Family Planning Access Agreement

[SchutteGod]

Health/Healthcare

Concerned that staggering population growth could pose serious economic problems, especially in developing nations;

Convinced that sensible family-planning policies are essential for controlling national birthrates, preventing unmanageable population increases, and ensuring the health and well-being of young families;

Acknowledging that low-income families may lack access to effective birth-control products or information on family planning services, and that the lack of such products, information or services may result in greater poverty levels as low-income families continue to produce children they cannot afford;

Defining, for the purpose of this resolution, "family planning" as pertaining to any scientifically valid product or service for regulating the number and spacing of children in a family, including: preventive contraceptives, adoption services, obstetric and gynecological care and counseling, sexual health and STD-prevention counseling and education, and abstinence education.

This Assembly hereby declares its commitment to supporting family-planning programs in member nations by enacting the following:

The World Assembly

1. Affirms the right of individuals to access family-planning services and birth-control methods, or to request information about the same;

2. Stipulates that member nations must allow their citizens and residents to access family-planning services available in their borders; and that member states may reasonably regulate the distribution and/or execution of such products and services, so long as they do not arbitrarily impede the efforts of families to attain said products or services;

3. Strongly urges member states to lend support to domestic agencies and programs providing information and services for family planning;

4. Encourages nations to permit aid disbursements to be used for the development of such services;

5. Strongly encourages member states to establish programs helping low-income families obtain legal family-planning services that are beyond their financial means;

6. Requests that nations provide incentives to domestic companies, agencies and programs to supply discounts and financial assistance for low-income families seeking family-planning services.

This proposal is based on a 2007 resolution authored by an affiliated nation. It passed with flying colors back then, but we would still appreciate any relevant feedback the GA could provide. Thanks in advance,

Dora Lee, ambassador to the WA

OOC: love, Kenny.

[Grays Harbor]

Might want to change that "United Nations" bit in there

[Liagolas]

"Intriguing," the hooded Mouth of the Dominion to the World Assembly says. "This warrants further examination."

Defining, for the purpose of this resolution, "family planning" as pertaining to any scientifically valid product or service for regulating the number and spacing of children in a family, including:

"There appears to be a slight misprint in this copy," the Mouth says. "What should 'family planning' include?"

The Mouth pauses as it reads through the remainder of the document, and it then says, "It is the understanding of the Dominion that this proposal essentially mandates that individuals in member states be able to access contraceptives and other means of 'family planning.' Is that accurate?

EDIT:
"If so, the Dominion is uncertain if the first prefatory clause is truly relevant." (OOC: Whoops, this doesn't actually make any sense)

4. Encourages nations to permit aid disbursements to be used for the development of such services;

"It is the desire of the Dominion that this clause be clarified," the Mouth says. "From who would these aid disbursements that member nations must permit be coming from? Are these private aid disbursements?

"Finally, it is the concern of the Dominion that this proposal may not adequately take into account the possibilities of socialist or communist states or population planning by the government," the Mouth says. "The text seems to assume that family planning will be provided by businesses on a family by family basis. However, what of a nation where there are no such businesses because of socialist or communist economic policies or because population growth is meticulously planned and overseen by the state?

"Liagolas is an island nation with limited resources, and it is the responsibility of the Dominion to ensure that it does not upset the balance of its environment," the Mouth says. "Therefore, the Dominion oversees all reproductive activity, determining how many births shall occur and when, et cetera. While the Dominion does not believe that this proposal would negatively impact its ability to oversee the growth of its population, would it be possible to reword some clauses or add some clauses to clarify that state regulation of population growth is as legitimate as domestic services? It is the belief of the Dominion that this would also serve socialist or communist member states wherein there would not be private family planning services."

[SchutteGod]

Defining, for the purpose of this resolution, "family planning" as pertaining to any scientifically valid product or service for regulating the number and spacing of children in a family, including:

"There appears to be a slight misprint in this copy," the Mouth says. "What should 'family planning' include?"

The Mouth pauses as it reads through the remainder of the document, and it then says, "It is the understanding of the Dominion that this proposal essentially mandates that individuals in member states be able to access contraceptives and other means of 'family planning.' Is that accurate?

