Proposal to Repeal Resolution 44, Reduction of Abortion Act

[King Zhaoxiang of Qin]

We at King Zhaoxiang of Qin are very concerned about the detrimental effects of World Assembly Resolution 44, Reduction of Abortion Act. Specifically, one case of note has hit the headlines of our newspapers:

A doctor at one of King Zhaoxiang of Qin's many fine hospitals justifiably administered methotrexate to a maternal patient upon suspicion of an ectopic pregnancy. The pregnancy was not, in fact, ectopic, but ended up being twins.

Some months later, it was found that the administration of methotrexate led to disastrous developmental disabilities in the fetuses, leading to a situation in which, even if live birth was achieved, lifelong and highly expensive intensive care would be required by medical professionals for the newborns.

The obstetrician, being concerned about the ramifications of General Assembly Resolution 44, did not consult the patient regarding pregnancy termination.

Live birth was achieved, but the newborns were totally dependent on lifelong and highly expensive care. The patient, under great financial strain, sued the physician for malpractice on the basis of 2 separate claims:

1). That methotrexate was administered improperly in a pregnancy which was not, in fact, ectopic, but was indeed a multiple gestation, and;

2). That if the patient had knowledge of the possibility of pregnancy termination that she would have opted for it, but was unaware of it due to her obstetrician's failure to consult her on the option, even after the obstetrician had knowledge of the developmental defects in the fetuses.

The jury found the following:

Regarding Count 1, the jury found the physician not guilty of malpractice. They found that a reasonable physician, using the evidence available to the defendant, would have concluded an ectopic pregnancy and administered methotrexate. They found that methotrexate is an accepted treatment for ectopic pregnancy, and that even when administered to patients in error, the likelihood of developmental defects is minimal.

Regarding Count 2, the jury found the physician guilty of malpractice. They found that the obstetrician should have been acting in the best interest's of his patient and not in the best interests of World Assembly policy. They found, further, that if the physician had been acting in the best interests of his patient, he would have discussed the possibility of termination of the pregnancy with the patient, or referred the patient to another physician who would have.

There were many different sorts of damages involved in this case, but the sum of damages, after taking into consideration the cost of lifelong intensive medical support for 2 human beings with an expected lifespan of 76 years, was nearly 100 million dollars.

We at King Zhaoxiang of Qin feel that the pressure of World Assembly Resolution 44 to reduce abortion led directly to this issue, and we therefore propose a repeal of the bill.

Please note that we of King Zhaoxiang of Qin feel very strongly about the need for sex education and the distribution of birth control devices and many of the other clauses contained in World Assembly Resolution 44, and would possibly vote for a similar bill which excluded the damaging language of World Assembly Resolution 44. We say "possibly" due to the concern we also have that bills such as this are contradictory, and infringe on the purview of the World Health Authority, created in General Assembly Resolution 31.

All of our concerns are cited in our repeal proposal, and we have included the text of our proposal for your perusal.

We invite question/comment from our fellow member nations, whom we hold in the greatest esteem.

Text of our proposal:
-------------------------

Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #44: Reduction of Abortion Act (Category: Social Justice; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void. Argument: Description: 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;

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;

NOTING that World Assembly Resolution 44 infringes on the purview of the World Health Authority, as created in World Assembly Resolution 31;

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;

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

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

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

--------------------------------------

[The Emmerian Unions]

Illegal for a House of Cards Violation, by citing GAR: 31.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I understand it has been difficult to address the issue of abortion in the World Assembly but I feel in my opinion that the Reduction of Abortion Act is the most appropriate compromise yet. In section 6 of GA #44 the nation of King Zhaoxiang of Qin should be able to ban abortion methods.

[King Zhaoxiang of Qin]

Illegal for a House of Cards Violation, by citing GAR: 31.

We disagree.

Potential contradiction with the old bill was only one of many concerns, and the rules state that protesting a new bill's potentially contradictory nature in relation to an old bill is merely "insufficient" and does not, merely by being mentioned in the repeal proposal, make the repeal illegal.

