[Frustrated Franciscans] Repeal "Reproductive Freedoms"

[Tinfect]

OOC:
You'll never guess what managed to sneak into the submission box while nobody was looking! Figured it was pretty disingenuous to dodge the drafting forum for this, especially from someone who ought to know better, so without further ado, here we go again.

Repeal "Reproductive Freedoms"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal | Resolution: GA#286 | Proposed by: Frustrated Franciscans

---

Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #286: Reproductive Freedoms (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The World Assembly

Recognizing that the issue of human life and the conflicting rights of individuals is complex and does not always have simple answers,

Lamenting the fact that the use of the term “termination of pregnancy” allows some nations to avoid the issue by concentrating on the ends and not the means,

Appreciating the declaration that the “termination of pregnancy” is a medical procedure but noting that the rights to any medical procedure is already supported by previous WA resolutions (#128 On Abortion / #29 Patient’s Right Act) and does not need this resolution in order to uphold them.

Concerned that the mandates of previous WA resolutions on the medical standards required of such medical procedures might easily be ignored or overlooked because of this resolution which, as a result of the resolution #120 On Abortion can only legislate abortion for purposes not covered under the resolution #120.

Assured that an existing WA resolution (#128 On Abortion) not only provides a basic right to the procedure under specific circumstances but also gives nations the right to expand that right as they see fit, so repealing this resolution would continue to keep existing laws in place unless member nations later decide to change them as per existing resolution.

Hereby Repeals General Assembly Resolution #286 Reproductive Freedoms

In case you managed to miss it, no, I didn't write this, please hold back the Wall-O'-Text. The author is at the top of the proposal.

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: You know, can we just make it so that Reproductive Freedoms is unrepealable? I'm getting tired of all this.

[Calladan]

Doesn't the original proposal protect more than just the right to terminate a pregnancy? From what I remember (and I admit I haven't read it recently) doesn't it allow for encouraging people not to have terminations, and allow for encouraging adoptions?

And from what I have read of this repeal, it doesn't address that fact - it just seems to want to repeal the original proposal on the basis that *some* of it *might* be covered by other areas, ignoring the fact that are other clauses that are not protected.

Which - to me - suggests there is a reason not to repeal it?

[Gruenberg]

OOC: Opposed, in the interests of national sovereignty.

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: Opposed, in the interests of national sovereignty.

OOC: Shouldn't that mean that you support this, then?

[Gruenberg]

OOC: Opposed, in the interests of national sovereignty.

OOC: Shouldn't that mean that you support this, then?

OOC: Reproductive Freedoms is a NatSov resolution.

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: Shouldn't that mean that you support this, then?

OOC: Reproductive Freedoms is a NatSov resolution.

OOC: I'd like to see your reasoning for that.

[Gruenberg]

OOC: Reproductive Freedoms is a NatSov resolution.

OOC: I'd like to see your reasoning for that.

OOC: So would I! I have always been extremely interested to find out how it's justified on NatSov grounds. Unfortunately, its co-author hasn't been especially forthcoming.

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: I'd like to see your reasoning for that.

OOC: So would I! I have always been extremely interested to find out how it's justified on NatSov grounds. Unfortunately, its co-author hasn't been especially forthcoming.

OOC:

From what I can see, Reproductive Freedoms has no co-author. Also, I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Wallenburg]

"This is one of the most underhanded acts I have ever seen in these halls. The Wallenburgian delegation denounces Ambassador Sanders for intentionally violating the basic principles of General Assembly authorship and attempting to repeal such an essential piece of international legislation."

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

OOC:
You'll never guess what managed to sneak into the submission box while nobody was looking! Figured it was pretty disingenuous to dodge the drafting forum for this, especially from someone who ought to know better...

Forum drafting is for sissies.

Enthusiastic, full support - even despite the borderline-illegal contention that PRA ensures patients' rights to "all" medical procedures. In actuality it only protects the right to obtain a procedure that is legal in the country where the patient is receiving treatment.

[Tzorsland]

OH that's nonsense. If I get the time, I'll have the Franciscans write up a proposal and throw it on the queue. Of course no one is going to approve it anyway.

