[PASSED] Repeal "On Abortion"

[Daarwyrth]

It's quite interesting to see just how far apart the voting is so far.

"Of course, because the requirements of this resolution were excessive. Luckily, we have better resolutions that protect every woman's right to abortion, and to determine what happens with her body."

[Lumermeyr]

"What Resolution GA#128 does not institute, it repeats after former (and, frankly speaking, better-written) resolutions; what it does not repeat - it institutes in a manner lacking of thoroughness required for this august body's decisions. It is the member nations' issue to, possibly, compile the law into one, easily-accessible bill, not the General Assembly's. Even then: GA#128 would be better off if it were just redundant, but in its current shape - it is inconsiderate."

[South Boston Irishmen]

It's quite interesting to see just how far apart the voting is so far.

"Of course, because the requirements of this resolution were excessive. Luckily, we have better resolutions that protect every woman's right to abortion, and to determine what happens with her body."

I completely agree, it's just always interesting to see where the votes fall.

[Wallenburg]

Dripping with water, Oe would return to the hall ((OOC: or something IDK where they debate it guess my retardness and bad English weren’t good enough to find any info)), and, menacingly, walk up to the ambassador’s desk. Taking her ceremonial award epee, with comically large words written on the sheath “NOT ACTUAL WEAPON: BLUNT EDGE”, take the epee out of the sneath and point it at Leo.

Helen grabs the grip of her sabre, loosening the blade in its scabbard. Ogenbond gives her a hard stare as if to say "not again". She rolls her eyes, but does not approach the wet ambassador.

[Roondar]

Repeal "On Abortion​​"

---

(Image)

---

Category: Repeal || Resolution: GAR #128 || Proposed by: Wallenburg

---

Unequivocally celebrating the commitment of this body to reproductive rights,

Determined to further this goal by the removal of laws which hinder the access patients have to reproductive care,

Noting that GAR #128 requires all abortion physicians to meet the same qualifications as surgeons and receive a degree of training equitable to that of surgeons, despite the vast majority of abortions not requiring any surgery,

Also noting that GAR #128 allows physicians to neglect their professional duties out of moral objection to abortion, a privilege not guaranteed concerning any other medical procedure,

Concerned that these terms obstruct the ability of pregnant individuals to access the reproductive care guaranteed to them under World Assembly law,

Confident that the political will of member nations and resolutions GAR #29 "Patient's Rights Act", GAR #286 "Reproductive Freedoms", GAR #499 "Access to Abortion", and GAR #523 "Patient Travel Freedoms" provide for the guarantee of reproductive freedom to all individuals under the jurisdiction of member states,

Resolved that the duplicate protections in GAR #128 do not outweigh the compromises it makes to the opponents of reproductive freedoms,

The World Assembly hereby repeals GAR #128 "On Abortion".

ABORTION IS LITERALLY LEGAL MURDER! babies are people! you were once concieved in your mothers womb!

[British Starsian Influence]

Couldn't agree more, brother. This truly shouldn't even be an issue. I'm a defender, working to make sure that other nations have an enjoyable NS experience, and with this new resolution looking like it will pass, I'm considering quitting. Come on, people! Do we really need this level of terrible partisanship and murder??

[Daarwyrth]

:meh:

Repeal "On Abortion​​"

---

(Image)

---

Category: Repeal || Resolution: GAR #128 || Proposed by: Wallenburg

---

Unequivocally celebrating the commitment of this body to reproductive rights,

Determined to further this goal by the removal of laws which hinder the access patients have to reproductive care,

Noting that GAR #128 requires all abortion physicians to meet the same qualifications as surgeons and receive a degree of training equitable to that of surgeons, despite the vast majority of abortions not requiring any surgery,

Also noting that GAR #128 allows physicians to neglect their professional duties out of moral objection to abortion, a privilege not guaranteed concerning any other medical procedure,

Concerned that these terms obstruct the ability of pregnant individuals to access the reproductive care guaranteed to them under World Assembly law,

Confident that the political will of member nations and resolutions GAR #29 "Patient's Rights Act", GAR #286 "Reproductive Freedoms", GAR #499 "Access to Abortion", and GAR #523 "Patient Travel Freedoms" provide for the guarantee of reproductive freedom to all individuals under the jurisdiction of member states,

Resolved that the duplicate protections in GAR #128 do not outweigh the compromises it makes to the opponents of reproductive freedoms,

The World Assembly hereby repeals GAR #128 "On Abortion".

