Proposal to Repeal Resolution 44, Reduction of Abortion Act

[The Cat-Tribe]

*snip*2. Resolution #44 does not require (or even suggest) abstinence only education methods. To the contary, effective, comprehensive sex education is called for by the resolution. One aspect of such education can be an emphasis on abstinence as a means of avoiding unwanted pregnancies and other consequences of sex. This is NOT a call for "abstinence-only" programs that do nothing other than try to teach abstinence. Abstinence education as part of a broader range of information can be an effective part of preventing unwanted pregnancies and reducing abortion rates.*snip*

*snip*

Regarding Part 2, We would love to see information anywhere that says abstinence education, as whole or only part of a program, is effective, because we have information that it's not.

*snip*

In any case, we feel that more abstinence education = more abortions

*snip*

OCC: Here is a study specifically showing that abstinence is effective as part of comprehensive sex education. Link

Moreover, the consensus among professional experts is that abstinence taught as part of comprehensive sex education is effective, but abstinence-only programs are counter-productive:

• Guttmacher Institute: "Evidence shows that comprehensive sex education programs that provide information about both abstinence and contraception can help delay the onset of sexual activity among teens, reduce their number of sexual partners and increase contraceptive use when they become sexually active. These findings were underscored in “Call to Action to Promote Sexual Health and Responsible Sexual Behavior,” issued by former Surgeon General David Satcher in June 2001" link
  
  
• The American Medical Association "urges schools to implement comprehensive... sexuality education programs that... include an integrated strategy for making condoms available to students and for providing both factual information and skill-building related to reproductive biology, sexual abstinence, sexual responsibility, contraceptives including condoms, alternatives in birth control, and other issues aimed at prevention of pregnancy and sexual transmission of diseases... [and] opposes the sole use of abstinence-only education..." pdf
  
  
• The American Academy of Pediatrics states that "Abstinence-only programs have not demonstrated successful outcomes with regard to delayed initiation of sexual activity or use of safer sex practices... Programs that encourage abstinence as the best option for adolescents, but offer a discussion of HIV prevention and contraception as the best approach for adolescents who are sexually active, have been shown to delay the initiation of sexual activity and increase the proportion of sexually active adolescents who reported using birth control.” link
  
  
• A comprehensive review of 115 program evaluations published in November 2007 by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy found that two-thirds of sex education programs focusing on both abstinence and contraception had a positive effect on teen sexual behavior. The same study found no strong evidence that abstinence-only programs delayed the initiation of sex, hastened the return to abstinence, or reduced the number of sexual partners. link
  
  
• The American Psychological Association has endorsed teaching abstinence as part of comprehensive sex education and condemned abstinence-only programs. pdf

(note: fwiw, some of the above quotes are taken from Wikipedia, with links to the original source and double-checking that they are accurate)

[King Zhaoxiang of Qin]

2. Re: abstinence education. I'll get back to you with RL data, but please recognize the difference between comprehensive sex education (which almost always includes some emphasis on abstinence) and abstinence-only education.

3. Re: abortion legal, safe, and rare. You say "this is why we oppose [Res 344]" and that WA reproductive policy shouldn't "step between doctor and patient." The first statement is pretty nonsensical and the second is baseless. You seem to be confusing the (rather moderate) prefatory clauses with the actual action clauses of Resolution #44. Where, pray tell, does the policy in any way "step between doctor and patient"?

No, this is not a "slippery slope" or a trojan horse. Nothing in the Resolution can be construed as saying a fetus is person with a right to life -- let alone a right to control a women's body. I would vehemently oppose any argument that an early-term unborn is entitled to equal protection and challenge you to point to any language in Res. #44 that even suggests or hints otherwise.

You seem so caught up in a knee-jerk pro-choice position that (1) you are essentially arguing for abortion (as opposed to abortion rights and (2) you aren't reading Res. #44 for what it actually says. Which is better: a woman fully informed about contraception avoids an unwanted pregnancy or needs an abortion? Which is better: due to advanced medical treatment, a women is able to carry a wanted pregnancy to term or a woman is forced to get a medical abortion that could have been avoided? This is what the resolution addresses.

