[ABANDONNED] Insured Contraceptives

[Aractia]

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Mild

The World Assembly,

DEFINING "contraceptive" as an artificial method to prevent pregnancy or the contraction of sexually transmitted diseases (STD),

UNDERSTANDING that while contraceptives themselves may be available, they are not covered by health insurance plans,

REALIZING that contraceptives such as condoms, birth control pills, and others offer a variety of health and practical benefits,

• Many contraceptives offer the benefits of drastically preventing the spread of STDs, which are incredibly dangerous and potentially deadly. By preventing the spread of STDs, death rates will drop, and there will be no need for the investment of taxpayer money to research possible cures.
  
  
• Contraceptives prevent unintended pregnancies. Men and Women will be able to start families when they are sure they are ready for the lifelong commitment, instead of starting a family because of a simple "accident."
  
  
• Contraceptives prevent overpopulation, which is becoming a huge issue in many member states. Some nations or economies are not able to sustain high populations, so contraceptives will ensure that children are only born when the family desires.

STATING that health care providers only need to provide contraceptives to customers who desire them, and no one is required to use these contraceptives; member nations who follow religious values need only to require that insurance policies are available that cover contraceptives,

HEREBY mandates that health care providers and insurance companies to offer affordable and reliable policies that cover costs of contraceptives for its customers,

Coauthored by United Celts

[Aractia]

Looking forward to getting feedback!

[Connopolis]

While the intent is indeed meritorious, and the language lucid, I'm afraid this has already been covered, in-part, by GAR#44. I hope this doesn't deter you from writing in the future, however!

Yours in mourning,

[Democratic Consensia]

The World Assembly,

DEFINING "contraceptive" as an artificial method to prevent pregnancy,

REALIZING that health insurance policies that cover cover the costs of purchasing contraceptives such as condoms, birth control pills, and others are currently not available to many women around the world,

UNDERSTANDING that while contraceptives themselves may be available, but not necessarily affordable for many women around the world,

STATING that because contraceptives directly affect the health of a woman, they must be covered by health insurance,

KNOWING that contraceptives can prevent unintended pregnancies, abortions, and overpopulation,

HEREBY mandates that health insurance companies offer affordable policies that cover costs of contraceptives for their customers.

Change "woman/women" to "Person/Persons", and my office would have no real problem with this. Be prepared to experience resistance from the Theocratic nations, and those nations that believe in free markets.

Also, your language makes condoms coverable by medical insurance. That'll make the frat boys happy.

Yours,

[Aractia]

They do touch on similar ideas, but that one does not discuss how insurance should cover birth control, which is the main point of this proposal.

[Connopolis]

They do touch on similar ideas, but that one does not discuss how insurance should cover birth control, which is the main point of this proposal.

Ambassador, please do note clauses one and two -

1. DEFINES "abortion reduction services" as including all of the following: ... (3) contraceptives ...

2. AFFIRMS the right of individuals to access information regarding abortion reduction services;

While the two resolutions are, in fact, different, most of what's stipulated here is provided in GAR#44.

Yours truly,

Nevermind. After reviewing both, I've realized that they're different in their effects regarding contraceptives. Although, I'm not exactly sure this is the best topic to legislate on... I can see it as becoming a hotbed of controversy.

Yours,

[Teutonic Territories]

STATING that because contraceptives directly affect the health of a woman, they must be covered by health insurance,

A bullet to my head would directly affect my health. So medical insurance has to cover my gun collection, right?

Either or, I oppose. Don't go micromanaging individual member nations, and don't make taxpayers and companies pay for contraception.

[Aractia]

STATING that because contraceptives directly affect the health of a woman, they must be covered by health insurance,

A bullet to my head would directly affect my health. So medical insurance has to cover my gun collection, right?

Either or, I oppose. Don't go micromanaging individual member nations, and don't make taxpayers and companies pay for contraception.

You seem to have rather conservative beliefs, which you are entitled to. Still, everyone, even low income citizens, deserve the right to receive affordable and reliable health care. I removed the clause that I agree was incorrectly worded.

Also, keep in mind that contraceptives prevent unwanted pregnancies, which in turn prevent abortions.

[Auralia]

Opposed due to micro-management concerns. We don't feel contraceptives are important enough for women's health to justify mandating that all health insurance companies offer them to customers. Besides, if there's sufficient demand, won't they do so anyway?

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Category: Social Justice?
Strength: Mild/Significant?

