[Defeated] Repeal "Reproductive Freedoms"

[Sanctaria]

"Lazy. Absolutely lazy", Ambassador Saunders sighed, flinging her copy of the proposal on the dais before her. "By the delegation's own admission, this is just a summary of the, what, five or six previous repeal attempts? There is no originality, there is no creativity, and frankly there is no convincing arguments here. No, no, no."

"But this is just the tip of the iceberg. Yet another socially conservative delegation, dominated or, at the least, puppeted by disquieted and bewildered men I'd wager, is once again attempting to sow seeds of discord in this honourable chamber. The resolution they so dearly wish to see expunged from statute protects lives. It is a safety net for vulnerable women with real, tangible lives in a world where those lives are held in disdain. Women, despite the fervent wishes of both this delegation and of a majority of this Assembly I'm sure, continue to be subjugated, disfavoured, and neglected compared to men. And once again, we have a delegation thirsting to discount the history of this Assembly, and its many mandates of protecting imperiled women who desperately seek the safety, security, and sanctuary that Reproductive Freedoms provides to them", Saunders continued.

"Ambassadors, let us speak plainly. We are a body that values the lives and contributions of our mothers, sisters, aunts, daughters, cousins, friends, and neighbours. We have rejected better iterations of this drivel in the past from more respected, and arguably more able, delegations. The arguments about "protecting the life of the unborn" do not hold up when tested. They are thinly veiled attempts at asserting control over what these authors consider to be the weaker, submissive sex. Well this woman refuses to be meek and humble."

"Where are these delegations when it comes to the care of those children after birth, which in and of itself can be a traumatic, and even fatal act? From memory, some of the authors whose work has been patched together in this medley of decrepitude refused to support previous bills on adoption, child welfare, even disability support. They care only for a woman's bodily sovereignty to be savagely torn from her, legally and physically. Their continued refusal to deign to admit a woman should be held to an equal standard is jarring, frustrating, and insulting."

Saunders stopped for a moment to allow her argument to sink in. "This proposal is being rightfully defeated. It will not be the last, for there will always continue to be delegations whose sole objective to see any resolution that allows a women to control her own body eradicated. There should be a stigma in pursuing these proposals and my delegation will, for so long as I have the honour and responsibility to lead it, ensure those delegations' passing interest in other topics not be permitted to improve any standing or goodwill they may wish to generate in this Assembly - such goodwill would surely be squandered on yet further pursuits to repeal Reproductive Freedoms."

[United States of Americanas]

Concerned with the many flaws present in the resolution, that ought to be replaced by a better replacement that addresses the issue properly

In the absence of a credible aforementioned replacement actually existing in draft form, and having a real chance of passing, you'll encounter a lot of resistance to repealing.

Repeal declined. Need to see the draft first.

[Madhavgarh]

There hasn't been an attempt at a repeal this year, so I thought I'd try my luck this time.

I present to you, the longest repeal of #286, that includes almost every argument used in previous repeals!

Repeal "Reproductive Freedoms"
Category: Repeal | Proposed by: Germany

---

The World Assembly,

Applauding the efforts of the resolution GA#286 to protect the right to access abortion;

Noting that this resolution allows abortion on demand, disregarding the potential for sex-selective abortion, a practice that harms the gender balance and creates societal problems such as; low marriage rates and low birth rates; and other discriminatory reasons for abortion such as disability and skin colour, reasons that this assembly is attempting to eradicate;

Observing that the target resolution mandates the legalisation of abortion on demand up until birth, a stance which is radical and needlessly divisive,

Understanding that numerous member states have legitimate ethical concerns regarding the unconditional legality of abortions after fetal viability, especially when alternatives such as adoption are readily available;

Frustrated that the term "termination of pregnancy" forces member nations to legalize Dilation and Extraction procedures, for example, commonly known as partial-birth abortions, procedures in which a living and viable feotus is destroyed despite it being able to experience pain in late term pregnancy;

Disgusted because GA#286 "recognises that the termination of pregnancy is a medical procedure," it permits member nations to require parental consent for any abortion procedure performed on a minor or a mentally disabled person, as per the mandates of GA#29, thus hampering the ability of the minor or mentally disabled adult to access abortion, in case their parent or guardian refuses to allow them to undergo an abortion;