Finally, contrary to being a platform for anti-abortion restrictions on the right to choose, Res. #44 provides ammunition against such restrictions. First, a nation in good-faith compliance with the resolution shouldn't need to restrict abortion. Abortions that cannot be avoided by the measures in Res. #44 are the most necessary and (almost by definition) unavoidable cases. Second, as you say later and I fully agree, attempts to restrict the right to choice are counter-productive: (1) they don't reduce the number of abortions that occur and (2) they make the abortions that do occur much, much less safe. They result in the avoidable deaths of women.

4. Re: coercion. Again, please identify the coercive provisions in Res. #44. There are none. Especially nothing that coerces women or doctors in any way.

My original proposal was the "Freedom of Reproduction and Reduction of Abortion Act" but that was too long. Read the fucking action clauses carefully. Anti-choice nations that voted for this resolution agreed to universal access to information about contraception, family planning, etc. What exactly did pro-choice nation's concede?

OCC: My 700,000 figure was a typo. It should be 70,000. Sorry about that. And, yes, that includes the entire RL world. But it is incredibly relevant in two ways: (1) restrictions on the right to choose result in more people dying and (2) the solution is contraceptives, family planning, etc. Regardless, it is bizarre you would opppose a Res. #44 that calls for better medical care for pregnant women on the grounds that there is something coercive or harmful about providing such care.

Although I fully agree that restrictions on choice cause more unsafe abortions, Resolution #44 isn't "most anti-abortion measures in law." It doesn't outlaw abortion or restrict the right to choose in any way. I'd love to see you explain how providing information about (or universal access to) contraception, family planning, pre-natal care, etc., would lead to more unsafe abortions. Again, you seem to be confusing rather mild language in the prefatory clause with the action clauses.

5. Re: what is abortion/RU-486. Irrelevant. Not impacted in any way by Res. #44. My person opinion is that RU-486 is not abortion, but who cares?

6. Re: legislative trap. Unless you are going to contend that abortion is always a personal and social good preferrable to situations where abortion is avoided, I have fallen into no trap.

7. Re: your example. Your "story" (whether true IRL or not) has fuck-all to do with Res. #44. How in any way does Resolution #44 cause such a situation? To the contrary, the requirement that women have full access to pre-natal, natal, and post-natal care information would help prevent such situations.

OCC: Where and when did this occur in RL? Clearly it was not cause by Res. #44. What similar law did cause the unfortunate situation?

2. We recognize the difference.

3. It steps between doctor and patient in the same manner as, say, a WA resolution to reduce the use of insulin in diabetic patients for moral reasons would. It limits doctor choice by applying pressure not to choose a certain treatment avenue.

A woman in need of contraception should have the contraception and the education to know how to get it and use it. As we said in the example given, there are a lot of very valuable parts of GAR 44 that we would include in an optimal reproductive rights bill. We feel that GAR 44 contains language that defeats the bill's own goal.

4. Coercion as seen in previous. We believe that recommendations by the WA to member states have effects, and that the effect of a bill entitled "Reduction of Abortion Act" has consequences that a bill entitled "Freedom of Reproduction Act" would not, even if the bill's contents were exactly the same We feel that this is an inherent part of government and politics. It's why George W. Bush called the bill that achieved quite the opposite the "Clear Skies Initiative".

However, this is not our only grievance with the bill. If it was only the title, we would not have proposed a repeal. We understand that this complaint in particular has a minimum of import, but it's concerning to us nonetheless.

5. It could be impacted if a legislative group were to bring a challenge to the bill in an effort to classify RU486 as abortion. It could even impact the use of condoms, if a group were to bring a challenge and the lawyer was clever enough to seek to label the use of condoms as "abortion". GAR 44 does not define "abortion." It defines abortion reduction services. If you meant medical abortion (surgery), the bill should state that.

6. We will rephrase. We feel that there is a fine line here, and that the bill has the potential to fall into such a trap. See my Item 5 for 1 example of how. Another would be for states to choose from the list of recommended policies "abstinence education," and then outlaw abortion, and then state that they are in full compliance with the bill, which achieves nothing.

7. Yes, it COULD prevent such a case, but it could also cause such a case. The hospital in question was an international conglomerate that had contracts in place with the WA's World Health Authority, and many member states, and they thought that if they could make their abortion statistics low enough, it would increase their chances for further contracts.