I appreciate your tenacity and your desire to add a resolution to the body of international law. Here are my concerns:

1. Not every nation buys into the whole "health insurance" business model. Some nations don't have "insurance" because medical costs are simply regulated and paid by the state with money from the national treasury. Others outlaw collective risk distribution and leave individuals to fend for themselves. You're gonna want to get away from thinking in terms of "insurance" and move toward a mandate that nations "ensure the availability and accessibility of contraceptives regardless of a person's ability to pay." That way, nations without systems of "insurance" will still be required to provide "coverage."

2. This is clearly an issue right out of RL. Such issues often don't translate well to nation states - and many ambassadors refuse to vote for a "current events" proposal on principle. While I may agree with your social and political sentiments, that's in part because my nation is New York Times Democracy. Many government types will not be keen on the mandate of this proposal. Theocracies (for obvious reasons), War-faring states (need as many people as they can get), and Communists (the part about "insurance companies") will all find reason to object to this - and those are just the ones that instantly come to mind. Good luck!

[Aractia]

Category: Social Justice?
Strength: Mild/Significant?

I appreciate your tenacity and your desire to add a resolution to the body of international law. Here are my concerns:

1. Not every nation buys into the whole "health insurance" business model. Some nations don't have "insurance" because medical costs are simply regulated and paid by the state with money from the national treasury. Others outlaw collective risk distribution and leave individuals to fend for themselves. You're gonna want to get away from thinking in terms of "insurance" and move toward a mandate that nations "ensure the availability and accessibility of contraceptives regardless of a person's ability to pay." That way, nations without systems of "insurance" will still be required to provide "coverage."

2. This is clearly an issue right out of RL. Such issues often don't translate well to nation states - and many ambassadors refuse to vote for a "current events" proposal on principle. While I may agree with your social and political sentiments, that's in part because my nation is New York Times Democracy. Many government types will not be keen on the mandate of this proposal. Theocracies (for obvious reasons), War-faring states (need as many people as they can get), and Communists (the part about "insurance companies") will all find reason to object to this - and those are just the ones that instantly come to mind. Good luck!

Your feedback was extremely helpful. I will definitely incorporate it into a revision of the draft.

[United Celts]

"The Kingdom supports this proposal in principle," Ambassador Finn Mac Lochlainn said, "although we agree that it needs significant revision. Ambassador Scaredilocks from the Armed Republic of Cowardly Pacifists has offered several suggestions that should prove helpful for revision.

"We agree that the use of contraception is the best realistic way to prevent abortion and thus for that reason and many others is desirable. That said, be prepared to hear vocal opposition from those who dress up their desire to control people's sexual choices -- and particularly women's sexual choices -- in concerns about 'the dignity of human life.' They oppose abortion, yes, but they just as vehemently and counter-intuitively oppose contraception. And I think I see one or two of them lurking in the hall as we speak."

Ambassador Mac Lochlainn paused before adding: "As a gay man, I personally applaud you for including condoms in this proposal. Not only does the availability of condoms prevent unplanned pregnancy, it also prevents the spread of sexually transmitted infections -- particularly HIV/AIDS. You may want to note that when you revise your proposal as it could strengthen your argument."

[Christian Democrats]

Against.

1. This proposal would micromanage.

2. This proposal would infringe on the rights of religious nations that oppose contraception.

3. There are much more worthy things on which money can be spent.

4. Some nations may seek to promote population growth, and this proposal would limit population growth.

5. Our nation doesn't believe pregnancy is a malady that needs to be prevented. In our country, certain artificial contraceptives (male and female condoms, cervical caps, contraceptive sponges, and spermicides) are legal; though, they are strongly discouraged by the government, which actively promotes natural family planning. Natural family planning is the only form of birth control funded by the Christian Democratic Health Service (CDHS).

EDIT: The CDHS also pays for hormonal therapy for women suffering from certain medical conditions (e.g., endometriosis). This is not considered a form of contraception by the CDHS; rather, the inability to become pregnant is considered an undesired side effect of such treatments.

[United Celts]

1. This proposal would micromanage.

"Better to micromanage a member nation than to let a member nation micromanage its women's uteruses," Ambassador Mac Lochlainn said. "Or at least that's what I always say."

2. This proposal would infringe on the rights of religious nations that oppose contraception.

"Who are in turn infringing on the rights of individuals who may not want to get pregnant every time they feel a little amorous," Mac Lochlainn added.

3. There are much more worthy things on which money can be spent.

"Like what? An addition to your house to make room for your fifteenth child?" Mac Lochlainn replied.

