[DEBATE] WA & Secretariat Abortion Rulings

[Frisbeeteria]

Abortion and the World Assembly

Introduction

I am highly concerned by the series of contradictory moderator rulings and statements regarding the interpretation of both proposals and passed legislation on the subject of abortion. I have made minor statements, comments and queries regarding previous moderator actions on multiple occasions, but the problems were not addressed to my satisfaction.

I am not faulting the moderators for their inaction on the issue, given its complexity. To help them in their deliberations, I have decided to compile a comprehensive list of all of my concerns, in the hope that I can both make the situation clearer for them and hopefully see a final decision sooner than I would have otherwise.

Current Questions

Is abortion a "medical treatment" covered by GAR#29, the Patient's Rights Act (PRA)?

Precedent in Favour

• Christian Democrats’ Consent for Abortions Act: The moderators ruled that abortion was a medical procedure for the purposes of the Patient's Rights Act. The Patient's Rights Act states that:
  
  

  Patients may refuse treatment, provided that such refusal does not endanger the health of others. In non-emergency circumstances, treatment may be given without the patient's consent only in the presence of a legal instrument issued by a court of jurisdiction stating that the patient is not competent to make decisions.

  
  
  Therefore, the following consent provisions were judged to have duplicated the Patient's Rights Act:
  
  

  SECTION 1. Except as legislated in active resolutions previously adopted by this Assembly, an elective, or non-therapeutic, abortion shall not be performed on someone who is pregnant without her free and informed consent.
  
  SECTION 2. In accordance with legislation enacted by this Assembly, every member state shall criminalize forced abortion.
  
  [...]
  
  SECTION 4. No person shall be coerced to participate in an elective, or non-therapeutic, abortion or to provide an abortifacient for an elective, or non-therapeutic, abortion.

Precedent Against

• GAR#128, On Abortion: This resolution contains consent provisions which would duplicate those in the Patient's Rights Act if abortion were considered to be medical treatment:
  
  

  3. MANDATES that such abortions may only be carried out with the informed consent of the patient without coercion: if the patient is incapacitated and unable to make their wishes known, the patient's legal next-of-kin may make the decision on their behalf;

  
  
• Moderator Ruling by Ardchoille: A moderator ruling by Ardchoille states that future legislation may continue to restrict forced abortions, which would be illegal if abortion were considered to be medical treatment and therefore covered by the Patient's Rights Act:
  
  

  Re Q2: quote question, quote Sec 3, GA#128, then:

  The language here refers only to the abortions described in GAR#128; further language restricting forced abortions outside of the above would be legal.

  
  

  
  
• Eternal Yerushalayim's Abortion Ethics Act: This former resolution-at-vote contains a clause which either contradicts or duplicates the Patient's Rights Act if abortion is to be considered medical treatment.
  
  

  REQUIRES that all requests for abortions which have not been explicitly legalised by prior international legislation are confirmed by patient through written consent after being fully informed of the process of abortion, and its effects on patient,
  
  STIPULATES that if patient is rendered incapable of granting fully informed consent under the previous clause, and has not previously expressed disapproval of such action, person with patient's medical power of attorney, or, in the absence of such person, patient's legal next-of-kin, may do so on behalf of the patient,

  
  
• GAR#114, Female Genital Mutilation: This resolution contains a clause which directly contradicts the Patient's Rights Act if female genital mutilation is to be considered medical treatment. Female Genital Mutilation explicitly restricts parents from compelling their children to undergo female genital mutilation, while the Patient's Rights Act states that a parent may compel their child to undergo any medical treatment they deem necessary.
  
  

  FURTHER CLARIFY that legally sanctioned parental authority, any legal right that parents or guardians may have to consent to medical procedures on behalf of an individual or any legal rights that any person or entity may have when acting in loco parentis in regards to an individual are not sufficient justification for inflicting FGM and that only the fully informed uncoerced consent of the individual herself is sufficient justification for allowing such procedures.

  
  
  

  (VIII) For the purposes of this legislation, "patient" may also refer to a legal guardian if the patient is under the age of majority, or is an adult unable to understand their rights under this Act.

  
  
  Assuming the passed resolution is legal, this suggests that procedures like female genital mutilation and abortion, which do not actually treat a disease or malady, are not "medical treatment" in the strictest sense of the word and are therefore not covered by the Patient's Rights Act. It's worth noting that Wikipedia states that treatment is the "remediation of a health problem" - I wouldn't consider pregnancy a "health problem".

