[PASSED] Repeal "On Abortion"

[Nomosa]

EDIT: "After review by His Excellency Phillip Moore, Prime Minister of Nomosa, Arthur Benson has been removed from his role as Foreign Affairs Minister and relegated to the backbench, due to long-standing errors in reading comprehension and a lack of diplomatic rigour.

The Republic of Nomosa has officially altered its vote 'For' Repeal "On Abortion" to 'Against'. On behalf of the prime minister, the Nomosan Foreign Affairs Ministry would like to apologise for any confusion.

With warm regards,
William Isaacs, Foreign Affairs Minister-Delegate of the Republic of Nomosa."

PRIOR MESSAGE:

"The Republic of Nomosa would like to note that its vote 'For' the World Assembly Resolution Repeal "On Abortion" is cast in the spirit of protecting the rights of the unborn, rather than in the hopes of furthering potential anti-life legislation, as the aforementioned resolution notes in its text.

His Excellency Phillip Moore, Prime Minister of Nomosa, has resolved to oppose any and all domestic and or international legislation that threatens the personhood or dignity of the vulnerable -- including persons yet to be born. Nomosa's affirmative vote, in this case, is pragmatic, to the end of stagnating the further liberalisation of abortion. Nomosa will elect to vote in the negative on all future resolutions pertaining to the murder of unborn persons.

Signed, with respect and deference for this grand assemblage,
Arthur Benson, Foreign Affairs Minister of the Republic of Nomosa."

[Philimbesi]

"The Republic of Nomosa would like to note that its vote 'For' the World Assembly Resolution Repeal "On Abortion" is cast in the spirit of protecting the rights of the unborn, rather than in the hopes of furthering potential anti-life legislation, as the aforementioned resolution notes in its text.

His Excellency Phillip Moore, Prime Minister of Nomosa, has resolved to oppose any and all domestic and or international legislation that threatens the personhood or dignity of the vulnerable -- including persons yet to be born. Nomosa's affirmative vote, in this case, is pragmatic, to the end of stagnating the further liberalisation of abortion. Nomosa will elect to vote in the negative on all future resolutions pertaining to the murder of unborn persons.

Signed, with respect and deference for this grand assemblage,
Arthur Benson, Foreign Affairs Minister of the Republic of Nomosa."

Nigel smirks after listening to the reading of the letter from Arthur Benson. With a sigh he puts his feet up on his delegation desk, picks up his copy of Scotch Weekly Magazine, begins to read an article on new aging techniques in practice, and says under his breath,

"Might want to take a look at GA 499 (Access to Abortion) there, Arthur."

[Opiachus]

Also noting that GAR #128 allows physicians to neglect their professional duties out of moral objection to abortion

Our delegation initially voted for the proposal but on further inspection of the content we have decided to vote against. We believe the proposal attempts to disguise the planned removal of a civil right (the freedom from compelled speech) as an advancement of a civil right (reproductive freedom). The proposal labels the freedom from compelled speech as a privilege, when in fact it is fundamental to the right of free speech, the exercise of which is instead framed by the proposal as a neglect of duty. We remind our colleagues that the basic duty a physician is bound to is the ancient Hippocratic Oath of primum non nocere (first, do no harm) which the physician solemnly swears to uphold. This solemn protection does not only extend to the mother as the ambulatory patient. If a physician considers the fetus to be a being which is capable of receiving harm, then forcing a physician to execute an abortion is in fact a grave neglect of this duty, for indeed the physician has done a grave harm.

