[REPLACEMENT] Convention on Reproductive Rights

[United Massachusetts]

Convention on Reproductive Rights
Category: Health | Area of Effect: Healthcare

The General Assembly:

Affirming the World Assembly's commitment to promoting reproductive rights as well as maternal and reproductive health,

Cognizant that numerous member states have legitimate moral and ethical concerns regarding the legality of abortion, especially when alternatives such as adoption are readily available,

Seeking to accommodate these nations in the interests of international cooperation and goodwill while preserving a base level of reproductive rights throughout the World Assembly,

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, the following terms:
   • abortion as the intentional termination of a pregnancy prior to or during the process of birth
   • abortion provider as a medically-licensed professional who provides abortions
   • abortion clinic as any medical facility which provides abortion services
2. Recognizes abortion as a medical procedure subject to the same regulations on informed consent that apply to other medical procedures under World Assembly law,
   
   
3. Mandates that member nations provide legal protection against targeted and violent action against individuals who procure abortions, abortion providers, or anyone involved in the process thereof,
   
   
4. Prohibits member nations from prosecuting, imprisoning, or otherwise punishing by law an individual for procuring an abortion,
   
   
5. Further prohibits member nations from prosecuting, imprisoning, or otherwise punishing by law an abortion provider for performing an abortion necessary to preserve an individual's life, or an abortion obtained due to rape or incest,
   
   
6. Requires member nations to permit individuals who are otherwise in compliance with customs and immigration law to travel to other nations for the purposes of procuring an abortion,
   
   
7. Urges member nations to make available to the public relevant contraceptive access, sexual education, adoptive services, and welfare services so as to reduce the number of unneeded abortions,
   
   
8. Declares that physicians, nurses, and other medical personnel may not be penalized by member states or private entities for refusing to perform or assist with an abortion on grounds of conscience, except where necessary to preserve an individual's life,
   
   
9. Reserves to member nations the right to legislate on the issue of abortion, subject to the mandates of both this resolution and prior, unrepealed legislation.

Coauthored by @Auralia

[Calladan]

Firstly, I am fairly sure that your definition of "abortion provider" should use the word "provide" and not "procure" - doesn't "procure" mean acquire? (We have several procurement departments all of which set about acquiring various products for the government). In this instance, it would be the woman who is procuring an abortion, and the doctor who is providing one. (I realise this is a small thing, but it was something that jumped out at me).

Secondly - wouldn't the repeated mentions of GAR #128 be a House of Cards violation? Could you use the phrase "extant legislation" or something similar?

Thirdly - given the "Patients Rights Act", would Clause 5 possibly create a situation where a child could not get an abortion without the consent of their parents? (I know this is a grey area, but if a daughter is pregnant by the father, and doesn't want the mother to know, she might ask her aunt, or a family friend, to go with her. However if the aunt, or family friend, is not the legal guardian would Clause 5 require the daughter's parents to be informed?) Because clearly I am going to have objections to that. (The Patients Right Act says "For the purposes of this legislation, "patient" may also refer to a legal guardian if the patient is under the age of majority" - it doesn't necessarily enforce this rule, which is why I am asking for clarity).

Fourthly - this will never come to a vote. You know that, right?

[United Massachusetts]

Firstly, I am fairly sure that your definition of "abortion provider" should use the word "provide" and not "procure" - doesn't "procure" mean acquire? (We have several procurement departments all of which set about acquiring various products for the government). In this instance, it would be the woman who is procuring an abortion, and the doctor who is providing one. (I realise this is a small thing, but it was something that jumped out at me).

Secondly - wouldn't the repeated mentions of GAR #128 be a House of Cards violation? Could you use the phrase "extant legislation" or something similar?

Thirdly - given the "Patients Rights Act", would Clause 5 possibly create a situation where a child could not get an abortion without the consent of their parents? (I know this is a grey area, but if a daughter is pregnant by the father, and doesn't want the mother to know, she might ask her aunt, or a family friend, to go with her. However if the aunt, or family friend, is not the legal guardian would Clause 5 require the daughter's parents to be informed?) Because clearly I am going to have objections to that. (The Patients Right Act says "For the purposes of this legislation, "patient" may also refer to a legal guardian if the patient is under the age of majority" - it doesn't necessarily enforce this rule, which is why I am asking for clarity).

Fourthly - this will never come to a vote. You know that, right?

1. Yes. Forgive me. I've amended it to change "procure" to "provide". I'm writing this stuff too fast.
2. No, they aren't. Unless the resolution falls apart entirely without GAR #128 (which it doesn't), it's fine.
3. Hm...You raise an interesting point. I'll try to amend the wording to fix that problem in a minute.
4. Not entirely sure. Would you support it, though?

---

Fixed #3. thoughts?