Does the last clause of On Abortion serve as a blocker on future abortion legislation, whether legalization, restriction or a blocker?

Precedent in Favour

• Moderator Statement by Ardchoille: Ardchoille stated that Glen-Rhodes was correct in stating that the last clause of On Abortion, by "insisting" that nations retain the right to "legalize abortion", makes any resolution which futher restricts abortion illegal.
  
  

  Glen-Rhodes was right in his original view of WA#128: that it is a cleverly-written blocker.

  
  
  

  7. INSISTS that all member nations retain the ability to legalize abortion for purposes not covered under the preceding clauses either unilaterally within their own jurisdiction or collectively through World Assembly resolution.

  
  If the World Assembly restricts abortion in any way, then that means we're contradicting this clause. Member states would no longer retain the ability to legalize abortion for purposes not covered under WAR#128.

  
  
• Christian Democrats’ Consent for Abortions Act: The moderators ruled that the last clause of On Abortion served as a blocker on blockers on abortion; in essence, because a blocker would prevent the World Assembly from further legalizing abortion, a right guaranteed by On Abortion, it was illegal:
  
  

  SECTION 7. Subject to this resolution and active resolutions previously adopted by this Assembly, every member state shall have the lone authority to regulate abortion in its jurisdiction, including the right to determine the legal status of abortion and abortifacients in its jurisdiction.

  
  
  

  Did it fail legality?

  
  Yes, it did.

Precedent Against

• Moderator Ruling by Ardchoille: Ardchoille stated that the last clause of On Abortion does not serve as a blocker, but allows the World Assembly to legalize or restrict abortion so long as the protections for abortions specified in On Abortion remain valid.
  
  Instead, the ruling suggests that the clause is merely an affirmation of rights that already existed prior to the passage of the resolution, and does not grant any rights or place any restrictions whatsoever, and therefore neither prohibits the WA from passing restrictions nor a blocker on abortion.
  
  

  I'll sign this as soon as you've tidied it up, Anastasia: thank honoured client query, quote question, quote proposal c7, then:

  Re Q1: No. Sec 7 covers the rights of member states, not the World Assembly itself. It just provides two channels for how legalization could occur, either via national, or international, law. What the WA cannot do is restrict abortion that would conflict with current laws on the books (i.e. a wholesale ban would be illegal under GAR#128).

  
  Oh, and I ran into Ruggers at the club, and he said this, so put his opinion in too and charge client a hefty specialist consultation fee:

  On Abortion says individual nations can legalise further. The WA can legalise further or restrict, as it chooses, provided it doesn't remove the permission for the types of abortions specified in On Abortion.

Proposed Answers

One possible way to resolve this - which would be very convenient for the pro-life camp - is to conclude that:

• Abortion does not qualify as a medical treatment under the Patient's Rights Act. Therefore, the moderators were wrong in declaring the Consent for Abortions Act to be illegal.
• The last clause of On Abortion is not a blocker on abortion restriction, legalization or blockers. Therefore, the moderators were wrong in declaring the last clause of the Consent for Abortions Act to be illegal.

Another possible way - which would be very convenient for the pro-choice camp - is to conclude that:

• Abortion is a medical treatment under the Patient's Rights Act. On Abortion and Female Genital Mutilation should not have been passed, since they were illegal.
• The last clause of On Abortion is a blocker on all abortion restrictions and blockers. Ardchoille was incorrect in her mod ruling.

A combination of these interpretations is possible as well. In fact, I think the following interpretation makes the most sense, given the evidence above:

• Abortion isn't a "medical treatment" covered by the Patient's Rights Act. I refuse to believe that at least two illegal resolutions were passed, another illegal proposal made it to vote, and an incorrect mod ruling was made.
• The last clause is actually a blocker. The clause is worded quite clearly, using the term "legalize", not "legislate". I know I've argued in the past that the clause wasn't a blocker, but that was only with the support of the mod ruling; if it was incorrect, than the clause makes much more sense within that context.

The consequences of that interpretation are very concerning. It means that the WA currently has no legislation on forced abortions outside of the types of abortions mentioned in "On Abortion", but that the WA cannot pass legislation restricting them thanks to the blocker.

Cowardly Pacifists has an alternate interpretation, which he's argued for and I against below.