Even if one objects to this argument by stating any number of counterarguments, whether legal, rhetorical, or factual, the objections are of no consequence. What matters is the physician's internal beliefs: the compulsion of the procedure from the physician is form of compelled speech against the solemn primum non nocere oath which they took. One may argue that it is possible for a physician to morally object yet still proceed with the abortion and that this would not be a form of compelled speech, but it is the solemnity of the oath which makes that compromise impossible: the denouncement of that oath in the most extreme terms is what is being compelled. The mother's reproductive freedoms, which we do not deny is a right, does not override a physician's fundamental right of free speech.

a privilege not guaranteed concerning any other medical procedure

We believe similar scenarios exist where a physician should be able to abstain from the performance of a medical procedure, such as for circumcisions or other genital mutilations which may be practiced or indeed mandated by certain jurisdictions and deemed essential in certain cultures and religions. The right to conscientiously object should be protected in this regard. This is already the case in other essential professions. We note that in the case of the legal profession, the attorney of a defendant may request the assignment of a new attorney if they are unable to take on the case, even though the defendant has a right to legal representation. In this regard, the defendant's right to legal representation simply requires the court to find a new attorney. To assert that the old attorney is chained to the defendant would be a misreading of the right.

In general, it is the right to access of the service that is codified, not the right to access of the service from any specific individual. This circles back to the previous commentary on compulsion of speech (which includes action) and how one person's rights cannot so completely overrule another person's rights as is so drastically planned by this proposal. Instead, the law must find a compromise between the competing rights, and the arguments we have discussed which are respected by GAR #128 are an excellent compromise consistent with the precedent for other essential procedures and professions.

We also note that freedom of religion may also apply in this scenario, however we omit extended discussion on this not only for brevity (the arguments are similar for freedom of religion as they are for freedom of speech) but also because some may consider freedom of religion to be a subset of, or less fundamental than, freedom of speech, and we do not wish to dilute our previous arguments. The only commentary we will make respecting a freedom of religion argument is that forcing a physician to proceed with an abortion without consent is comparable to forcing a Jew or a Muslim to eat pork. While one may counterargue that abortion is more essential than pork, one should see the previous discussion about solemn oaths for why that does not mitigate a violation of the practitioner's rights, whether they be a medical practitioner or a religious practitioner.

For these reasons we decided to switch our vote and stand against this proposed repeal of GAR #128, on behalf of our nation and our region.

[Wrapper]

OOC: Huh. I really didn't think this would get repealed. And, I certainly didn't think I'd see 90% vote for (so far).

[Philimbesi]

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,

It is the opinion of the USP that we would prefer our doctors to be overqualified as opposed to being underqualified. If the training of medical personnel in member nations is so inadequate that it is stopping citizens from obtaining wanted services then perhaps the member nations (or this body) should address that and not repeal perfectly good legislation out of laziness.

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,

The idea that a woman would want to receive an abortion from a doctor that objects to the procedure is preposterous. As much so as forcing the doctor into performing it. Especially when there is legislation that creates venues where they can receive the service from non objecting doctors as those mentioned in the very repeal we are discussing. What is the honored ambassador seeking to make it mandatory that any doctor anywhere must perform the procedure? Regardless of their freely chosen specialty? Go to your dentist and demand and abortion, see the podiatrist ask them to terminate the pregnancy? Freedom Religious expression is just as important as body autonomy, and it should remain so.

Therefore, I rise to cast my vote against this repeal.

Nigel S Youlkin
USP Ambassador to the WA.

[North Supreria]

Our delegation initially voted for the proposal but on further inspection of the content we have decided to vote against. We believe the proposal attempts to disguise the planned removal of a civil right (the freedom from compelled speech) as an advancement of a civil right (reproductive freedom). The proposal labels the freedom from compelled speech as a privilege, when in fact it is fundamental to the right of free speech, the exercise of which is instead framed by the proposal as a neglect of duty. We remind our colleagues that the basic duty a physician is bound to is the ancient Hippocratic Oath of primum non nocere (first, do no harm) which the physician solemnly swears to uphold. This solemn protection does not only extend to the mother as the ambulatory patient. If a physician considers the fetus to be a being which is capable of receiving harm, then forcing a physician to execute an abortion is in fact a grave neglect of this duty, for indeed the physician has done a grave harm.

