NationStates

"Much better wording, Sir Inky. As to your second suggestion, would this suffice?"

DEMANDS that Member Nations prohibit any impediment to the termination of pregnancy that is not applied to medical procedures of similar risk and complexity.

"If you approve, I shall update our working document; for now, we shall include the aforementioned requires clause, but will keep this line in our Items of Consideration and solicit opinions as to which would better serve the proposal."

"That sounds pretty good to us. I wouldn't put it in the proposal text, either, until you've had some feedback from other delegates on both the spirit and exact wording.

"Another thing - though I know your delegation's sympathies are neoWeaselian in your preference for non-'wordy' proposals - is what happens after an abortion. As strong as that 'Requires' clause is, I can only see it applying to what happens before. If what we would in DSR call 'hate crimes' happen against women who have received abortions, that might be enough to intimidate those who are considering an abortion, even though they themselves have not suffered direct harassment. The Charter of Civil Rights arguably does something to address - though only arguably - and given that's also another Resolution in the laser sights of Ambassador Russell's legislative sniper rifle, we wouldn't stack too many dependencies on it anyway.

"I'm not sure exactly what I'm suggesting be added to the proposal - just something to bear in mind."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

"We agree with your assertion that the Charter of Civil Rights will serve as sufficient protection, except we believe that it is hardly an arguable matter. Article one, subsections a through d assure the right of those having had an abortion shall be equal in status to others under the law, that they are entitled to the same rights as everyone else, that they may not be discriminated against (we feel having had such a procedure qualifies as an “other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation”), and member states are directed to counteract such prejudice as may be levelled against them. Article two of that resolution would also see such individuals well-protected."

"We thank you for your comments and suggestions, and have updated the draft and our Items of Consideration accordingly."

Sorry but abortion is a nation issue not a WA issue.

"Thank you, but we are quite aware of your opinion on the matter as well. Does anybody else have any suggestions?"

Ambassador, Bananaistan supports this proposal and we will assist its passing in any way we can.

We would suggest the following:

1) Changing "persons" in the first sentence to "individuals", in order to have consistency of terminology across the entire resolution.

2) In the final clause changing "mothers" to "pregnant individual" and "her pregnancy" to "the pregnancy". Again this would be consistent terminology, avoiding gender biased terms and 'species wankery', as you so elegantly put it. Also children could be changed to something less species specific to humans?

3) We would not support your alternative wording for the requires clause as we feel that the current wording is more specific to abortion than the alternative.

4) We are unsure if the ENSURES clause is strong enough. Would it be possible to change this to requirements or demands of member states to protect the stated right? Our thoughts are that the WA itself cannot directly ensure the right, it can only indirectly ensure it by issuing binding instructions to member states.

"Our thanks for your wonderful suggestions, Ambassador Hornwood. We shall indeed edit the draft accordingly, and edit the terminal clause to read 'offspring' rather than 'children'. Before applying such changes, however, would this re-wording of the ensures clause suit you?"

MANDATES that Member Nations recognise the right of all individuals to terminate their own pregnancies through safe, openly accessible procedures

You are very welcome, Ambassador.

We would suggest: "MANDATES that Member Nations recognise the right of all individuals to have their pregnancies terminated through safe, openly accessible procedures."

Eireann Fae wrote:"Much better wording, Sir Inky. As to your second suggestion, would this suffice?"

DEMANDS that Member Nations prohibit any impediment to the termination of pregnancy that is not applied to medical procedures of similar risk and complexity.

"If you approve, I shall update our working document; for now, we shall include the aforementioned requires clause, but will keep this line in our Items of Consideration and solicit opinions as to which would better serve the proposal."

This language is agreeable to our delegation, and indeed is much preferred over the current language. We believe that other ambassadors are mistaken to suggest the alternative is less specific to abortion.

"Changes have been applied to the proposal, as promised. Also, that is now one vote each in favour and opposed to the alternative wording listed in our Items of Consideration. If there are no other tie-breakers, we will indeed use the alternative text in the final draft, as it suits our own preference."

Eireann Fae wrote:"Changes have been applied to the proposal, as promised. Also, that is now one vote each in favour and opposed to the alternative wording listed in our Items of Consideration. If there are no other tie-breakers, we will indeed use the alternative text in the final draft, as it suits our own preference."

We think that your alternative text sounds and looks better but our concern is rooted in the inevitability of cuckoo-la-la-land countries using the requirement about any impediment "not applied to medical procedures of similar risk and complexity" to creatively comply with the resolution by applying all sorts of impediments to all sorts of medical procedures.

"We have considered that possibility, but find it unlikely in the vast majority of nations - even those fundamentally opposed to abortion. If they put such onerous restrictions on so many other medical procedures, we like to think their populations would rise up in protest and they would be forced to reconsider. We would not put it past one or two nations in particular, but overall we do not really feel it a concern so worthy of consideration."

"Besides," Alex chimes in, "if we do hear tell of nations putting such restrictions on their citizens, we'd totally take whatever means necessary to provide for their citizens ourselves - with or without their government's consent. That's just how we roll."

(OOC: Alexandra, in particular, is often sent on missions to help refugees escape from hostile regimes. Also, the Faeries are known to provide direct aid to a population within the foreign territories - Rowan's caregiver is currently on a mission in a foreign land, working with Faeries to help the elvish population thrive in spite of restrictions placed upon them by the human government :-)

"We have swapped out the active clause that was up for consideration. We are, of course, still seeking input on this draft."

Eireann Fae wrote:"We have swapped out the active clause that was up for consideration. We are, of course, still seeking input on this draft."

How about:


This wold cover the kinds of things that worie me.

ALMF wrote:

Eireann Fae wrote:"We have swapped out the active clause that was up for consideration. We are, of course, still seeking input on this draft."

