[PASSED] Repeal Reduction of Abortion Act

[Retired WerePenguins]

Three small Adelie Penguins approach the podium. One of the begins to speak.

"Members of this assembly. We rise today, in part because our representative has been caught in a vicious role playing time loop for the past few months, but mostly in opposition to the repeal proposed by the Studly Penguins. We would remind our fellow members that a repeal cannot be stuck out. While an incorrect statement can be placed in a regular resolution, confident that it could be struck out, this cannot be the case with a repeal. Previous repeals in the past have caused untold damage to the multiverse and we should not see the same thing repeated here."

"With that in mind I would like to draw your attention to the following, 'APPALLED that this resolution has been allowed to stand due to the fact that it has done nothing to reduce abortions.' I would like to see the technical third party WA research papers that have shown this to be true. I know the humans in our nation debate massively sex education in the nation. I know that the humans in our nation have whole organizations dedicated to adoption. While I have never seen studies indicating how effective they are I have not seen studies that show they are completely ineffective. What I have seen, however, is not important. The members of Studly Penguins have made the claim and they must either show the evidence or admit that they are NOTHING BUT LIARS. AND IF IT IS ANYTHING I CANNOT STAND IT IS A LYING PENGUIN. PENGUINS SHOULD NOT LIE! THEY SHOULD STAND! BARING OF COURSE WHEN THEY ARE SWIMMING WHICH IS NOT TECHNICALLY LYING BUT IT NOT TECHNICALLY STANDING SINCE THEY ARE IN A HORIZONTAL POSITION AND ..."

One of the other penguins pokes the one speaking.

"Oh, sorry about that, I got carried away."

[Castelo Quintas]

Voted against. Yet again, it's wrong to impose our morals and beliefs into onther nations. It's up to every user to decide if they want legal abortions or don't, reduce abortions or don't, etc.

[United Federation of Canada]

Voted against. Yet again, it's wrong to impose our morals and beliefs into onther nations. It's up to every user to decide if they want legal abortions or don't, reduce abortions or don't, etc.

So then, perhaps you should have voted FOR, as this is a repeal of a law trying to force those beliefs.

[The Akashic Records]

Voted against. Yet again, it's wrong to impose our morals and beliefs into onther nations. It's up to every user to decide if they want legal abortions or don't, reduce abortions or don't, etc.

So then, perhaps you should have voted FOR, as this is a repeal of a law trying to force those beliefs.

Perhaps the United Federation of Canada would like to actually read the resolution that the repeal is talking about. By repealing this resolution, member states that are enjoying the benefits of the services guaranteed by this particular resolution will no longer be able to provide such services to their citizens. This resolution was aimed at countries trying to educate their people on abortion, and how best to handle oneself so that one needs not resort to abortion (this is not a ban on abortion, mind you). In short, it's a win-win situation for everyone and anyone; unless any of the nations would prefer to have their citizens performing abortions left and right, or completely ban abortion and have an uncontrollable population boom that outmatches the economic strength of the nation, not to mention the dangers it poses to women. Without a replacement, this repeal will only cause harm by removing the access to information, the key factor in any form of decision-making.

To Castelo Quintas, in regards to abortion, you should refer to the General Assembly Resolution #128.

[Bears Armed]

Perhaps the United Federation of Canada would like to actually read the resolution that the repeal is talking about. By repealing this resolution, member states that are enjoying the benefits of the services guaranteed by this particular resolution will no longer be able to provide such services to their citizens.

They will still be able to provide such services to their citizens, they simply won't be required to do so: A repeal only cancels the existing resolution, it doesn't force the opposite of that previous resolution's effects on member nations.

[The Akashic Records]

Perhaps the United Federation of Canada would like to actually read the resolution that the repeal is talking about. By repealing this resolution, member states that are enjoying the benefits of the services guaranteed by this particular resolution will no longer be able to provide such services to their citizens.

They will still be able to provide such services to their citizens, they simply won't be required to do so: A repeal only cancels the existing resolution, it doesn't force the opposite of that previous resolution's effects on member nations.

Yes, they are able to. However, this particular act helps those who wants to provide the services, but are unable to afford them. Have you by any chance read the resolution and understood it? The delegates of Discoveria and Electroconvulsive Glee have explained quite clearly to those unwilling to go through the resolution itself.

[Bears Armed]

[Yes, they are able to. However, this particular act helps those who wants to provide the services, but are unable to afford them. Have you by any chance read the resolution and understood it?

Yes, I have, and whilst what you're saying now is correct the exaggerated claim that you made in your previous post wasn't so.

[The Akashic Records]

Yes, I have, and whilst what you're saying now is correct the exaggerated claim that you made in your previous post wasn't so.