Cognisant that because "termination of pregnancy" is a medical procedure, it is therefore protected by resolutions such as GA#29 in emergency cases, as GA#29 states "Patients have the right to emergency medical treatment under circumstances requiring lifesaving procedures", which means that termination of pregnancy must be legalised in life threatening cases;

Acknowledging the resolution GA#128, which allows abortion in cases of extreme disability, rape or incest, and in life threatening conditions;

Aware that the radical approach of the target resolution has only caused division within this assembly, including 5 defeated repeal attempts and dozens of attempted repeal proposals by numerous ambassadors from different nations, and has led to many nations choosing to leave the assembly, thus reducing its power;

Concerned with the many flaws present in the resolution, which should be replaced by a better version that handles the issue in a manner that guarantees the right to abortion whilst placing reasonable restrictions that prevent abuse such as the example mentioned above;

Hereby,

Repeals General Assembly Resolution number 286, titled "Reproductive Freedoms".

(Image)

I am sorry, But i just can't understand why do you want to destroy your own country as well as others to. this law is completely against Women and as well as human kinds future. So, i am completely against it

[Kandorith]

The Empire votes against the proposal. Even though there are voices within our own nation against abortion, the Empire sees the ability to decide on this matter as a human right. All nations are free to set their own terms within the guidelines set by the resolution.

We believe that almost, if not every nation handles under the resolution in good faith.

[Consumer Republic]

The Incorporated States of Consumer Republic votes FOR the measure. Our nation understands the issue of abortion is one which is deeply personal to the woman however one cannot simply ignore the individual liberties of the human inside of the womb. An abortion after the time in which the fetus is viable is ending the life of one of our citizens and deprives them of the opportunity to live and work, an act tantamount to murder. We value the business of the women’s healthcare industry and continue to feel as if twenty-four weeks is an appropriate cut off.

[Bananaistan]

A rather wobbly and bleary eyed Ted rises from his seat before opening a drawer on his desk.

Whispering to himself as he rubs his forehead, "Christ never again ... hang on a minute, I'm sure it's here somewhere."

After much rooting, he produces a yellowing and crumpled piece of paper.

"Aha, here it is," he says as reads the note.

"TED -(STOP)- THE MONEY THAT WAS SUPPOSEDLY JUST RESTING IN YOUR ACCOUNT WAS FOUND -(STOP)- YOU ARE TO PRESENT YOURSELF AT HARTLAND STREET POLICE STATION BY 9AM MONDAY MORNING -(STOP)- "

As Ted plonks back down into his seat, Brian leans over and whispers in his ear.

Ted gasps, rises from his seat again, grabs his briefcase and hurries out of the chamber. As he reaches the door, without looking back he shouts, "OPPOSED!"

[Syrgastan]

At first I was going to vote for it but, it should be up to a individual nation to decide whether or not to have that legalized

[Consumer Republic]

At first I was going to vote for it but, it should be up to a individual nation to decide whether or not to have that legalized

Then a vote FOR the motion to repeal is necessary! The status quo is that on demand abortion is allowed under the law until birth.

[Draganisia]

At first I was going to vote for it but, it should be up to a individual nation to decide whether or not to have that legalized

Then a vote FOR the motion to repeal is necessary! The status quo is that on demand abortion is allowed under the law until birth.

Which is exactly why I am voting for it and nothing anyone else can say will change that.

In fact if the vote doesn't swing FOR it by tomorrow morning I will give my important reasons as to why even if it gets me banned.

Ok it probably wouldn't be enough to ban me but it would still be the brutal truth.

But the basic part is that what I consider Good Health Abortion (Where both the mother and unborn child are in perfect health just before the abortion) is the lowest and most brutal form of evil that there is next to terrorists that kill innocent people.

[The New Bluestocking Homeland]

But the basic part is that what I consider Good Health Abortion (Where both the mother and unborn child are in perfect health just before the abortion) is the lowest and most brutal form of evil that there is next to terrorists that kill innocent people.

The Ambassadress looked up from her game of Tetris, "Then may I suggest you do not have one, Ambassador?

