[PASSED] Access to Abortion

[Imperium Anglorum]

Re above. Vide Quality in Health Services.

[Maowi]

OOC:

Funding. Members must pay for or provide directly abortions, abortifacients, and contraceptives requested by any recipient bona fide within their jurisdiction. Members must also provide a means to access such services and commodities speedily and free at the point of service or provision.

Suppose someone requests a googolplex of condoms?

(Carried over from wrong thread) - I doubt they'd qualify as a recipient bona fide, in that case ...

[Araraukar]

The delegation of the Free Lands of Freest Freedonia is opposed to this proposal on the grounds of fiscal hardship. The requirement of providing free abortions will cause and infinite increase in taxes on our already impoverished nation. We are all for abortion at any point during the pregnancy for any reason imaginable, we just do not believe that our government should pay for it.

"Condoms are infinitely cheaper than abortions," Linda pointed out with a snort, "if you wish to save on costs of abortions, just ensure there are as few unplanned pregnancies as possible. That's what we do, and it works."

[Imperium Anglorum]

"We also oppose due to the funding mechanism for the construction of these clinics. This is flahulach. The general fund is not a bottomless pit. While we are confident that the People's Republic will make no contribution to the ongoing operation of the clinics, we object to paying for their construction."

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley raises one of her eyebrows after taking a look at the proposal again, and says, "The General Fund is not mentioned anywhere in our proposal". Continuing, she argues, "The closest thing is the General Accounting Office which is to assess contributions based on use to an unnamed fund for this purpose that is then distributed".

[The New California Republic]

"We also oppose due to the funding mechanism for the construction of these clinics. This is flahulach. The general fund is not a bottomless pit. While we are confident that the People's Republic will make no contribution to the ongoing operation of the clinics, we object to paying for their construction."

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley raises one of her eyebrows after taking a look at the proposal again, and says, "The General Fund is not mentioned anywhere in our proposal". Continuing, she argues, "The closest thing is the General Accounting Office which is to assess contributions based on use to an unnamed fund for this purpose that is then distributed".

"And in any case Ambassador, if necessary the NCR would be more than willing to donate a percentage of our 28.5 trillion NCR$ international aid budget, to cover nations who are either incapable or unwilling to contribute, should this proposal pass."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley raises one of her eyebrows after taking a look at the proposal again, and says, "The General Fund is not mentioned anywhere in our proposal". Continuing, she argues, "The closest thing is the General Accounting Office which is to assess contributions based on use to an unnamed fund for this purpose that is then distributed".

"And in any case Ambassador, if necessary the NCR would be more than willing to donate a percentage of our 28.5 trillion NCR$ international aid budget, to cover nations who are either incapable or unwilling to contribute, should this proposal pass."

Mortimer Wellesley smiles and turns to one of the other staff members, who points to the word "assess". Turning back to the Ambassador, she says, "The meaning of the word assess in this proposal is identical with the meaning of the word assess in GA 17" and winks at the Kennyite delegation.

[Bananaistan]

"We also oppose due to the funding mechanism for the construction of these clinics. This is flahulach. The general fund is not a bottomless pit. While we are confident that the People's Republic will make no contribution to the ongoing operation of the clinics, we object to paying for their construction."

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley raises one of her eyebrows after taking a look at the proposal again, and says, "The General Fund is not mentioned anywhere in our proposal". Continuing, she argues, "The closest thing is the General Accounting Office which is to assess contributions based on use to an unnamed fund for this purpose that is then distributed".

"Mere smoke and mirrors.

"I quote from the proposal in section 5: " Any member state that so wishes may request that the World Assembly fund construction of such clinics. "

"Given that this section makes no mention of the nebulous operating fund established in section 4, which is explicitly stated to be assessments based on a member state's usage of the clinics, the only reasonable interpretation is that construction is funded in the normal means that WA operations are funded, IE by the General Fund. After all it is entirely impossible for member states to be assessed on their usage of a yet to be built clinic which no one has used.