[Koleksia]

To be honest this is a pretty good replacement for the last one

[United Massachusetts]

To be honest this is a pretty good replacement for the last one

and what is your stance in the General Abortion Debate, just for my records?

[Calladan]

4. Not entirely sure. Would you support it, though?

The repeal is currently running at about 5 to 1 against, with only about a day and a half or so left to go. And while a day is a long time in politics, I am going to go out on a limb and suggest it's probably not going to pass. And since this is the closest it has come to passing in a long, long while (from what I remember) it is fair to say that GAR #286 is probably going to be around for a while.

Given that, and given that (with all due respect) a fair part of your proposal duplicates GAR #286, then submitting would probably see it ruled illegal for several violations (I am just guessing - I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV).

So whether I support it or not probably won't matter in the long run, because in around 39 to 40 hours it will become moot.

[United Massachusetts]

4. Not entirely sure. Would you support it, though?

The repeal is currently running at about 5 to 1 against, with only about a day and a half or so left to go. And while a day is a long time in politics, I am going to go out on a limb and suggest it's probably not going to pass. And since this is the closest it has come to passing in a long, long while (from what I remember) it is fair to say that GAR #286 is probably going to be around for a while.

Given that, and given that (with all due respect) a fair part of your proposal duplicates GAR #286, then submitting would probably see it ruled illegal for several violations (I am just guessing - I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV).

So whether I support it or not probably won't matter in the long run, because in around 39 to 40 hours it will become moot.

• This is a replacement. As such, large parts of it are going to duplicate GAR #286. This resolution is entirely dependent on a GAR #286 being repealed.
• It seems that the largest reason the resolution isn't getting repealed is because no one has a viable replacement. Hence, this. My goal is to repeal and replace GAR#286 with a better resolution. That's a much easier pill to swallow then just repeal. Furthermore, I'm going to propose another Repeal of Reproductive Freedoms in awhile. I'd just like to get the replacement written first.
• I politely ask again, for my records--Do you stand in support or opposition to my proposal? I'd really like to know.

[Attempted Socialism]

OOC:

4. Not entirely sure. Would you support it, though?

If hypothetically RF was to be repealed and I wasn't certain something like it could take its place? Perhaps. Non-hypothetically? No, because as it currently is, I'm not going to change my vote on the repeal of RF, to get a weaker resolution in place. Sorry, but when winning 5:1 (Or just thereabouts) is not when I'm weakening my position.

[United Massachusetts]

OOC:

4. Not entirely sure. Would you support it, though?

If hypothetically RF was to be repealed and I wasn't certain something like it could take its place? Perhaps. Non-hypothetically? No, because as it currently is, I'm not going to change my vote on the repeal of RF, to get a weaker resolution in place. Sorry, but when winning 5:1 (Or just thereabouts) is not when I'm weakening my position.

Not on this resolution. If there was another resolution entirely to repeal Reproductive Freedoms, you would not vote for it if this was to be put in place as a replacement? You prefer RF to this, correct?

[Attempted Socialism]

OOC:

OOC:If hypothetically RF was to be repealed and I wasn't certain something like it could take its place? Perhaps. Non-hypothetically? No, because as it currently is, I'm not going to change my vote on the repeal of RF, to get a weaker resolution in place. Sorry, but when winning 5:1 (Or just thereabouts) is not when I'm weakening my position.

Not on this resolution. If there was another resolution entirely to repeal Reproductive Freedoms, you would not vote for it if this was to be put in place as a replacement? You prefer RF to this, correct?

That is indeed correct. To consider voting for this (Knowing that while it contains small improvement over not having RF at all, it also opens the floodgates to limits on abortion rights), RF would have to be repealed and a replacement in the same spirit failed.

[Thyerata]

Well, at least the paper is flammable

*Matthew puts the draft in the delegation's personal incinerator*

[Calladan]

While I have commented previously, that was before I was about to go out for lunch. Now that I have returned, I can do a more in depth analysis, although you might not..... appreciate the results.

(I may have done some reformatting in the box - I haven't changed any text, just the format, I promise!)

Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, the following terms:

• abortion the intentional termination of a pregnancy prior to or during the process of birth
• abortion provider as a medically-licensed professional who provides abortions
• abortion clinic as any medical facility which provides abortion services

While I have no problems with these terms, it does possibly lead to some questions in later clauses.

Mandates that member nations provide sufficient legal protections against targeted and violent action against women who seek abortions, abortion providers, or anyone involved in the process thereof,

The phrase "targeted and violent action" - does that mean the action has to be both targeted AND violent, or can it be targeted or violent, before it qualifies to be actionable under this Clause? Action ca be suitably intimidating without being violent, and if the purpose of this is to provide a safe space for women (and especially young women and girls) who have made the decision to get an abortion where they can be free from picketers and abuse then it is important to make clear that any targeted action would be actionable, not just violent action.

