[WITHDRAWN] Protocol on Abortion

[Auralia]

This blocker is designed to be compatible with On Abortion. It effectively permits member nations to legalize or prohibit abortion by permitting nations to freely regulate supplementary acts related to abortion.

Auralia, for instance, effectively prohibits abortion within its jurisdiction by banning the trafficking in medical supplies or equipment used to perform abortions, though abortion itself remains legal. We satisfy the abortion facilities mandate by referring people overseas.

This blocker is necessary to stave off proposals like Reproductive Freedoms, which would completely legalize abortion in all member nations.

Protocol on Abortion
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Mild

Aware of the controversy surrounding abortion,

Affirming the right of member nations to legalize abortion through domestic law or World Assembly resolution, as originally established by GAR #128, "On Abortion",

Nevertheless believing that the World Assembly should permit individual member nations to answer the abortion question for themselves, to the extent permitted by previous World Assembly resolutions,

The General Assembly,

1. Defines abortion as the intentional termination of a pregnancy resulting in or accompanied by the death of the prenatal offspring;

2. Recognizes induced abortion as a medical procedure subject to the same general regulations as all other medical procedures under domestic or international law, including but not limited to regulations on patient rights and consent to medical care;

3. Affirms the right of member nations to legalize abortion through domestic law or World Assembly resolution,

4. Clarifies that this applies only to the legalization of abortion itself, and not to supplementary acts closely related to abortion;

5. Permits member nations to freely regulate any and all such supplementary acts within their jurisdiction, subject only to the provisions of this and previous World Assembly resolutions;

6. Directs member nations not to use their freedom to regulate such supplementary acts so as to effectively preclude a pregnant individual from receiving appropriate lifesaving medical treatment, even when the termination of pregnancy is an unavoidable side effect of such treatment.

[Grays Harbor]

If this puts an end to the endless round of acrimonious debates, then we are completely supportive.

(Also, please, for the love of all that is whatever, DON'T use the annoyingly annoying "ON [insert item here]" for the title.)

[Bananaistan]

and not to any supplementary acts closely related to abortion

What exactly is envisioned here?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Ambassador from Auralia, it would be better not to worry about the topic of abortion if only to keep the chamber sane.

-- Ms. S. Harper.

[Auralia]

and not to any supplementary acts closely related to abortion

What exactly is envisioned here?

Oh, I don't know, mandatory ultrasound laws? Parental consent and notification laws? Restrictions on the trafficking of medical supplies intended for use in abortions? Perhaps even a tax on abortion?

Really anything member nations can think of, so long as it isn't explicitly legalized by On Abortion.

[Aboras]

I'd sure like it if we could let the current laws in place and not worry about Abortion....

[Rotwood]

Ambassador from Auralia, it would be better not to worry about the topic of abortion if only to keep the chamber sane.

-- Ms. S. Harper.

Seconded.

The way the Ambassador has been acting of late, we wonder if it might be in their best interests, and perhaps the best interests of the WA if they should leave

[Aboras]

The way the Ambassador has been acting of late, we wonder if it might be in their best interests, and perhaps the best interests of the WA if they should leave

I second this thought. It seems they have been focused in on one issue.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Ambassador from Auralia, it would be better not to worry about the topic of abortion if only to keep the chamber sane. ;)

-- Ms. S. Harper.

Seconded.

The way the Ambassador has been acting of late, we wonder if it might be in their best interests, and perhaps the best interests of the WA if they should leave

"I don't really understand this logic.

"If Auralia left the WA, wouldn't they be very likely to immediately adopt more restrictive abortion laws (and laws on gay and transgender rights, and other issues)? I utterly fail to see how, if that happened, the WA would have done anything at all to advance the cause of reproductive health.

"Arguing that the proper response to On Abortion is to resign WA membership is hardly an endorsement of its virtues as a compromise."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Rotwood]

Seconded.

The way the Ambassador has been acting of late, we wonder if it might be in their best interests, and perhaps the best interests of the WA if they should leave

"I don't really understand this logic.

"If Auralia left the WA, wouldn't they be very likely to immediately adopt more restrictive abortion laws (and laws on gay and transgender rights, and other issues)? I utterly fail to see how, if that happened, the WA would have done anything at all to advance the cause of reproductive health.

"Arguing that the proper response to On Abortion is to resign WA membership is hardly an endorsement of its virtues as a compromise."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

This was meant more as a broader view, not just On Abortion, in reflection of their activity of late and their openly non-compliance on issues

[Christian Democrats]

No, this idea is too crazy.