Even if one objects to this argument by stating any number of counterarguments, whether legal, rhetorical, or factual, the objections are of no consequence. What matters is the physician's internal beliefs: the compulsion of the procedure from the physician is form of compelled speech against the solemn primum non nocere oath which they took. One may argue that it is possible for a physician to morally object yet still proceed with the abortion and that this would not be a form of compelled speech, but it is the solemnity of the oath which makes that compromise impossible: the denouncement of that oath in the most extreme terms is what is being compelled. The mother's reproductive freedoms, which we do not deny is a right, does not override a physician's fundamental right of free speech.

North Supreria also agrees with the concerns of the ambassador of Opiachus. North Supreria has nevertheless decided to vote for the repeal and at the same time support this proposal: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=503288. This proposal addresses the concerns raised by the ambassador here. This way the requirement that doctors performing or assisting an abortion may have the same medical qualifications as a surgeon disappear, but moral and religious objections are respected.

[Opiachus]

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

As an addendum to our previous statement, we make a final note that the proposal portrays the delicate and fundamental legal compromise of competing rights, that of the physician and that of the mother, which we discussed before, as a mere political compromise between proponents and "opponents of reproductive freedoms." This is a very superficial depiction of GAR #128 which borders on inaccuracy. The compromise of GAR #128 does not deserve this treatment, and neither do the physicians whose civil rights are protected by it.

North Supreria also agrees with the concerns of the ambassador of Opiachus. North Supreria has nevertheless decided to vote for the repeal and at the same time support this proposal: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=503288. This proposal addresses the concerns raised by the ambassador here. This way the requirement that doctors performing or assisting an abortion may have the same medical qualifications as a surgeon disappear, but moral and religious objections are respected.

While drafting this addendum, we received the communique from the North Suprerian delegation. We in fact were already in brief communication with the North Suprerians over the draft proposal by Imperium Anglorum referenced in the communique and we join North Supreria in declaring our support for that draft as well. However unlike North Supreria we will maintain our against vote on the repeal at hand. The benefits of the current compromise of rights outweigh the downsides of the other clauses in GAR #128 and the risk of Imperium Anglorum's draft not being passed. The author of this repeal has already expressed strong opposition to the draft which is worrying as it implies the draft will be campaigned against on submission. We hope this will not occur.

[Wallenburg]

*banging shoe on the table*
FULLY OPPOSED!!! FULLY OPPOSED!!!
Now, dear ambassadors, our nation is fully opposed to this resolution due to the fact that our society is against abortions in, practically, all forms other than when the fetus is defective, when it’s a result of a rape or when there is a threat to the mother’s life, not body. This resolution had allowed us to further suppress mainly all forms of abortion excluding above stated on basis of “moral rejectment”. We were and will continue to enforce our pro-life values even if the resolution that takes place of this one will strip the medical specialists of their right to refuse abortion and will force member nations to establish planned parenthood organizations. We shall never surrender in our quest to protect the lives of the unborn children. Lakan women never needed, nor will never need such large abortion industry for it is against His will. Our bodies and lives do not belong to us, but instead to the people, and as such as the people do not wish for any of us to perform abortions, we shall keep finding loopholes and ways to work around WA law to contin7e enforcing our rights, as a collective.
God have mercy on this place...

"I will remind the uncivil, shoe-banging ambassador that not only is their nation required to permit and provide access to abortion under all circumstances already, but that chattel slavery is also prohibited under existing World Assembly law. It is illegal for one person to own the body or life of another."

[Wardogs Of Past]

Not only will this resolution remove the ability for a healthcare professional to deny a patient their ensured right to receive needed medical care, the language used by the drafting nation also acknowledges the existence of pregnant individuals who are not female, and who can therefore not be called mothers.
This seemingly minor detail is but one victory in the larger fight against unneeded gendered language in the medical field, a problem which carries the risk of causing both mental and physical harm to those receiving medical care, and one can only hope our fellow members of the World Assembly understand the importance of such victories, as well as the need for further work to ensure no person will experience the pain of being denied the help they require.

