A speaker plant that had been motionlessly residing in one corner of the room, extended its mobility vines from underneath its fronds, and pushed itself forward a little to indicate that the hivemind was joining the discussion.
"First of all, I really would advice against using "section" for "clause" in a medically-related proposal, due to its surgical meaning. Calling your clauses incisions is perhaps not the best way to ensure people will respond to them positively. Secondly, I would most strongly advice against focusing on mere legality of the proposal, as that tends to lead to such resolutions being quickly repealed due to general distaste of the wording or the effect, even though it may be legal.
To remedy that, the proposal most likely should be rewritten with the author's stated intent in mind. If the lack of resources in the patient's home nation is the true core of the problem that this proposal seeks to remedy, then that should in fact be stated in the active clauses, not merely the preamble - which, I'm sure most ambassadors around here would agree to be mostly meaningless fluff meant to court the voters to your side. Which reminds me that the apparent success of the previous attempt should not be taken as absolute support for the proposal topic.
Proposals with words like "freedom" in the title are more likely to do well simply because many voters do not read past the title. And same for the preamble - one could have active clauses that have the exact opposite effect from what they wish in the preamble, and many voters would still vote for it, simply because of the empty wishes laid out in the preamble clauses. In fact, half of your current preamble clauses go counter to what your active clauses' effects are.
To emphasize the intent, the active clauses should include the modifier "if appropriate care is not available even to a patient with adequate funds in the WA nation the patient is a permanent resident of". Because if someone has enough money to travel to another nation and there pay for their medical care, they most likely have enough money to pay for their medical care in their own nation. Unless they indeed seek to take advantage of a foreign nation's universal healthcare or lower standards of medical care.
However, if mere legality is your main concern, you should take your own advice to understand why your first active clause is still illegal. There is another reason for it as well, but it is up to the author to make their proposal legal, and nothing forces those of us who might feel like helping the drafting process to actually point out all the illegalities we perceive, especially if the author has proven to be very stubborn about advice given. (OOC: Yes, I noticed something else that isn't but most likely should be in your exceptions list.)
Also, while I understand that your clause 2 is "merely" an urges clause, it - along with clauses 1 and 3 - still ignores the fact that a nation is completely within its rights to ban medical tourism as well as letting any foreigners cross its borders, and as such has no legal obligation - and certainly none that this proposal can force on them - to "expedite their legal processes for travel". In fact, clauses 1 and 3 are in direct contradiction with clause 7. Clause 2 also clashes with clause 7, though to a slightly lesser extent. Such internal contradiction should not be allowed to exist, because right now the proposal tries to prohibit the nations from doing something that it allows them to do.
As mentioned above, clause 3 should not exist. Or else it is trying to have an effect that its text does not actually say. If your meaning is to prohibit nations from letting people leave to seek medical attention, then you need to actually say so. You cannot legally require nations to accept medical tourists, whether or not they carry an infectious disease. Which also reminds me that nowhere do you mention anything about transport. Unless the patient is well enough to walk or swim - or in the more exotic cases, fly - over the border under their own power, no carrier is or should be forced to accept someone onboard who may suffer from a sudden medical complication mid-travel.
Take for example an airliner; if someone has just had surgery, or is in such poor condition as to be at a death's door, the airliner would be well within its rights, as they would be defined in a reasonable nation, to forbid such a patient from traveling aboard their planes, if there were strong medical reasons to suspect that they would not be able to complete the flight without suffering a medical emergency. You can then extend this reasoning to cover any other form of non-private travel. You might mitigate the problem by adding something in the active clauses to make the traveling patient sign a waiver in which the transporting company is not to be held responsible if something should go horribly wrong with the patient that can be directly be blamed on their condition or disease. But even then you should not force a commercial or national transporting company to accept such a person aboard their vehicles.
Clause 4 should be mandatory to be in line with previously passed legislation.
Clause 5 will pose another legality issue when compared with existing legislation. There are certain actions that are mandatorily criminalized by the World Assembly, while the medical action itself might not be. Also, you should refer to the World Assembly doing the banning, not the General Assembly. The General Assembly is merely the legislative branch of the World Assembly, a function that, though it can potentially affect all the member nations, is still fairly small compared to what all the committees and of course the member nations themselves do every day.
Clause 6 has potential to prove confusing as you mention "nation of origin" as the only one not responsible for financing the medical tourism. I hope the author is aware that not all WA citizens reside in their nation of origin, but are in fact "legal aliens" in another member nation. Which nation should be free of the financing in such a case? And also, if the whole idea of the proposal is that the medical tourist would finance all their expenses - travel and medical care - then certainly also the nation where they travel to should not be held financially responsible for them!
Clause 7 should be made clause 1, and the subsequent clauses should include the modifier for the exclusion granted in it."
The hivemind quietly decided that it would make its own ability to be medically helpful to the citizens of other WA nations even more of a secret, should the slightly deranged proposal manage to pass.