ABORTION IS LITERALLY LEGAL MURDER! babies are people! you were once concieved in your mothers womb!

OOC: That is not for you to decide. If you are against abortion, so be it. But you do not have the right, nor will you ever have the right to decide that for another. You provide a fallacy to try to make your argument appear stronger with "you were once conceived in your mother's womb", but that statement adds absolutely no meritoric value to the debate on abortion. Emotion is not the correct basis to found an argument upon.

[North Supreria]

Couldn't agree more, brother. This truly shouldn't even be an issue. I'm a defender, working to make sure that other nations have an enjoyable NS experience, and with this new resolution looking like it will pass, I'm considering quitting. Come on, people! Do we really need this level of terrible partisanship and murder??

North Supreria would like to point out to the ambassador that the right to abortion already existed within WA legislation before this repeal was put to the vote. It is not a new topic.

[Wallenburg]

ABORTION IS LITERALLY LEGAL MURDER! babies are people! you were once concieved in your mothers womb!

Ogenbond rubs his chin with his thumb and forefinger. "Huh, I hadn't considered that. Too late to go back, I suppose."

[Separatist Peoples]

:meh:

Repeal "On Abortion​​"

---

(Image)

---

Category: Repeal || Resolution: GAR #128 || Proposed by: Wallenburg

---

Unequivocally celebrating the commitment of this body to reproductive rights,

Determined to further this goal by the removal of laws which hinder the access patients have to reproductive care,

Noting that GAR #128 requires all abortion physicians to meet the same qualifications as surgeons and receive a degree of training equitable to that of surgeons, despite the vast majority of abortions not requiring any surgery,

Also noting that GAR #128 allows physicians to neglect their professional duties out of moral objection to abortion, a privilege not guaranteed concerning any other medical procedure,

Concerned that these terms obstruct the ability of pregnant individuals to access the reproductive care guaranteed to them under World Assembly law,

Confident that the political will of member nations and resolutions GAR #29 "Patient's Rights Act", GAR #286 "Reproductive Freedoms", GAR #499 "Access to Abortion", and GAR #523 "Patient Travel Freedoms" provide for the guarantee of reproductive freedom to all individuals under the jurisdiction of member states,

Resolved that the duplicate protections in GAR #128 do not outweigh the compromises it makes to the opponents of reproductive freedoms,

The World Assembly hereby repeals GAR #128 "On Abortion".

ABORTION IS LITERALLY LEGAL MURDER! babies are people! you were once concieved in your mothers womb!

"We owe no obligation to make the same choices as our parents, ambassador."

[Separatist Peoples]

Couldn't agree more, brother. This truly shouldn't even be an issue. I'm a defender, working to make sure that other nations have an enjoyable NS experience, and with this new resolution looking like it will pass, I'm considering quitting. Come on, people! Do we really need this level of terrible partisanship and murder??

OOC: There are two other resolutions legalizing abortion. One has been present for years. Abortion has been legal in the WA longer than your nation has been around. This is not new.

[British Starsian Influence]

Couldn't agree more, brother. This truly shouldn't even be an issue. I'm a defender, working to make sure that other nations have an enjoyable NS experience, and with this new resolution looking like it will pass, I'm considering quitting. Come on, people! Do we really need this level of terrible partisanship and murder??

OOC: There are two other resolutions legalizing abortion. One has been present for years. Abortion has been legal in the WA longer than your nation has been around. This is not new.