The WA wants to decrease abortion, the hospital wanted to show that they treat their patients primarily with methods that don't include abortion to gain favor.Thus, the case in question happened.

King Zhaoxiang of Qin would modify GAR 44 if it could. 90% of the bill is fine with us. It's just that 10% that we dislike that we feel can cause harmful consequences. So pretty much all of your arguments about providing better neonatal care and informing mothers of options and etc? We agree with all of it.

OOC: The case in Item 7 did happen IRL, but I'm not going to disclose the name and the location and all that jazz. I don't know if the information I have from him is public record and whether he would approve of his being named in its disclosure, so if you don't want to believe that it happened in real life that's fine. We can agree that it's only a hypothetical, if you prefer.

But it did happen IRL. I'm not a doctor. lol. I wouldn't even know what an ectopic pregnancy was if I hadn't heard about it. I'm not that smart.

[The Cat-Tribe]

King Zhaoxiang of Qin would modify GAR 44 if it could. 90% of the bill is fine with us. It's just that 10% that we dislike that we feel can cause harmful consequences. So pretty much all of your arguments about providing better neonatal care and informing mothers of options and etc? We agree with all of it.

Other than the title, you don't point to this 10% of Resolution #44 that supposedly causes harm and is objectionable.

Nor do you link your alleged harms and/or hypothetical to anything concrete in Res. #44. Just a vague concern that the WA even suggesting that avoiding abortion where feasible is somehow the same as banning abortion.

[King Zhaoxiang of Qin]

King Zhaoxiang of Qin would modify GAR 44 if it could. 90% of the bill is fine with us. It's just that 10% that we dislike that we feel can cause harmful consequences. So pretty much all of your arguments about providing better neonatal care and informing mothers of options and etc? We agree with all of it.

Other than the title, you don't point to this 10% of Resolution #44 that supposedly causes harm and is objectionable.

Nor do you link your alleged harms and/or hypothetical to anything concrete in Res. #44. Just a vague concern that the WA even suggesting that avoiding abortion where feasible is somehow the same as banning abortion.

We feel that we did.

We also feel that it might be more useful to agree to disagree on the issue and just wait and see whether the repeal even gets enough approval votes to be considered by the WA assembly. Further debate about it at this stage seems fruitless, considering the repeal could fail to achieve a quorum and be disregarded.

We also suggest that our respective arguments have clearly been made here, and it might be more profitable to just let member states ask questions of the respective parties in the threads if they have any, as opposed to our further debating the points directly.

We would also like to remind The Cat-Tribe that our repeal proposal in no way reflects any opinion of King Zhaoxiang's regarding The Cat-Tribe. These are legislative matters. Not personal.

[The Cat-Tribe]

King Zhaoxiang of Qin would modify GAR 44 if it could. 90% of the bill is fine with us. It's just that 10% that we dislike that we feel can cause harmful consequences. So pretty much all of your arguments about providing better neonatal care and informing mothers of options and etc? We agree with all of it.

Other than the title, you don't point to this 10% of Resolution #44 that supposedly causes harm and is objectionable.

Nor do you link your alleged harms and/or hypothetical to anything concrete in Res. #44. Just a vague concern that the WA even suggesting that avoiding abortion where feasible is somehow the same as banning abortion.

We feel that we did.

We also feel that it might be more useful to agree to disagree on the issue and just wait and see whether the repeal even gets enough approval votes to be considered by the WA assembly. We will debate up and down with you if it's approved for voting. Debate about it at this stage seems fruitless, considering the repeal could fail to achieve a quorum and be disregarded.

I was hoping to (1) help persuade others not to approve the repeal in the first place and (2) perhaps even persuade you of the error of your ways.

The second does appear fruitless as you have shown your convictions are impervious to discussion.

[King Zhaoxiang of Qin]

I was hoping to (1) help persuade others not to approve the repeal in the first place and (2) perhaps even persuade you of the error of your ways.

The second does appear fruitless as you have shown your convictions are impervious to discussion.

Well, you may have failed in the second, but you may have succeeded in the first. We'll know in 1 day and 19 hours.

Our convictions aren't impervious to discussion. We just are not convinced that we're wrong.