Prohibits member nations from jailing, charging, or otherwise punishing by law women who seek abortions for said action,

While I realise this is just playing with semantics, the phrase "women who seek abortions" suggests the possibility that women who HAVE abortions can be charged, jailed or otherwise punished by law. And while I am sure that was not your intention when you wrote that, the way it is currently phrased leaves it wide open to abuse.

Further more (and this is where the definitions come in to question) - if for any reason a woman tries to perform an abortion at home, and is discovered and is admitted to hospital, would she be covered under this Clause as well? Because while safe and legal abortions should cut down on the number of women who either try "at home" abortions or look for "back-alley" abortions, I don't think such women should be punished for doing so.

Prohibits member nations from placing unduly and unneeded restrictions on the functioning of abortion clinics necessary to the implementation of the mandates of prior, unrepealed legislation, to the level at which a safe, legal abortion becomes more difficult to obtain,

Yeah, I have read this Clause twelve times and I am not sure what it is trying to achieve.

Is it trying to prevent governments from legislating abortion clinics out of existence with red tape because of requirements of previous resolutions?
Does it take in to account any legislation that has nothing to do with previous resolutions? Can governments place undue (note - I am pretty sure it should be "undue" not "unduly" but that is beside the point) and unneeded restrictions on abortion clinics if said restrictions are not related to "prior, unrepealed legislation"?

Prohibits any abortion procedure from being carried out without the informed consent of the person seeking an abortion, or, if said person is unable to make a conscious, informed decision, said person's next-in-kin,

I am still a tad concerned about the phrasing of this. A 14 year old girl might have reasons for wanting an abortion without her parents finding out. It is not beyond reason a 10 year old girl might be in the same situation. I would argue that as long as she has a responsible adult with her (and for me a responsible adult is one she trusts, who is either in a position of authority, like a teacher, or a social worker, or even a priest/pastor/vicar, or a relative or family member. And who, obviously, is an adult) then that should be enough. There are, sometimes, very good reasons for leaving the next of kin out of it.

Urges member nations to provide relevant contraceptive access, sexual education, adoptive services, and welfare services to women, so as to reduce the number of unneeded abortions,

As long as this is not a mandatory requirement (as in someone who wants an abortion is not required to be pontificated at on her life choices) I can accept this. Abortion should be safe, it should be legal and it should be a lot less common.

Reserves member nations the right to legislate on the issue of abortion, subject to the mandates of both this resolution and prior, unrepealed legislation.

I assume this devolves the decision about when to allow abortion (GAR #128 not withstanding) to the nations? While I admit I am less than happy with this (from a personal point of view) I can live with it from a government point of view. Because if I am unhappy with the more conservative nations enforcing their morals on me, then I have to accept if a new resolution is going to pass it would most likely prevent me from enforcing my morals on them. (Even though I am clearly right and they are clearly wrong!! Just kidding )

On the topic of whether I can support this or not, I am going to have to reserve judgement. In the same way that a first draft of a script for a TV show or film doesn't reflect the final, finished product, I am really not able to say if I can support a proposal until I see the finished product that comes to a vote. And while I realise that is not what you want to hear, it is the best I can do for now. Sorry.

[Ventlimer]

This is tolerable.

[Godular]

Nah.

Seriously, just be more flexible in addressing the situation within your own borders.

[Serrus]

I honestly prefer Calladan's attempt, but this will work.

[Attempted Socialism]

OOC:

Prohibits member nations from placing unduly and unneeded restrictions on the functioning of abortion clinics necessary to the implementation of the mandates of prior, unrepealed legislation, to the level at which a safe, legal abortion becomes more difficult to obtain,

Yeah, I have read this Clause twelve times and I am not sure what it is trying to achieve.

Is it trying to prevent governments from legislating abortion clinics out of existence with red tape because of requirements of previous resolutions?
Does it take in to account any legislation that has nothing to do with previous resolutions? Can governments place undue (note - I am pretty sure it should be "undue" not "unduly" but that is beside the point) and unneeded restrictions on abortion clinics if said restrictions are not related to "prior, unrepealed legislation"?

I read it as a prevention of e.g. the US states' TRAP laws (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers), where for example US clinics are required to have beds, agreements with local hospitals and be able to move gurneys through all hallways, even though they were essentially just doctors office space plus examination rooms. This, of course, meant they had to move to new and more expensive facilities, or close. Most closed.
If you watch the John Oliver episode on abortion, they mention this fairly in depth, and google "texas abortion closed mexico" for a truly horrifying number of news stories about it as well.

[Fauxia]

I'm pro-life and support this.