I'm not saying that we should totally outlaw abortion in all member states, but I am saying that the levels of partisanship in this bill are alarming. For example, in one clause, it references that all qualified physicians be required to perform abortions over religious or moral objections. This is appalling! Love it or hate it, abortion should not and should never be forced upon the individual. For many conservative doctors, performing an abortion is tantamount to infanticide, and no one should be forced to perform murder against their will! Now, the old legislation does have faults, but it is a compromise, and the best we'll be able to get. There is no reason why it should be repealed or expanded upon.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: There are two other resolutions legalizing abortion. One has been present for years. Abortion has been legal in the WA longer than your nation has been around. This is not new.

I'm not saying that we should totally outlaw abortion in all member states, but I am saying that the levels of partisanship in this bill are alarming. For example, in one clause, it references that all qualified physicians be required to perform abortions over religious or moral objections. This is appalling! Love it or hate it, abortion should not and should never be forced upon the individual. For many conservative doctors, performing an abortion is tantamount to infanticide, and no one should be forced to perform murder against their will! Now, the old legislation does have faults, but it is a compromise, and the best we'll be able to get. There is no reason why it should be repealed or expanded upon.

OOC: If a doctor isn't willing to do their job, I'm not sure why they are doctors. There is no need for a compromise. GAR#286 legalized abortion in all cases, and GAR#499 requires member states pay for transit for anybody unable to reach an abortion clinic, and build a clinic where there are none. The Pro-Choice side is in the vast minority. There is no reason to compromise when you are in the secure majority.

Not a single anti-choice advocate has been able to satisfactorily explain this to me. Compromise is about accomplishing something together because you cannot accomplish it alone. Why should the majority compromise with a minority when the minority is too small to prevent the majority from doing what it wants?

[Godular]

OOC: There are two other resolutions legalizing abortion. One has been present for years. Abortion has been legal in the WA longer than your nation has been around. This is not new.

I'm not saying that we should totally outlaw abortion in all member states, but I am saying that the levels of partisanship in this bill are alarming. For example, in one clause, it references that all qualified physicians be required to perform abortions over religious or moral objections. This is appalling! Love it or hate it, abortion should not and should never be forced upon the individual. For many conservative doctors, performing an abortion is tantamount to infanticide, and no one should be forced to perform murder against their will! Now, the old legislation does have faults, but it is a compromise, and the best we'll be able to get. There is no reason why it should be repealed or expanded upon.

It was already expanded upon several times over, and 'conservative doctors' still would not be forced into providing an abortion as the other resolutions provided methods to access abortion services under most any circumstances. I'm not really seeing what your problem is.

Nor would this resolution affect you, O non-member.

[Dogologo]

i'm voting for the resolution. this heading is killing me tho lmao

some minor concerns for mainly imaginary/outdated scenarios

in 128:

5. DECLARES that no physician may be compelled to perform abortion against their moral stance;
6. DECLARES that it is neither a criminal offence nor a cause for civil suit to have obtained abortion for reasons under Section 1 and no inhabitant of a member country shall be subject to prosecution for having done so, nor otherwise subjected to harassment or persecution in law or at the instigation of the state in consequence;

feel like 5) would be nice to have for a dystopian eugenicist scenario, especially with shaky gene science being in vogue rn & people saying that if they had gay children they would abort them. also raises the demented question of forced birth vs. forced abortion for the imprisoned/institutionalized. could someone link me to past WA resolutions on bioethics, i feel like that might be a little more relevant.

6) tbh a really good protection i think 499 outlines a little better, but i like how concise it was here

also in 499:

Clinics. WA Choice Plus is established and may construct, per section 5, clinics with funds assessed by the General Accounting Office from members in which there does not exist, in the view of the WACC, adequate access to abortion. Such clinics shall offer free and safe abortions to any recipient bona fide. All members must, however, contribute separately to WA Choice Plus in proportion to expenses incurred within their jurisdiction at such clinics for their upkeep and maintenance.