"If so, the Dominion is uncertain if the first prefatory clause is truly relevant."

We apologize for the shoddy and sloppy condition of this draft. It appears we were a bit more rushed in getting this to the floor than we realized. We have added "preventive contraceptives, adoption services, obstetric and gynecological care and counseling, sexual-health and STD-prevention counseling and education, and abstinence education" as examples of the family planning care covered by this proposal.

4. Encourages nations to permit aid disbursements to be used for the development of such services;

"It is the desire of the Dominion that this clause be clarified," the Mouth says. "From who would these aid disbursements that member nations must permit be coming from? Are these private aid disbursements?

We will think on rewording the language - to my mind, it would be both public and private support, but if it is found that this doesn't necessarily add much to the benefits of this proposal, we can even drop the clause.

"Finally, it is the concern of the Dominion that this proposal may not adequately take into account the possibilities of socialist or communist states or population planning by the government," the Mouth says. "The text seems to assume that family planning will be provided by businesses on a family by family basis. However, what of a nation where there are no such businesses because of socialist or communist economic policies or because population growth is meticulously planned and overseen by the state?

"Liagolas is an island nation with limited resources, and it is the responsibility of the Dominion to ensure that it does not upset the balance of its environment," the Mouth says. "Therefore, the Dominion oversees all reproductive activity, determining how many births shall occur and when, et cetera. While the Dominion does not believe that this proposal would negatively impact its ability to oversee the growth of its population, would it be possible to reword some clauses or add some clauses to clarify that state regulation of population growth is as legitimate as domestic services? It is the belief of the Dominion that this would also serve socialist or communist member states wherein there would not be private family planning services."

Seeing as this proposal is supposed to be about individual freedom to plan one's own family, and not the government's freedom to regulate it, we do not see the benefit of using this legislation to legitimize population control. We can tweak the language in Clause 2, however, if you think that would make it more clear that centralized planning is acceptable. Any suggestions on that?

[SchutteGod]

Bump?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Okay. So why is this an international issue? I do this in every thread. And I don't vote for things I don't believe are international issues. And from raw numbers, its 269 votes within 20 seconds, so you should answer this question if you want it to pass. Just being entirely real here so this question is addressed.

[Araraukar]

Bump?

Why is this an international issue? (OOC: Damnit, IA, no fair to ninja me like that!)

[SchutteGod]

Okay. So why is this an international issue? I do this in every thread. And I don't vote for things I don't believe are international issues. And from raw numbers, its 269 votes within 20 seconds, so you should answer this question if you want it to pass. Just being entirely real here so this question is addressed.

Because the WA is already forcing all nations to legalize all abortions, without addressing other reproductive alternatives that may reduce the need for such a provocative and extreme measure. Also, this is intended as a replacement for Reduction of Abortion Act, which was repealed on dubious grounds and did properly address abortion alternatives. So it has been considered a valid international issue at least twice before.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Okay. So why is this an international issue? I do this in every thread. And I don't vote for things I don't believe are international issues. And from raw numbers, its 269 votes within 20 seconds, so you should answer this question if you want it to pass. Just being entirely real here so this question is addressed.

Because the WA is already forcing all nations to legalize all abortions, without addressing other reproductive alternatives that may reduce the need for such a provocative and extreme measure. Also, this is intended as a replacement for Reduction of Abortion Act, which was repealed on dubious grounds and did properly address abortion alternatives. So it has been considered a valid international issue at least twice before.

Parsons: (looks around at everyone else) Now this is a real answer. (slaps the SchutteGod ambassador on the back) Well done, well done. I wish other authors were so willing to provide such clear answers for their proposals.

---

Concerned that staggering population growth could pose serious economic problems, especially in developing nations;

Convinced that sensible family-planning policies are essential for controlling national birthrates, preventing unmanageable population increases, and ensuring the health and well-being of young families;

Acknowledging that low-income families may lack access to effective birth-control products or information on family planning services, and that the lack of such products, information or services may result in greater poverty levels as low-income families continue to produce children they cannot afford;

I agree with all of this. These are some nice reasons, though they probably should be simplified so the average voter can understand it more easily.

