The General Assembly resolution Access to Abortion was passed 12,266 votes to 4,936, and implemented in all WA member nations.
My thanks to those who supported the proposal and especially to those who assisted in getting the resolution to vote and in defending against the opposing force operations, led by United Massachusetts, to prevent it from getting to vote. I hope that this resolution can close the book on the Reproductive Freedoms repeals that Marxist Germany continued, if not by showing the political situation with greater clarity, then at least by giving a larger and juicier target.
As to costs.
First, "whatever money is saved by refusing to fund abortions will be spent many times over in paying maternity care and childbirth expenses and supporting the children of indigent mothers". Committee to Defend Reprod Rights v Myers, 625 P2d 779, 794 (Cal 1981).
Second, we have an empirical basis on which to make such a determination. Virtually all abortions in Canada are paid for by taxpayers. Pro-life groups in Canada – a upwardly biased source if any – estimate that abortions cost Canadian taxpayers between 80 and 100 million Canadian dollars per year. Canada's Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, on the other hand, drips away some 398 million in money supporting researchers and 472 million, spending 873 million Canadian dollars in 2018–9 alone. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, "Departmental Results Report 2018–19" (2019) https://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/about-au_s ... m-eng.aspx.
I remember that United Massachusetts expressed his greatest support for Wondress' resolution – going so far to stack voting on the Annual Review vote in favour of it – which created an open-ended expenditure of GAO funds for projects done by "constituent nations and non profit organisations within them to accomplish ... in part" which "further the research and development in various areas of the humanities nationally" or "support university degree programs that fall within the definition of the humanities". No limitations are in that resolution as to whether requests for funding are in good faith. No limitations are there which constrain expenditures only to projects which are limited to helping the humanities specifically. No limitations are given to duration. No directions are given to the committee on how to choose projects to ensure that only worthy projects are funded.
If UM's complaints about cost, are legitimate ones about World Assembly spending and the size of assessments, then he should look first in his own house.
That said, UM et al assert they will not pay into the funds anyway. This is a surprising position for a deficit hawk to hold. Surely, World Assembly assessments per nation would increase if some nations attempt to dodge GA 17's assessments. Nevertheless, I am unconvinced that UM's tax dodging holds water: the General Fund does not assess with a breakdown that would allow members to pick and choose which programmes they wish to fund.