Members must arrange fully subsidised travel for any recipient bona fide, and one person of their choice, to receive care offered by such a clinic if abortion services are not speedily accessible. No limitation, except to prohibit travel to nations in which there is an on-going armed conflict, may be enforced by a member on a person's ability to exit a member for purposes of travelling to a clinic unless permitted by resolution.

Clinics shall provide free healthcare and counselling for expectant parents as well as free contraceptives and abortifacients to any address serviceable by post within a member.

Sorry I'm New Here, so i don't really know how WA works as far as funding or distribution of WA officials/workers/resources but i feel like this could get pretty dicey for nations that don't have strong medical infrastructure already - they would effectively be paying extra to the WA instead of allocating funds to public health initiatives in their own country. is there a sliding scale for the cost of these services. also then raises the question abt which countries are producing/distributing equipment/medicine vs. simply receiving it but this is probably an issue of patenting or something else. kind of off-topic to the resolution being debated here but there. it seems a little weird.

is there a way to repeal clauses in resolutions instead of the whole thing? it seems like the professional requirement 6 (Thou Shall Be A Surgeon) & ethical clause 5 are the biggest obstacle to access/reproductive choice.

[Outer Sparta]

i'm voting for the resolution. this heading is killing me tho lmao

some minor concerns for mainly imaginary/outdated scenarios

in 128:

5. DECLARES that no physician may be compelled to perform abortion against their moral stance;
6. DECLARES that it is neither a criminal offence nor a cause for civil suit to have obtained abortion for reasons under Section 1 and no inhabitant of a member country shall be subject to prosecution for having done so, nor otherwise subjected to harassment or persecution in law or at the instigation of the state in consequence;

feel like 5) would be nice to have for a dystopian eugenicist scenario, especially with shaky gene science being in vogue rn & people saying that if they had gay children they would abort them. also raises the demented question of forced birth vs. forced abortion for the imprisoned/institutionalized. could someone link me to past WA resolutions on bioethics, i feel like that might be a little more relevant.

6) tbh a really good protection i think 499 outlines a little better, but i like how concise it was here

also in 499:

Clinics. WA Choice Plus is established and may construct, per section 5, clinics with funds assessed by the General Accounting Office from members in which there does not exist, in the view of the WACC, adequate access to abortion. Such clinics shall offer free and safe abortions to any recipient bona fide. All members must, however, contribute separately to WA Choice Plus in proportion to expenses incurred within their jurisdiction at such clinics for their upkeep and maintenance.

Members must arrange fully subsidised travel for any recipient bona fide, and one person of their choice, to receive care offered by such a clinic if abortion services are not speedily accessible. No limitation, except to prohibit travel to nations in which there is an on-going armed conflict, may be enforced by a member on a person's ability to exit a member for purposes of travelling to a clinic unless permitted by resolution.

Clinics shall provide free healthcare and counselling for expectant parents as well as free contraceptives and abortifacients to any address serviceable by post within a member.

Sorry I'm New Here, so i don't really know how WA works as far as funding or distribution of WA officials/workers/resources but i feel like this could get pretty dicey for nations that don't have strong medical infrastructure already - they would effectively be paying extra to the WA instead of allocating funds to public health initiatives in their own country. is there a sliding scale for the cost of these services. also then raises the question abt which countries are producing/distributing equipment/medicine vs. simply receiving it but this is probably an issue of patenting or something else. kind of off-topic to the resolution being debated here but there. it seems a little weird.

is there a way to repeal clauses in resolutions instead of the whole thing? it seems like the professional requirement 6 (Thou Shall Be A Surgeon) & ethical clause 5 are the biggest obstacle to access/reproductive choice.

Repealing clauses in resolutions is not allowed by the rules. You have to either repeal the whole thing or not repeal it at all.

