[CONTESTED] Repeal: Reduction of Abortion Act

[Knootoss]

~ CONTESTED ~

Redraft after legality challenge:

The World Assembly,

ACKNOWLEDGES that policies aimed at reducing the number of abortions may be worthwhile pursuits;

OBSERVES that the "Reduction of Abortion Act" fails to divide the responsibilities between the World Assembly and Member States clearly, and fails to explain how its lofty and expensive goals will be funded:

1. The Act first makes it the mission of the World Health Authority and its offices in WA member states to provide:
-Universal access to abstinence education;
-Universal access to adoption services;
-Universal access to contraceptives;
-Universal access to family planning services;
-Universal access to pre-natal, obstetric, and post-natal medical care counseling, and services;
-Universal access to comprehensive sex education;
-Universal access to education, awareness, prevention, and counseling programs to prevent rape and incest;

2. The Act then empowers Member States to prescribe how the offices of the World Health Authority should do their job, through national and local laws;

3. However, the Act fails to mention how these services will be funded, making it the responsibility of the World Assembly to provide funding for these activities;

4. At the same time, the Act "urges" Member States to research, invest in, or provide funding for the very same type of services, but run by Member States themselves;

RECALLS that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch, and the services provided by the World Health Authority must ultimately be paid for;

FURTHER OBSERVES that while abstinence is best taught as an integral part of comprehensive sex education, the Act treats "abstinence education" and "comprehensive sex education" as two separate things, and fails to define the goals of either;

DEEPLY CONCERNED that Member States may, through national and local laws, mandate that offices of the World Health Authority provide universal access to types of 'abstinence education' that inhibit the normal development of children, send confusing messages to teenagers and promote hypocrisy and dishonesty, while doing nothing to reduce unplanned pregnancy;

REPEALS the "Reduction of Abortion Act".

Original resolution: here.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

Premises fail...

[Knootoss]

Premises fail...

OOC: Well, that you would be opposed to this resolution is not very surprising, considering your persistent efforts to have the WA ban the procedure.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

Premises fail...

OOC: Well, that you would be opposed to this resolution is not very surprising, considering your persistent efforts to have the WA ban the procedure.

Since when was I opposed to this resolution? Other than its micromanagement...

[Astrolinium]

Giovanni slowly, painfully puts down the Bust of Marx and the dull wooden spear. He makes several attempts to say something, but simply cannot get the words out of his mouth. Finally, he runs out of the room, and returns with a very frightened looking Gnome, clutching a piece of paper. The Gnome reads out, "Giovanni would like to state that he agrees with Dr. Koopman, and supports this repeal." Giovanni smiles weakly, looking quite ill, and the Gnome leaves.

[Princess Luna]

A statement upon the proposed Repeal of General Assembly Acts 128 & 44

In consultation with our partners, and expressing the official legal position of my Government that the World Assembly should retain the resolution ‘On Abortion’ and the ‘Reduction of Abortion Act,’ save only minor alterations.

We consider the availability of such procedures in the absence of a better solution, essential in all the outlined circumstances, and interpret this resolution to permit further regulation as with any other medical procedure regarding appropriate terms in which the abortion may be applied, to avoid unnecessarily dangerous and questionable late term abortions.

We support further development of legislation proposing elective abortion on principle within the abovestated limits on the grounds that if it is permissible in the instance of rape, then it is not murder, and cannot be murder under any like circumstances without the unfortunate element of the conception.

It is our opinion that if it’s not murder when the mother is a rape victim, it’s not murder, full stop, and unpleasant a topic though it may be, there is thus no reason to control abortion save the abovestated term limits.

While we comprehend the moral concerns of religious groups, we do not support them.

We are however, collectively against abortion on a casual basis for the emotional risks involved and encourage all nations to teach effective contraception and sensible family planning to their children and people as the first choice to control pregnancy, to avoid emotional distress and medical complications.

For that reason we support the intent of the existing Reduction of Abortion Act, and we see no reason to support a repeal at this time.

While we find sympathy Knootian objections to abstinence-“education,” we consider it appropriate for the World Assembly to otherwise take means to ensure members make it legally possible to practice contraception and safe sex, and are prepared to accept the possibility of abstinence education - not enforced by the 'Reduction of Abortion Act' beyond 'making information available'; which is simply a matter of making the simple fact that conception is required for pregnancy available to the general public; hardly a terrible financial burden.

Therefore I direct my government to vote against the proposed repeal of ‘On Abortion’ and oppose the proposed repeal of ‘Reduction of Abortion Act’ until such time as it is understood that a replacement act that will encourage the same objectives will be immediately proposed and supported to full resolution status, with the exception of the emphasis on abstinence.

