[PASSED] Access to Abortion

[Attempted Socialism]

The Socialist Delegation appears unaware or convincingly nonplussed by the Auzean scribbling. Instead, the Ambassador keeps reinforcing her point that the current state of legislation is the compromise, broken in bad faith by reactionary anti-choice delegations.

"It is not much of a compromise to mandate the legalization of abortion up until birth. While we applaud your commitment to a policy that is infanticidal in its lack of restriction, and to using name-calling to make your opponents sound bad (seriously, your propaganda efforts are impressive), we kinda just wish that everyone would just go all in, and either ban thinking about abortion or make it legal to abort 20 year olds."

"Oh, Ambassador, it is so cute when you try to use big words! First, infanticide is the killing of infants, not foetuses. Second, propaganda is usually the biased or misleading dissemination of information, which applies to you but not to the mainstream pro-choice side. As examples, both your allegation that current abortion policy includes infanticide or that it would somehow be going 'all in' on current policy to abort people are excessively misleading. Any number of further examples can be found in the attempted repeals of On Abortion and Reproductive Freedoms if you care to look."
The ambassador takes a breath.
"Now, to get back to the compromise, because it is a compromise between all relevant parties, you had two options: Accept the deal or continue to maliciously attack the rights of women. The resolution On Abortion took all perspectives into account and adjudicated fairly, so that all sides gave a bit. No one party got quite what they wanted, even though the majority -- as subsequent legislation has shown -- could force through its will if so desired. The anti-choice crowd chose to continue fighting against their best available option, at which point the pro-choice crowd altered the deal a little. Now we stand in the same situation again, and have to alter the deal a tiny step again. Had the anti-choice delegations accepted that On Abortion was the law of the land, subsequent rallying to the rights of women would have had less fuel."

The Socialist Delegation appears unaware or convincingly nonplussed by the Auzean scribbling. Instead, the Ambassador keeps reinforcing her point that the current state of legislation is the compromise, broken in bad faith by reactionary anti-choice delegations.

We never consented to such a compromise, so we cannot 'break" it.

"That also answers the objection to the delegation from United Massachusetts. The compromise was between all relevant parties, so if the delegation did not consent they must have been irrelevant. Now, that still means honouring the deal was and is in their best interest, of course. Obstinacy at this point is clearly just making the argument of the pro-choice side, who had the power to vote through Reproductive Freedoms, vote down all anti-choice repeals, and let us see whether the pro-choice side has the power to vote through Access to Abortion as well. When you are an irrelevant party to a compromise where any change will be a change against your posited policy goal, the best option is to sit still and pray the other parties do not alter the deal any further."

This is more unnecessary shit. Can we please repeal the rest of these damn resoultions and pass a blocker that leaves these matters up to national governments once and for all please?

Abortionism is a missionary ideology. Its adherents are committed to spreading a culture of death.

This culture is actively fostered by powerful cultural, economic and political currents which encourage an idea of society excessively concerned with efficiency. Looking at the situation from this point of view, it is possible to speak in a certain sense of a war of the powerful against the weak: a life which would require greater acceptance, love and care is considered useless, or held to be an intolerable burden, and is therefore rejected in one way or another. A person who, because of illness, handicap or, more simply, just by existing, compromises the well-being or life-style of those who are more favoured tends to be looked upon as an enemy to be resisted or eliminated. In this way a kind of "conspiracy against life" is unleashed. This conspiracy involves not only individuals in their personal, family or group relationships, but goes far beyond, to the point of damaging and distorting, at the international level, relations between peoples and States.

OOC: This is... all wrong. Good grief. "Abortionism" doesn't exist and cannot be an ideology (Is anti-slavery an ideology? Is supporting the right to bodily sovereignty an ideology?). I don't think Christians should ever talk about missionaries in polite society for your own damned interests, lest you invite responses such as Tinfects -- I can add Catholic missionary conduct being responsible for the AIDS epidemic in Africa, Anglican and Protestant missionaries being advocates for the enslavement of and genocide against Native Americans across the North American continent -- but it's also wrong to allege that there's anything "missionary" about women's rights. Your quoted spiel, and you really ought to remember to attribute your quote, otherwise people might be mislead to think it was yours, is also not relevant.