We are pleased to have the privilege of giving our full support.

[Laka Strolistandiler]

*banging shoe on the table*
FULLY OPPOSED!!! FULLY OPPOSED!!!
Now, dear ambassadors, our nation is fully opposed to this resolution due to the fact that our society is against abortions in, practically, all forms other than when the fetus is defective, when it’s a result of a rape or when there is a threat to the mother’s life, not body. This resolution had allowed us to further suppress mainly all forms of abortion excluding above stated on basis of “moral rejectment”. We were and will continue to enforce our pro-life values even if the resolution that takes place of this one will strip the medical specialists of their right to refuse abortion and will force member nations to establish planned parenthood organizations. We shall never surrender in our quest to protect the lives of the unborn children. Lakan women never needed, nor will never need such large abortion industry for it is against His will. Our bodies and lives do not belong to us, but instead to the people, and as such as the people do not wish for any of us to perform abortions, we shall keep finding loopholes and ways to work around WA law to contin7e enforcing our rights, as a collective.
God have mercy on this place...

"I will remind the uncivil, shoe-banging ambassador that not only is their nation required to permit and provide access to abortion under all circumstances already, but that chattel slavery is also prohibited under existing World Assembly law. It is illegal for one person to own the body or life of another."

Yeah sure you can spread your globalist lies, but we don’t restrict our citizens from access to this procedure. It is theoretically possible to receive an abortion in Laka Strolistandiler, but I can personally assure you that no medical professional will agree to perform it on a woman who fails to provide the required reasons. We don’t have private medical care, and state-employed doctors have to abide by strict rules established by non-governmental organizations. These are not laws, and neither are officially regulated by the government and as such WA law does not apply here. Because of that we often use such organizations to work around WA law. Yes, we admit it. Why shouldn’t we, if we’d say no the truth would surface sooner or later...
And if you’d like to visit another country for abortion, well, good luck getting back- the External Intelligence Office, Counterintelligence Organization and State Security Beaurau will all be very happy to “assist” you in receiving your re-citizenification permit. To put things short: in the best case you’ll be rejected reentry on moral grounds, in worst case these organizations will force you to go through hell and back checking and re-checking basically all they can find out about you and your whereabouts while on your “travel”.
And why do you call the core values of our culture “chattel slavery”? Yes, we don’t care about individual as long as society as a whole doesn’t value from it, now what?

[HECKeria]

Hey, since we're repealing this and all, we should prepare a resolution to replace "On Abortion" and get it to be at vote soon after the current vote ends. I don't want to rush it, but it feels like we should continue with what this resolution sets out to do.

[Daarwyrth]

Hey, since we're repealing this and all, we should prepare a resolution to replace "On Abortion" and get it to be at vote soon after the current vote ends. I don't want to rush it, but it feels like we should continue with what this resolution sets out to do.

There are already resolutions in place that pick up what On Abortion did. One of the reasons that this proposal is being repealed is because it duplicates unnecessarily.

The text of the repeal clarifies that even.

[Laka Strolistandiler]

Hey, since we're repealing this and all, we should prepare a resolution to replace "On Abortion" and get it to be at vote soon after the current vote ends. I don't want to rush it, but it feels like we should continue with what this resolution sets out to do.

To do what, may I wonder? Enforcing abortion on nations that don’t need it?

[Wardogs Of Past]

To do what, may I wonder? Enforcing abortion on nations that don’t need it?

While the respective citizens of all nations are, or rather should, be free to choose whether or not they wish to undergo a procedure such as an abortion, it is imperative that they are given the choice. Certain members of the World Assembly seem to have forgotten this.
The decision to abort a pregnancy must be made by the pregnant individual, not a government entity using its monopoly on violence to force its citizens to adhere to the restrictive and outdated morals of those who have had to privilege to be placed in positions of power.