Mousebumples also has an alternate interpretation, which she's argued for and I against below.

Conclusion

I hope this helps the moderators in their deliberations about abortion. Hopefully we can resolve these apparent contradictions in the very near future.

[The Flood]

World Assembly should ban abortion in all nations.

[Astrolinium]

Oh thank nonspecific deity or lack thereof, I though this was another proposal at first.

But I would agree with your third interpretation as it seems to be supported - unless I'm reading it wrong - by the fact that there are more mod rulings in favor of those provisions.

[Ardchoille]

Thanks for compiling this. I haven't got into it yet, but it's certainly a useful discussion-starter.

Players please note: keep comments to discussion of the technicalities, not to pro/anti abortion rants.

EDIT: Also, would players please try not to rant about individual proposals. I know this is a big ask -- I just had to rewrite this edit so it wouldn't contain my unflattering opinion of one of the proposals mentioned -- but if you can keep it to the technicalities, you're more likely to get somewhere.

Remember, too, that a wall-of-text saying "Resolution X is illegal" will undoubtedly draw the one-liner "It's a Resolution, it's legal now" or "If you think it is, repeal it". If you decide something needs repealing, it would be more helpful to start a repeal draft thread instead of threadjacking this one.

[Auralia]

If anyone has any additional evidence or questions, just let me know and I'll add them to the original post.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

If anyone has any additional evidence or questions, just let me know and I'll add them to the original post.

Of course I do. I just haven't falsified finished reviewing all the documents yet. I'll get back to you shortly.

[Sionis Prioratus]

Ardchoille was incorrect in his mod ruling

Oops...

[Merfurian]

If I could chip in...

In the real world, abortion is considered a medical treatment to which one can give consent. Being as the entire argument centres around induced abortion, that is what I'll deal with. According to this Wikipedia article:

Reasons for procuring induced abortions are typically characterized as either therapeutic or elective. An abortion is medically referred to as a therapeutic abortion when it is performed to save the life of the pregnant woman; prevent harm to the woman's physical or mental health; terminate a pregnancy where indications are that the child will have a significantly increased chance of premature morbidity or mortality or be otherwise disabled; or to selectively reduce the number of fetuses to lessen health risks associated with multiple pregnancy.[11][12] An abortion is referred to as an elective or voluntary abortion when it is performed at the request of the woman for non-medical reasons.

Therefore, if the woman can give consent, abortion is considered as a medical treatment for the purposes of the Patients' Rights Act, and therefore mod rulings stating the contrary were decided per incuriam. To reinforce my point, I link to this article, also from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_abortion

regarding the second question (whether the last clause of On Abortion is a blocker), I am led to believe that it still leaves some room for manoeuvre. This is because the clause does not declare that the WA divests itself of the rights to legalise on the topic. If you'll read the clause in question:

7. INSISTS that all member nations retain the ability to legalize abortion for purposes not covered under the preceding clauses either unilaterally within their own jurisdiction or collectively through World Assembly resolution.

it also states "member nations retain the ability to legalize abortions [...] either unilaterally within their own jurisdiction or collectively through WA Resolution"
To me, that sounds like the States of the WA still have the opportunity to legislate - in fact, they are required to, as we well know. However, it also seems to say to me that the WA can also legislate on the same topic (cf. "member nations retain the ability to legalize abortions [...] collectively through WA resolution". The WA is still retaining its power to legislate, and therefore Auralia's question - in my opinion - should be answered in the negative - the last clause does not act as a blocker, so the WA may continue legislating on the subject.

[Auralia]

Ardchoille was incorrect in his mod ruling

Oops...

I'll fix that now.

[Auralia]

In the real world, abortion is considered a medical treatment to which one can give consent.

((OOC: I'm afraid RL references are far less important than NS precedent.))

regarding the second question (whether the last clause of On Abortion is a blocker), I am led to believe that it still leaves some room for manoeuvre. This is because the clause does not declare that the WA divests itself of the rights to legalise on the topic. If you'll read the clause in question:

7. INSISTS that all member nations retain the ability to legalize abortion for purposes not covered under the preceding clauses either unilaterally within their own jurisdiction or collectively through World Assembly resolution.

it also states "member nations retain the ability to legalize abortions [...] either unilaterally within their own jurisdiction or collectively through WA Resolution"
To me, that sounds like the States of the WA still have the opportunity to legislate - in fact, they are required to, as we well know. However, it also seems to say to me that the WA can also legislate on the same topic (cf. "member nations retain the ability to legalize abortions [...] collectively through WA resolution". The WA is still retaining its power to legislate, and therefore Auralia's question - in my opinion - should be answered in the negative - the last clause does not act as a blocker, so the WA may continue legislating on the subject.

