[DEFEATED] Conscientious objection to abortion

[Separatist Peoples]

"Then the doctor should not be a doctor."

There are plenty of other nonessential surgeries that would fall under this. Many doctors will not do to many plastic surgeries. Or sex change or breast augmentations on children. As long as their are alternatives available doctors should be able to focus on their areas of expertise. They don't all have to do everything.

"You conflate moral objection with specialization. That is not the topic being addressed, especially when 99% of abortions are not surgical procedures."

[Coronational Chechyans and affiliates]

3 more to quorom. Let's get this thing to vote

[The Python]

If anything this doesn't go far enough. A doctor shouldn't be forced to conduct a nonlife saving surgery if they do not agree with it.

"Then the doctor should not be a doctor."

Uh no. Assuming the most common argument against abortion is not wanting to kill the baby, that is not necessarily contradictory to wanting to save lives as a doctor.

[The Hazar Amisnery]

Hakob Soghomonyan: After many disputes over this resolution, we have come to conclusion that we will support this idea.

[Wallenburg]

I see IA has ground yet another one of my gears by submitting this with a lowercase title.

[Separatist Peoples]

I see IA has ground yet another one of my gears by submitting this with a lowercase title.

Ooc: it's a conspiracy to reduce your gears to wheels.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I see IA has ground yet another one of my gears by submitting this with a lowercase title.

Ooc: it's a conspiracy to reduce your gears to wheels.

It's all about that mirror-finish polishing.

[Pan-Asiatic States]

You have our wholehearted support in this matter, Ambassador.

One thing that hasn't been pointed out yet is that this should also incentivize countries to adopt a public healthcare system, since public institutions are legally bound to perform any functions commanded by the state.

[URA World Assembly Affairs]

The United Regions Alliance recommends that nations vote against this resolution. https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1569112

[Imperium Anglorum]

The United Regions Alliance recommends that nations vote against this resolution. https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1569112

Furthermore, this resolution conflicts with the values expressed by GAR#499 "Access to Abortion" which requires that governments provide access to abortion; by passing this resolution, healthcare providers who oppose abortion would be allowed to violate the right of access fought for in GAR#499.

Please bring a contradiction legality challenge.

[TESDAI]

The United Regions Alliance recommends that nations vote against this resolution. https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1569112

Furthermore, this resolution conflicts with the values expressed by GAR#499 "Access to Abortion" which requires that governments provide access to abortion; by passing this resolution, healthcare providers who oppose abortion would be allowed to violate the right of access fought for in GAR#499.

Please bring a contradiction legality challenge.

"It’d be a classic case of creative compliance." Obviously a legality challenge isn't going to work because it's a creative compliance with GAR499. When the nation has one healthcare provider willing to perform an abortion and the nation is a few million sq miles and could have billions of people?

OOC: The closest dedicated abortion clinics (actually women's health centers) to some places in 2+ hours away. If regular OBGYNs and healthcare providers pull Conscientious Objection, there is no reasonable way for the women to get an abortion. What this causes is homebrew abortions or abortions later into the pregnancy instead of safer earlier abortions. If you read Ghad's response, it will explain why disallowing CO instead of mandating it be allowed, does not cause shortages of medical staff.

[Neo-Western East Korea]

The Great Leader opposes this law, as children should be banned in the first place, however we will be supporting it to push this agenda

[Imperium Anglorum]

Furthermore, this resolution conflicts with the values expressed by GAR#499 "Access to Abortion" which requires that governments provide access to abortion; by passing this resolution, healthcare providers who oppose abortion would be allowed to violate the right of access fought for in GAR#499.

Please bring a contradiction legality challenge.

"It’d be a classic case of creative compliance." Obviously a legality challenge isn't going to work because it's a creative compliance with GAR499. When the nation has one healthcare provider willing to perform an abortion and the nation is a few million sq miles and could have billions of people?

OOC: The closest dedicated abortion clinics (actually women's health centers) to some places in 2+ hours away. If regular OBGYNs and healthcare providers pull Conscientious Objection, there is no reasonable way for the women to get an abortion. What this causes is homebrew abortions or abortions later into the pregnancy instead of safer earlier abortions. If you read Ghad's response, it will explain why disallowing CO instead of mandating it be allowed, does not cause shortages of medical staff.