Any attempt to regulate a person's body should be seen as what it truly is, an act of violence committed by the state, and an act of violence which should be met with every form of self-defense required to ensure the freedom of every individual person; something we will gladly support, both within and beyond our borders, by all means possible.

[Wallenburg]

Yeah sure you can spread your globalist lies, but we don’t restrict our citizens from access to this procedure. It is theoretically possible to receive an abortion in Laka Strolistandiler, but I can personally assure you that no medical professional will agree to perform it on a woman who fails to provide the required reasons.

"Ambassador, please, do not overplay your hand. In every society of scale there are doctors, and in every society of scale there are what I expect you would call dissidents, and in every society of scale there is an intersection of some size between the two. There's also the matter of WA Choice Plus clinics, which if anything you say is true are absolutely operating in many locations within your national jurisdiction."

We don’t have private medical care, and state-employed doctors have to abide by strict rules established by non-governmental organizations. These are not laws, and neither are officially regulated by the government and as such WA law does not apply here.

"That's not how the law works, Ambassador. Laws apply to your health service whether you like them to or not. By the terms of 'Access to Abortion', your national health service is required to provide abortion upon request. The expectations of non-governmental organizations are not listed as cause for exception."

Because of that we often use such organizations to work around WA law. Yes, we admit it. Why shouldn’t we, if we’d say no the truth would surface sooner or later...

"Rogue states are to be sanctioned and fined according to the terms of 'Administrative Compliance Act'. I will contact my superiors to have your government sanctioned according to those terms, if you truly mean that you have no intention of complying with the law."

And if you’d like to visit another country for abortion, well, good luck getting back- the External Intelligence Office, Counterintelligence Organization and State Security Beaurau will all be very happy to “assist” you in receiving your re-citizenification permit. To put things short: in the best case you’ll be rejected reentry on moral grounds, in worst case these organizations will force you to go through hell and back checking and re-checking basically all they can find out about you and your whereabouts while on your “travel”.

"These policies are in direct violation of clause 3 of 'Access to Abortion' and clause 4 of 'Patient Travel Freedoms'. I suspect violation of the terms of 'Privacy Protection Act' as well.

And why do you call the core values of our culture “chattel slavery”? Yes, we don’t care about individual as long as society as a whole doesn’t value from it, now what?

"It may have something to do with individuals being treated as the property of others. That sort of thing usually comes across as chattel slavery to me."

[Separatist Peoples]

"I will remind the uncivil, shoe-banging ambassador that not only is their nation required to permit and provide access to abortion under all circumstances already, but that chattel slavery is also prohibited under existing World Assembly law. It is illegal for one person to own the body or life of another."

Yeah sure you can spread your globalist lies, but we don’t restrict our citizens from access to this procedure. It is theoretically possible to receive an abortion in Laka Strolistandiler, but I can personally assure you that no medical professional will agree to perform it on a woman who fails to provide the required reasons. We don’t have private medical care, and state-employed doctors have to abide by strict rules established by non-governmental organizations. These are not laws, and neither are officially regulated by the government and as such WA law does not apply here. Because of that we often use such organizations to work around WA law. Yes, we admit it. Why shouldn’t we, if we’d say no the truth would surface sooner or later...
And if you’d like to visit another country for abortion, well, good luck getting back- the External Intelligence Office, Counterintelligence Organization and State Security Beaurau will all be very happy to “assist” you in receiving your re-citizenification permit. To put things short: in the best case you’ll be rejected reentry on moral grounds, in worst case these organizations will force you to go through hell and back checking and re-checking basically all they can find out about you and your whereabouts while on your “travel”.
And why do you call the core values of our culture “chattel slavery”? Yes, we don’t care about individual as long as society as a whole doesn’t value from it, now what?

"This is one of the worst legal takes I have ever had the misfortune of reading, ambassador. Essentially none of what you stated was legal, and none of your 'workarounds' survive even a modicum of thought."