4. Some nations may seek to promote population growth, and this proposal would limit population growth.

"Member nations shouldn't be able to coerce or pressure their citizens into having children in order to facilitate population growth anymore than they should force sterilization or abortion upon them to facilitate population reduction," Mac Lochlainn argued.

5. Our nation doesn't believe pregnancy is a malady that needs to be prevented. In our country, certain artificial contraceptives (male and female condoms, cervical caps, contraceptive sponges, and spermicides) are legal; though, they are strongly discouraged by the government, which actively promotes natural family planning. In our county, natural family planning is the only form of contraception funded by the Christian Democratic Health Service (CDHS).

"That must be a joy for the women of your country," Mac Lochlainn said, "to be forced to use an extremely difficult and often ineffective method of 'family planning' because a theocratic government deems it so."

[Christian Democrats]

4. Some nations may seek to promote population growth, and this proposal would limit population growth.

"Member nations shouldn't be able to coerce or pressure their citizens into having children in order to facilitate population growth anymore than they should force sterilization or abortion upon them to facilitate population reduction," Mac Lochlainn argued.

Rape is a serious crime in our nation and most others.

5. Our nation doesn't believe pregnancy is a malady that needs to be prevented. In our country, certain artificial contraceptives (male and female condoms, cervical caps, contraceptive sponges, and spermicides) are legal; though, they are strongly discouraged by the government, which actively promotes natural family planning. In our county, natural family planning is the only form of contraception funded by the Christian Democratic Health Service (CDHS).

"That must be a joy for the women of your country," Mac Lochlainn said, "to be forced to use an extremely difficult and often ineffective method of 'family planning' because a theocratic government deems it so."

Most women in Christian Democrats are satisfied with the current system. The annual failure rate of NFP is less than two percent, the CDHS covers all prenatal care, our nation ensures maternity leave, and it provides free universal daycare and education.

[Down With the World Assembly]

1. This proposal would micromanage.

"Better to micromanage a member nation than to let a member nation micromanage its women's uteruses," Ambassador Mac Lochlainn said. "Or at least that's what I always say."

2. This proposal would infringe on the rights of religious nations that oppose contraception.

"Who are in turn infringing on the rights of individuals who may not want to get pregnant every time they feel a little amorous," Mac Lochlainn added.

3. There are much more worthy things on which money can be spent.

"Like what? An addition to your house to make room for your fifteenth child?" Mac Lochlainn replied.

4. Some nations may seek to promote population growth, and this proposal would limit population growth.

"Member nations shouldn't be able to coerce or pressure their citizens into having children in order to facilitate population growth anymore than they should force sterilization or abortion upon them to facilitate population reduction," Mac Lochlainn argued.

5. Our nation doesn't believe pregnancy is a malady that needs to be prevented. In our country, certain artificial contraceptives (male and female condoms, cervical caps, contraceptive sponges, and spermicides) are legal; though, they are strongly discouraged by the government, which actively promotes natural family planning. In our county, natural family planning is the only form of contraception funded by the Christian Democratic Health Service (CDHS).

"That must be a joy for the women of your country," Mac Lochlainn said, "to be forced to use an extremely difficult and often ineffective method of 'family planning' because a theocratic government deems it so."

1. The lowest entity in NS is the nation itself, so micromanagement is virtually nonexistant.

2. So? Let the indeviduals who want controception pay for it, and let the religions not pay for it. Problem solved.

3. Or baby poison...

4. Hence the reason the WA should stay out of it. Two wrongs do not make a right.

5. Notice how he didn't say it was law, but rather discouragemnet. No use of force, no reason someone can go against the discouragement. I do, however, disagree with the government funding family planning, but that 's another issue.

[Aractia]

Notice
I have edited the proposal with a major revision. Please refer to it.

Thank you all for the great feedback and criticism. Please remember to be civil in debating the proposal.

[Jaggerlonia]

Completly Oppose as it violates Our nations Religious Law and would cause a rift in our society.

[Biedrzycki]

Along with the many concerns of violating religious freedom, Biedrzycki also would also like to object to this being called healthcare. Healthcare is there to deal with anything that is detrimental to the health of the human person. Pregnancy does not fall into such a category. Though complication may arise within a pregnancy that can be harmful to both the mother and child, the complications themselves are the problem, not the pregnancy. To claim that this is a health issue is false.