[Hirota]

"If Auralia left the WA, wouldn't they be very likely to immediately adopt more restrictive abortion laws (and laws on gay and transgender rights, and other issues)? I utterly fail to see how, if that happened, the WA would have done anything at all to advance the cause of reproductive health.

Not really. After all, Auralia has openly been ignoring resolutions for sometime.

Although if we were to remove what few shackles are in place thanks to International Law, the mind reels at the prospects for human rights abuses that would occur in the Tinpot Dictatorship of Auralia. Maybe in this instance, a measure of appeasement is the slightly lesser of two evils.

[Eireann Fae]

"It is always a pleasure when we agree with the Christian Democrats. It lets us know that neither of us are too radical for compromise in some areas."

[Bananaistan]

Seconded.

The way the Ambassador has been acting of late, we wonder if it might be in their best interests, and perhaps the best interests of the WA if they should leave

"I don't really understand this logic.

"If Auralia left the WA, wouldn't they be very likely to immediately adopt more restrictive abortion laws (and laws on gay and transgender rights, and other issues)? I utterly fail to see how, if that happened, the WA would have done anything at all to advance the cause of reproductive health.

"Arguing that the proper response to On Abortion is to resign WA membership is hardly an endorsement of its virtues as a compromise."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

We support Ambassador Fungschlammer's point of view. Leaving aside the issues regarding the Auralian population were they to leave the WA, we believe that debate can only be good, even if it is repetitious and at times frustrating. It would be rather boring if the World Assembly delegates were one homogeneous block who agreed on everything.

[Araraukar]

1. Defines abortion as the intentional termination of a pregnancy resulting in or accompanied by the death of the prenatal offspring;

So if the lump of cells was kept alive for stem cell purposes, it wouldn't be abortion?

[Auralia]

1. Defines abortion as the intentional termination of a pregnancy resulting in or accompanied by the death of the prenatal offspring;

So if the lump of cells was kept alive for stem cell purposes, it wouldn't be abortion?

I imagine it would depend on whether the embryo will eventually be destroyed or re-implanted into another uterus.

[Ardchoille]

As we all know, the only legal way to totally reverse or amend an existing, international Resolution is to repeal it.

However, many nations use ingenious roleplayed national approaches to regulate, mitigate, enthusiastically promote, or even cancel out, the effects of Resolutions on their citizens.

But these are notoriously difficult to translate to international law because of the risk of contradiction, duplication or amendment of the existing Resolution. Or they may push the Assembly into more that it agreed to, as with recent attempts to regulate circumcision after the approval of the blocker Permit Male Circumcision.

In this proposal, the roleplayed national approaches can’t be put into international law because that law is already there. The WA has already pushed in a particular direction on abortion.

Or, to put it another way: the existing legislation has already staked a claim on the ground you’re trying to cover. Lines such as “subject only to the provisions of this and previous World Assembly resolutions” do not immunise a proposal against the effects of those previous resolutions.

Patients’ Rights Act requires that, if it’s an emergency, the patient has the right to medical treatment, and, if it’s not an emergency, the patient has the right to undergo a medical procedure that is legal in the nation. In order for the patient to be treated, or to undergo a procedure, the “supplementary acts closely related to” that treatment or procedure must be performed. Thus, Clause 4 of your proposal contradicts existing legislation.

(PRA also has the WA “asserting that medical professionals must be able to provide these services without undue government interference in the doctor/patient relationship”. This does not have legislative force, and the use “undue” would open an RP loophole if it were, but it is information about the WA’s intent in adopting the law.)

Further, for the abortions legalised in On Abortion, the WA “2. FURTHER REQUIRES member countries to ensure that abortion facilities are easily available to patients”.

In Clause 5, your proposal permits nations “to freely regulate any and all such supplementary acts within their jurisdiction”, then specifies “subject only to the provisions of this and previous World Assembly resolutions” – a broad permission that previous Resolutions restrict, thus creating an internal contradiction.

Note that, though I’ve taken this clause by clause, the overall ruling is that authors cannot regulate an existing Resolution out of existence or into reversal. You may regulate, particularly if the original Resolution contains some “does not exclude further legislation” wording. But mods may still make the call that X amount of regulation goes too far. This did.

[Auralia]

Fair enough. I'm not going to pursue this any further.