[Remlasia]

The Principality of Remlasia votes AGAINST this proposal.

Proclamation: https://www.nationstates.net/nation=rem ... id=1536079

• It removes the right to freedom of conscience provided by Section 5 of General Assembly Resolution No. 128.
  
• Section 5 of General Assembly Resolution No. 128 grants the legal right for a physician to refuse to assist in, or perform, an abortion of a mother's pregnancy.
  
• The Principality of Remlasia cannot condone the unconscionable act of forcing a physician to assist, or perform, an abortion of a mother's pregnancy against the physician's will, on pain of termination of employment or possible prosecution.
  
• In accordance with Article 18 of [our] Constitution Act, the Principality of Remlasia shall withdraw from the World Assembly if any General Assembly Resolution is proposed, or any General Assembly Resolution is passed, that requires the Principality of Remlasia to enact any instrument of legislation that would compel or require a physician to assist, or perform, an abortion of a mother's pregnancy against the physician's will.

[Outer Sparta]

"I will remind the uncivil, shoe-banging ambassador that not only is their nation required to permit and provide access to abortion under all circumstances already, but that chattel slavery is also prohibited under existing World Assembly law. It is illegal for one person to own the body or life of another."

Yeah sure you can spread your globalist lies, but we don’t restrict our citizens from access to this procedure. It is theoretically possible to receive an abortion in Laka Strolistandiler, but I can personally assure you that no medical professional will agree to perform it on a woman who fails to provide the required reasons. We don’t have private medical care, and state-employed doctors have to abide by strict rules established by non-governmental organizations. These are not laws, and neither are officially regulated by the government and as such WA law does not apply here. Because of that we often use such organizations to work around WA law. Yes, we admit it. Why shouldn’t we, if we’d say no the truth would surface sooner or later...
And if you’d like to visit another country for abortion, well, good luck getting back- the External Intelligence Office, Counterintelligence Organization and State Security Beaurau will all be very happy to “assist” you in receiving your re-citizenification permit. To put things short: in the best case you’ll be rejected reentry on moral grounds, in worst case these organizations will force you to go through hell and back checking and re-checking basically all they can find out about you and your whereabouts while on your “travel”.
And why do you call the core values of our culture “chattel slavery”? Yes, we don’t care about individual as long as society as a whole doesn’t value from it, now what?

Ambassador Tavoularoglou: I see another delegation with the same old beaten dead horse arguments of the "globalist elitist shill WA" while also giving a substantive word salad that means jack squat.

[Laka Strolistandiler]

To do what, may I wonder? Enforcing abortion on nations that don’t need it?

While the respective citizens of all nations are, or rather should, be free to choose whether or not they wish to undergo a procedure such as an abortion, it is imperative that they are given the choice. Certain members of the World Assembly seem to have forgotten this.
The decision to abort a pregnancy must be made by the pregnant individual, not a government entity using its monopoly on violence to force its citizens to adhere to the restrictive and outdated morals of those who have had to privilege to be placed in positions of power.

Any attempt to regulate a person's body should be seen as what it truly is, an act of violence committed by the state, and an act of violence which should be met with every form of self-defense required to ensure the freedom of every individual person; something we will gladly support, both within and beyond our borders, by all means possible.

As said above, if they want to, they can get abortions. If they leave and never get back. We don’t want no child-murderers in our nation.
Those, who enforce those “restrictive and outdated” morals were put in place in an all-out national vote. Any of the laws submitted by Her Majesty or the People has to get a required amount of support during a national vote. Do you know, how much support did the lates anti-abortion law got? ((OOC: I should probably write a factbook about this but meh studying is such a damn hard work)) 85%. This was ratified by both national independent and international observers. Our nation, our society does NOT need abortions.