Similarly, this rule would apply to arguments of assembly resolution affects on national sovereignty. It merely states that such concerns are insufficient for an appeal. Not that mention of such concerns are cause for the appeal to be deemed illegal.

[The Emmerian Unions]

Illegal for a House of Cards Violation, by citing GAR: 31.

We disagree.

Potential contradiction with the old bill was only one of many concerns, and the rules state that protesting a new bill's potentially contradictory nature in relation to an old bill is merely "insufficient" and does not, merely by being mentioned in the repeal proposal, make the repeal illegal.

Similarly, this rule would apply to arguments of assembly resolution affects on national sovereignty. It merely states that such concerns are insufficient for an appeal. Not that mention of such concerns are cause for the appeal to be deemed illegal.

And what would happen if GAR#31 Were to be repealed? This proposal would lose much ground as there would no longer be a World Health Organization.

[King Zhaoxiang of Qin]

Illegal for a House of Cards Violation, by citing GAR: 31.

We disagree.

Potential contradiction with the old bill was only one of many concerns, and the rules state that protesting a new bill's potentially contradictory nature in relation to an old bill is merely "insufficient" and does not, merely by being mentioned in the repeal proposal, make the repeal illegal.

Similarly, this rule would apply to arguments of assembly resolution affects on national sovereignty. It merely states that such concerns are insufficient for an appeal. Not that mention of such concerns are cause for the appeal to be deemed illegal.

And what would happen if GAR#31 Were to be repealed? This proposal would lose much ground as there would no longer be a World Health Organization.

We feel that the repeal proposal stands on its own merits on any one of its several grievances. We also understand your concern, since, as we mentioned, there are many beneficial aspects to GAR 44.

However, we feel that a better reproductive policy could be implemented by the World Assembly. To achieve this, repeal of GAR 44 is required, since GAR 44 implements clauses that are, in our opinion, totally antithetical to a good reproductive policy.

The Allied States of King Zhaoxiang cannot amend GAR 44 into good policy. We can only repeal it and propose a new bill that does not include the detrimental language of GAR 44.

[Meekinos]

Repeal or not, it is still a House of Cards violation. In fact, if you omitted that line, the repeal could still stand on its own two feet. It is one line that is holding this back. If that line is removed or replaced (provided it is not another House of Cards violation) it should be fine.

We should also point out that GAR #44 does not actually make abortion illegal. It's goal is to reduce abortions through means of comprehensive sexual education. Abstinence education was included to get the vote of religious states. If you'll further note, it includes a mention of all kinds of programs. The last article of this states that it does not affect the actual legality of the medical procedure.

1. DEFINES "abortion reduction services" as including all of the following: (1) abstinence education, (2) adoption services, (3) contraceptives, (4) family planning services, (5) pre-natal, obstetric, and post-natal medical care, counseling, and services, (6) comprehensive sex education, and (7) education, awareness, prevention, and counseling programs to prevent rape and incest;

6. DECLARES that nothing in this resolution shall affect the power of member states to declare abortion legal or illegal or to pass legislation extending or restricting access to abortion.

However, we just noticed an indirect house of cards violation. Article 5 is relying on the World Health Authority, created by and given legality by WAR#31. If this resolution were to be repealed, it could be repealed because of that because it is relying on the existence of another resolution.

5. EXPANDS the mission of the World Health Authority and its offices in WA member states to include:

This would have been fine provided it was created by this resolution but it wasn't.

[King Zhaoxiang of Qin]

The Allied States of King Zhaoxiang of Qin find your statements very interesting.

We wonder if it is possible to withdraw a WA proposal for the repeal of a bill prior to approval voting being expired so that we have the opportunity to remove a certain offending passage in our repeal proposal regarding GAR 31, as well as the introduction of the new disputes of the bill mentioned here by our great and beneficent fellow member state, Meekinos.