"As for this... rigmarole -- is it that time of year again -- this Delegation stands opposed. And if the Delegation brings it back -- with no replacement -- fifty times, we shall oppose it fifty times.

"However, we applaud the author for raising the potential for #286 to be interpreted to hinder the abortion rights of minors and disabled adults. Should a far stronger replacement be waiting -- doubly reinforcing abortion rights and guaranteeing the protection of abortion rights for minors and disabled adults who are capable of consenting to the procedure -- this delegation would consider voting in favour of a repeal based solely on those grounds.

"As long as the stronger replacement was already Queued at the time of voting, of course."

[OOC: Against]

[Waffia]

Waffia has voted for the repeal. While we disagree with the reasons for the repeal, we expect that the only replacement resolution that can possibly pass in the current WA is one that is even more liberal, of which we certainly approve.

[-Astoria]

We will oppose this.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

OOC: it's stuff like this that makes people leave the World Assembly.

There is no categorical or prima facie why the right to life should begin at birth.

Whether it's birth, conception, heart beat, first development of a brain, 24 weeks or viability is a matter of opinion and so this is akin to an ideological ban unlike rules

International law should be limited to what are held as almost universal principles by member states and follow an ideological premise that is held by a vast majority that would join the WA, E.G. "Genocide bad!" And maybe "slavery bad"

Basically if a repeal can make it past quorum it shouldn't be a law.

The WA is so restrictive to a variety of regimes ranging from Islamic socialists and Islamic monarchists to secular right-wing libertarians that my own WA nation is The Ethno-States of Trashys which is supposed to be a rogue state whichever routinely breaks the WA law anyway and which nothing has happened to.

[Kenmoria]

OOC: it's stuff like this that makes people leave the World Assembly.

There is no categorical or prima facie why the right to life should begin at birth.

Whether it's birth, conception, heart beat, first development of a brain, 24 weeks or viability is a matter of opinion and so this is akin to an ideological ban unlike rules

International law should be limited to what are held as almost universal principles by member states and follow an ideological premise that is held by a vast majority that would join the WA, E.G. "Genocide bad!" And maybe "slavery bad"

Basically if a repeal can make it past quorum it shouldn't be a law.

The WA is so restrictive to a variety of regimes ranging from Islamic socialists and Islamic monarchists to secular right-wing libertarians that my own WA nation is The Ethno-States of Trashys which is supposed to be a rogue state whichever routinely breaks the WA law anyway and which nothing has happened to.

(OOC: The original resolution, Reproductive Freedoms, passed with over a two-thirds majority, 68.1%. Subsequent ideological changes in the General Assembly appear to have gone even more pro-choice as time goes on, with repeals having increasingly large percentages voting against. This present draft is one of the better ones, and has support from less than a quarter of the WA, which implies that popular opinion is strongly in favour of #286.

Due to the nature of the General Assembly, a resolution that loses popular support either due to an ideological shift or a discovered flaw will be replaced if a well-drafted repeal is submitted. This repeal was very well-drafted, and therefore its failure can be looked upon as a demonstration of the continuing popular support of Reproductive Freedoms in the General Assembly today. Since there are so many repeals being submitted all the time, if popular opinion were to change, the target resolution would be repealed incredibly quickly.

I do understand the fact that the nature of the General Assembly means that certain types of nations cannot be included. My third nation, made before Kenmoria, was a despotic dictatorship with the most ridiculous and over-the-top oppressive policies I could imagine. There isn’t really room for this sort of nation in the General Assembly, since making a resolution that could appease both these nations and normal ones in nigh-impossible. However, this isn’t a flaw with the General Assembly, but rather a conflict that is inevitable with the voting model.

The best that can be done is to roleplay the effects of sanctions, according to the Administrative Compliance Act, upon a noncompliant member state. This could make for some interesting lore and could be very rewarding. Reproductive Freedoms is a very controversial piece of legislation, but it has always enjoyed majority support.)

[BlackLight Covenant]

OOC: it's stuff like this that makes people leave the World Assembly.

There is no categorical or prima facie why the right to life should begin at birth.