[Wallenburg]

The Socialist Delegation appears unaware or convincingly nonplussed by the Auzean scribbling. Instead, the Ambassador keeps reinforcing her point that the current state of legislation is the compromise, broken in bad faith by reactionary anti-choice delegations.

We never consented to such a compromise, so we cannot 'break" it.

"You represent a nation in open violation of its duties as a member of the World Assembly on this very matter. I don't think your consent to any compromise on abortion rights would be worth anything."

[The Land of the Ephyral]

"The Freehold vehemently opposes this proposal as an unacceptable intrusion on the sovereignty of member-states and will never implement it if passed."

[Separatist Peoples]

"The Freehold vehemently opposes this proposal as an unacceptable intrusion on the sovereignty of member-states and will never implement it if passed."

"If you won't comply, why does your opposition matter?"

[Atheris]

This is more unnecessary shit. Can we please repeal the rest of these damn resoultions and pass a blocker that leaves these matters up to national governments once and for all please?

Abortionism is a missionary ideology. Its adherents are committed to spreading a culture of death.[/blocktext]

OOC: So is Catholicism. One of the many reasons I don't and I never will follow that particular denomination and why I won't view the Pope in the same light as millions of others.

Stop victimizing Catholicism and Christianity.

[Sandaoguo]

• Clinic lease terms. Any member state that so wishes may request that the World Assembly fund construction of such clinics. The clinics will be built on land donated by national or local governments where the member doing so grants to the clinic a 99 year renewable lease in which (a) no direct tax or (b) indirect tax in excess of one per cent may be collected, along with the following conditions:
  
  
  1. That member agrees to charter a not-for-profit corporation under its laws, which must not be treated differently from any other such corporation.
     
     
  2. That not-for-profit corporation must be granted in the aforementioned lease, a non-negotiable option to receive, upon disestablishment of the clinic, operation, assets, and liabilities of the clinic. It must also be a party to the lease aforementioned and hold usufructuary rights to the leased territory.

There are two issues with this section, one of poor wording and one of bad policy.

First, for the wording issue. The section allows member states to impose unlimited indirect taxes on these clinics. Presumably the wording was intended to read "... lease in which no (a) direct tax or (b) indirect tax in excess of one percent may be collected." (Note the "no" being placed before we start the list.) However, as written, member states can (a) sign leases that don't allow them to impose direct taxes, or (b) sign leases that allow them to impose indirect taxes in excess of one percent.

Now, should this pass, I would definitely advocate for signing the leases that allow indirect taxes. I would impose some hefty taxes. Usually these types of taxes would be passed on to the consumer, but the World Assembly is footing the bill for the lease and the services provided. So this construction error allows member states to collect an unlimited sum of money via something like a VAT imposed on the services provided by the clinics. An amazing windfall for national budgets everywhere.

Second, the policy issues. A 99-year lease is a very long lease. Entire cityscapes change over 99 years. These clinics (which are owned by these special non-profits) are saddled with a century-long lease that they seemingly cannot break. The clinic can shut down or move somewhere, but they still own the lease. They can choose to just let the building sit there, or maybe demolish it and sit on an empty lot. From a public policy standpoint, that's a very poor use of valuable land. Or, because they are given "usufructuary rights" -- a fancy term for "you can sub-lease this property and collect rent yourself" -- they can become landlords, which isn't exactly the desired role for reproductive health clinics. There's a lot of overhead that goes into being a landlord, after all.

I get that the desire here was to prevent governments from denying clinics the ability to own physical property. But the way in which this resolution goes about it leads to 2 very sub-optimal outcomes. If the World Assembly is going to pay for the construction and leases, what does it matter if it's a 5 year or 10 year lease? Clinics don't need specific construction requirements, unlike hospitals or the like. They can operate out of any commercial property, really. Why not afford them the flexibility of being able to move locations over time? As explained above, if a clinic wants to move to a better location, the property they leave behind either gets abandoned or they have to become landlords. That doesn't make snese.

