NationStates

---

Repeal: "Reproductive Freedoms"
Category: Repeal | Target: GAR#286 | Proposed by: United Massachusetts

---

Noting that the World Assembly has a generally limited authority to enforce its mandates, and thus must remain realistically cognizant of its effectiveness,

Concerned that due to the often times deep-seated opposition many nations feel to the practice of abortion, some otherwise compliant and moderate nations have resorted to outright non-compliance with GA 286 and others to simply resigning from the World Assembly, hampering the effectiveness and authority of the World Assembly in either case,

Believing that, in enacting legislation legalising abortion on-demand, the World Assembly has overstepped its sovereign ability and thus actually hampered the cause of human rights, by advancing strong legislation where only more mild legislation would be effective,

Noting that, even on top of this, the authoring delegation themselves have acknowledged that the resolution only requires member nations to permit individuals to terminate their pregnancies, without specifying a specific means (ie. abortion) by which they are permitted to do so,

Further concerned that because 286 GA "recognises that the termination of pregnancy is a medical procedure," it permits member nations to require parental consent for any abortion procedure, as per the mandates of 29 GA § IX, thus hampering the ability of nations to protect the privacy of women seeking abortion,

Contending that there exist legitimate circumstances in which abortion should be limited, particularly in order to prevent sex-selective abortion, a practice which stands repugnant to the very values of this Assembly,

Hoping that more moderate legislation, such as the one already drafted, could serve to promote membership and compliance within this Assembly while returning to national governments the ability to restrict abortion in certain, limited circumstances,

The General Assembly does hereby repeal 286 GA, Reproductive Freedoms.

THIS IS NOT GENERAL. I WILL NOT HAVE AN ABORTION DEBATE HERE. TALK ABOUT THE DRAFT, TALK ABOUT THE ARGUMENT, BUT DON'T TURN THIS INTO EVERY OTHER THREAD LIKE IT.

Thanks in advance,
UM

Uan aa Boa wrote:Is there actually more to this than a repeal on the grounds of national sovereignty>

Also noting that beyond this, there exist legitimate circumstances in which abortion should be limited, particularly in order to prevent sex-selective abortion, a practice which stands repugnant to the very values of this Assembly,

Uan aa Boa wrote:How is this different to suggesting that human rights legislation be repealed to avoid driving repressive dictatorships out of the Assembly? Or that free trade legislation be repealed out of regard for the sensibilities of communist nations?

Is there actually more to this than a repeal on the grounds of national sovereignty>

Aclion wrote:I look forward to much constructive debate on this issue.

(Image)

Uan aa Boa wrote:How is this different to suggesting that human rights legislation be repealed to avoid driving repressive dictatorships out of the Assembly? Or that free trade legislation be repealed out of regard for the sensibilities of communist nations?

Is there actually more to this than a repeal on the grounds of national sovereignty>

Wallenburg wrote:

Uan aa Boa wrote:How is this different to suggesting that human rights legislation be repealed to avoid driving repressive dictatorships out of the Assembly? Or that free trade legislation be repealed out of regard for the sensibilities of communist nations?

Is there actually more to this than a repeal on the grounds of national sovereignty>

It is not.

Against. Good writing, though.

United Massachusetts wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:It is not.

Against. Good writing, though.

It is absolutely different.

Aclion wrote:

United Massachusetts wrote:It is absolutely different.

How?

United Massachusetts wrote:

Uan aa Boa wrote:How is this different to suggesting that human rights legislation be repealed to avoid driving repressive dictatorships out of the Assembly? Or that free trade legislation be repealed out of regard for the sensibilities of communist nations?

Is there actually more to this than a repeal on the grounds of national sovereignty>

The two are rather different. Abortion is a controversial issue on which moderate voices, who would otherwise participate fully in the WA (we have enough resolutions to basically make dictatorship and communism impossible here already), are not. There is a way to stand for human rights, and I support passing plenty of human rights legislation. But there was never any hope that pro-life nations were actually going to comply with a resolution they thought to be murder. And that appears to be the case. A recent poll taken in Right to Life found that 100% of respondents in the WA don't comply with GA 286.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=poll/p=123142

Frankly, 286 is an unproductive piece of legislation. It's not being complied with, and actually undermines the World Assembly. In short, it must be repealed, because nothing will make these nations comply or rejoin.