P.S. I edited the note you quoted me on to make it more friendly. We don't have any problem with you, understand. We just don't like this resolution.

[The Cat-Tribe]

I was hoping to (1) help persuade others not to approve the repeal in the first place and (2) perhaps even persuade you of the error of your ways.

The second does appear fruitless as you have shown your convictions are impervious to discussion.

Well, you may have failed in the second, but you may have succeeded in the first. We'll know in 1 day and 19 hours.

Our convictions aren't impervious to discussion. We just are not convinced that we're wrong.

Even regarding Resolutions #44 provision for abstinence education being counter-productive and harmful?

I put up. Do the same, please.

[King Zhaoxiang of Qin]

I was hoping to (1) help persuade others not to approve the repeal in the first place and (2) perhaps even persuade you of the error of your ways.

The second does appear fruitless as you have shown your convictions are impervious to discussion.

Well, you may have failed in the second, but you may have succeeded in the first. We'll know in 1 day and 19 hours.

Our convictions aren't impervious to discussion. We just are not convinced that we're wrong.

Even regarding Resolutions #44 provision for abstinence education being counter-productive and harmful?

I put up. Do the same, please.

King Zhaoxiang of Qin feels that abstinence education is harmful in the same way Intelligent Design being taught in schools is harmful. And that includes when ID is taught as a "possibility" side by side with evolution.

ID doesn't exist, it isn't possible, and children shouldn't be taught that. If they want to be abstinent they can learn it at home. Schools need to teach the science of sex and disease. The morality of sex can be left to families and their churches.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Well, you may have failed in the second, but you may have succeeded in the first. We'll know in 1 day and 19 hours.

Our convictions aren't impervious to discussion. We just are not convinced that we're wrong.

Even regarding Resolutions #44 provision for abstinence education being counter-productive and harmful?

I put up. Do the same, please.

King Zhaoxiang of Qin feels that abstinence education is harmful in the same way Intelligent Design being taught in schools is harmful. And that includes when ID is taught as a "possibility" side by side with evolution.

ID doesn't exist, it isn't possible, and children shouldn't be taught that. If they want to be abstinent they can learn it at home. Schools need to teach the science of sex and disease. The morality of sex can be left to families and their churches.

So, contrary to your challenge to me and your allegation that you had information that shows abstinence education is harmful, you don't care what the facts are. You misunderstand what abstinence education is and you oppose it on nebulous ideological grounds.

[King Zhaoxiang of Qin]

So, contrary to your challenge to me and your allegation that you had information that shows abstinence education is harmful, you don't care what the facts are. You misunderstand what abstinence education is and you oppose it on nebulous ideological grounds.

Not at all. The facts support our conclusion that abstinence is harmful.

When combined with other forms of education (condoms, etc) it works, yes, or at least it looks like it does statistically because...the information about the condoms and etc. works. Not the abstinence part. There's no unbiased controlled study that shows that the inclusion of abstinence education with other forms of sex education increases sex education's success.

[The Cat-Tribe]

So, contrary to your challenge to me and your allegation that you had information that shows abstinence education is harmful, you don't care what the facts are. You misunderstand what abstinence education is and you oppose it on nebulous ideological grounds.

Not at all. The facts support our conclusion that abstinence is harmful.

When combined with other forms of education (condoms, etc) it works, yes, or at least it looks like it does statistically because...the information about the condoms and etc. works. Not the abstinence part. There's no unbiased controlled study that shows that the inclusion of abstinence education with other forms of sex education increases sex education's success.

Bullshit.

You've cited no information showing abstinence is harmful.

You point to nothing other than your own speculation to support the assertion that the relevant experts are wrong and the studies are all baised or not controlled.

Note: In reference to your earlier point about abstinence = ID, teaching that abstinence can be a method of avoiding unwanted pregnancies (and other undesirable things like STDs) is neither religion-based nor involves a moral judgment.

BUT THIS IS BESIDE THE POINT: Where does Resolution #44 require abstinence be taught?

[King Zhaoxiang of Qin]

So, contrary to your challenge to me and your allegation that you had information that shows abstinence education is harmful, you don't care what the facts are. You misunderstand what abstinence education is and you oppose it on nebulous ideological grounds.

Not at all. The facts support our conclusion that abstinence is harmful.