Re the legality challenge. "Creative compliance" isn't the same as "words lose meaning". If you simply asserted CC in a repeal, it would not be sufficient to escape a honest mistake because you redefine "substantial" to mean "impossible". That would be an uncolourable interpretation of the proposal. Re this later claim, which is even more deficient: why would access be limited? I'll quote from my previous resolution:

Members must pay for or provide directly abortions, abortifacients, and contraceptives to any recipient bona fide within their jurisdiction upon request... 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... 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.

The burden on member nations created by GA 499 is to the degree that as long as there exists one member nation anywhere with abortion services (which is not currently an active combat zone) member nations are required to pay for travel and costs associated with going there and getting an abortion. (Edit. There was this dumb argument given in the original A2A debate about "what if my nation is 9+ light months away from the WA HQ???" And the answer is literally "use the interdimensional portals that allow you to get to the WAHQ", the same ones which are an accepted part of GA RP. Regardless...) If arranging travel to a clinic does not meet the speedy requirement, the WA will go and tax the shit out of your country until it agrees to build some clinics. It will then provide the services itself. The slippery slope argument given, in effect, pretends that GA 499 doesn't exist, which is especially perplexing when your interregional organisation seems to argue that it does.

(Edit 5. Oh I wanted to add a few portions that I had forgotten about, and part of why Auralia basically rage quit after A2A passed. Deliciously, when the WA taxes the shit out of your country until it agrees to donate land, it will use what used to be your money to build the clinics. Then it will tax you to pay for the upkeep costs.)

[Tinhampton]

Delegate-Ambassador Alexander Smith: Tinhampton has - extremely reluctantly, and mostly pragmatically - offered its support for this proposal.

---

...The burden on member nations created by GA 499 is to the degree that as long as there exists one member nation anywhere with abortion services (which is not currently an active combat zone) member nations are required to pay for travel and costs associated with going there and getting an abortion. [...] If arranging travel to a clinic does not meet the speedy requirement, the WA will go and tax the shit out of your country until it agrees to build some clinics. It will then provide the services itself...

My headcanon has always interpreted the reference in GA#499.4's main body to "funds assessed by the General Accounting Office from members in which there does not exist... adequate access to abortion" as being a reference to

1. regular mandatory "donations" by member states where the WACC does not believe that abortion can be adequately accessed, collection of which is authorised by GA#17.4,
2. a part of which is used for regular activities that the General Fund must fund, funding for which is authorised by all relevant non-GA#499 resolutions, but
3. as much as possible of which is reserved for the construction of WA Choice Plus clinics, funding for which is authorised by GA#499.4 alone, although
4. all members may have to pay more in donations in order to avoid the WA engaging in "deficit spending," which GA#17.7 bans it from doing, as a result of these reservations.

and not as a reference to funds collected separately from and in addition to the donations required by GA#17. Nothing in GA#499.4 requires that - for example - funds taken from Auralia to fund WAC+ clinics be used only to fund the construction of WAC+ clinics in Auralia, while prohibiting the use of such funds to fund the construction of WAC+ clinics in United Massachusetts or Christian Democrats.

[Otaku Stratus]

Surely nobody can be FORCED to kill someone's baby. It's weird enough they're allowed to, I know the hippocratic oath was never really followed since a lot of medicine involves harming, but... Like if you don't like feet, you don't go into podiatry. They don't make a back doctor check someone's feet out. Surely you have to WANT to be a baby executioner, right? That's a path you go into deliberately.

[Separatist Peoples]

Surely nobody can be FORCED to kill someone's baby. It's weird enough they're allowed to, I know the hippocratic oath was never really followed since a lot of medicine involves harming, but... Like if you don't like feet, you don't go into podiatry. They don't make a back doctor check someone's feet out. Surely you have to WANT to be a baby executioner, right? That's a path you go into deliberately.

Ooc: I see you don't know that much about the medical profession.

[Kinben-ism]

I honestly think that IA did a great job with this proposal, and hope that the tide turns, because I really don't understand why people are rejecting this so harshly. I understand that abortion is a sensitive topic, but why must people reject without looking at it? I know not everyone is doing that, but I would think a good amount.

[Slackertown]

The fact that this even came to vote is shameful.