[Meekinos]

Removing it is entirely possible. You can request the removal of the proposal via the Getting Help page.

[King Zhaoxiang of Qin]

Removing it is entirely possible. You can request the removal of the proposal via the Getting Help page.

We humbly thank our noble ally for his assistance.

[King Zhaoxiang of Qin]

Would this be more pleasing to our fellow member states?


---------------------------

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;

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;

NOTING that World Assembly Resolution 44, Article 5, "EXPANDS the mission of the World Health Authority and its offices in WA member states," referring to the World Health Authority created in World Assembly Resolution 31, without addressing what would happen if World Assembly Resolution 31 were to be repealed by the World Assembly.

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;

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

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

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

[The Emmerian Unions]

I still think that citing GAR#31 is a House of Cards Violation, and shouldn't be anywhere in this proposal. However, I am not exactly sure, and will cede discussion on it to a more Experianced member of this festering snakepit.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

It is, honoured ambassador to The Emmerian Unions:

House of Cards

"RECALLING Resolution #3, #4, #34, #36, #67, and #457..."

This is becoming problematic. If those Resolutions are repealed, you've gutted the base of your own Resolution. Also, we start to run into issues for new proposals.

Because repeals are permanent, it must be able to survive repeals of all other resolutions in future. The rules also quote that excessive back referencing is not acceptable either. Repeals cannot even reference to other repeals, either.

[King Zhaoxiang of Qin]

It is, honoured ambassador to The Emmerian Unions:

House of Cards

"RECALLING Resolution #3, #4, #34, #36, #67, and #457..."

This is becoming problematic. If those Resolutions are repealed, you've gutted the base of your own Resolution. Also, we start to run into issues for new proposals.

Because repeals are permanent, it must be able to survive repeals of all other resolutions in future. The rules also quote that excessive back referencing is not acceptable either. Repeals cannot even reference to other repeals, either.

Which is why the edited repeal proposal is not a House of Cards violation.

The edited repeal is not stating that General Assembly Resolution 44 is "in conflict" with General Assembly Resolution 31, which is a House of Cards violation on our behalf.

We're now stating that Article 5 of General Assembly Resolution 44 is, in itself, a House of Cards violation by referring to and relying on World Assembly Resolution 31. Article 5 of GAR 44 begins with "expanding the power of the World Health Authority" without addressing what happens if Resolution 31 is repealed.

To quote from my edited repeal proposal:

NOTING that World Assembly Resolution 44, Article 5, "EXPANDS the mission of the World Health Authority and its offices in WA member states," referring to the World Health Authority created in World Assembly Resolution 31, without addressing what would happen if World Assembly Resolution 31 were to be repealed by the World Assembly.

We just have to wait for the old proposal to be deleted and we will submit the new, edited one. We've already requested deletion of the current repeal proposal.

[Bears Armed]

The edited repeal is not stating that General Assembly Resolution 44 is "in conflict" with General Assembly Resolution 31, which is a House of Cards violation on our behalf.

We're now stating that Article 5 of General Assembly Resolution 44 is, in itself, a House of Cards violation by referring to and relying on World Assembly Resolution 31. Article 5 of GAR 44 begins with "expanding the power of the World Health Authority"
without addressing what happens if Resolution 31 is repealed.

OOC: Official policy is that if a resolution gets passed then it must be considered de facto 'legal' (at least from the IC viewpoint), even if it contains some technically-'illegal' detail that didn't get pointed out in time for the Mods to delete it on those grounds (in RL), and so using such an illegality as the grounds for a repeal is itself 'illegal'...

[King Zhaoxiang of Qin]

The edited repeal is not stating that General Assembly Resolution 44 is "in conflict" with General Assembly Resolution 31, which is a House of Cards violation on our behalf.

We're now stating that Article 5 of General Assembly Resolution 44 is, in itself, a House of Cards violation by referring to and relying on World Assembly Resolution 31. Article 5 of GAR 44 begins with "expanding the power of the World Health Authority"
without addressing what happens if Resolution 31 is repealed.