When combined with other forms of education (condoms, etc) it works, yes, or at least it looks like it does statistically because...the information about the condoms and etc. works. Not the abstinence part. There's no unbiased controlled study that shows that the inclusion of abstinence education with other forms of sex education increases sex education's success.

Bullshit.

You've cited no information showing abstinence is harmful.

You point to nothing other than your own speculation to support the assertion that the relevant experts are wrong and the studies are all baised or not controlled.

Note: In reference to your earlier point about abstinence = ID, teaching that abstinence can be a method of avoiding unwanted pregnancies (and other undesirable things like STDs) is neither religion-based nor involves a moral judgment.

BUT THIS IS BESIDE THE POINT: Where does Resolution #44 require abstinence be taught?

We are not going to forgive the language in the bill that recommends it be taught even if it doesn't require it to be taught.

It's the same in basic constitutional law. Even if a law isn't necessarily unconstitutional doesn't matter. If a law can be construed to be unconstitutional, then that law is unconstitutional. That was the major import of Marbury vs. Madison. John Marshall, etc.

So if this does recommend abstinence education, and abstinence education is harmful or a waste or money or doesn't work or isn't good policy, then we cannot support it. Even if abstinence education isn't required.

As for facts and figures, I welcome you to try to show everyone that abstinence education works. If you choose to do so we will not attempt to comment or disprove or discredit what you post. We reserve comment on the facts and figures above, as well.

Fair?

Understand that we're just trying to work this out with you in an amicable way. The voting is going to go how it goes. We're not retracting our proposition to repeal. We think the legislation could be better. If we fail to achieve a quorum or lose by votes, then all's fair in love and war and we lost.

[Meekinos]

1. There is no House of Cards violation. The Rules for WA Proposals clearly state: "A Proposal must be able to stand on its own even if all referenced Resolutions were struck from existance; however, you may assign duties to an existing committee. Should the Resolution that creates the committe be Repealed, the committee will continue to exist, but in a reduced capacity." (emphasis added). Resolution #44 does not reference Resolution #31. All it does is assign duties to the World Health Authority.

Thank you, ambassador, for the clarification. Your arguments cannot be disputed and as such we withdraw our argument because it holds no water. Your response more than satisfies our prior issue.

[Bears Armed]

So, contrary to your challenge to me and your allegation that you had information that shows abstinence education is harmful, you don't care what the facts are. You misunderstand what abstinence education is and you oppose it on nebulous ideological grounds.

Not at all. The facts support our conclusion that abstinence is harmful.

When combined with other forms of education (condoms, etc) it works, yes, or at least it looks like it does statistically because...the information about the condoms and etc. works. Not the abstinence part. There's no unbiased controlled study that shows that the inclusion of abstinence education with other forms of sex education increases sex education's success.

OOC: Isn't that evidence from RL, and probably only from certain cultures within RL at that, and therefore not necessarily adequate "proof" in the context of the many & [extremely] diverse cultures within NS?

[The Cat-Tribe]

So, contrary to your challenge to me and your allegation that you had information that shows abstinence education is harmful, you don't care what the facts are. You misunderstand what abstinence education is and you oppose it on nebulous ideological grounds.

Not at all. The facts support our conclusion that abstinence is harmful.

When combined with other forms of education (condoms, etc) it works, yes, or at least it looks like it does statistically because...the information about the condoms and etc. works. Not the abstinence part. There's no unbiased controlled study that shows that the inclusion of abstinence education with other forms of sex education increases sex education's success.

Bullshit.

You've cited no information showing abstinence is harmful.

You point to nothing other than your own speculation to support the assertion that the relevant experts are wrong and the studies are all baised or not controlled.

Note: In reference to your earlier point about abstinence = ID, teaching that abstinence can be a method of avoiding unwanted pregnancies (and other undesirable things like STDs) is neither religion-based nor involves a moral judgment.

BUT THIS IS BESIDE THE POINT: Where does Resolution #44 require abstinence be taught?

We are not going to forgive the language in the bill that recommends it be taught even if it doesn't require it to be taught.

It's the same in basic constitutional law. Even if a law isn't necessarily unconstitutional doesn't matter. If a law can be construed to be unconstitutional, then that law is unconstitutional. That was the major import of Marbury vs. Madison. John Marshall, etc.