Thank you for pointing it out, and forgive me for the mistake. As a representative, I should have made sure that my words are not misunderstood (by accidental, or "accidental", whichever one you would prefer, lack of information, which ironically, contradicted my stance on access to information).

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Voted against. Yet again, it's wrong to impose our morals and beliefs into onther nations. It's up to every user to decide if they want legal abortions or don't, reduce abortions or don't, etc.

So then, perhaps you should have voted FOR, as this is a repeal of a law trying to force those beliefs.

Uhhh...no it's not. It's being repealed (supposedly) because it doesn't force those beliefs sufficiently enough.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Sorry. Thought you all should be apprised of the tremendous progress already being made by the author to bring a "more effective" piece of "universal right to choose" legislation to the fore after this passes:

Yes, I wrote my repeal based solely on the fact that I did NOT think that GAR#44 was an effective piece of legislation. Nothing to do with the title, etc. Just that I thought that it failed to meet its mark. With this bill out of the way it opens the way for more effective legislation should such ever be written because you dont have to worry about violating #44 if someone wrote such a bill.

As of now I have no plans to write a new bill or anything of the ilk. All I want is for folks to vote on the merits of the repeal I have written. If you like it vote for it, if not vote against it.

In other words, "the resolution is ineffective because I was able to convince you I thought so -- even though repealing it would deny access to WA assistance to many nations already benefiting from it -- but I don't have any intention on fixing the problem myself. You're stuck with the mess you made, WA. Screw you."

I'm afraid to say it, GA members, but you've been had. The author couldn't care less about the supposed "effectiveness" problems of the legislation -- the arguments you yourselves bought and fooled yourselves into passing -- he just wanted a resolution off the books because the title offended him -- just like he said when he first proposed this repeal.

[Castelo Quintas]

So then, perhaps you should have voted FOR, as this is a repeal of a law trying to force those beliefs.

Perhaps the United Federation of Canada would like to actually read the resolution that the repeal is talking about. By repealing this resolution, member states that are enjoying the benefits of the services guaranteed by this particular resolution will no longer be able to provide such services to their citizens. This resolution was aimed at countries trying to educate their people on abortion, and how best to handle oneself so that one needs not resort to abortion (this is not a ban on abortion, mind you). In short, it's a win-win situation for everyone and anyone; unless any of the nations would prefer to have their citizens performing abortions left and right, or completely ban abortion and have an uncontrollable population boom that outmatches the economic strength of the nation, not to mention the dangers it poses to women. Without a replacement, this repeal will only cause harm by removing the access to information, the key factor in any form of decision-making.

To Castelo Quintas, in regards to abortion, you should refer to the General Assembly Resolution #128.

But that's what i want! If in my nation i let 10 years old drink booze or smoking is allowed everywhere. why should i try to reduce abortions? if people want to abort, they will abort i don't like to ban that kind of stuff.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

You are about as cognizant of the target resolution's effects as the author. It actually has nothing to do with reducing abortions.

[Electroconvulsive Glee]

Again, this is pointless but:

• GAR #44 (Reduction of Abortion Act) does NOT legislate FOR OR AGAINST abortion.
  
  
• GAR #44 takes NO POSITION on the legality or morality of abortion
  
  
• GAR#44 empowers individuals to avoid unnecessary or unwanted abortions:
  
  
  • Which is better: a woman (or other individual) fully informed about contraception, family planning, and/or sex education avoids an unwanted pregnancy OR said individual becomes pregnant without wanting to because of ignorance and needs/wants an abortion?
    
    
  • Which is better: due to advanced medical treatment, a woman (or other individual) is able to carry a wanted pregnancy to term OR said individual is forced to get a medically necessary abortion due to a risk of death or severe fetal abnormality that could have been avoided?
    
    
  • Because abortion is often a result of unwanted pregnancies, fetal abnormalities, medical problems, rape, incest, or other avoidable and/or tragic circumstances, removing the cause of such situations is a far better alternative to (and empirically more effective than) laws against abortion. Thus, whether one is "pro-choice" or "pro-life," one should support the goals of the Reduction of Abortion Act.
  
  
• GAR #44 does NOT do nothing. At a minimum, it creates a concrete right to access to information that might otherwise be denied by a nation. And, to all but the most stubbornly non-compliant, it creates new resources and opportunities for access to abortion reduction services, research into abortion, and technology sharing.
  
  
• Repealing GAR #44 DOES NOTHING to legalize, regulate, or ban abortion
  
  
• Repealing GAR #44 DEPRIVES INDIVIDUALS in member nations OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION concerning reproductive choices, family planning, medical care, sex education, contraception, rape prevention, etc.
  
  
• Repealing GAR #44 deprives WA member nations of the assistance of the World Health Assembling in providing services such as sex education, family planning, medical care, sex education, contraception, rape prevention, etc.