"This examination of section 5 leads to a further issue which renders ours and other delegations' previous concerns moot if the proposing delegate's thoughts on the absence of the mention of the General Fund is a legitimate interpretation. No clinics will ever be built. The proposal does not give the authority to process and grant requests for construction funds to any WA committee. Instead requests are directed to the World Assembly. However, neither the General Assembly nor the other place has any mechanism to grant such requests. One can only assume that such requests will land on some desk and never be processed absent a dedicated office or committee having the task to deal with them. Unless of course we reasonably assume that such requests would automatically go through the General Fund."

- Ted

[American Pere Housh]

"We oppose this proposal as abortion is considered murder unless incest, rape, or the mother's health is endangered."

[United Massachusetts]

This has been withdrawn?

[Separatist Peoples]

This has been withdrawn?

OOC: IA found some tighter wording.

[Bananaistan]

"Section 5 is still problematic. The assumption is still there that the General Fund funds construction. While "on request" and "where there does not exist adequate access to abortion" means that clinics will not be built. Faithful member nations will already have adequate access to abortion so no clinics for them. Unfaithful member nations are unlikely to request.

"Section 8 is still nonsense. The proposing delegation should divert sufficient resources to check existing resolutions and write their proposal to fit rather than force domestic courts systems, the Independent Adjudicative Office and the World Assembly Judiciary Committee to be full of litigants seeking interpretation of international law. Say what you mean and mean what you say and leave off this nonsense. It has become far too common around here.

"As my colleague already stated, section 6 is meaningless law that does nothing. Furthermore, the existence of such a section is demeaning to women. And even were it not a non-clause, how can anyone ever know whether an abortion is sex-selective?

"The People's Republic of Bananaistan remains opposed unless these issues can be fixed."

- Brian

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Section 5 is still problematic. The assumption is still there that the General Fund funds construction. While "on request" and "where there does not exist adequate access to abortion" means that clinics will not be built. Faithful member nations will already have adequate access to abortion so no clinics for them. Unfaithful member nations are unlikely to request.

Great. So the ones without access get financially shafted by having to pay for other nations which are building access and have to fly their own inhabitants to those places. The existing wording may make it unclear that when you can take only five pounds out after putting five pounds in for a certain purpose, that is a de facto separation of funding, but if people are actually getting confused by this, I'll put back in the subscription service name.

"Section 8 is still nonsense. The proposing delegation should divert sufficient resources to check existing resolutions and write their proposal to fit rather than force domestic courts systems, the Independent Adjudicative Office and the World Assembly Judiciary Committee to be full of litigants seeking interpretation of international law. Say what you mean and mean what you say and leave off this nonsense. It has become far too common around here.

Member nations too are recognised both by the ACA and Wally's Justice Act to have ability to interpret the law.

"As my colleague already stated, section 6 is meaningless law that does nothing. Furthermore, the existence of such a section is demeaning to women. And even were it not a non-clause, how can anyone ever know whether an abortion is sex-selective?

It preempts repeal arguments. How can anyone know? The same way people know other things about intent in criminal courts. It is not intended to be a low bar. As to changing it: No.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Separate post for clarity.

This has been withdrawn?

OOC: IA found some tighter wording.

I thought that G-R's points about the funding mechanism and the lease were compelling. Banana also used a warrant which I connected to a better impact that I also found was compelling: the preexisting funding mechanism would have compliant nations subsidise non-compliant ones, which would be unfair.

[Bananaistan]

"Section 8 is still nonsense. The proposing delegation should divert sufficient resources to check existing resolutions and write their proposal to fit rather than force domestic courts systems, the Independent Adjudicative Office and the World Assembly Judiciary Committee to be full of litigants seeking interpretation of international law. Say what you mean and mean what you say and leave off this nonsense. It has become far too common around here.

Member nations too are recognised both by the ACA and Wally's Justice Act to have ability to interpret the law.

See highlight.

... No.

Will remain opposed so.

Also point out that it’s a shame that you replied OOC to an IC post and the first part of your post is incomprehensible so I didn’t bother reading it.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Member nations too are recognised both by the ACA and Wally's Justice Act to have ability to interpret the law.