So if this does recommend abstinence education, and abstinence education is harmful or a waste or money or doesn't work or isn't good policy, then we cannot support it. Even if abstinence education isn't required.

As for facts and figures, I welcome you to try to show everyone that abstinence education works. If you choose to do so we will not attempt to comment or disprove or discredit what you post. We reserve comment on the facts and figures above, as well.

Fair?

Understand that we're just trying to work this out with you in an amicable way. The voting is going to go how it goes. We're not retracting our proposition to repeal. We think the legislation could be better. If we fail to achieve a quorum or lose by votes, then all's fair in love and war and we lost.

1. Not that it is relevant, but you have the U.S. judiciary's approach to the constitutionality of a law ass-backward. Laws in the RL USA are presumed to be constitutional and only held unconstitutional if it is impossible to construe the law as being constitutional. See, e.g., occ link

2. You have offered nothing but vague assertions regarding the "harm" or ineffectiveness of abstinence education. It seems clear you mistook Res. #44's call for comprehensive sex education with abstinence included as abstinence-only education and you are simply refusing to admit your error.

3. I already presented data showing abstinence education works and is not harmful. You appear to be conspicuously ignoring this post. I'll repeat the data:

OCC: Here is a study specifically showing that abstinence is effective as part of comprehensive sex education. Link

Moreover, the consensus among professional experts is that abstinence taught as part of comprehensive sex education is effective, but abstinence-only programs are counter-productive:

• Guttmacher Institute: "Evidence shows that comprehensive sex education programs that provide information about both abstinence and contraception can help delay the onset of sexual activity among teens, reduce their number of sexual partners and increase contraceptive use when they become sexually active. These findings were underscored in “Call to Action to Promote Sexual Health and Responsible Sexual Behavior,” issued by former Surgeon General David Satcher in June 2001" link
  
  
• The American Medical Association "urges schools to implement comprehensive... sexuality education programs that... include an integrated strategy for making condoms available to students and for providing both factual information and skill-building related to reproductive biology, sexual abstinence, sexual responsibility, contraceptives including condoms, alternatives in birth control, and other issues aimed at prevention of pregnancy and sexual transmission of diseases... [and] opposes the sole use of abstinence-only education..." pdf
  
  
• The American Academy of Pediatrics states that "Abstinence-only programs have not demonstrated successful outcomes with regard to delayed initiation of sexual activity or use of safer sex practices... Programs that encourage abstinence as the best option for adolescents, but offer a discussion of HIV prevention and contraception as the best approach for adolescents who are sexually active, have been shown to delay the initiation of sexual activity and increase the proportion of sexually active adolescents who reported using birth control.” link
  
  
• A comprehensive review of 115 program evaluations published in November 2007 by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy found that two-thirds of sex education programs focusing on both abstinence and contraception had a positive effect on teen sexual behavior. The same study found no strong evidence that abstinence-only programs delayed the initiation of sex, hastened the return to abstinence, or reduced the number of sexual partners. link
  
  
• The American Psychological Association has endorsed teaching abstinence as part of comprehensive sex education and condemned abstinence-only programs. pdf

(note: fwiw, some of the above quotes are taken from Wikipedia, with links to the original source and double-checking that they are accurate)

4. The language you find so objectionable is a moderate compromise. You won't be able to pass the "ideal" legislation you imagine. You will have thereby undermined women's rights and reproductive choice by repealing Resolution #44.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Here is the repeal proposal we will be submitting.
----------------------

The World Assembly,

CONCERNED that General Assembly Resolution 44: Reduction of Abortion Act will result in inappropriate duress upon mothers to bear children when abortion is the better option;

Based in fantasy with no support in the actual language of GAR 44

CONCERNED that General Assembly Resolution 44 will result in undue pressure on physicians to fail to discuss abortion with patients even when abortion is the best option;

Similarly based in fantasy. If anything, the resolutions provisions for pre-natal, obstetric, and post-natal care and family planning create pressure for doctors to do what is best for their patients.

DEEPLY CONCERNED that such undue pressure on both patients and physicians to avoid abortion procedures has the potential to result in undue costs on both medical and criminal justice systems, both public and private;

Speculation on top of fearmongering on top of fantasy.