[Axmanlandia]

The axmanlandian representative is pleased to note the vote seems to no going against this disgusting anti feminist primitive legislation

It is a genuine stain on this fine institution that such a shameful piece of women hating filth actually came all the way to a vote

[Niveusium]

"If the doctor does not want to perform an abortion, then the doctor in said place should not be a doctor that has the ability to provide abortions. Since when do doctors want to play God with other people's bodies? Abortion is a choice best left to the parent of the child, and no more. If the parents do not want to have an abortion, then they should not seek to get one. But if they do, then they have the right to seek one. If a doctor does not want to perform the abortion in order to save a life, then the doctor must reconsider their life decision of going into a field where abortion is a common practice. I refuse to allow this resolution to pass. This is an easy way to destroy reproductive rights."

[Terraka]

Surely nobody can be FORCED to kill someone's baby. It's weird enough they're allowed to, I know the hippocratic oath was never really followed since a lot of medicine involves harming, but... Like if you don't like feet, you don't go into podiatry. They don't make a back doctor check someone's feet out. Surely you have to WANT to be a baby executioner, right? That's a path you go into deliberately.

1. access to abortion is not about wheather it is moral or not to kill a baby but to what extent does a person have a right to their own body that the state can not infringe upon.
any person has a right to their own bodies not to be used by anyone else regardless of wheather it means death for someone else. we do not mandate organ donation even tho it would keep someone alive becuase we recognize even the rights of dead people to their bodies. multiple rulings have been made and have established a precident that a womans right to bodily autonomy is much greater than a childs right to use that body to sustain itself.

2. medical specialization, doctors go into specific fields and all through schooling they learn the type of work they will be doing. in order to object to preforming an abortion you must have known before you became a doctor that performs said actions.

3. 99% of abortions require no surgery. most abortions are done very early mostly less than a few weeks after contraception although unless you are looking for it, it is difficult to know if one is pregnant until at least 6 weeks.

4. The authority of the state. Working as a medical professional for the state you are required to follow state commands

The New Earth Union has sworn to uphold and protect the right of personal bodily autonomy and the right to self determination even when dead, and as such we will be voting against this proposal and any others that seek to infringe on the rights of bodily autonomy in pregnant people or attempt to make access or availability of abortion difficult.

[Imperium Anglorum]

attempt to make access or availability of abortion difficult.

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. Perhaps the ambassador could explain how the proposal does this?

[Jedinsto]

Support on this and I will attempt to convince my region to support as well.

[Imperium Anglorum]

...The burden on member nations created by GA 499 is to the degree that as long as there exists one member nation anywhere with abortion services (which is not currently an active combat zone) member nations are required to pay for travel and costs associated with going there and getting an abortion. [...] If arranging travel to a clinic does not meet the speedy requirement, the WA will go and tax the shit out of your country until it agrees to build some clinics. It will then provide the services itself...

My headcanon has always interpreted the reference in GA#499.4's main body to "funds assessed by the General Accounting Office from members in which there does not exist... adequate access to abortion" as being a reference to

1. regular mandatory "donations" by member states where the WACC does not believe that abortion can be adequately accessed, collection of which is authorised by GA#17.4,
2. a part of which is used for regular activities that the General Fund must fund, funding for which is authorised by all relevant non-GA#499 resolutions, but
3. as much as possible of which is reserved for the construction of WA Choice Plus clinics, funding for which is authorised by GA#499.4 alone, although
4. all members may have to pay more in donations in order to avoid the WA engaging in "deficit spending," which GA#17.7 bans it from doing, as a result of these reservations.

and not as a reference to funds collected separately from and in addition to the donations required by GA#17. Nothing in GA#499.4 requires that - for example - funds taken from Auralia to fund WAC+ clinics be used only to fund the construction of WAC+ clinics in Auralia, while prohibiting the use of such funds to fund the construction of WAC+ clinics in United Massachusetts or Christian Democrats.

This would be correct, funds raised from Christian Democrats could be used to fund WACP clinic construction in Auralia. In effect, taxes raised from one country are transferred abroad if the country fails to comply with A2A requirements. This creates a further fiscal incentive to comply with A2A's provisions.

[Elpis and Eris]

Against, this reads like a stepping stone to future anti-choice legislation.