See highlight.

... No.

Will remain opposed so.

Also point out that it’s a shame that you replied OOC to an IC post and the first part of your post is incomprehensible so I didn’t bother reading it.

I misapprehended your point. So your arguments are "I can't read", "I'm appalled judges have jobs", and "Intent can never be proven". This sort of "feedback" is why people don't use the forum anymore; perhaps the pro-forum crowd can find some solace that even when shooting from the hip they at least put powder into the air which can be reappropriated for different purposes.

Oh, and let's not pretend that in-character remarks are anything more than a fig leaf around out-of-character positions.

[Bananaistan]

See highlight.


Will remain opposed so.

Also point out that it’s a shame that you replied OOC to an IC post and the first part of your post is incomprehensible so I didn’t bother reading it.

I misapprehended your point. So your arguments are "I can't read", "I'm appalled judges have jobs", and "Intent can never be proven". This sort of "feedback" is why people don't use the forum anymore; perhaps the pro-forum crowd can find some solace that even when shooting from the hip they at least put powder into the air which can be reappropriated for different purposes.

Oh, and let's not pretend that in-character remarks are anything more than a fig leaf around out-of-character positions.

You could try to explain yourself in some fashion better than this: "Great. So the ones without access get financially shafted by having to pay for other nations which are building access and have to fly their own inhabitants to those places. The existing wording may make it unclear that when you can take only five pounds out after putting five pounds in for a certain purpose, that is a de facto separation of funding, but if people are actually getting confused by this, I'll put back in the subscription service name."

As far as I can see that's a complete non sequitur.

You could also leave off deliberate misrepresentation of my arguments.

And I'm not pretending anything. Sometimes they are just a fig leaf for OOC positions, other times they aren't. I can't see how anyone could have a reasonable OOC position on WA abortion clinics. I'd prefer if you didn't try to incorrectly anything about any OOC position I may or may not hold from IC comments. You're around here long enough to know better than that. In any case, it's bad form to reply OOC to IC remarks. You're around here long enough to know that too.

[Imperium Anglorum]

You could try to explain yourself in some fashion better than this: "Great. So the ones without access get financially shafted by having to pay for other nations which are building access and have to fly their own inhabitants to those places. The existing wording may make it unclear that when you can take only five pounds out after putting five pounds in for a certain purpose, that is a de facto separation of funding, but if people are actually getting confused by this, I'll put back in the subscription service name."

As far as I can see that's a complete non-sequitor.

So the ones without access get financially shafted by having to pay for other nations which are building access and have to fly their own inhabitants to those places.

The existing wording may make it unclear that when you can take only five pounds out after putting five pounds in for a certain purpose, that is a de facto separation of funding.

But if people are actually getting confused by this, I'll put back in the subscription service name.

Is that clear Banana? Or do you need the explicit link to the claim that GAO taking money for this purpose in normal appropriations per GA 17 isn't the case? And the link that the current version of the draft reintroduces a formal separation so this isn't a problem?

I'd prefer if you didn't try to incorrectly [impute?] anything about any OOC position I may or may not hold from IC comments.

Also you in the OOC post where you initially complained about the OOC posting that is explicitly in my signature.

Will remain opposed so.

I mean seriously? Your interpretation of the rigid formalism of how you think the forum works is "for thee but not for me"? If you also think IC is so important, please defend for me the importance of moulding our resolutions around the sapient hive-mind cybernetic plant-bats on Omicron Convenience IVa that can't see and walk out of whatever retcon any player puts to their nation. Oh and also defend Ufoc's "insert-flaming-in-quotes-to-evade-the-mods" (But preferably in a discussion thread about it.)

[Bananaistan]

You could try to explain yourself in some fashion better than this: "Great. So the ones without access get financially shafted by having to pay for other nations which are building access and have to fly their own inhabitants to those places. The existing wording may make it unclear that when you can take only five pounds out after putting five pounds in for a certain purpose, that is a de facto separation of funding, but if people are actually getting confused by this, I'll put back in the subscription service name."