Since I didn't have the time, I resurrected something that didn't make the approvals a long time ago. I'm sure you can dig up the original thread, if you want.

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

Teran Saber: "Of course the Greater Siriusian Domain is going to oppose this. However, I personally would like to advise against antagonizing the nation that submitted this, for fear of being on the receiving end of a Holy Hand Grenade."

[Frustrated Franciscans]

Now I suppose I need to make a decent argument to the Kennites. Yes I see the argument that technically a "procedure" can be made illegal under World Assembly Resolution #29. Of course, by the same argument, there is nothing technically speaking that forces nations to legalize all procedures, merely that a right has been established and that "Member Nations prohibit any impediment to the termination of pregnancy that is not applied to medical procedures of similar risk and complexity."

My biggest argument is in the sloppy term "termination of pregnancy." A live birth is technically a "termination of pregnancy." I believe this was mentioned in the original debates. "Well you know what I mean," doesn't cut it in international law.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Since you submitted without drafting, there's little point to have this thread, unless it makes it to vote. I would suggest replacing "here we go again" with "submitted", though.

IC: No.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Tinfect, put a thing in the title saying 'by Frustrated Fransciscan's (or however you spell that).

[Mousebumples]

Now I suppose I need to make a decent argument to the Kennites. Yes I see the argument that technically a "procedure" can be made illegal under World Assembly Resolution #29. Of course, by the same argument, there is nothing technically speaking that forces nations to legalize all procedures, merely that a right has been established and that "Member Nations prohibit any impediment to the termination of pregnancy that is not applied to medical procedures of similar risk and complexity."

My biggest argument is in the sloppy term "termination of pregnancy." A live birth is technically a "termination of pregnancy." I believe this was mentioned in the original debates. "Well you know what I mean," doesn't cut it in international law.

If I recall correctly, the fact that live birth could be considered a "termination of pregnancy" was considered and welcomed into that definition in the original debates. Let me do some digging and see if I can find those posts by EF ...

EDIT: Relevant post I've found: by Bananaistan

Admittedly, I skimmed the thread, and as EF has CTEd, she is one of many in that thread with the Ex-Nation flag, but that post is apparently one that I've (somewhere, in my brain) credited to EF all these years. My apologies, Bananaistan.

**

Also, because it was referenced above, while I consider myself to be a NatSov in many ways, I am also a strong advocate for human rights and equal access to health care, which often override my NatSov leanings, as evidenced by some of the legislation, I've passed. I call myself an "adorably marvelous NatSov" In my sig, in part because I was amused by the phrasing Mallorea and Riva used when he referred to me as such.

Overall, especially when I was more active as an author and an RP ambassador in this forum, I was more on the NatSov versus IntFed side of things. However, for me at least, it's not a black-and-white sort of paradigm, and the rights of females within all member nations to be able to make their own decisions about their reproductive status is important to me.

[Tinfect]

OOC: Since you submitted without drafting, there's little point to have this thread, unless it makes it to vote. I would suggest replacing "here we go again" with "submitted", though.

IC: No.

OOC:
Not mine, blame Frustrated Fransiscans

Tinfect, put a thing in the title saying 'by Frustrated Fransciscan's (or however you spell that).

Probably a good idea.

[Frustrated Franciscans]

This thread is already too much for something I threw back up just because people were complaining how quiet the queue was.

Here is the original thread. Sine the thread devolved into an abortion bloodbath, it was locked three days later after it reached 11 pages.

Approvals: 13 (United England N Wales, Eythonia, Dobbs, Trump Is Boss, The rouge Christmas state, Grand Enclave, 1-502nd Airborne Inf, Aisciai, Cresenthia, Januostium, Amalgia, RonSwanistan, Christian Democrats) which is nice considering that not only was this not given a campaign, everyone is supposed to be somewhere else.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Not mine, blame Frustrated Fransiscans

OOC: My bad. The "here we go again" wording in the headline made me think you were in on it. Next time try "Look what I found"?

[NatSov]

OOC: Shouldn't that mean that you support this, then?

OOC: Reproductive Freedoms is a NatSov resolution.

It is not!