The issue is that the clause uses the word "legalize", not "legislate." By passing a blocker, the WA prevents itself from further legalizing abortion, thereby contradicting the clause.

[Ossitania]

I'm interested in the outcome of the medical treatment question, since it affects my own proposal Body Integrity Rights. For the question on On Abortion's final clause, I think the language makes it pretty clear that nations only retain the right to legalize, not to restrict, which is very concerning as regards legislation on forced abortion.

[Glen-Rhodes]

The two posts by Ardchoille are conflicting, even though they're only a week or so apart. Which one is standing precedent? The latter one, stating the World Assembly can restrict abortion rights, is very odd. Clause 7 of On Abortion gives member states the right to legalize abortion beyond what is already in the resolution. This precludes the World Assembly from banning or restricting abortion, because that would remove our (member states') right to further legalize it beyond what On Abortion does.

In other words, On Abortion gives member states the right to legalize late-term abortions, as that is not already covered under On Abortion. If the World Assembly attempts to ban late-term abortions, how does that not encroach on our right to legalize them, and thus violate Clause 7?

[Auralia]

In other words, On Abortion gives member states the right to legalize late-term abortions, as that is not already covered under On Abortion. If the World Assembly attempts to ban late-term abortions, how does that not encroach on our right to legalize them, and thus violate Clause 7?

I agree. One could take it even further, and state that passing a blocker would also violate the clause, since it would prevent member states from legalizing abortion "collectively through World Assembly resolution".

[The Jahistic Unified Republic]

I think the WA should leave it to the nations to choose whether they are pro abortion or pro life.

[Ossitania]

I think that both Glen-Rhodes and Auralia have it right on the nose and it's a bit distressing.

[Auralia]

World Assembly should ban abortion in all nations.

I think the WA should leave it to the nations to choose whether they are pro abortion or pro life.

This isn't a discussion of the best abortion policy for the WA - it's a discussion of how best to interpret the current situation, given past mod rulings and resolutions.

[Mousebumples]

Remember, too, that a wall-of-text saying "Resolution X is illegal" will undoubtedly draw the one-liner "It's a Resolution, it's legal now" or "If you think it is, repeal it". If you decide something needs repealing, it would be more helpful to start a repeal draft thread instead of threadjacking this one.

OOC: I'm getting caught up on the forums after being away for a week or so on vacation. So, with regards to this comment, here's a question:

Would it be HELPFUL (or ... you know ... not) if someone were to make a comment that "Resolution X should have been declared illegal due to X, Y, Z precedent." ? Again, as Ard herself said, any such resolutions for which such a statement may (or may not) apply are legal by virtue of being a passed resolution. However, given the ... contentious topic here, I don't want to start up a threadjack, even though making such distinctions may help clarify the legality of things, at least.

And, of course, I have no idea if that even applies to anything listed here. I just saw that comment and that got me to thinking. I don't have the time - right now - to sort through all the legal precedents that Auralia has sorted through above, but I thought I'd ask all the same ... just in case.

[ALMF]

Abortion and the World Assembly

Introduction

I am highly concerned by the series of contradictory moderator rulings and statements regarding the interpretation of both proposals and passed legislation on the subject of abortion. I have made minor statements, comments and queries regarding previous moderator actions on multiple occasions, but the problems were not addressed to my satisfaction.

I am not faulting the moderators for their inaction on the issue, given its complexity. To help them in their deliberations, I have decided to compile a comprehensive list of all of my concerns, in the hope that I can both make the situation clearer for them and hopefully see a final decision sooner than I would have otherwise.

Current Questions

Is abortion a "medical treatment" covered by GAR#29, the Patient's Rights Act (PRA)?

Precedent in Favour

• Christian Democrats’ Consent for Abortions Act: The moderators ruled that abortion was a medical procedure for the purposes of the Patient's Rights Act. The Patient's Rights Act states that:
  
  

  Patients may refuse treatment, provided that such refusal does not endanger the health of others. In non-emergency circumstances, treatment may be given without the patient's consent only in the presence of a legal instrument issued by a court of jurisdiction stating that the patient is not competent to make decisions.