As far as I can see that's a complete non-sequitor.

So the ones without access get financially shafted by having to pay for other nations which are building access and have to fly their own inhabitants to those places.

The existing wording may make it unclear that when you can take only five pounds out after putting five pounds in for a certain purpose, that is a de facto separation of funding.

But if people are actually getting confused by this, I'll put back in the subscription service name.

Is that clear Banana? Or do you need the explicit link to the claim that GAO taking money for this purpose in normal appropriations per GA 17 isn't the case? And the link that the current version of the draft reintroduces a formal separation so this isn't a problem?

No it's not clear. Because the proposal doesn't say this. See section 5.

Please don't reply with more verbal diarrhoea and then talk down to me for not understanding it. It makes you look like a twit.

I'd prefer if you didn't try to incorrectly [impute?] anything about any OOC position I may or may not hold from IC comments.

Also you in the OOC post where you initially complained about the OOC posting that is explicitly in my signature.

Your signature doesn't exempt you from the fact that it's bad form to reply OOC to IC posts.

Will remain opposed so.

I mean seriously? Your interpretation of the rigid formalism of how you think the forum works is "for thee but not for me"? If you also think IC is so important, please defend for me the importance of moulding our resolutions around the sapient hive-mind cybernetic plant-bats on Omicron Convenience IVa that can't see and walk out of whatever retcon any player puts to their nation. Oh and also defend Ufoc's "insert-flaming-in-quotes-to-evade-the-mods" (But preferably in a discussion thread about it.)

This bs about bats and UFOC is a red herring.

And you know well that my OOC response you quote here was after you broke from IC to OOC.

[Imperium Anglorum]

And you well know that this claim that I can't impute your OOC thoughts on the proposal from your IC thoughts on the proposal when they're a fig leaf over your OOC thoughts, and when they are in fact exactly the same, is ridiculous.

I'm not willing to bend over backward to "correct" the non-issues that exist—with some generosity—entirely in the mind of your ambassador.

And if you're actually interested in cultivating a functioning IC assembly, I'm entirely willing to go with you if conventions could also be made to prevent nations from sending all ambassadors that all appear to be "a twit". If you wish to return to the c 2015 assembly, have the rest of the soup too.

[Bananaistan]

Last post. Do with this what you wish. And keep wondering about forum drafting. I wouldn't bother with forum drafting either if your series of responses to me in the last hour are typical. Nobody will want to help when you misrepresent both IC and OOC arguments, OOC reply to IC posts, think that you know what some person is thinking despite them being 3000+ miles away, etc.

First sentence of section 5 states: Any member that so wishes may request that the World Assembly fund construction and operation of such clinics if it can be shown to the IAO that existing access is inadequate.

As there is no link to any other committee or the section 4 funding mechanism, this will be funded by the General Fund. Maybe that's what you want but I doubt it:

... the preexisting funding mechanism would have compliant nations subsidise non-compliant ones, which would be unfair.

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Such clinics" are funded only by the mechanism specified in section 4. But, on advice, if you really need the World Assembly (which includes WA Choice Plus) omitted when someone else pulls up a repeal, sure. Any member that so wishes may request the construction and operation of such clinics if it can be shown to the IAO that existing access is inadequate.

[The ethno-state of Trashys]

OOC: I would support this but it contradicts "reproductive rights." in allowing an an on sex selective abortions.
You'd have to repeal that first

[The New California Republic]

OOC: I would support this but it contradicts "reproductive rights." in allowing an an on sex selective abortions.
You'd have to repeal that first

Please specifically point out the contradiction by referring to the exact clauses which conflict.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: I would support this but it contradicts "reproductive rights." in allowing an an on sex selective abortions.
You'd have to repeal that first

OOC: No, it does not.

[The Nation of the People of the Nation]

The Nationian Ambassador believes that the words "rabidly anti-choice" might be a slight to decorum, and our preference is that they are removed. We are in complete support of this proposal nonetheless.