bother tweaking the title to that particular end. You know somebody will run a counter campaign, and you know it's going to come across as a pro-life move to limit abortion, whether that's what it does or not. Name it accurately, as opposed to positively or negatively, and voters won't feel like you're trying to fool them.

[Ovybia]

OOC: nobody is going to mistake this for a pro-choice proposal. I wouldn't even bother tweaking the title to that particular end. You know somebody will run a counter campaign, and you know it's going to come across as a pro-life move to limit abortion, whether that's what it does or not. Name it accurately, as opposed to positively or negatively, and voters won't feel like you're trying to fool them.

I agree and that is why I am trying to change the name. Even though Child Destruction is accurate, many seem to get the wrong impression that it restricts all abortions. A name like "Partial Birth Protection" would be accurate and also descriptive for the general public. And I think many pro-choice voters will agree that the partial birth destruction procedure is unnecessary and disgusting (which is why many real world countries have made it illegal).

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: So you don't want to criminalize "end[ing] a child's life during birth [which is] the passing of a child from the uterus and through the birth canal"?

And pregnancy according to the common definition is "the state of an individual having an offspring develop within the uterus" as it says in the proposal so killing a child outside of the uterus is, logically, not "termination of pregnancy."

That's great. The ambiguity could potentially lure more pro-life voters to your side.

Or, if you want to make it obvious "Partial Birth Termination Ban".

I think you mean pro-choice voters. "Partial Birth Protection" is more positive and concise than "Partial Birth Termination Ban." Why do you think "termination" is a better term than "protection"?

And I'm open to other suggestions or thoughts on the name change.

Sorry, I did mean pro-choice.

"Partial Birth Protection" sounds like you are protecting the right to Partial Birth. Partial Birth Termination Ban is very clear.