The Duplication Rule

[Defwa]

But we can both agree RF is a thoroughly legal resolution

My exact question was how, given previous interpretations of the Duplication rule, it could be legal.

By the methodology I just described?
RF didn't mandate abortion

[The Dark Star Republic]

RF didn't mandate abortion

No resolution has ever "mandated" abortion. Mandating abortion would violate both the Patient's Rights Act, which bans forced medical procedures, and On Abortion, which specifically bans forced abortion. I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

So, maybe we could hear from the mods: which interpretation of the rule are they currently applying? That would help with how to rephrase (or not) the rule going forward.

[Defwa]

You know very well that's not what I meant.
On an international scale, OA mandated that abortion be legal and available in certain circumstances.
RF mandated procedures be available to terminate pregnancy that didn't necessarily include abortion.
That is why they were not duplicative.

[The Dark Star Republic]

You know very well that's not what I meant.

No, I really didn't have a clue what you meant!

That is why they were not duplicative.

Link?

[Defwa]

You know very well that's not what I meant.

No, I really didn't have a clue what you meant!

That is why they were not duplicative.

Link?

The Secretariat ruling was much more open than my suggestion. It was also more centered on amendments but the two rules are very related and cover the same gap I was describing anyway.
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopi ... #p18973033

We do not consider it an amendment, as On Abortion is about legalising abortion in specific, limited cases. Reproductive Freedoms is directed at securing a generalised right to abortion, and the exercise of that right. We consider that the wording of Clause 7 of On Abortion permits further WA action on abortion, provided that it does not deny the legality of the cases specified in Clause 1.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Thanks.

We do not consider it an amendment, as On Abortion is about legalising abortion in specific, limited cases. Reproductive Freedoms is directed at securing a generalised right to abortion, and the exercise of that right. We consider that the wording of Clause 7 of On Abortion permits further WA action on abortion, provided that it does not deny the legality of the cases specified in Clause 1.

Setting aside that that ruling states (quite reasonably) that RF is about the right to an abortion and not this bizarre idea that "termination of pregnancy" somehow means something else entirely - that ruling is clearly using the old, flexible interpretation of the Duplication rule. Given OMGTKK was given a ruling on his proposal based on the new, restrictive interpretation, it really does seem like we have multiple different interpretations of what the rule actually means in play. I don't see how much progress can be made on this rule until it's cleared up.

[Christian Democrats]

So, maybe we could hear from the mods: which interpretation of the rule are they currently applying?

It's been almost entirely subjective: dependent on the mods' personal feelings about a proposal.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=182801

[The Candy Of Bottles]

Support for relaxing this rule, especially with regard to going into detail on subjects vaguely covered by past resolutions. Contradiction is still a no-go of course.