  
  
  Therefore, the following consent provisions were judged to have duplicated the Patient's Rights Act:
  
  

  SECTION 1. Except as legislated in active resolutions previously adopted by this Assembly, an elective, or non-therapeutic, abortion shall not be performed on someone who is pregnant without her free and informed consent.
  
  SECTION 2. In accordance with legislation enacted by this Assembly, every member state shall criminalize forced abortion.
  
  [...]
  
  SECTION 4. No person shall be coerced to participate in an elective, or non-therapeutic, abortion or to provide an abortifacient for an elective, or non-therapeutic, abortion.

Precedent Against

• GAR#128, On Abortion: This resolution contains consent provisions which would duplicate those in the Patient's Rights Act if abortion were considered to be medical treatment:
  
  

  3. MANDATES that such abortions may only be carried out with the informed consent of the patient without coercion: if the patient is incapacitated and unable to make their wishes known, the patient's legal next-of-kin may make the decision on their behalf;

  
  
• Moderator Ruling by Ardchoille: A moderator ruling by Ardchoille states that future legislation may continue to restrict forced abortions, which would be illegal if abortion were considered to be medical treatment and therefore covered by the Patient's Rights Act:
  
  

  Re Q2: quote question, quote Sec 3, GA#128, then:
  

  
  
• GAR#114, Female Genital Mutilation: This resolution contains a clause which directly contradicts the Patient's Rights Act if female genital mutilation is to be considered medical treatment. Female Genital Mutilation explicitly restricts parents from compelling their children to undergo female genital mutilation, while the Patient's Rights Act states that a parent may compel their child to undergo any medical treatment they deem necessary.
  
  

  FURTHER CLARIFY that legally sanctioned parental authority, any legal right that parents or guardians may have to consent to medical procedures on behalf of an individual or any legal rights that any person or entity may have when acting in loco parentis in regards to an individual are not sufficient justification for inflicting FGM and that only the fully informed uncoerced consent of the individual herself is sufficient justification for allowing such procedures.

  
  
  

  (VIII) For the purposes of this legislation, "patient" may also refer to a legal guardian if the patient is under the age of majority, or is an adult unable to understand their rights under this Act.

  
  
  Assuming the passed resolution is legal, this suggests that procedures like female genital mutilation and abortion, which do not actually treat a disease or malady, are not "medical treatment" in the strictest sense of the word and are therefore not covered by the Patient's Rights Act.

Does the last clause of On Abortion serve as a blocker on future abortion legislation, whether legalization, restriction or a blocker?

Precedent in Favour

• Moderator Statement by Ardchoille: Ardchoille stated that Glen-Rhodes was correct in stating that the last clause of On Abortion, by "insisting" that nations retain the right to "legalize abortion", makes any resolution which futher restricts abortion illegal.
  
  

  Glen-Rhodes was right in his original view of WA#128: that it is a cleverly-written blocker.

  
  
  

  7. INSISTS that all member nations retain the ability to legalize abortion for purposes not covered under the preceding clauses either unilaterally within their own jurisdiction or collectively through World Assembly resolution.

  
  If the World Assembly restricts abortion in any way, then that means we're contradicting this clause. Member states would no longer retain the ability to legalize abortion for purposes not covered under WAR#128.

  
  
• Christian Democrats’ Consent for Abortions Act: The moderators ruled that the last clause of On Abortion served as a blocker on blockers on abortion; in essence, because a blocker would prevent the World Assembly from further legalizing abortion, a right guaranteed by On Abortion, it was illegal:
  
  

  SECTION 7. Subject to this resolution and active resolutions previously adopted by this Assembly, every member state shall have the lone authority to regulate abortion in its jurisdiction, including the right to determine the legal status of abortion and abortifacients in its jurisdiction.

  
  
  

  Yes, it did.

Precedent Against

• Moderator Ruling by Ardchoille: Ardchoille stated that the last clause of On Abortion does not serve as a blocker, but allows the World Assembly to legalize or restrict abortion so long as the protections for abortions specified in On Abortion remain valid.
  
  Instead, the ruling suggests that the clause is merely an affirmation of rights that already existed prior to the passage of the resolution, and does not grant any rights or place any restrictions whatsoever, and therefore neither prohibits the WA from passing restrictions nor a blocker on abortion.
  