Whether it's birth, conception, heart beat, first development of a brain, 24 weeks or viability is a matter of opinion and so this is akin to an ideological ban unlike rules

International law should be limited to what are held as almost universal principles by member states and follow an ideological premise that is held by a vast majority that would join the WA, E.G. "Genocide bad!" And maybe "slavery bad"

Basically if a repeal can make it past quorum it shouldn't be a law.

The WA is so restrictive to a variety of regimes ranging from Islamic socialists and Islamic monarchists to secular right-wing libertarians that my own WA nation is The Ethno-States of Trashys which is supposed to be a rogue state whichever routinely breaks the WA law anyway and which nothing has happened to.

OOC: except the original proposal was passed with clear majority support, and every repeal attempt has so far been crushed by a severe majority as well, which would imply that a strong majority of the WA considers GAR#286 to be a concept that ought to be followed by all members of the Assembly. Of course, you could argue that this is not "universally held" enough, but if the WA were to follow a system of requiring near universal agreement (whatever such a term might mean), barely anything would ever pass the voting floor.

I would also like to point out that proposals reaching the voting floor means very little, considering how it requires approval of at least 6% of the at that moment total amount of World Assembly Delegates. There's no voting for or against in that part of the process of getting a proposal to the voting floor, meaning that it doesn't provide a good indication of how many delegates oppose the proposal, only that a number of delegates DO support it. The delegate approval part is, if anything, a somewhat unreliable method for preventing poorly-written-yet-legal proposals from reaching the actual voting floor.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

OOC: it's stuff like this that makes people leave the World Assembly.

There is no categorical or prima facie why the right to life should begin at birth.

Whether it's birth, conception, heart beat, first development of a brain, 24 weeks or viability is a matter of opinion and so this is akin to an ideological ban unlike rules

International law should be limited to what are held as almost universal principles by member states and follow an ideological premise that is held by a vast majority that would join the WA, E.G. "Genocide bad!" And maybe "slavery bad"

Basically if a repeal can make it past quorum it shouldn't be a law.

The WA is so restrictive to a variety of regimes ranging from Islamic socialists and Islamic monarchists to secular right-wing libertarians that my own WA nation is The Ethno-States of Trashys which is supposed to be a rogue state whichever routinely breaks the WA law anyway and which nothing has happened to.

OOC: except the original proposal was passed with clear majority support, and every repeal attempt has so far been crushed by a severe majority as well, which would imply that a strong majority of the WA considers GAR#286 to be a concept that ought to be followed by all members of the Assembly. Of course, you could argue that this is not "universally held" enough, but if the WA were to follow a system of requiring near universal agreement (whatever such a term might mean), barely anything would ever pass the voting floor.

I would also like to point out that proposals reaching the voting floor means very little, considering how it requires approval of at least 6% of the at that moment total amount of World Assembly Delegates. There's no voting for or against in that part of the process of getting a proposal to the voting floor, meaning that it doesn't provide a good indication of how many delegates oppose the proposal, only that a number of delegates DO support it. The delegate approval part is, if anything, a somewhat unreliable method for preventing poorly-written-yet-legal proposals from reaching the actual voting floor.

OOC: but near universal approval would make certain things illegal in the rin Smith of the game: definately genocide, probably slavery etc.

[The COT Corporation]

"Eugh." He looks back to an aide, from the video call. "Don't you just hate it when all these stupid superprogressives are advocating for child murder? And they call it "Social justice?" I know I do..."

He sips some coffee from a stainless steel flask, and sets it down on his desk. "Listen, Delegates. This resolution should pass. Not just for the reasons given in the resolution itself, but for the end of needless child murder. It's crazy how some people believe that giving the perpetual right to murder your child if you decide you don't want it is necessary and just. If you're going to have intercourse for the sake of it, you should be prepared for the consequences -- rather than needlessly spending lives. If you're going to murder a child for what... the sole purpose of pleasure? Then there's something very wrong with you, especially if you're advocating for "social justice". I don't think that murdering a child for pleasure is "social justice". This is why I'm expressing my staunch support of the repeal."

The aide whispers something to him. "Oh, and on the topic of non-consensual intercourse, we're a supporter of abortion. While we believe abortion should be banned everywhere possible, a woman deserves the right to free herself from a possible burden she didn't sign up for."

The call ends.