[Union of Sovereign States and Republics]

To add onto the arguments made by many, is adding in "patriarchal nations" not adding unnecessary politics into the mix? If, say, a nation is run by a matriarchal society and does not allow abortion, would that nation still be considered patriarchal under the definitions of the resolution?

[Wallenburg]

To add onto the arguments made by many, is adding in "patriarchal nations" not adding unnecessary politics into the mix? If, say, a nation is run by a matriarchal society and does not allow abortion, would that nation still be considered patriarchal under the definitions of the resolution?

"This is a political organization that deals exclusively with political questions. I don't understand this complaint."

[Imperium Anglorum]

First, for the wording issue. The section allows member states to impose unlimited indirect taxes on these clinics. Presumably the wording was intended to read "... lease in which no (a) direct tax or (b) indirect tax in excess of one percent may be collected." (Note the "no" being placed before we start the list.) However, as written, member states can (a) sign leases that don't allow them to impose direct taxes, or (b) sign leases that allow them to impose indirect taxes in excess of one percent.

Now, should this pass, I would definitely advocate for signing the leases that allow indirect taxes. I would impose some hefty taxes. Usually these types of taxes would be passed on to the consumer, but the World Assembly is footing the bill for the lease and the services provided. So this construction error allows member states to collect an unlimited sum of money via something like a VAT imposed on the services provided by the clinics. An amazing windfall for national budgets everywhere.

That's definitely a scrivener's error. The tax provisions were meant mostly to prevent nations from inflating costs for visitors who are not recipients bona fide. However, the idea that a nation could use tax in such a manner doesn't hold water when expenses are shared proportionately by use. A nation that taxes so heavily would see their own people paying into the clinic that same amount: something of a circular flow.

As to the leasing provisions, those are there to make sure that the clinics are on a firm financial footing even in the absence of a centralised funding mechanism.

[Sandaoguo]

Sandaoguo may have to contribute to the General Fund in proportion to its level of “use.” That much is true. But that doesn’t erase the problem created by the construction error. The GAO might assess a contribution of, say, 10% of total clinic “use.” But there’s nothing stopping Sandaoguo from implementing a 100% VAT or some form of land use tax (“100% tax on all services performed on this plot,” for example). We’d more than make up for any required General Fund contribution.

If the resolution assessed based on proportional *expense*, this loophole wouldn’t be very lucrative. Taxes are an expense. However, the resolution’s text bases contributions on *use*, which is not as encompassing as total expenses. “Use” means clinic visits and procedures done. It doesn’t encompass tax expenses, overhead, etc. There are numerous ways this could be abused by a creative tax— taxes based on each clinic staff, or on the land or use of land, etc. Governments invent new ways to tax all the time. The only requirement here is that the tax be indirect.

[Wallenburg]

Sandaoguo may have to contribute to the General Fund in proportion to its level of “use.” That much is true. But that doesn’t erase the problem created by the construction error. The GAO might assess a contribution of, say, 10% of total clinic “use.” But there’s nothing stopping Sandaoguo from implementing a 100% VAT or some form of land use tax (“100% tax on all services performed on this plot,” for example). We’d more than make up for any required General Fund contribution.

If the resolution assessed based on proportional *expense*, this loophole wouldn’t be very lucrative. Taxes are an expense. However, the resolution’s text bases contributions on *use*, which is not as encompassing as total expenses. “Use” means clinic visits and procedures done. It doesn’t encompass tax expenses, overhead, etc. There are numerous ways this could be abused by a creative tax— taxes based on each clinic staff, or on the land or use of land, etc. Governments invent new ways to tax all the time. The only requirement here is that the tax be indirect.

Clinic lease terms. Any member state that so wishes may request that the World Assembly fund construction of such clinics. The clinics will be built on land donated by national or local governments where the member doing so grants to the clinic a 99 year renewable lease in which (a) no direct tax or (b) indirect tax in excess of one per cent may be collected, along with the following conditions:

[The Land of the Ephyral]

"The Freehold vehemently opposes this proposal as an unacceptable intrusion on the sovereignty of member-states and will never implement it if passed."