  

  I'll sign this as soon as you've tidied it up, Anastasia: thank honoured client query, quote question, quote proposal c7, then:
  Oh, and I ran into Ruggers at the club, and he said this, so put his opinion in too and charge client a hefty specialist consultation fee:

Proposed Answers

One possible way to resolve this - which would be very convenient for the pro-life camp - is to conclude that:

• Abortion does not qualify as a medical treatment under the Patient's Rights Act. Therefore, the moderators were wrong in declaring the Consent for Abortions Act to be illegal.
• The last clause of On Abortion is not a blocker on abortion restriction, legalization or blockers. Therefore, the moderators were wrong in declaring the last clause of the Consent for Abortions Act to be illegal.

Another possible way - which would be very convenient for the pro-choice camp - is to conclude that:

• Abortion is a medical treatment under the Patient's Rights Act. On Abortion and Female Genital Mutilation should not have been passed, since they were illegal.
• The last clause of On Abortion is a blocker on all abortion restrictions and blockers. Ardchoille was incorrect in her mod ruling.

A combination of these interpretations is possible as well. In fact, I think the following interpretation makes the most sense, given the evidence above:

• Abortion isn't a "medical treatment" covered by the Patient's Rights Act. I refuse to believe that at least two illegal resolutions were passed and an incorrect mod ruling was made.
• The last clause is actually a blocker. The clause is worded quite clearly, using the term "legalize", not "legislate". I know I've argued in the past that the clause wasn't a blocker, but that was only with the support of the mod ruling; if it was incorrect, than the clause makes much more sense within that context.

The consequences of that interpretation are very concerning. It means that the WA currently has no legislation on forced abortions outside of the types of abortions mentioned in "On Abortion", but that the WA cannot pass legislation restricting them thanks to the blocker.

Conclusion

I hope this helps the moderators in their deliberations about abortion. Hopefully we can resolve these apparent contradictions in the very near future.

The middle solution is the correct one as far as the past. For the future, I wold recommend the past ruling be kept but for president use the folioing:

• Abortion is a medical treatment under the Patient's Rights Act. On Abortion and Female Genital Mutilation should not have been passed, since they were illegal.
• The last clause of On Abortion is a blocker on all abortion restrictions and blockers. Ardchoille was incorrect in her mod ruling.

[ALMF]

I think that both Glen-Rhodes and Auralia have it right on the nose and it's a bit distressing.

I don't see how its distressing but the three of you are right .

[Mallorea and Riva]

For the love of god, don't quote that OP without a spoiler, or selective quoting at least. I'll go over this when I'm not nursing a fencing injury. Thanks for putting it together Aur.

[Ossitania]

I think that both Glen-Rhodes and Auralia have it right on the nose and it's a bit distressing.

I don't see how its distressing but the three of you are right .

It's distressing because it kills any possibility of a WA resolution prohibiting forced abortion, unless I've missed something.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

• Abortion is a medical treatment under the Patient's Rights Act. On Abortion and Female Genital Mutilation should not have been passed, since they were illegal.
• The last clause of On Abortion is a blocker on all abortion restrictions and blockers. Ardchoille was incorrect in her mod ruling.

I'm inclined to think that based on the evidence you provided, this conclusion is the closest to correct. However, I don't think Ard's mod ruling is incorrect. On the contrary, I think the ruling makes perfect sense.

Here's the language of On Abortion and corresponding Ard ruling we're talking about:

7. INSISTS that all member nations retain the ability to legalize abortion for purposes not covered under the preceding clauses either unilaterally within their own jurisdiction or collectively through World Assembly resolution.

I'll sign this as soon as you've tidied it up, Anastasia: thank honoured client query, quote question, quote proposal c7, then:

Re Q1: No. Sec 7 covers the rights of member states, not the World Assembly itself. It just provides two channels for how legalization could occur, either via national, or international, law. What the WA cannot do is restrict abortion that would conflict with current laws on the books (i.e. a wholesale ban would be illegal under GAR#128).

Oh, and I ran into Ruggers at the club, and he said this, so put his opinion in too and charge client a hefty specialist consultation fee:

On Abortion says individual nations can legalise further. The WA can legalise further or restrict, as it chooses, provided it doesn't remove the permission for the types of abortions specified in On Abortion.