OOC: Official policy is that if a resolution gets passed then it must be considered de facto 'legal' (at least from the IC viewpoint), even if it contains some technically-'illegal' detail that didn't get pointed out in time for the Mods to delete it on those grounds (in RL), and so using such an illegality as the grounds for a repeal is itself 'illegal'...

The Allied States of King Zhaoxiang of Qin feels that the rules need to be updated to reflect the reality of the situation, as they apparently contain all sorts of subclauses which aren't listed anywhere.

Also, we will be resubmitting our repeal proposal after our first one is deleted. 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;

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;

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;

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;

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

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

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

[King Zhaoxiang of Qin]

Old repeal proposal has been deleted by the mods at our request.

New repeal proposal, as read above, has been submitted for approval voting.

[Travancore-Cochin]

Travancore-Cochin is not convinced by the arguments presented in the repeal.

While we express our deep sympathies with the Qinnite woman who, due to medical negligence or otherwise, now has two children with developmental disorders, we like to state that this is largely an internal affair of Qin. The General Assembly Resolution # 44, as stated, does not ban, or in any other way make illegal, the process of abortion. It merely encourages nations to reduce their abortion rates - a fact that is reinforced by its Mild strength.

Thank you for your time.

[Krioval]

OOC: The best way around a house of cards issue is to reference the agency you'd ordinarily want to handle and specify a new organization that could take over if the original one becomes inactive. Of course, a repeal cannot introduce new legislation, so it shouldn't need to reference an earlier resolution except for the one it is trying to repeal.

[New Xania]

I support anything to repeal the Reduction of Abortions Act.

[Tanara]

OOC: I must applaud King Zhaoxiang of Qin for a very thoughtful and well laid out proposal. Please keep up the good work and don't let yourself be discouraged.

[The Cat-Tribe]

As the author of the Reduction of Abortion Act, I feel compelled to defend it against a misguided attack. It is 3am here, however, so I will be brief.

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.

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.

3. I am pro-choice and the purpose of the Reduction of Abortion Act is to keep abortion safe, rare, and legal. Nothing in the resolution requires abortion be kept legal, but any nation complying with the resolution in good faith should have no need to deprive women of rights by banning abortion.

4. This resolution does not deprive women of rights. Resolution #44 addresses an international problem of unintended pregnancies and unnecessary medical procedures. It empowers women to make reproductive choices without coercion. Further, women die every year from unnecessary and unsafe abortions.*

**OCC: In RL, some 70,000** women die each year from unsafe abortions. Although abortion can be a very safe procedure when legal but regulated, empowering women to avoid unnecessary medical procedures and make informed reproductive decisions is desirable.

I fully agree that abortion can be a beneficial, necessary medical procedure. Contrary to the language of this repeal, nothing in Resolution #44 creates "undue duress" upon women or doctors to avoid abortion.

If this silliness continues, I'll address it further during daylight.

**Edited to fix embarassing typo that added a zero to this number.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: The best way around a house of cards issue is to reference the agency you'd ordinarily want to handle and specify a new organization that could take over if the original one becomes inactive.

OOC: Once a WA agency has been established & given its initial duties in one resolution its role can be expanded to cover other duties too by subsequent resolutions... and if the original resolution should ever happen to be repealed, later on, then although the organisation concerned loses its original role it will remain in existence with the added one[s]. There's no need to specify another agency as a potential successor...

[King Zhaoxiang of Qin]

As the author of the Reduction of Abortion Act, I feel compelled to defend it against a misguided attack. It is 3am here, however, so I will be brief.

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.

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.

3. I am pro-choice and the purpose of the Reduction of Abortion Act is to keep abortion safe, rare, and legal. Nothing in the resolution requires abortion be kept legal, but any nation complying with the resolution in good faith should have no need to deprive women of rights by banning abortion.