[BlackLight Covenant]

OOC: except the original proposal was passed with clear majority support, and every repeal attempt has so far been crushed by a severe majority as well, which would imply that a strong majority of the WA considers GAR#286 to be a concept that ought to be followed by all members of the Assembly. Of course, you could argue that this is not "universally held" enough, but if the WA were to follow a system of requiring near universal agreement (whatever such a term might mean), barely anything would ever pass the voting floor.

I would also like to point out that proposals reaching the voting floor means very little, considering how it requires approval of at least 6% of the at that moment total amount of World Assembly Delegates. There's no voting for or against in that part of the process of getting a proposal to the voting floor, meaning that it doesn't provide a good indication of how many delegates oppose the proposal, only that a number of delegates DO support it. The delegate approval part is, if anything, a somewhat unreliable method for preventing poorly-written-yet-legal proposals from reaching the actual voting floor.

OOC: but near universal approval would make certain things illegal in the rin Smith of the game: definately genocide, probably slavery etc.

OOC: before I continue here, what do you actually mean by "near-universal"? Do you have a percentage for the minimum amount of votes for a proposal required to actually turn it into law? 95%? 75%? Without such a percentage, that term means pretty much nothing.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

OOC: but near universal approval would make certain things illegal in the rin Smith of the game: definately genocide, probably slavery etc.

OOC: before I continue here, what do you actually mean by "near-universal"? Do you have a percentage for the minimum amount of votes for a proposal required to actually turn it into law? 95%? 75%? Without such a percentage, that term means pretty much nothing.

OOC: 95% for a new law.
Repeals should be able to be done on a simple majority.
It's just good statesmanship and diplomacy.
Right now 66% of nations are not WA and it seems 20% of the WA just break it's law.

[Kenmoria]

OOC: before I continue here, what do you actually mean by "near-universal"? Do you have a percentage for the minimum amount of votes for a proposal required to actually turn it into law? 95%? 75%? Without such a percentage, that term means pretty much nothing.

OOC: 95%

(OOC: The highest resolution passing percentage I can remember was Uniform Labelling of Hazardous Goods, which passed with 92.8%. Under your model, there would be no resolutions whatsoever, and the GA would have 0 laws. That would be incredibly boring.)

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: before I continue here, what do you actually mean by "near-universal"? Do you have a percentage for the minimum amount of votes for a proposal required to actually turn it into law? 95%? 75%? Without such a percentage, that term means pretty much nothing.

OOC: 95% for a new law.
Repeals should be able to be done on a simple majority.
It's just good statesmanship and diplomacy.
Right now 66% of nations are not WA and it seems 20% of the WA just break it's law.

ooc: if I recall correctly, that would put slavery and genocide in the Legal category based on past votes. You want to push GA reform, do it in Technical.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: it's stuff like this that makes people leave the World Assembly.

There is no categorical or prima facie why the right to life should begin at birth.

Whether it's birth, conception, heart beat, first development of a brain, 24 weeks or viability is a matter of opinion and so this is akin to an ideological ban unlike rules

International law should be limited to what are held as almost universal principles by member states and follow an ideological premise that is held by a vast majority that would join the WA, E.G. "Genocide bad!" And maybe "slavery bad"

Basically if a repeal can make it past quorum it shouldn't be a law.

The WA is so restrictive to a variety of regimes ranging from Islamic socialists and Islamic monarchists to secular right-wing libertarians that my own WA nation is The Ethno-States of Trashys which is supposed to be a rogue state whichever routinely breaks the WA law anyway and which nothing has happened to.

Ooc: go figure, abusive regimes arent popular. The WA is meant to operate as an almost entirely direct democracy. It is what the players make it. You can vote against if you want, but trying to change the game because you dont like being on the wrong side of the vote suggests the issue is you and not the game.

Fwiw, making theocracies and dictatorships have a hard time sustaining bad practices is a feature and not a bug in my eyes.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

OOC: it's stuff like this that makes people leave the World Assembly.

There is no categorical or prima facie why the right to life should begin at birth.