"If you won't comply, why does your opposition matter?"

"Try writing a question with consistent logic."

[Separatist Peoples]

"If you won't comply, why does your opposition matter?"

"Try writing a question with consistent logic."

"I did, ambassador. If you won't comply, what incentive do we have to accommodate your concerns? You won't comply anyway, so you are not harmed by the law in question, except for the actions by the Compliance Commission. Either you get your way and are not affected, or you refuse to comply and are not affected.

"Or do you not understand the concept of formal logic and meant to say 'write a question that fits with my personal worldview'?"

[Marxist Germany]

Abortionism is a missionary ideology. Its adherents are committed to spreading a culture of death.

OOC:
That's funny, coming from the delegate of Catholic. Should I start listing off the countless genocides in the Americas alone that the Catholic Church has been directly involved in? Perhaps the names of my friends who've been hurt by it? The endless list of people that good christian kindness murders on a daily basis? Your particular 'missionary ideology' is responsible for far more suffering than reproductive rights; perhaps start looking for a culture of death at home, before you start flinging accusations around.

Enough with your victim complex. Enough with your pretend-moralizing. You've lost this battle a thousand times, and you will lose it a thousand more.

OOC: Love that red herring

[Attempted Socialism]

OOC:
That's funny, coming from the delegate of Catholic. Should I start listing off the countless genocides in the Americas alone that the Catholic Church has been directly involved in? Perhaps the names of my friends who've been hurt by it? The endless list of people that good christian kindness murders on a daily basis? Your particular 'missionary ideology' is responsible for far more suffering than reproductive rights; perhaps start looking for a culture of death at home, before you start flinging accusations around.

Enough with your victim complex. Enough with your pretend-moralizing. You've lost this battle a thousand times, and you will lose it a thousand more.

OOC: Love that red herring

I think you made a mistake in quotes here. CD made the red herring; Tinfect merely replied in kind.

[Tinfect]

OOC: Love that red herring

OOC:
What is it with you people and projecting? I do apologize, but it rather seems to me that directly quoting John Paul II, and the context of the one quoting him, rather does bring up the matter of catholic 'morality'.

[Sandaoguo]

Sandaoguo may have to contribute to the General Fund in proportion to its level of “use.” That much is true. But that doesn’t erase the problem created by the construction error. The GAO might assess a contribution of, say, 10% of total clinic “use.” But there’s nothing stopping Sandaoguo from implementing a 100% VAT or some form of land use tax (“100% tax on all services performed on this plot,” for example). We’d more than make up for any required General Fund contribution.

If the resolution assessed based on proportional *expense*, this loophole wouldn’t be very lucrative. Taxes are an expense. However, the resolution’s text bases contributions on *use*, which is not as encompassing as total expenses. “Use” means clinic visits and procedures done. It doesn’t encompass tax expenses, overhead, etc. There are numerous ways this could be abused by a creative tax— taxes based on each clinic staff, or on the land or use of land, etc. Governments invent new ways to tax all the time. The only requirement here is that the tax be indirect.

Clinic lease terms. Any member state that so wishes may request that the World Assembly fund construction of such clinics. The clinics will be built on land donated by national or local governments where the member doing so grants to the clinic a 99 year renewable lease in which (a) no direct tax or (b) indirect tax in excess of one per cent may be collected, along with the following conditions:

Yes, that’s the advantageous section that will allow us to impose astronomical indirect taxes, which will be paid for by the General Fund per section 4 (“Clinics”).

Is there something missing from your post here?

[Wallenburg]

Clinic lease terms. Any member state that so wishes may request that the World Assembly fund construction of such clinics. The clinics will be built on land donated by national or local governments where the member doing so grants to the clinic a 99 year renewable lease in which (a) no direct tax or (b) indirect tax in excess of one per cent may be collected, along with the following conditions:

Yes, that’s the advantageous section that will allow us to impose astronomical indirect taxes, which will be paid for by the General Fund per section 4 (“Clinics”).