There are really two separate inquiries at play here and it's useful to separate them out. The first is whether the language of On Abortion prohibits any future WA restrictions on abortion (say, just for argument, a restriction of sex selective abortions), since doing so would deprive nations of "the ability to legalize abortion for purposes not covered under the preceding clauses." This was Glen-Rhodes point.

The second is whether the language of On Abortion prohibits any future resolution containing a blocker on abortion legislation, since doing so would deprive nations of "the ability to legalize abortion... collectively through World Assembly resolution." This is the problem which resulted in CD's Consent for Abortions proposal being deleted from the queue the first time around, and it is a position which Linux and the X and I have argued (full disclosure).

Ard's ruling definitely supports the conclusion that On Abortion prohibits a future resolution containing a blocker on abortion legislation (the second inquiry). The ruling plainly states that On Abortion "provides two channels for how legalization could occur, either via national, or international, law." While Ard's use of the qualifier "just" makes this point sound flippant, it definitely holds that On Abortion keeps two channels open - and one of them is international law. A blocker would close one of those channels, and hence would be illegal.

The trickier issue is with the first inquiry, and in order to properly understand Ard's ruling, one must understand what it means to "legalize" something in the context of On Abortion. Legalization simply means that something is legally permissible - it does not mean that something is free from regulation. Selling beef is legal, but you still have to comply with a host of regulations on meat inspection and safety. Hiring someone to work in your saw mill is legal, but you still have to comply with non-discriminatory hiring regulations and child labor laws.

This is what Ard means when she says that "what the WA cannot do is restrict abortion that would conflict with current laws on the books (i.e. a wholesale ban would be illegal under GAR#128)." It's also what she means when she says "the WA can legalise further or restrict." Restrictions are fine, bans are not. There's a subtle yet monumental distinction at play. A "ban" on abortion for certain purposes would conflict with On Abortion - since, as Glen-Rhodes pointed out, a ban would prevent nations from "legalizing" abortion for purposes other than those in On Abortion. However, the regulation, or restriction, of certain abortion practices would be completely fine. Nations would still be allowed to "legalize" those practices, but they would have to comply with WA regulations (possibly very strict ones).

To use a favored example, lets consider sex selective abortions. The WA cannot pass an outright ban on sex selective abortions as long as On Abortion is around; doing so would prevent nations from "legalizing" that practice. However, a law that requires any nation which permits sex selective abortion to comply with certain onerous reporting requirements, or to allow a long "reconsideration period," or to charge a substantial fee would not run afoul of On Abortion, since those regulations still preserve the power to legalize the practice (even if they make actually exercising it incredibly difficult).

So my interpretation is as follows:

• Abortion is a medical treatment under the Patient's Rights Act. On Abortion and Female Genital Mutilation should not have been passed, since they were illegal.
• The last clause of On Abortion is a blocker on all abortion restrictions complete bans of abortion practices and blockers. Ardchoille was incorrect in her mod ruling Nations retain the collective and individual right to enact regulations on abortion, even restrictive ones, so long as those regulations don't amount to an outright ban.

I really don't have much of an opinion on the first part. The only evidence provided that abortion might not be a "medical treatment" under the PRA is that certain resolutions contain clauses which appear to contradict or duplicate the Patient's Rights Act. However, there are a whole host of reasons why illegalities might not have been noticed or complained about (it's often up to individual nations to raise such specific legality objections, the Secretariat tends not to bring them up sua sponte). Our understanding is that once a resolution is law we assume that there was never any illegality. So it seems perfectly rational to us that Abortion is a medical treatment procedure and On Abortion and Female Genital Mutilation never really conflicted or duplicated the PRA.

Best Regards, hope this clarifies more than it obscures.

[Christian Democrats]

I submitted the Consent for Abortions Act on the following premises:

1. Section 3 of On Abortion requires consent only for the types of abortion legalized by that resolution.

2. The Patient's Rights Act requires consent only for medical treatments.

3. Induced abortion, except in cases of maternal life or health, is not a medical treatment. Instead, it is an elective medical procedure. Elective abortions have no therapeutic effect and, therefore, are not treatment. If one considers elective abortions to be therapy, then one also must consider pregnancy a disease.

If possible, I would like to rewrite and resubmit a version of the Consent for Abortions Act.

If On Abortion blocks legislation restricting abortion (including forced abortion), then that constitutes an additional reason to repeal it. Abortion should never be forced on a woman, so the General Assembly should ban forced abortion.