United Massachusetts wrote:

Hoping that more moderate legislation could serve to promote membership and compliance within this Assembly while returning to national governments the ability to restrict abortion in certain, limited circumstances

Prussian Polish Commonwealth wrote:3 4 5 times the charm?

srsly tho UM, just ditch the WA

Aclion wrote:

United Massachusetts wrote:It is absolutely different.

How?

Uan aa Boa wrote:

United Massachusetts wrote:

Hoping that more moderate legislation could serve to promote membership and compliance within this Assembly while returning to national governments the ability to restrict abortion in certain, limited circumstances

How many of those 9 opponents in Right to Life do you think would comply with a resolution that still required them to permit abortion in the majority of circumstances?

• prohibit nations from punishing women who seek abortion
• permits women to seek abortion abroad
• permits abortion in all cases established by GA 128
• prohibits "TRAP laws" for abortions in these circumstances
• blocks the WA from banning abortion or legalising it.

However, it remains quite difficult to actually legislate in a conservative manner on several key issues where the divergence between traditional conservatism and modern liberalism becomes apparent, such as abortion. In these areas, the Assembly tends to be hostile not only to a traditionally conservative approach but actively seeks to prevent member states from independently choosing a such an approach for themselves.

This is troubling because the General Assembly possess no genuine sovereignty. Member states have the right to revoke their membership at any time, nullifying the legal effect of all General Assembly resolutions. The Assembly should therefore act in a manner consistent with its limited authority and seek compromise wherever possible. For matters of significant controversy in particular, the Assembly should seek to adopt a pluralistic approach that is accommodating of diverse views.

I think abortion, as well as euthanasia and assisted suicide, are two excellent case studies for the application (and non-application) of these principles:

Abortion: For context, Catholic conservatives oppose legal abortion for two main reasons: because it frustrates the primary end of the sexual act, which is procreation; and because it constitutes the intentional killing of an innocent life in violation of the parental duty of care.

The World Assembly presently has not one, but two resolutions governing the practice of abortion (On Abortion and Reproductive Freedoms), since the first was considered to be insufficiently pro-choice. Taken together, these resolutions require member states to legalize abortion-on-demand with no restrictions and to make abortion facilities available for certain cases such as rape and fetal abnormality. Repeated attempts to repeal these resolutions in favour of a more neutral approach have failed. Such attempts continue today and show no signs of abatement. Several member states have declared that they will simply not comply with these resolutions, regardless of the consequences to their foreign relations.

This is not the model the General Assembly should follow.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide: Again, for context, Catholic conservatives oppose legal euthanasia and assisted suicide because it constitutes the intentional killing of an innocent life. Catholics recognize that our lives ultimately belong to God; we do not have the right to simply dispose of them as we see fit.

The current World Assembly legislation on euthanasia and assisted suicide is Assisted Suicide Act, which takes a neutral position on the practice and permits member states to freely regulate the practice. It requires member states to permit individuals to leave the country to be euthanized but guarantees conscience rights for physicians and prohibits the World Assembly funds for the practice. This resolution replaced an earlier resolution, Dignified End of Life Choices, which mandated legal euthanasia in all member states. As far as I know, there is no significant opposition to the current legislation and it will remain in place for the indefinite future, allowing the Assembly to direct its focus away from this contentious issue and towards more productive areas of discussion.

This is the model that the General Assembly should follow.

United Massachusetts wrote:But I'd consider a moderate legislation to do the following:

• prohibit nations from punishing women who seek abortion
• permits women to seek abortion abroad
• permits abortion in all cases established by GA 128
• prohibits "TRAP laws" for abortions in these circumstances
• blocks the WA from banning abortion or legalising it.

Uan aa Boa wrote:

United Massachusetts wrote:But I'd consider a moderate legislation to do the following:

• prohibit nations from punishing women who seek abortion
• permits women to seek abortion abroad
• permits abortion in all cases established by GA 128
• prohibits "TRAP laws" for abortions in these circumstances
• blocks the WA from banning abortion or legalising it.

There's a bit more there than is implied by the "restriction in certain limited circumstances" in your draft text. That's more like legalisation in certain limited circumstances.

And I'm not sure I care much for your assumption that your moral objections are somehow qualitatively different to the moral objections of other people.

Uan aa Boa wrote:Perhaps you should show us the proposed replacement before asking us to repeal 286 to make way for it.

United Massachusetts wrote:

Prussian Polish Commonwealth wrote:3 4 5 times the charm?

srsly tho UM, just ditch the WA

Appreciated. Can I sig that?

United Massachusetts wrote:Most, if not all, of RtLers would comply.y