Is there something missing from your post here?

You seem not to notice the part where indirect taxes are prohibited as well.

[Sciongrad]

Yes, that’s the advantageous section that will allow us to impose astronomical indirect taxes, which will be paid for by the General Fund per section 4 (“Clinics”).

Is there something missing from your post here?

You seem not to notice the part where indirect taxes are prohibited as well.

I think it's pretty obvious that GR is disputing that interpretation of the clause. He's saying that the resolution, as written, allows leases in which there are no direct taxes or leases in which there are indirect taxes, because "no" is under (a).

[Imperium Anglorum]

However it is, I just don't really buy that after donation season comes around and those fees are assessed, after payments are made proportionally, that this error is actually lucrative, especially in light of GA 2's good faith clause.

[Wallenburg]

You seem not to notice the part where indirect taxes are prohibited as well.

I think it's pretty obvious that GR is disputing that interpretation of the clause. He's saying that the resolution, as written, allows leases in which there are no direct taxes or leases in which there are indirect taxes, because "no" is under (a).

Given the use of "or" in the cited clause, I'm not sure that such an interpretation can be considered reasonable, much less good-faith.

[Sciongrad]

Clearly a scrivener's error, but frankly, I think the interpretation advanced by GR is unreasonable. A reasonable member nation reading the clause in good faith would really struggle to arrive at the conclusion you've reached using ordinary tools of statutory interpretation. First, treating "no" as modifying only "direct tax" rather than the series would make subsection (b), read in isolation, ungrammatical. "The clinics will be built on land donated by national or local governments where the member doing so grants to the clinic a 99 year renewable lease in which (b) indirect tax in excess of one per cent may be collected..." I think if we're actually trying to interpret the resolution in good faith, as is required by GA 2, then we can't select, as between two interpretations, the one that is clearly not grammatical, despite the ornamental (a)s and (b)s.

If we conclude that "no" only modifies (a), the "or" would also practically render (a) superfluous. On your reading, a member state can either sign a lease that prohibits direct taxes, or it can sign one that allows indirect taxes. But if it's either or, and a state elects for a lease under (b), then presumably that means they are not under (a), in which case they can impose direct taxes. If we avoid that result, then we have to read in an "and" where the "or" is.

Frankly, this argument is too clever by half. Obviously your roleplay is your roleplay, but it's my view that a repeal that tried to make the argument you're advancing would violate the honest mistake rule. The Honest Mistake rule excludes unreasonable interpretations, and I think an interpretation that you can't reach using ordinary tools of statutory interpretation is unreasonable.

I think it's pretty obvious that GR is disputing that interpretation of the clause. He's saying that the resolution, as written, allows leases in which there are no direct taxes or leases in which there are indirect taxes, because "no" is under (a).

Given the use of "or" in the cited clause, I'm not sure that such an interpretation can be considered reasonable, much less good-faith.

I agree with you. I think the argument is wrong as a matter of statutory interpretation.

[Logon]

Frankly, there's an easy solution - pass bill after bill after bill expanding access to abortion, subsidising abortion, encouraging abortion - and maybe eventually those that want to discriminate against women will fuck off out of this place for good.

What happened to when the anti-life crowd was for "safe, legal, and are"? Much like the American slavers of the 1850s, you've moved from "necessary evil" to "positive good".

Have fun Calhoun.

[Logon]

This is more unnecessary shit. Can we please repeal the rest of these damn resoultions and pass a blocker that leaves these matters up to national governments once and for all please?

Ooc: that is a compromise. There is no good reason to compromise on this issue.

That's not a compromise, that's a national issue, not a WA one. Are you going to start regulating flag colors next?

[The New California Republic]

Ooc: that is a compromise. There is no good reason to compromise on this issue.

That's not a compromise, that's a national issue, not a WA one. Are you going to start regulating flag colors next?

The very long history of WA legislation on the issue proves that you are categorically wrong.