Of course, some contraception (specifically, condoms) can prevent STDs. However, why must our nation be forced into using this one specific way of addressing that problem? STDs are not a wide problem in our country anyways, thanks to a widespread practice of abstinence. Many STDs can in fact be treated with medicine, thus decreasing the problem without needing to resort to contraception.

Ultimately, this is needless. One can say many things about a person's "right" to contraception, but the right of a nation to stay sovereign and not have to put up with petty micromanagement is greater.

[East Cranstonia]

Our nation believes that contraception is not a right. A feeding tube, on the other hand, would be a right. This is due to the fact that our nation holds the oh-so-radical idea that a person can live his or her life without engaging in sexual intercourse, especially in copious quantities. On the other hand, life cannot be had without sustenance; hence the need for a feeding tube in some scenarios. However, if sex is had by a woman, she should be mature enough to realize that pregnancy is a potential effect of sexual relations, just as the man involved should be responsible enough to be willing to help care for any life that might come from said conjugal act. In our nation, these aforementioned statements are not simply lofty ideals; they are what we live by.

[Christian Democrats]

Notice
I have edited the proposal with a major revision. Please refer to it.

Thank you all for the great feedback and criticism. Please remember to be civil in debating the proposal.

Now, this proposal is illegal because it duplicates the Reduction of Abortion Act (GAR 44), which directs the World Health Authority to provide "universal access to [contraceptives] . . . in accordance with national and local laws."

[Aractia]

STDs are not a wide problem in our country anyways, thanks to a widespread practice of abstinence. Many STDs can in fact be treated with medicine, thus decreasing the problem without needing to resort to contraception.

STDs may not be a problem in your nation where abstinence from sex is enforced, but in many nations, this is not the case. First, though some STDs do have a cure, viruses do not. They remain with the carrier for their entire life. In some cases, these cures only alleviate health issues and still cost a lot of money to manufacture and distribute. I hope you realize that some people are not able to afford these medicines. Contraceptives are much cheaper and more effective in preventing STDs. This proposal strives to make contraceptives available even to those who may not be able to afford them.

Our of curiosity, if you enforce abstinence, how can you expect your nation to grow? Without children, eventually, everyone will die from old age.

Ultimately, this is needless. One can say many things about a person's "right" to contraception, but the right of a nation to stay sovereign and not have to put up with petty micromanagement is greater.

Finally, this law only mandates that those who desire contraceptives receive them. We are in no way forcing people to use them. In fact, your nation is micromanaging its people by restricting them from the natural human process of indulging in sex.

[Biedrzycki]

STDs are not a wide problem in our country anyways, thanks to a widespread practice of abstinence. Many STDs can in fact be treated with medicine, thus decreasing the problem without needing to resort to contraception.

STDs may not be a problem in your nation where abstinence from sex is enforced, but in many nations, this is not the case. First, though some STDs do have a cure, viruses do not. They remain with the carrier for their entire life. In some cases, these cures only alleviate health issues and still cost a lot of money to manufacture and distribute. I hope you realize that some people are not able to afford these medicines. Contraceptives are much cheaper and more effective in preventing STDs. This proposal strives to make contraceptives available even to those who may not be able to afford them.

Our of curiosity, if you enforce abstinence, how can you expect your nation to grow? Without children, eventually, everyone will die from old age.

Abstinence is not enforced. It is merely a large part of our culture. Nor is it permanent for all people. Plenty of procreation occurs, just within married couples. Such is our culture.

Ultimately, this is needless. One can say many things about a person's "right" to contraception, but the right of a nation to stay sovereign and not have to put up with petty micromanagement is greater.

Finally, this law only mandates that those who desire contraceptives receive them. We are in no way forcing people to use them. In fact, your nation is micromanaging its people by restricting them from the natural human process of indulging in sex.[/quote]
Why should we force all healthcare providers to provide this? Contraception is not illegal, but to many citizens it is contrary to their beliefs. So why should our healthcare providers be forced to provide for something that violates their religion?

[Aractia]

Notice
I have edited the proposal with a major revision. Please refer to it.

Thank you all for the great feedback and criticism. Please remember to be civil in debating the proposal.

Now, this proposal is illegal because it duplicates the Reduction of Abortion Act (GAR 44), which directs the World Health Authority to provide "universal access to [contraceptives] . . . in accordance with national and local laws."

This proposal has been updated again to put more of a stress on insurance covering contraceptive costs. It no longer duplicates GA 44.

[Flibbleites]

Bob Flibble
WA Representative