[Separatist Peoples]

While the respective citizens of all nations are, or rather should, be free to choose whether or not they wish to undergo a procedure such as an abortion, it is imperative that they are given the choice. Certain members of the World Assembly seem to have forgotten this.
The decision to abort a pregnancy must be made by the pregnant individual, not a government entity using its monopoly on violence to force its citizens to adhere to the restrictive and outdated morals of those who have had to privilege to be placed in positions of power.

Any attempt to regulate a person's body should be seen as what it truly is, an act of violence committed by the state, and an act of violence which should be met with every form of self-defense required to ensure the freedom of every individual person; something we will gladly support, both within and beyond our borders, by all means possible.

As said above, if they want to, they can get abortions. If they leave and never get back. We don’t want no child-murderers in our nation.
Those, who enforce those “restrictive and outdated” morals were put in place in an all-out national vote. Any of the laws submitted by Her Majesty or the People has to get a required amount of support during a national vote. Do you know, how much support did the lates anti-abortion law got? ((OOC: I should probably write a factbook about this but meh studying is such a damn hard work)) 85%. This was ratified by both national independent and international observers. Our nation, our society does NOT need abortions.

"Your nation is in violation of several WA laws, ambassador. Domestic approval or disapproval of WA law is irrelevant. If you cannot obey the law, you can suffer the stiff penalties or resign."

[Daarwyrth]

While the respective citizens of all nations are, or rather should, be free to choose whether or not they wish to undergo a procedure such as an abortion, it is imperative that they are given the choice. Certain members of the World Assembly seem to have forgotten this.
The decision to abort a pregnancy must be made by the pregnant individual, not a government entity using its monopoly on violence to force its citizens to adhere to the restrictive and outdated morals of those who have had to privilege to be placed in positions of power.

Any attempt to regulate a person's body should be seen as what it truly is, an act of violence committed by the state, and an act of violence which should be met with every form of self-defense required to ensure the freedom of every individual person; something we will gladly support, both within and beyond our borders, by all means possible.

As said above, if they want to, they can get abortions. If they leave and never get back. We don’t want no child-murderers in our nation.
Those, who enforce those “restrictive and outdated” morals were put in place in an all-out national vote. Any of the laws submitted by Her Majesty or the People has to get a required amount of support during a national vote. Do you know, how much support did the lates anti-abortion law got? ((OOC: I should probably write a factbook about this but meh studying is such a damn hard work)) 85%. This was ratified by both national independent and international observers. Our nation, our society does NOT need abortions.

Vyn Nysen: "What your nation needs or wants is irrelevant, Ambassador. Your nation is bound by WA law to give your citizens access to abortion without facing punitive consequences for it. Whether they want to make use of it or not is their affair, but the access to it needs to be present, and free. As the delegation from Separatist Peoples has aptly put it 'you can suffer the stiff penalties or resign'. If you are unhappy with the WA laws that your nation is legally bound to, then feel free to resign from the WA, no one is forcing you to stay a member. But if you do choose to remain a member, then either you have to face severe consequences for being non-compliant with its rules and laws, or ensure that your nation becomes compliant with existing legislation once more. There is no middle way, no matter how many "self-justifications" you bring forth."

[Laka Strolistandiler]

In our nation, dissidents are given a simple choice: become what the majority wants them to be or leave. No one will be keeping them in. These WA-sponsored abortion factories may be operating, yet good luck firstly getting to them, and if you manage to get an abortion there, good luck getting (or keeping) a job, social support or any of the budget benefits. No person will want to be friends with you, talk to you- you will be isolated. We will force you to leave..
Non-governmental organizations may not be listed as exceptions, however, they are not regulated by WA law. While the government may not be officially controlling ‘em, I’ll be honest with you: we are. WA law surely does not prohibit a, say, women only swimming team from not employing male participants eh? Since it mostly applies to government organizations.
But these aren’t policies, at least, not officially. It is a simple voluntary agreement within our national culture that should one get abortion, everyone should do everything they can to hound this person away from our nation. Does WA law prohibit us from boycotting a person just because we don’t like him or something?
Yes, we don’t care about privacy. Fine us, go ahead. We believe that no price is too high for our national heritage and pride.
And finally, what form of slavery exactly treats a person as not being one’s but the people as a whole’s property? It’s basically everyone being public property, say so...