4. This resolution does not deprive women of rights. Resolution #44 addresses an international problem of unintended pregnancies and unnecessary medical procedures. It empowers women to make reproductive choices without coercion. Further, women die every year from unnecessary and unsafe abortions.*

**OCC: In RL, some 700,000 women die each year from unsafe abortions. Although abortion can be a very safe procedure when legal but regulated, empowering women to avoid unnecessary medical procedures and make informed reproductive decisions is desirable.

I fully agree that abortion can be a beneficial, necessary medical procedure. Contrary to the language of this repeal, nothing in Resolution #44 creates "undue duress" upon women or doctors to avoid abortion.

If this silliness continues, I'll address it further during daylight.

Regarding Part 1, It doesn't matter and it's a non-issue because we didn't accuse the bill of an HoC violation in the final draft of the repeal proposal.

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.

Regarding Part 3, This is why we oppose the bill. We want to implement a reproductive policy in the WA that doesn't step between doctor and patient. We don't see why abortion has to be rare unless the purpose of the bill is to introduce into international law, in a very elementary way, the idea that a fetus is a life, entitled to equal protection under the law. We feel that GAR 44 is a slippery slope. We don't understand why the bill didn't just set a reduction of third trimester abortions (the most dangerous kind) instead of abortion in general. Just reduction of abortion in general is worryingly overreaching, in our opinion, and makes us suspicious that the bill will be used as a platform for even more restrictive international limitations on the procedure.

Regarding Part 4, A bill that wasn't coercive would be entitled "Freedom of Reproduction" bill or something like that. GAR 44 is coercion.

We would like to see your information, and we do not concede that this 700,000 number is correct, unless you're including abortions in third world countries, where pretty much any medical procedure is going to run a much higher risk of having a complication due to a lot of factors (time between necessity of surgery and surgery performed, availability of equipment, etc.)

We would further submit that unsafe abortions aren't going to be reduced by creating a "reduction of abortion act" in the WA. In fact, it is our conclusion that most anti-abortion measures in law, while they may lead to less abortions overall, lead to more unsafe abortions. And we don't see any reason to believe that the reduction of abortion act won't just cut down on the number of safe abortion procedures, because there will be fewer clinics and etc. willing to perform a procedure that the World Assembly has, if not condemned, than at the very least decided should be performed less often. We would support a reduction of third trimester abortion. We do not support an overall emphasis on reduction of just "abortion" as a procedure, because "abortion" as a procedure can mean a lot of different things, and a lot of those things don't need to be reduced. In fact, some of them need to be encouraged.

For instance, the RU-486 pill, commonly known as the morning after pill. Is taking it considered abortion? There are citizens in King Zhaoxiang of Qin who would say that it is.

In any case, we feel that more abstinence education = more abortions, and the condemning of abortion in general, as opposed to specific kinds of abortion, = more unsafe abortions, even if the bill reduces abortion rates overall.

Regardless of whether you're pro-choice or pro-life, you're falling into a legislative trap that most pro-lifers fall into. You don't like the problem, but the solution makes even bigger issues than the original problem did.

P.S. Speaking of IRL examples, the example we shared re: the ectopic pregnancy and the administration of methotrexate? That's a true story. It involved a lot more people (I think the patient sued more than 7 people involved in her case, because the OBGYN referred her and other people were involved. Neonatal specialists and nurses and etc, but the amount of the damages was real and the story is real. I know the doctor who consulted the hospital who employed the staff who were sued for malpractice by the patient. They wanted him to testify on their behalf at the malpractice trial as an expert witness.

And he wouldn't do it, because the hospital and it's staff were just plain wrong.

[The Cat-Tribe]

As the author of the Reduction of Abortion Act, I feel compelled to defend it against a misguided attack. It is 3am here, however, so I will be brief.

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.

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.