Her Royal Highness Luna, Mistress of the Night and Princess Regnant of the Principality of Princess Luna

[Charlotte Ryberg]

This law has specifically created a stumbling block for OA when it was successfully passed, but the repeal of RoAA still does not change the fact member countries can explore alternatives.

This said, Ms. Harper will watch closely before making a final desicion.

[Knootoss]

This law has specifically created a stumbling block for OA when it was successfully passed, but the repeal of RoAA still does not change the fact member countries can explore alternatives.

This said, Ms. Harper will watch closely before making a final desicion.

A lot of abbreviations and WA history, but this still does not change that the original resolution is bad, bad, baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad.


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Darenjo]

I feel this officially counts as a NOAACWAD.

That being said, I am currently leaning towards supporting, but I'll be watching for new developments.

- Dr. Park

[Arivali]

I will support this.

[Moronist Decisions]

We do think that abstinence education - in the form of being careful about who you sleep with and its consequences, are important. We note also that universal access to all forms of such access is not mandated by this act. We also don't see why the WHA can't help with this process.

So, at this point, we're not convinced of the necessity to repeal this resolution, but do not feel strongly either way.

Jane Crick
Vice-Minister and Chief Representative.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Glen-Rhodes is in favor of repealing the Reduction of Abortion Act. The bodily rights and equal protection of women is of utmost importance. However, the World Assembly has consistently failed to uphold both. Instead, it has consciously towed the line, trying to maintain a facade of neutrality on the issue. The Reduction of Abortion Act is a useless law and should not be in force.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Knootoss]

OOC: So Glen-Rhodes will support this Knootian repeal?

[Glen-Rhodes]

OOC: So Glen-Rhodes will support this Knootian repeal?

OOC: So long as it isn't clearing the way for any kind of blocker, yeah. I personally would like to SchutteGod's proposal passed, too.

[Parti Ouvrier]

Premises fail...

OOC: Well, that you would be opposed to this resolution is not very surprising, considering your persistent efforts to have the WA ban the procedure.

You have our support Ambassador Koopman.

CJ
WA Ambassador to the DRPO

[Darenjo]

OOC: So Glen-Rhodes will support this Knootian repeal?

OOC: So long as it isn't clearing the way for any kind of blocker, yeah. I personally would like to SchutteGod's proposal passed, too.

OOC: Isn't that draft a blocker??

IC: I've decided to give support.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

OOC: So long as it isn't clearing the way for any kind of blocker, yeah. I personally would like to SchutteGod's proposal passed, too.

OOC: Isn't that draft a blocker??

IC: I've decided to give support.

OOC: It's another kind of blocker

[Glen-Rhodes]

OOC: So long as it isn't clearing the way for any kind of blocker, yeah. I personally would like to SchutteGod's proposal passed, too.

OOC: Isn't that draft a blocker??

OOC: A blocker would make it so that the World Assembly has no say in the matter whatsoever. SchutteGod's proposal affirms the right to terminate a pregnancy.

[Moronist Decisions]

One concern we have for its repeal - and what we would still like to see - is that a lot of the "rape prevention services", such as

(2) adoption services
(4) family planning services
(5) pre-natal, obstetric, and post-natal medical care, counseling, and services
(7) education, awareness, prevention, and counseling programs to prevent rape and incest;

are certainly laudable goals, and nations should not feel that they should not be provided in the case that this resolution is passed. I would like to ask for a clause to state that these are services that we still believe should be provided, viz

STILL BELIEVING that citizens should have access to adoption services, family planning services, maternity care, and programs for preventing rape and incest.

...

BELIEVING that there is no compelling reason to make an international organisation such as the World Assembly responsible for all of these critical national health policies;

It's not responsible for the policies; it's actually responsible for providing access to them . We recommend that it be reworded to

BELIEVING that the World Health Authority should not be directly responsible for provision of such health services;

...

DEEPLY CONCERNED that the 'World Health Authority' forces all nations to expose their children to 'abstinence education' programmes, even though such programmes do nothing to reduce unplanned pregnancy;

We don't think it forces any nations to do so, since the clause states

DEEPLY CONCERNED that the 'World Health Authority' forces all nations to expose their children to 'abstinence education' programmes, even though such programmes do nothing to reduce unplanned pregnancy;

...