[Daarwyrth]

In our nation, dissidents are given a simple choice: become what the majority wants them to be or leave. No one will be keeping them in. These WA-sponsored abortion factories may be operating, yet good luck firstly getting to them, and if you manage to get an abortion there, good luck getting (or keeping) a job, social support or any of the budget benefits. No person will want to be friends with you, talk to you- you will be isolated. We will force you to leave..
Non-governmental organizations may not be listed as exceptions, however, they are not regulated by WA law. While the government may not be officially controlling ‘em, I’ll be honest with you: we are. WA law surely does not prohibit a, say, women only swimming team from not employing male participants eh? Since it mostly applies to government organizations.
But these aren’t policies, at least, not officially. It is a simple voluntary agreement within our national culture that should one get abortion, everyone should do everything they can to hound this person away from our nation. Does WA law prohibit us from boycotting a person just because we don’t like him or something?
Yes, we don’t care about privacy. Fine us, go ahead. We believe that no price is too high for our national heritage and pride.
And finally, what form of slavery exactly treats a person as not being one’s but the people as a whole’s property? It’s basically everyone being public property, say so...

"Nothing that you say here changes the fact that your nation remains non-compliant with existing WA legislation. Non-compliance means burdensome penalties, there's no way around it. Unless, of course, your nation chooses to resign from the WA. Then it's free to do whatever it pleases."

[Laka Strolistandiler]

In our nation, dissidents are given a simple choice: become what the majority wants them to be or leave. No one will be keeping them in. These WA-sponsored abortion factories may be operating, yet good luck firstly getting to them, and if you manage to get an abortion there, good luck getting (or keeping) a job, social support or any of the budget benefits. No person will want to be friends with you, talk to you- you will be isolated. We will force you to leave..
Non-governmental organizations may not be listed as exceptions, however, they are not regulated by WA law. While the government may not be officially controlling ‘em, I’ll be honest with you: we are. WA law surely does not prohibit a, say, women only swimming team from not employing male participants eh? Since it mostly applies to government organizations.
But these aren’t policies, at least, not officially. It is a simple voluntary agreement within our national culture that should one get abortion, everyone should do everything they can to hound this person away from our nation. Does WA law prohibit us from boycotting a person just because we don’t like him or something?
Yes, we don’t care about privacy. Fine us, go ahead. We believe that no price is too high for our national heritage and pride.
And finally, what form of slavery exactly treats a person as not being one’s but the people as a whole’s property? It’s basically everyone being public property, say so...

"Nothing that you say here changes the fact that your nation remains non-compliant with existing WA legislation. Non-compliance means burdensome penalties, there's no way around it. Unless, of course, your nation chooses to resign from the WA. Then it's free to do whatever it pleases."

And whatcha’ gonna do, fine us? Go ahead, we’ll simply introduce another income tax for our citizens to pay for it. After all, it’s not like the populace will be against of a few bucks taken out of their corner as a payment for their right to live the way they want to live.

[Daarwyrth]

"Nothing that you say here changes the fact that your nation remains non-compliant with existing WA legislation. Non-compliance means burdensome penalties, there's no way around it. Unless, of course, your nation chooses to resign from the WA. Then it's free to do whatever it pleases."

And whatcha’ gonna do, fine us? Go ahead, we’ll simply introduce another income tax for our citizens to pay for it. After all, it’s not like the populace will be against of a few bucks taken out of their corner as a payment for their right to live the way they want to live.

"I refer you to GAR #440 "Administrative Compliance Act" in which you can read for yourself all that you need to know, Ambassador. And I can assure you that your citizens' pockets aren't endless."