As the best piece of evidence, I point out the Abortion Ethics Act, which failed in an Assembly-wide vote. That proposal would have required written consent for abortions. If induced abortion is a medical treatment, then that proposal never should have been allowed. It would have duplicated the Patient's Rights Act.

REQUIRES that all requests for abortions which have not been explicitly legalised by prior international legislation are confirmed by patient through written consent after being fully informed of the process of abortion, and its effects on patient

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=6257264&sid=5677e19d4d0144165c22e6882849928c#p6257264

[Cowardly Pacifists]

If On Abortion blocks legislation restricting abortion (including forced abortion), then that constitutes an additional reason to repeal it. Abortion should never be forced on a woman, so the General Assembly should ban forced abortion.

My impression is that it blocks legislation banning abortion (including forced abortion) but that it permits legislation restricting abortion. You cannot prohibit forced abortion in those words, but you could regulate it to a point where it is impractical. Perhaps something like the following:

Strongly Encourages nations to outlaw forced abortions within their jurisdiction,

Mandates that any nations which does not outlaw forced abortions must place the following restrictions on the practice:

... and go from there. If you really don't want to go that route (and I can understand why restricting forced abortion might not be as morally satisfying as banning it entirely) you would have to go the way of repealing On Abortion. I think we both know which route is more accessible.

As the best piece of evidence, I point out the Abortion Ethics Act, which failed in an Assembly-wide vote. That proposal would have required written consent for abortions. If induced abortion is a medical treatment, then that proposal never should have been allowed. It would have duplicated the Patient's Rights Act.

REQUIRES that all requests for abortions which have not been explicitly legalised by prior international legislation are confirmed by patient through written consent after being fully informed of the process of abortion, and its effects on patient

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=6257264&sid=5677e19d4d0144165c22e6882849928c#p6257264

From briefly thumbing through that proposal's minutes, I don't see where anyone brought up the potential duplication with the PRA. Perhaps I just missed it.

In any case, the fact that something made it to vote or even passed with an illegality is not proof of anything. The Secretariat is generally pretty hands off, and some national delegation generally needs to raise the legality concern before the mods will act on it (unless, of course, the illegality is painfully obvious). If someone had raised a legality objection and this made it to vote, I might agree that you're on to something. But without evidence of an objection, I'm content to think that there might have been a duplication problem and it just so happened that nobody noticed or cared.

[Auralia]

So my interpretation is as follows:

• Abortion is a medical treatment under the Patient's Rights Act. On Abortion and Female Genital Mutilation should not have been passed, since they were illegal.
• The last clause of On Abortion is a blocker on all abortion restrictions complete bans of abortion practices and blockers. Ardchoille was incorrect in her mod ruling Nations retain the collective and individual right to enact regulations on abortion, even restrictive ones, so long as those regulations don't amount to an outright ban.

I think you are on very shaky ground with that interpretation. Under your definition of "legalize", it would be fine, for instance, for the WA or individual member states to mandate that all abortionists be left-handed circus clowns who can perform the procedure while jumping on one foot - since abortion remains (nominally) legal, those nations are still in compliance with the last clause of On Abortion. This sounds ridiculous because the word "legalize" does not imply the freedom to regulate to such an inane extent that whatever is being legalized is not really, for all intents and purposes, legal any longer. This interpretation would set a very dangerous precedent and would go against the spirit and intent of most of the legislation passed by the World Assembly.

I really don't have much of an opinion on the first part. The only evidence provided that abortion might not be a "medical treatment" under the PRA is that certain resolutions contain clauses which appear to contradict or duplicate the Patient's Rights Act. However, there are a whole host of reasons why illegalities might not have been noticed or complained about (it's often up to individual nations to raise such specific legality objections, the Secretariat tends not to bring them up sua sponte). Our understanding is that once a resolution is law we assume that there was never any illegality. So it seems perfectly rational to us that Abortion is a medical treatment procedure and On Abortion and Female Genital Mutilation never really conflicted or duplicated the PRA.

I don't understand your argument. It seems quite clear that if OA or FGM (or the Abortion Rights Act - thanks CD) were tabled today, they would be deleted for illegalities unless abortion, female genital mutilation and related operations cannot be considered medical treatment. Surely it makes more sense to interpret existing legislation in such a way that it is not contradictory?