3. I am pro-choice and the purpose of the Reduction of Abortion Act is to keep abortion safe, rare, and legal. Nothing in the resolution requires abortion be kept legal, but any nation complying with the resolution in good faith should have no need to deprive women of rights by banning abortion.

4. This resolution does not deprive women of rights. Resolution #44 addresses an international problem of unintended pregnancies and unnecessary medical procedures. It empowers women to make reproductive choices without coercion. Further, women die every year from unnecessary and unsafe abortions.*

**OCC: In RL, some 700,000 women die each year from unsafe abortions. Although abortion can be a very safe procedure when legal but regulated, empowering women to avoid unnecessary medical procedures and make informed reproductive decisions is desirable.

I fully agree that abortion can be a beneficial, necessary medical procedure. Contrary to the language of this repeal, nothing in Resolution #44 creates "undue duress" upon women or doctors to avoid abortion.

If this silliness continues, I'll address it further during daylight.

Regarding Part 1, It doesn't matter and it's a non-issue because we didn't accuse the bill of an HoC violation in the final draft of the repeal proposal.

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.

Regarding Part 3, This is why we oppose the bill. We want to implement a reproductive policy in the WA that doesn't step between doctor and patient. We don't see why abortion has to be rare unless the purpose of the bill is to introduce into international law, in a very elementary way, the idea that a fetus is a life, entitled to equal protection under the law. We feel that GAR 44 is a slippery slope. We don't understand why the bill didn't just set a reduction of third trimester abortions (the most dangerous kind) instead of abortion in general. Just reduction of abortion in general is worryingly overreaching, in our opinion, and makes us suspicious that the bill will be used as a platform for even more restrictive international limitations on the procedure.

Regarding Part 4, A bill that wasn't coercive would be entitled "Freedom of Reproduction" bill or something like that. GAR 44 is coercion.

We would like to see your information, and we do not concede that this 700,000 number is correct, unless you're including abortions in third world countries, where pretty much any medical procedure is going to run a much higher risk of having a complication due to a lot of factors (time between necessity of surgery and surgery performed, availability of equipment, etc.)

We would further submit that unsafe abortions aren't going to be reduced by creating a "reduction of abortion act" in the WA. In fact, it is our conclusion that most anti-abortion measures in law, while they may lead to less abortions overall, lead to more unsafe abortions. And we don't see any reason to believe that the reduction of abortion act won't just cut down on the number of safe abortion procedures, because there will be fewer clinics and etc. willing to perform a procedure that the World Assembly has, if not condemned, than at the very least decided should be performed less often. We would support a reduction of third trimester abortion. We do not support an overall emphasis on reduction of just "abortion" as a procedure, because "abortion" as a procedure can mean a lot of different things, and a lot of those things don't need to be reduced. In fact, some of them need to be encouraged.

For instance, the RU-486 pill, commonly known as the morning after pill. Is taking it considered abortion? There are citizens in King Zhaoxiang of Qin who would say that it is.

In any case, we feel that more abstinence education = more abortions, and the condemning of abortion in general, as opposed to specific kinds of abortion, = more unsafe abortions, even if the bill reduces abortion rates overall.

Regardless of whether you're pro-choice or pro-life, you're falling into a legislative trap that most pro-lifers fall into. You don't like the problem, but the solution makes even bigger issues than the original problem did.

P.S. Speaking of IRL examples, the example we shared re: the ectopic pregnancy and the administration of methotrexate? That's a true story. It involved a lot more people (I think the patient sued more than 7 people involved in her case, because the OBGYN referred her and other people were involved. Neonatal specialists and nurses and etc, but the amount of the damages was real and the story is real. I know the doctor who consulted the hospital who employed the staff who were sued for malpractice by the patient. They wanted him to testify on their behalf at the malpractice trial as an expert witness.

And he wouldn't do it, because the hospital and it's staff were just plain wrong.

1. Re: HoC Agreed. But others in this thread appear to think their is a House of Cards problem, so I addressed it. Glad to see you recognize there is no such problem.

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?