For what it is worth, here a portion of the original FAQ offered by the author of GAR#44 in support of the Reduction of Abortion Act:

1. Does this resolution address the legality or illegality of abortion, whether abortion is a right, or whether abortion is moral?

No. The resolution is completely neutral on these issues. In fact, Clause 6 of the resolution states:

6. DECLARES that nothing in this resolution shall affect the power of member states to declare abortion legal or illegal or to pass legislation extending or restricting access to abortion

2. Does this resolution harm the interests or rights of women?

No. This resolution does not make abortion illegal, declare abortion immoral, or restrict any rights that women may have. To the contrary, it empowers women by providing the right to information about and increased access to (1) abstinence education, (2) adoption services, (3) contraceptives, (4) family planning services, (5) pre-natal, obstetric, and post-natal medical care, counseling, and services, (6) comprehensive sex education, and (7) education, awareness, prevention, and counseling programs to prevent rape and incest. The result is that women have increased control over becoming pregnant in the first place.

3. Does this resolution harm the interests or rights of the unborn?

No. This resoution does not make abortion legal, declare abortion moral, or restrict any rights that the unborn may have. To the contrary, this resolution seeks to prevent destruction of the unborn by preventing unwanted pregnancies and other incentives for abortion. The resolution further seeks to remove barriers to childbirth, whether they be economic or medical.

4. Does this resolution significantly infringe national sovereignty?

Not IMHO. Although the resolution does create a right in Clause 2 to access to information regarding abortion reduction services, the next two active clauses do not require nations to do anything -- they strongly urge and encourage actions by nations. Further Clause 5 gives some increased responsibility to the World Health Authority (WHA), but limits its provision of abortion reduction services to comply with national and local laws.

5. If it doesn't infringe national sovereignty, does this resolution do anything?

Clause 2 of the resolution creates a right of all individuals to access information regarding abortion reduction services. This alone could significantly reduce unwanted pregnancies and remove incentives for abortion.

I may be naive, but it is my hope that most nations will take seriously this topic and follow what Clauses 3 and 4 urge.

Clause 5 empowers the WHA to help nations provide abortion reduction services, research relevant subjects, and facilitate the sharing of technology among member nations. Again, this should help reduce abortion rates.

*snip*

7. Why is this an international issue within the purview of the World Assembly?

For those concerned with the plight of the unborn (even those that believe the unborn don't have rights), this resolution addresses an international problem of abortion without restricting any freedoms.

For those concerned with the rights of women, this resolution addresses an international problem of unintended pregnancies and unnecessary medical procedures. It empowers women to make reproductive choices without coercion. Further, women die every year from unnecessary and unsafe abortions.

The ability of the WHA to help nations share technology, conduct research, and provide universal access to abortion reduction services is unique and is a proper role for the World Assembly.

The General Assembly is acting unwisely in repealing the Reduction of Abortion Act based on lies and false assumptions.

[The Antartic Regions]

God, is this going to suck. Just... GAR #44 is fine, dammit (as said Electroconvulsive Glee): in the end, we're just going to substitute it with something very similar that might very well be worse. The only bad thing about it is the title, but seriously? This will only make the GA an awful place for a couple of months; what the hell are you thinking?

[The Republic of Llamas]

If someone drafts a law in order to replace this, I would support it.

[Frisbeeteria]

Repeal "Reduction of Abortion Act" was passed 9,183 votes to 3,977.

[Studly Penguins]

Thank you to everyone who voted whether for or against. And a thank you to all those who supported this.

[Electroconvulsive Glee]

This may be obvious from my recent posts, but I am The Cat-Tribe -- the original author of RoAA. I am writing to anyone and everyone that wishes to propose a replacement for the RoAA full permission to use any and all language from GAR #44/RoAA without restriction. Although I would prefer something in the same spirit, I place no conditions, caveats, or restrictions on its use. Consider it public domain and, to the extent you wish to directly copy any language, I will be flattered.

If someone feels the need to confirm my identity, send me a telegram with a suggestion on how I do that. I do not wish to resurrect TCT or to participate further in NS. I already keep returning far, far more than I should. Obviously, I will not be submitting my own replacement proposal.

FWIW, I agree that a nearly identical resolution could well be submitted that simply has a different title or does not use the term abortion. RoAA was intended, in part, to bring attention to non-coercive alternatives to abortions by preventing the circumstances that lead to abortion and thereby make clear that member states need not (in addition to should not) restrict abortion rights. However, the substance is more important than that "point," which few seemed to understand anyway.

I want to be clear that I retain no ownership of the RoAA language (much of which was collaboratively reached in the first place). If improvements can be made, awesome. If compromises are required, fine. Do what thou wilt.

Thanks and take care.

EDIT: Although this may be insignificant, I extend my permission to use/copy/duplicate to any and all arguments or posts I made in drafting, arguing for, or defending the RoAA.