How about:

Requires member nations to extend abortion pertisipants the same kinds of protection from discrimination and harassment they wold extend to racial, religious, and gender minority.

This wold cover the kinds of things that worie me.

I would probably be more vague and general about it and say something along the lines of:

It might need some work yet - it's getting late here - but that seems like a better framework to go with. The more this is about "rights and protections" and less about saying the word abortion... the more effective this will be and the more likely that I think it will be passed.

Mousebumples wrote:

ALMF wrote:How about:

Requires member nations to extend abortion pertisipants the same kinds of protection from discrimination and harassment they wold extend to racial, religious, and gender minority.

This wold cover the kinds of things that worie me.

I would probably be more vague and general about it and say something along the lines of:

Requires member nations to extend patients electing to receive controversial medical procedures equivalent protection from discrimination, harassment, and other targeted animosity as would be extended to other groups who receive similar protections under international law.

It might need some work yet - it's getting late here - but that seems like a better framework to go with. The more this is about "rights and protections" and less about saying the word abortion... the more effective this will be and the more likely that I think it will be passed.

You'd knead to include providers and the like but sounds good

ALMF wrote:

Mousebumples wrote:I would probably be more vague and general about it and say something along the lines of:

Requires member nations to extend providers and patients [s]electing to[/s] perform or receive controversial medical procedures equivalent protection from discrimination, harassment, and other targeted animosity as would be extended to other groups who receive similar protections under international law.

It might need some work yet - it's getting late here - but that seems like a better framework to go with. The more this is about "rights and protections" and less about saying the word abortion... the more effective this will be and the more likely that I think it will be passed.

You'd knead to include providers and the like but sounds good

Good call. Edited above, slightly.

Mousebumples wrote:

ALMF wrote:You'd knead to include providers and the like but sounds good

Good call. Edited above, slightly.

That covers my concern I still think we should have a person-hood limit but that'll be a separate bill since the author dosen't want it in this one.

"We appreciate the concept that you wish to include here, but such wording as it stands is painfully verbose. Would this appease all parties?"

REQUIRES Member Nations to ensure protection from targeted animosity to providers and patients of the procedures covered by this resolution.

"We believe this wording would offer even more protection than your suggested clause, as such protection is not limited to being equitable to those with 'similar protections' under only 'international law'. It may actually be a little too broad, and we are willing to work on the wording a bit more - just not so much that the clause becomes a paragraph..."

Eireann Fae wrote:"We appreciate the concept that you wish to include here, but such wording as it stands is painfully verbose. Would this appease all parties?"

REQUIRES Member Nations to ensure protection from targeted animosity to providers and patients of the procedures covered by this resolution.

"We believe this wording would offer even more protection than your suggested clause, as such protection is not limited to being equitable to those with 'similar protections' under only 'international law'. It may actually be a little too broad, and we are willing to work on the wording a bit more - just not so much that the clause becomes a paragraph..."

I wouldn't mind, though, if such protections were expanded beyond those explicitly allowed in this resolution. As much as I know you're not a fan of infant circumcision, for example, I would think that in the interest of fairness, all controversial medical procedures should provide this sort of protection for patients and providers.

ENCOURAGES Member Nations to permit live delivery of offspring when doing so would not put the pregnant individual at any more risk than regular termination of the pregnancy, and to take unwanted offspring into their care.

Does this clause imply that member nations are permitted to ban the live delivery of offspring?

Auralia wrote:

ENCOURAGES Member Nations to permit live delivery of offspring when doing so would not put the pregnant individual at any more risk than regular termination of the pregnancy, and to take unwanted offspring into their care.

Does this clause imply that member nations are permitted to ban the live delivery of offspring?

Yes, looks optional to me. Is this a problem?

"You know you have our utmost respect, Ambassador - and not simply because you are our regional delegate. However, with all respect that is due, this proposal is about reproductive freedoms. We are all for adding a clause to ensure that those afforded such freedoms by this proposal receive all due protection under the law, however, we do not wish to start expanding on it to cover everyone. Epiſkœ is certainly unfamiliar with the paradigm, but I personally am rather fond of the UNIX philosophy of 'Do one thing and do it well'. The one thing we seek to do here is to ensure reproductive freedom of individuals, which includes the comfort of not being harassed or discriminated against. We do not wish to break from the focus of this proposal by including uninvolved groups."

"For the record, while we do indeed disagree with infant male circumcision, we do not wish to see those boys or their parents or doctors unjustly discriminated against, either. However, our proposal is meant to only protect participants of one 'controversial medical procedure' - not all of them. It might actually be better for such protections to be codified in a resolution of their own - Reproductive Freedoms will undoubtedly be a popular target for repeal, should it pass, and we would not like to see the protections you speak of fall with our resolution should that happen."

Rowan cringes a little as Ambassador Russell's voice floats across the chamber. Epiſkœ doesn't bother with a formal response, but ever the diplomat, her Human colleague makes the effort. The girl silently counts to three, and turns a neutral gaze upon the Auralian to respond. "This proposal is not itself intended to protect the live delivery of offspring. Other international legislation notwithstanding, I suppose that yes, member nations are indeed permitted to ban the live delivery of offspring. The clause you speak of is an encouragement to deliver children alive when their mothers would otherwise seek to terminate their pregnancies in cases where doing so would not harm the mother. It is not, however, a mandate to deliver live offspring, nor a prohibition against doing so."

Delegate Moore stands up in his seat and addresses the chamber.

"Our nation supports this motion, provides that the State is not required to provide subsidiaries for the procedure.Elreann, you have Swainlandia and the Region of SBARGia's support."

"You have our gratitude, Ambassador Moore." Rowan smiles as she posts a new version of the proposal with the previously discussed protection clause added.