RESOLVED that 'abstinence education' and other programmes mandated by the "Reduction of Abortion Act" may inhibit the normal sexual development of children, and create dangerous social taboos;

We strongly disagree with this, in that we believe that people should still think carefully about their own actions; also, apart from (1), I fail to see how the provision of

(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;

would "inhibit the normal sexual development of children, and create dangerous social taboos".

Otherwise, looks reasonably good. Since we believe that abstinence education as simply educating everyone that you must be responsible for your own actions and think twice before agreeing to partake in such actions within the confines of Moronist Law regarding underage sexual activity, we do not fundamentally have a problem with the RtRA; and since we have provided that in our 9th grade anatomy and physiology lecture course, the gnomes have actually stayed out of it (as they are satisfied that there is universal access). We are concerned mostly with the possibility that nations may decide not to provide some of the other services listed (per the top of the post), and would not like to see that happen.

CRICK

[Unibot II]

Dr. Castro apparently has not read Reduction of Abortion thoroughly , the topic of Reduction of Abortion is not blocking abortion, but exactly what it says, reducing the need for abortion by providing contraceptives and promoting a comprehensive sex education. Osteric death was and is continued to be prevented when this Assembly put aside its petty differences momentarily to pass this landmark piece of legislation.

OOC: Kenny's ethics proposal is also not contradicting to the Reduction of Abortion and is fully compatible, I believe. That's the beauty of Reduction of Abortion.

Koopman's proposal is a lie. NOTHING in Reduction of Abortion says that member-nations do not maintain their own ability to write literature on sex education, 5.b states that the WA will coordinate its own research and publish, but nowhere in the bill does the letter of the law actually state that the WA and member-nations cannot conduct their own research and publish their own research independently. The burden of proof lies on Koopman to find this clause which simply does not exist.

"DEEPLY CONCERNED" of this repeal uses misleading language, Koopman's 'think-of-the-children' rhetoric neglects to inform readers that GA#44 does not require students to be actively taught about abortion reduction services. The resolution specifically writes : "AFFIRMS the right of individuals to access information regarding abortion reduction services". It affirms that as an individual you have the right to read literature on many things including, yes, abstinence. Should we ought to limit the right to information? No. Does GA#44 mandate this information be taught in classrooms? No. GA#44 simply says an individual has the right to access this information.

Why should we not limit the right to information? (1) If a belief is true but thought to false, whether or not Koopman believes it to be true, people can benefit from it and re-declare/declare it as true information, (2) If a belief is false but thought to be true, through reading, discourse and thought -- these myths can be exposed as false, (3) if a belief is true and known to be true, you're hiding beneficial information from the people, (4) If a belief is false and known to be false, its existence will allow it to be considered and ultimately rejected by those who argue it -- allowing the reasons for the information's rejection to be freshly circulated and not forgotten.

I am OPPOSED to this repeal and indefinitely roll my eyes at Koopman's inability to either, (1) read clearly and interpret without aimlessly including his own strawman clauses as c.4½, c.4¼ ...ect. into resolutions' text other than his own, or, (2) withdraw his agenda of hackery and political deception.

[Knootoss]

OOC: Yeah yeah Knoot is a liar and seeks to trick the WA into strangling kittens. Go tell me something interesting, Unibot. I don't even feel inclined to respond to such a shameless propaganda tract. Take it to the condemnation thread.

Re: Moronist Decisions. The opening clauses of the current draft already affirm the usefulness of enabling certain policies. I don't want to make the language on that stronger because that would be the stuff for a new resolution.

As for the interpretation of the word "access", I will give this some thought. In truth the original resolution is really very vague because it just wanted to give that fluffy feeling of "I help'd" without giving the barest thought to how the hell this should be implemented. The result is of course vague and bound to have different nations thinking it means different things.

I'm not inclined to allow the opponents of this repeal to run rings around me by submitting their own personal interpretations of how it works out in their country and then demand that I base the wording of the repeal on that. Abstinence education is bad, and having the WA be responsible for the provision of random bits of healthcare is bad too.

[Moronist Decisions]

Abstinence education is bad

Unfortunately, I don't really understand that part ... could someone explain, please?

[Knootoss]

There is a mountain of evidence against abstinence education. It does not promote the goal of getting teenagers to abstain from sex. Teenagers who pledge abstinence have similar rates of STD's. It sends confusing messages about sex to teenagers, while flying in the face of everything we know about teen sexual behaviour. Oh, and of course, it's your taxpayer money at work to push private and most often religious morality.

[Knootoss]

((Tweaked the language a bit, may submit this for a run soon.))

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

I may support this, if only for the NatSov reasoning, but the last part is mad.