Defining, for the purpose of this resolution, "family planning" as pertaining to any scientifically valid product or service for regulating the number and spacing of children in a family, including: preventive contraceptives, adoption services, obstetric and gynecological care and counseling, sexual health and STD-prevention counseling and education, and abstinence education.

I would put definition clauses inside the operative section.

This Assembly hereby declares its commitment to supporting family-planning programs in member nations by enacting the following:

Do we really need this section here?

Otherwise, I have no objections to the proposal. While it could be a tad stronger if you want it do what you want it to do more effectively, you have my support. However, the title could be better. 'Family Planning Agreement' or 'Family Planning Access' or 'Accessibility to Family Planning' would be better alternatives, I think.

[John Turner]

I say we should just abort the WA, and pass a single resolution in it's place.

"The Question of abortion shall be left up to individual nations to decide".

Problem solved and we can all go home.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I say we should just abort the WA, and pass a single resolution in it's place.

"The Question of abortion shall be left up to individual nations to decide".

Problem solved and we can all go home.

This is probably true as well. Though, it would take a miracle to make it happen. If you're willing to get every major region to stack in favour of a few resolutions, this can be done in a month.

[John Turner]

I say we should just abort the WA, and pass a single resolution in it's place.

"The Question of abortion shall be left up to individual nations to decide".

Problem solved and we can all go home.

This is probably true as well. Though, it would take a miracle to make it happen. If you're willing to get every major region to stack in favour of a few resolutions, this can be done in a month.

It would take two resolutions. One to completely abort the entire WA, and one to pass the single blocker in it's place. We can throw in some fluff about not killing housecats, and being nice to civilians if needed........

[SchutteGod]

While it could be a tad stronger if you want it do what you want it to do more effectively, you have my support.

We thank Ambassador Parsons. Does he have any suggestions as to how to make the language or the bill "stronger"? Does he think the WHA has a role to play here, or would that just be a meaningless tack-on?

[Excidium Planetis]

Okay. So why is this an international issue? I do this in every thread. And I don't vote for things I don't believe are international issues. And from raw numbers, its 269 votes within 20 seconds, so you should answer this question if you want it to pass. Just being entirely real here so this question is addressed.

Because the WA is already forcing all nations to legalize all abortions, without addressing other reproductive alternatives that may reduce the need for such a provocative and extreme measure. Also, this is intended as a replacement for Reduction of Abortion Act, which was repealed on dubious grounds and did properly address abortion alternatives. So it has been considered a valid international issue at least twice before.

"Just because the WA forces nations to allow termination of pregnancy doesn't mean we should also force nations to provide access to birth control. Termination of pregnancy was not an international issue, and neither is this."

"Oh, yeah: Opposed." Schultz says.

[SchutteGod]

Just because the WA forces nations to allow termination of pregnancy doesn't mean we should also force nations to provide access to birth control.

Actually, it kinda does. If the WA is going to open the floodgates to the unregulated killing of unborn fetuses, it very well becomes the WA's responsibility to assure that as many of those deaths can be safely prevented by alternate means. If we're going to allow our teenage children to drive the family car, we better make damn sure the car and all drivers are insured.

Termination of pregnancy was not an international issue, and neither is this.

I assure you, Your Excellency, overpopulation and the many global problems it brings -- and the means of preventing it -- are legitimate international concerns.

[Araraukar]

1. Affirms the right of individuals to access family-planning services and birth-control methods, or to request information about the same;

OOC: Just a quick dash through here, but I think this would work better if it had "and to request information".

[Excidium Planetis]

Just because the WA forces nations to allow termination of pregnancy doesn't mean we should also force nations to provide access to birth control.

Actually, it kinda does. If the WA is going to open the floodgates to the unregulated killing of unborn fetuses, it very well becomes the WA's responsibility to assure that as many of those deaths can be safely prevented by alternate means.

"Yeah, no. Two wrongs don't make a right, they say, or something. Also, the WA does not open the floodgates for unregulated killing of fetuses, it actually allows regulation. Abortion can be restricted by individual nations to a handful of cases, namely rape and when the mother's life is threatened."

If we're going to allow our teenage children to drive the family car, we better make damn sure the car and all drivers are insured.