NOTING that abstinence education does not work, leads to more premarital pregnancy instead of less, and therefore should not be recommended by the World Assembly to its member states;

1. Confuses abstinence education with abstinence-only education.
2. Is flatly untrue.

RECOGNIZING that abortion can be a beneficial, necessary medical procedure;

Agreed. Nothing in GAR #44 says otherwise.

STRONGLY CONDEMNING the assertion that abortion is "a matter of concern" and that "reduction of abortion rates is desirable to all parties;"

Do you deny that abortion can ever be "a matter of concern"?

Do you advocate higher abortion rates? Would you advocate abortion over contraceptives, family planning, and the other provisions of GAR 44? If not, then what is the problem?

do hereby repeal General Assembly Resolution 44: Reduction of Abortion Act.

Please don't. A lot of work went into passing this compromise that leaves the legality or illegality of abortion alone, but encourages liberal, pro-women measures to avoid unnecessary abortions.

[King Zhaoxiang of Qin]

A. I'm not wrong about the constitution. To liberally apply a constitutionality test in favor of constitutionality does not disprove my point, and I'm right about Marbury vs. Madison. In M vs. M, they found Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 to be unconstitutional to the extent that it enlarged the court's power past the limitations placed on it by the Constitution. But they didn't have to find that way. They didn't have to interpret Section 13 in that fashion.

Section 13 merely said that the Supreme Court can issue a court order in cases warranted by the principles and usages of the law. It didn't specify the nature of the case. It didn't say "In cases which originate in the Supreme Court." So, Section 13 didn't HAVE to be construed as conflicting with the Constitution, which demands that SCOTUS only hear cases which were appealed to them from lower courts (in most instances. Original Jurisdiction is a related topic, but it will take too long). It all depended on how the court interpreted it. But, as John Marshall put it, they COULD find that it was unconstitutional, and that was enough. And in so doing, they established the Court's ability to determine the constitutionality of laws. M vs. M established judicial review, although, obviously, the concept of judicial review existed for a long time prior to 1803. However, M vs. M formalized it.

That's an extraordinarily simplistic explanation, but that was essentially the bottom line. Yes, there is a liberal constitutionality test (which perhaps prevented the court from striking down the Judiciary Act of 1789 in full, as opposed to only the Section 13 section, provided that the liberal constitutionality test existed then. I might submit that the liberal constitutionality test is based on previous decisions which only existed because Marbury vs. Madison occurred), but in fact, a liberal constitutionality test is in line with the decision of M vs. M because, indeed, M vs. M had, as one effect, the limitation of SCOTUS power. They were admitting that the Constitution forbade them, in certain cases, from hearing cases unless they were appealed to them from the lower courts (as I said before, in most case...). They didn't have to find that way. They could have ignored the best meanings of the Constitution, and decided that original jurisdiction included a much wider array of cases, including the one brought to them by William Marbury. It would have been in line with the law, passed by Congress and signed by the President, at the time.

Furthermore, there was no legal reason that Marbury and his 3 associates shouldn't have received the commissions they were suing for (They never did). They had been signed by the President. They carried the seal of the United States. But SCOTUS saw past that, to the big picture. The long term.

Of course, the decision had the effect of giving SCOTUS the power to determine the constitutionality of laws, which was a perceived expansion of SCOTUS power at the time. Many at the time (M vs. M was heard in 1803, John Adams, a Federalist, had just left office. Thomas Jefferson's Republicans (Technically "Democratic Republicans") had just entered office. Thomas Jefferson's party was none too sure that SCOTUS should have the power to determine the constitutionality of laws. Jefferson thought that each branch should determine for itself, in line with the duties prescribed to it by the Constitution, what was constitutional and not constitutional. And indeed, he said that if there were to be one branch of government that would determine constitutionality, it would be Congress. Not SCOTUS. Jefferson wasn't a big fan of adherence to the Constitution in general. He thought it was necessary when convenient. Not necessary even when inconvenient. And specifically not necessary when it violated the will of the people, which was paramount to Jefferson.

I can't apply a liberal constitutionality test to GAR 44 because I can't modify GAR 44. I can't merely strike down the abstinence part because I think it's repugnant. As I've said from the beginning, I wish I could, but I can't.