[Godular]

i'm voting for the resolution. this heading is killing me tho lmao

some minor concerns for mainly imaginary/outdated scenarios

in 128:

5. DECLARES that no physician may be compelled to perform abortion against their moral stance;
6. DECLARES that it is neither a criminal offence nor a cause for civil suit to have obtained abortion for reasons under Section 1 and no inhabitant of a member country shall be subject to prosecution for having done so, nor otherwise subjected to harassment or persecution in law or at the instigation of the state in consequence;

feel like 5) would be nice to have for a dystopian eugenicist scenario, especially with shaky gene science being in vogue rn & people saying that if they had gay children they would abort them. also raises the demented question of forced birth vs. forced abortion for the imprisoned/institutionalized. could someone link me to past WA resolutions on bioethics, i feel like that might be a little more relevant.

6) tbh a really good protection i think 499 outlines a little better, but i like how concise it was here

also in 499:

Clinics. WA Choice Plus is established and may construct, per section 5, clinics with funds assessed by the General Accounting Office from members in which there does not exist, in the view of the WACC, adequate access to abortion. Such clinics shall offer free and safe abortions to any recipient bona fide. All members must, however, contribute separately to WA Choice Plus in proportion to expenses incurred within their jurisdiction at such clinics for their upkeep and maintenance.

Members must arrange fully subsidised travel for any recipient bona fide, and one person of their choice, to receive care offered by such a clinic if abortion services are not speedily accessible. No limitation, except to prohibit travel to nations in which there is an on-going armed conflict, may be enforced by a member on a person's ability to exit a member for purposes of travelling to a clinic unless permitted by resolution.

Clinics shall provide free healthcare and counselling for expectant parents as well as free contraceptives and abortifacients to any address serviceable by post within a member.

Sorry I'm New Here, so i don't really know how WA works as far as funding or distribution of WA officials/workers/resources but i feel like this could get pretty dicey for nations that don't have strong medical infrastructure already - they would effectively be paying extra to the WA instead of allocating funds to public health initiatives in their own country. is there a sliding scale for the cost of these services. also then raises the question abt which countries are producing/distributing equipment/medicine vs. simply receiving it but this is probably an issue of patenting or something else. kind of off-topic to the resolution being debated here but there. it seems a little weird.

is there a way to repeal clauses in resolutions instead of the whole thing? it seems like the professional requirement 6 (Thou Shall Be A Surgeon) & ethical clause 5 are the biggest obstacle to access/reproductive choice.

No.

Funding is considered 'accounted for' by magical sky fairies that spit glitter and fart cotton candy and make the gears of bureaucracy work in the ways they are intended in a manner that attempts at 'creative noncompliance' simply fail. If you're worried about funding, no you're not. If you're worried about logistics, no you're not.

[Dogologo]

Repealing clauses in resolutions is not allowed by the rules. You have to either repeal the whole thing or not repeal it at all.

gotcha, thanks

[Dogologo]

No.

Funding is considered 'accounted for' by magical sky fairies that spit glitter and fart cotton candy and make the gears of bureaucracy work in the ways they are intended in a manner that attempts at 'creative noncompliance' simply fail. If you're worried about funding, no you're not. If you're worried about logistics, no you're not.

i mean it is a world-building online RP so you're kind of right but you sound like you're upset about something else...

[Imperium Anglorum]

Funding is considered 'accounted for' by magical sky fairies that spit glitter and fart cotton candy and make the gears of bureaucracy work in the ways they are intended in a manner that attempts at 'creative noncompliance' simply fail. If you're worried about funding, no you're not. If you're worried about logistics, no you're not.

Funding is provided for by assessments made under GA 17 'WA General Fund' and various fines or fees under other resolutions. It is realistic to raise questions to cost. Costs are generally held to be borne by nations according to their ability to pay. See GA 17. But the internal distribution of those costs (ie how the funds used to pay the dues are raised by the paying nation) is unknown and can differ.

[Godular]

No.