"What?"

Termination of pregnancy was not an international issue, and neither is this.

I assure you, Your Excellency, overpopulation and the many global problems it brings -- and the means of preventing it -- are legitimate international concerns.

"No, no they aren't. I don't care if your nation is shortsighted and allows overpopulation to kill it. It doesn't affect us at all."

[SchutteGod]

Actually, it kinda does. If the WA is going to open the floodgates to the unregulated killing of unborn fetuses, it very well becomes the WA's responsibility to assure that as many of those deaths can be safely prevented by alternate means.

"Yeah, no. Two wrongs don't make a right, they say, or something. Also, the WA does not open the floodgates for unregulated killing of fetuses, it actually allows regulation. Abortion can be restricted by individual nations to a handful of cases, namely rape and when the mother's life is threatened."

You're thinking of On Abortion. We were referring to Reproductive Freedoms, which makes abortion rights near-absolute.

I assure you, Your Excellency, overpopulation and the many global problems it brings -- and the means of preventing it -- are legitimate international concerns.

"No, no they aren't. I don't care if your nation is shortsighted and allows overpopulation to kill it. It doesn't affect us at all."

It might. Have you ever heard of a refugee crisis?

[Tinfect]

It might. Have you ever heard of a refugee crisis?

"There is no resolution that forces a Member State to accept Refugees."

[Excidium Planetis]

"Yeah, no. Two wrongs don't make a right, they say, or something. Also, the WA does not open the floodgates for unregulated killing of fetuses, it actually allows regulation. Abortion can be restricted by individual nations to a handful of cases, namely rape and when the mother's life is threatened."

You're thinking of On Abortion. We were referring to Reproductive Freedoms, which makes abortion rights near-absolute.

"It most certainly does not. Reproductive Freedoms doesn't even use the word abortion."

"No, no they aren't. I don't care if your nation is shortsighted and allows overpopulation to kill it. It doesn't affect us at all."

It might. Have you ever heard of a refugee crisis?

"Yes. There was this one issue with the Galactic Economic and Security Organization, where there were some refugees from some war or something. I didn't pay much attention to it, as none of the refugees were even seen by Excidians, and likely not by your nation either. It didn't affect us at all."

[SchutteGod]

It might. Have you ever heard of a refugee crisis?

"There is no resolution that forces a Member State to accept Refugees."

You don't have to accept refugees to be affected by their migration.

It most certainly does not. Reproductive Freedoms doesn't even use the word abortion.

Sorry, but are you a Kennyite? They're usually the ones who specialize in obtuse readings of the law, aren't they?

[Sciongrad]

"It most certainly does not. Reproductive Freedoms doesn't even use the word abortion."

"This should be interesting. If GAR#286 doesn't guarantee almost totally unrestricted access to pregnancy termination, which includes abortion, what exactly do you think it does? I'm eager to find out."

[Tinfect]

You don't have to accept refugees to be affected by their migration.

"Ambassador, do explain how it is you believe that the Imperium, which allows no foreigners into our Interior Territories, and does not involve itself with International Trade, might be affected by the travels of refugees?"

[Excidium Planetis]

"It most certainly does not. Reproductive Freedoms doesn't even use the word abortion."

"This should be interesting. If GAR#286 doesn't guarantee almost totally unrestricted access to pregnancy termination, which includes abortion, what exactly do you think it does? I'm eager to find out."

"My belief was most coherently defined in your draft of Repeal 'Reproductive Freedoms', and further outlined in Railana's Protecting Life or whatever draft and the Ovybian Ambassador's Child Destruction Ban draft.

"It basically amounts to this: unrestricted access to termination of pregnancy is required, but not the specific method of abortion. Nations are allowed to outlaw certain types of medical procedures provided there are alternatives. My nation can safely remove embryos from the womb and keep them alive until they are ready to survive on their own. These procedures successfully terminate pregnancy in a way that is safe and openly accessible. Therefore we can comply with GA#286 while still outlawing abortion, except of course in the cases we are required to provide abortion for under 'On Abortion'."

[SchutteGod]

Scintillating though this discussion is, the original topic is the proposed draft, so please stick as closely to that as possible.