Whether it's birth, conception, heart beat, first development of a brain, 24 weeks or viability is a matter of opinion and so this is akin to an ideological ban unlike rules

International law should be limited to what are held as almost universal principles by member states and follow an ideological premise that is held by a vast majority that would join the WA, E.G. "Genocide bad!" And maybe "slavery bad"

Basically if a repeal can make it past quorum it shouldn't be a law.

The WA is so restrictive to a variety of regimes ranging from Islamic socialists and Islamic monarchists to secular right-wing libertarians that my own WA nation is The Ethno-States of Trashys which is supposed to be a rogue state whichever routinely breaks the WA law anyway and which nothing has happened to.

Ooc: go figure, abusive regimes arent popular. The WA is meant to operate as an almost entirely direct democracy. It is what the players make it. You can vote against if you want, but trying to change the game because you dont like being on the wrong side of the vote suggests the issue is you and not the game.

Fwiw, making theocracies and dictatorships have a hard time sustaining bad practices is a feature and not a bug in my eyes.

OOC: I'm not complaining about losing
When I found resolutions I didn't like on most nations I left.
Also even if mechanics shouldn't force the players not to vote for an extremely controversial resolution I still think it's OOcly or ICLy
(Depending on whether or not the nation represents their views)
dumb to vote for a resolution which will push nations out of the WA and make it's main job:
Not allowing genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity or brutal discrimination to happen, harder.
And it's not just militant fascist and/or Stalinist and/or Nazbol nations this affects.
It also affects libertarian (in the American sense) nations that don't want the labour regulations , Liberal democracies that believe rights begin at viability (ability to survive outside the womb) and even feminist nation that want to ban sex-selective abortion.
Come to think of it I can barely think of any more than two ideologies that could follow all of it:
Centrists and social liberals.

[BlackLight Covenant]

OOC: before I continue here, what do you actually mean by "near-universal"? Do you have a percentage for the minimum amount of votes for a proposal required to actually turn it into law? 95%? 75%? Without such a percentage, that term means pretty much nothing.

OOC: 95% for a new law.
Repeals should be able to be done on a simple majority.
It's just good statesmanship and diplomacy.
Right now 66% of nations are not WA and it seems 20% of the WA just break it's law.

OOC: as Kenmoria pointed out, under that logic, nothing would get passed. GAR#38 on genocide passed with about 23% votes against; GAR#23 against slavery passed with about 18% votes against. A system of near-unanimous voting wouldn't work, because it's nigh impossible to get this many different nations to agree on the same issue. The GA would just end up not gaining any new legislation, instead being stuck constantly fighting over potential repeals of its already passed resolutions. Sure, it would prevent stuff like constant repeal attempts from happening to future resolutions, but that's mainly because there wouldn't actually be any new resolutions to start such a back-and-forth over, and "good diplomacy" will definitely not change that.

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: go figure, abusive regimes arent popular. The WA is meant to operate as an almost entirely direct democracy. It is what the players make it. You can vote against if you want, but trying to change the game because you dont like being on the wrong side of the vote suggests the issue is you and not the game.

Fwiw, making theocracies and dictatorships have a hard time sustaining bad practices is a feature and not a bug in my eyes.

OOC: I'm not complaining about losing
When I found resolutions I didn't like on most nations I left.
Also even if mechanics shouldn't force the players not to vote for an extremely controversial resolution I still think it's OOcly or ICLy
(Depending on whether or not the nation represents their views)
dumb to vote for a resolution which will push nations out of the WA and make it's main job:
Not allowing genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity or brutal discrimination to happen, harder.
And it's not just militant fascist and/or Stalinist and/or Nazbol nations this affects.
It also affects libertarian (in the American sense) nations that don't want the labour regulations , Liberal democracies that believe rights begin at viability (ability to survive outside the womb) and even feminist nation that want to ban sex-selective abortion.
Come to think of it I can barely think of any more than two ideologies that could follow all of it:
Centrists and social liberals.

OOC: the WA's job is whatever the majority thinks it should be, and is not relegated to a particular role. Further, the WA is predominantly socially liberal, and the benefits of membership vastly outweigh the practical costs of staying.

Nonmembers will always outnumber members, as you can have only 1 WA nation, and most players make multiple nations. The relative power dynamic of members leaving is irrelevant in light of other significant factors causing that imbalance.