B. I'm not debating the effectiveness of abstinence-only or abstinence education with you anymore (Nor anything else. For why see C). Yes, use the opportunity to mock me and say that I'm making this choice because I have nothing to refute you with, as I'm sure you will.

C. But the real reason I digress is because you can't debate without being disrespectful. Read the tenor of my messages and read the tenor of yours. I don't include and other derogatory garbage in mine, nor do I include profanity. Why? Because I don't assume that people are idiots, and so I don't treat them that way. These matters are still debated in today's society (Dick Cheney didn't invent the idea that the executive branch should be so powerful. Such ideas have been around since the nation's founding), and so to treat one's opposition as though they were unreasonable is, in my opinion, disgraceful.

Regardless of whether you engage in such behavior because you think I'm an idiot or because you are ruled by passion and cannot have a debate which isn't emotional and personal is of no import to me. Either way I'm unimpressed.

This will be my last post in this thread.

[The Cat-Tribe]

A. I'm not wrong about the constitution. To liberally apply a constitutionality test in favor of constitutionality does not disprove my point, and I'm right about Marbury vs. Madison. In M vs. M, they found Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 to be unconstitutional to the extent that it enlarged the court's power past the limitations placed on it by the Constitution. But they didn't have to find that way. They didn't have to interpret Section 13 in that fashion.

*snip*

I can't apply a liberal constitutionality test to GAR 44 because I can't modify GAR 44. I can't merely strike down the abstinence part because I think it's repugnant. As I've said from the beginning, I wish I could, but I can't.

B. I'm not debating the effectiveness of abstinence-only or abstinence education with you anymore (Nor anything else. For why see C). Yes, use the opportunity to mock me and say that I'm making this choice because I have nothing to refute you with, as I'm sure you will.

C. But the real reason I digress is because you can't debate without being disrespectful. Read the tenor of my messages and read the tenor of yours. I don't include and other derogatory garbage in mine, nor do I include profanity. Why? Because I don't assume that people are idiots, and so I don't treat them that way. These matters are still debated in today's society (Dick Cheney didn't invent the idea that the executive branch should be so powerful. Such ideas have been around since the nation's founding), and so to treat one's opposition as though they were unreasonable is, in my opinion, disgraceful.

Regardless of whether you engage in such behavior because you think I'm an idiot or because you are ruled by passion and cannot have a debate which isn't emotional and personal is of no import to me. Either way I'm unimpressed.

This will be my last post in this thread.

*sigh*

This repeal is dead, so there is little point in continuing this discussion.

To the extent that you find the use of smilies or profanity to have no place in discussion, welcome to NationStates. You are in for a bumpy ride.

Although I don't apologize for being passionate in my defense of (1) what I think is right and (2) a resolution I worked very hard to get passed, I do apologize if my manner was unfair or unduly offensive.

I can't help myself but add that your exegesis on Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) is rather pointless. You said: "It's the same in basic constitutional law. Even if a law isn't necessarily unconstitutional doesn't matter. If a law can be construed to be unconstitutional, then that law is unconstitutional." That statement was not only untrue, but the reverse of the truth. Nothing in Marbury says otherwise. Learn to admit when you are wrong.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: Can people please stop arguing about NS legislation on the basis of RL studies and laws?

[The Cat-Tribe]

OOC: Can people please stop arguing about NS legislation on the basis of RL studies and laws?

I'm glad you brought this up and it may well be worthy of its own thread, because the answer is "to an extent, yes, but not really."

I did try to make RL comments OOC, but treating WA as divorced from reality is a bit silly. RL laws don't have much place here, I agree (with the possible exception of examples), and I didn't bring them up. RL studies are a different matter. Just as a study done in the U.S. may be relevant to legislation in Japan or vice versa, RL studies can be relevant to issues before the WA.

The alternative is unacceptable. When people make assertions of fact as the basis for opinions that simply aren't true, it is reasonable to be able to say (1) "why is that true? where is your evidence?" and (2) "here is evidence to the contrary." Does a fact in RL necessarily mean the same is true in all WA nations? No. But there should be some basis for explaining why the fact doesn't apply to the WA. For example, gravity generally exists. Simply saying "but this is the WA" doesn't make gravity go away.