Funding is considered 'accounted for' by magical sky fairies that spit glitter and fart cotton candy and make the gears of bureaucracy work in the ways they are intended in a manner that attempts at 'creative noncompliance' simply fail. If you're worried about funding, no you're not. If you're worried about logistics, no you're not.

i mean it is a world-building online RP so you're kind of right but you sound like you're upset about something else...

Oh no, not at all. The resolutions quite specifically handwave nations into compliance. If you wish to RP that resolution X or Y is taxing your resources in some way, more power to you. The resolutions have no in-game effect on anything so asking about whether a resolution is overly burdensome is fundamentally moot on most any functional level.

My nation’s sky fairy is named Hubert, by the way. He chain-smokes but always smells like potpourri. He hates that.

Funding is considered 'accounted for' by magical sky fairies that spit glitter and fart cotton candy and make the gears of bureaucracy work in the ways they are intended in a manner that attempts at 'creative noncompliance' simply fail. If you're worried about funding, no you're not. If you're worried about logistics, no you're not.

Funding is provided for by assessments made under GA 17 'WA General Fund' and various fines or fees under other resolutions. It is realistic to raise questions to cost. Costs are generally held to be borne by nations according to their ability to pay. See GA 17. But the internal distribution of those costs (ie how the funds used to pay the dues are raised by the paying nation) is unknown and can differ.

Dangit, I liked the sky-fairy explanation...

Razzum frazzum take the joy outta life...

[Philimbesi]

Couldn't agree more, brother. This truly shouldn't even be an issue. I'm a defender, working to make sure that other nations have an enjoyable NS experience, and with this new resolution looking like it will pass, I'm considering quitting. Come on, people! Do we really need this level of terrible partisanship and murder??

Dibs on their office furniture!

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: There are two other resolutions legalizing abortion. One has been present for years. Abortion has been legal in the WA longer than your nation has been around. This is not new.

I'm not saying that we should totally outlaw abortion in all member states, but I am saying that the levels of partisanship in this bill are alarming. For example, in one clause, it references that all qualified physicians be required to perform abortions over religious or moral objections. This is appalling! Love it or hate it, abortion should not and should never be forced upon the individual. For many conservative doctors, performing an abortion is tantamount to infanticide, and no one should be forced to perform murder against their will! Now, the old legislation does have faults, but it is a compromise, and the best we'll be able to get. There is no reason why it should be repealed or expanded upon.

Vyn Nysen: "The majority disagrees with you, Ambassador."

[Laka Strolistandiler]

I'm not saying that we should totally outlaw abortion in all member states, but I am saying that the levels of partisanship in this bill are alarming. For example, in one clause, it references that all qualified physicians be required to perform abortions over religious or moral objections. This is appalling! Love it or hate it, abortion should not and should never be forced upon the individual. For many conservative doctors, performing an abortion is tantamount to infanticide, and no one should be forced to perform murder against their will! Now, the old legislation does have faults, but it is a compromise, and the best we'll be able to get. There is no reason why it should be repealed or expanded upon.

Vyn Nysen: "The majority disagrees with you, Ambassador."

Oe Ishi: And what is WA now, tyranny by majority? Miss Nysen, if the majority of the WA would decide that all nation states should abolish marriage institution, would you, personally, agree that it should be done?

[Daarwyrth]

Vyn Nysen: "The majority disagrees with you, Ambassador."

Oe Ishi: And what is WA now, tyranny by majority? Miss Nysen, if the majority of the WA would decide that all nation states should abolish marriage institution, would you, personally, agree that it should be done?

"If that is indeed the will of the majority of the WA, then our nation will either abide by it and seek to repeal the legislation at the appropriate moment, or choose to resign from the World Assembly. The majority has always decided the course of things in this international community. Minorities have the right to propose and promote legislation that favours them, yet in the end it is a majority vote that determines the course of things regarding WA legislation. If your nation is unable to conform to the will of the majority, then it needs to ask itself whether it should remain a part of this international body."