[Prydania]

Ambassador Toft rolls his eyes.
"The previous attempt to repeal GA 286 isn't even finished it's spectacular death spiral and we're already having the debate about the next attempt from the fringe?"

"I want the delegation from United Massachusetts to know that GA 286 is widely, almost unanimously, supported in these halls. As such? There is no reason to compromise. Your side is a fringe minority. The vast, substantial, majority is under NO obligation to support your 'moderate' proposal. The sooner you accept this as a settled issue the sooner we can all move on to other topics demanding this body's attention."

[Old Hope]

Ambassador Toft rolls his eyes.
"The previous attempt to repeal GA 286 isn't even finished it's spectacular death spiral and we're already having the debate about the next attempt from the fringe?"

"I want the delegation from United Massachusetts to know that GA 286 is widely, almost unanimously, supported in these halls. As such? There is no reason to compromise. Your side is a fringe minority. The vast, substantial, majority is under NO obligation to support your 'moderate' proposal. The sooner you accept this as a settled issue the sooner we can all move on to other topics demanding this body's attention."

Hmm I am pretty sure it is failing yet again because some highly endorsed WA delegates stacked against it. A repeal will pass if several big delegates stack for it and the opposers forget to stack. But right now, with many delegate positions being hold by anti-life people? Not likely.

[Essu Beti]

Hmm I am pretty sure it is failing yet again because some highly endorsed WA delegates stacked against it. A repeal will pass if several big delegates stack for it and the opposers forget to stack. But right now, with many delegate positions being hold by anti-life people? Not likely.

OOC: Actually even if you ignore delegates and just look at individual nations, there are over three time more Againsts than Fors. Also any proposal will pass if the pros vote for it and the antis forget to vote.

[Imperium Anglorum]

People consistently overestimate the ability of large delegates to simply vote on some personal basis. Well, or probably more likely, they refuse to consider that delegates are in most regions accountable to some body or group which must maintain their confidence in the quality of their representation.

The ability for large delegates to manipulate or change their constituents is quite limited from to the chilling effect of doing so, meaning they will soon no longer be large delegates. Most large delegates then have their legal positions contingent on maintaining the confidence of their constituents. This fantasy that all votes are controlled by some WA elite™ is escapism.

[Dorran]

Ambassador Toft rolls his eyes.
"The previous attempt to repeal GA 286 isn't even finished it's spectacular death spiral and we're already having the debate about the next attempt from the fringe?"

"I want the delegation from United Massachusetts to know that GA 286 is widely, almost unanimously, supported in these halls. As such? There is no reason to compromise. Your side is a fringe minority. The vast, substantial, majority is under NO obligation to support your 'moderate' proposal. The sooner you accept this as a settled issue the sooner we can all move on to other topics demanding this body's attention."

Hmm I am pretty sure it is failing yet again because some highly endorsed WA delegates stacked against it. A repeal will pass if several big delegates stack for it and the opposers forget to stack. But right now, with many delegate positions being hold by anti-life people? Not likely.

Have you checked the actual individual vote numbers? Those stand at about 25% for the appeal, 75% against. Even ignoring the delegate votes, there seems to be very little desire to repeal GA 248.

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: Actually even if you ignore delegates and just look at individual nations, there are over three time more Againsts than Fors.

OOC: How many of them are genuine and how many of them are a result of the Lemming Effect?

[WA Kitty Kops]

People consistently overestimate the ability of large delegates to simply vote on some personal basis. Well, or probably more likely, they refuse to consider that delegates are in most regions accountable to some body or group which must maintain their confidence in the quality of their representation.

OOC: Considering that you yourself often threaten with an against-vote with the superdelegate status of over 200 votes to your name, because someone uses italics in their proposal, I think we're well within reason to expect the major delegate players to be self-serving despots (not quite the right word I wanted for this effect, but I can't think of a better one, and it's not meant as a negative comment on you as player but rather your "character" of a regional delegate) who vote based on their own whims.

[States of Glory WA Office]

People consistently overestimate the ability of large delegates to simply vote on some personal basis. Well, or probably more likely, they refuse to consider that delegates are in most regions accountable to some body or group which must maintain their confidence in the quality of their representation.

OOC: Considering that you yourself often threaten with an against-vote with the superdelegate status of over 200 votes to your name, because someone uses italics in their proposal, I think we're well within reason to expect the major delegate players to be self-serving despots (not quite the right word I wanted for this effect, but I can't think of a better one, and it's not meant as a negative comment on you as player but rather your "character" of a regional delegate) who vote based on their own whims.

OOC: Any WA-illiterate (for want of a better term) superdelegate who doesn't see it fit to hire an experienced WA advisor has no business casting hundreds of votes. That goes for both autocrats who vote on a whim and anarchists who vote based on majority polls of the uninformed masses in offsite forums.