NationStates

Great Nortend wrote:I ask, why is it not merely permitted for those seeking the procedure to which this bill relates to procure such a miscarriage in another nation whilst retaining a nation's right to prohibit procured miscarriages in its own lands?”

“That is currently banned by WA legislation under 286 because the vast majority of member states wish to have women’s right to bodily sovereignty upheld in all nations, like how the right to freedom of speech should be upheld in all nations. In fact, your opinion is the one currently represented in this proposal, with some necessary caveats. This draft does allow member nations to, with exceptions, decide the legal status of abortion.”

Great Nortend wrote:

The Unfounded wrote:
“And yet you are invited by the existing legislation to encourage ‘multiplication’ in such a way that the individual yet retains their agreed-upon rights. Such methodologies do exist, yet they are not even asked about, instead you bemoan the ‘hegemony’ of a wholly voluntary body-politic. If you wish to remain so close-minded and uncreative in the execution of your national ego, then I suggest you go on your merry way.”



“Stuff your emotive appeals, as you have been told multiple times already. Your mewling serves little purpose beyond reinforcing stereotypes on conservative inflexibility.”

“How very charming, Your Excellency. I do not recall any particular charter of rights that I signed when I was born; perhaps this is a World Assembly institution that I was not previously aware of?”

“If you’re a member of the world assembly, then it is agreed upon. Some might dislike the ‘agreement’ but nobody can be pleased one hundred percent of the time. Like how membership in this august body would require your nation to be more innovative in its efforts to secure its national vision. As it stands now, all I’ve heard from you is meow meow cry meow meow.”

Alexis looks under her seat. “No disrespecting the cats in the room, of course.”

"In clause 6, the second 'to', before 'make', should be removed."

"Just in case."

OOC:
No. No compromise on reproductive rights. If you want to oppress your citizens, do it outside of the World Assembly.

“The fact of the matter is that this draft doesn’t do what the purpose of 286 was. It is a replacement that doesn’t do the one thing the original legislation set out to accomplish; namely, it doesn’t guarantee access to abortion. I support this draft, and a lot of other members support this draft, but that is irrelevant. Unless there is a dramatic change to the makeup of the WA, this won’t pass. Against my principles, I advise you to focus on more productive legislation.”

United Massachusetts wrote:[Defines] "abortion" as an induced termination of pregnancy that is intended to result (or is reasonably expected to result) and that does, in fact, result in the death of one or more offspring,

OOC: Given that's an "and" list, I take it that removing some fetuses from a multiple fetus pregnancy would not be counted as an abortion, as it doesn't end the pregnancy?

[Defines] "abortion clinic" as any medical facility which provides abortion services

I know that the concept is completely foreign to USA, but over here that "abortion clinic" would be any health center or hospital, because abortions are considered a normal medical procedure and aren't separated from the rest of the healthcare services. So I'm really not happy with that designation. Could you reword it to read a medical facility specialized in abortion services? Or just, you know, drop it entirely? Only clause 5 actually uses it, and that can be reworded to refer to only the procedure, not the location (as it should be).

Due to clause 8, still no support.

I'm not sure this would be legal even if Reproductive Freedoms were repealed, as On Abortion has a sort of "reverse 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.

You'd have to take out clause 8, which would defeat the point of this being the "final say" on this issue.

We cannot abide by Clause 7. In nations that do not provide free healthcare (please correct me if there is a resolution covering such), it is not right for a nation to provide free healthcare to cover the consequences of an abortion. Any citizen that elects for an operation must be expected to handle the consequences of such an operation. In this manner, we would prefer a requirement that the risks be presented by a trained medical professional before the abortion so that a female may have full knowledge of such consequences beforehand, and weigh them accordingly. We would be willing to compromise with partial payment of subsequent operations due to consequences beyond reasonable control, but we feel it is unfair to force that burden on the government for a private citizen's choices.

In regards to the observer delegate from Great Nortend, I would like to remind you, sir, that you are an Observer. That means you do not have a voice in this assembly. You may vacate the building or silence yourself if all you are going to do is spit reprehensible drivel. It's certainly not doing you any favors, and it's not making you look attractive or knowledgeable.

My nation opposes this as abortion is illegal except in cases of incest, rape, or if the mother health is endangered.

American Pere Housh wrote:My nation opposes this as abortion is illegal except in cases of incest, rape, or if the mother health is endangered.

Not according to GAR #286 "Reproductive Freedoms", which as a member of the Assembly you are bound by. Looks like it's legal for quite some time now.

Elyreia wrote:We cannot abide by Clause 7. In nations that do not provide free healthcare (please correct me if there is a resolution covering such)

OOC: There is a resolution requiring you to provide affordable healthcare. If someone can't afford to pay anything, the healthcare must be free.

Elyreia wrote:

American Pere Housh wrote:My nation opposes this as abortion is illegal except in cases of incest, rape, or if the mother health is endangered.

Not according to GAR #286 "Reproductive Freedoms", which as a member of the Assembly you are bound by. Looks like it's legal for quite some time now.

Ok then buts all private the APH government does not provide one penny to abortion clinics.

Auralia wrote:I'm not sure this would be legal even if Reproductive Freedoms were repealed, as On Abortion has a sort of "reverse 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.

You'd have to take out clause 8, which would defeat the point of this being the "final say" on this issue.

(OOC: I don’t think that’s quite how that clause was supposed to be read. That’s about not making member states forcibly restrict abortion, not making them forcibly allow abortion. It’s just a blocker on future legislation restricting abortion.)

Araraukar wrote:OOC: There is a resolution requiring you to provide affordable healthcare. If someone can't afford to pay anything, the healthcare must be free.

OOC: Thank you. It's a long list to keep track of...

This is relevant.

I should note that this resolution does not necessitate a repeal of On Abortion. In fact, it will work with OA. Thus, abortion would remain legal in cases of rape, incest, danger to life, and foetal abnormality, at the very least.

Going further, I would even be fine with, for the sake of compromise, legalising first-trimester abortions in all member states.

"This is the best replacement we can hope for, ambassador, thus, it should get my support."

United Massachusetts wrote:I should note that this resolution does not necessitate a repeal of On Abortion. In fact, it will work with OA. Thus, abortion would remain legal in cases of rape, incest, danger to life, and foetal abnormality, at the very least.

Going further, I would even be fine with, for the sake of compromise, legalising first-trimester abortions in all member states.

If OA is indeed an anti-blocker on abortion, then this proposal would not be legal while OA remains on the books due to clause 8.

Auralia wrote:

United Massachusetts wrote:I should note that this resolution does not necessitate a repeal of On Abortion. In fact, it will work with OA. Thus, abortion would remain legal in cases of rape, incest, danger to life, and foetal abnormality, at the very least.

Going further, I would even be fine with, for the sake of compromise, legalising first-trimester abortions in all member states.

If OA is indeed an anti-blocker on abortion, then this proposal would not be legal while OA remains on the books due to clause 8.

I am not convinced it is an anti-blocker.

6. Requires member nations that legalize only the World Assembly mandatory minimum of abortion rights

IC: "As long as that bit is included, specifically the word "only", then no sane nation could support this. Which is a pity, because it is otherwise far more sane than the raving lunatics having a go at reproductive rights otherwise."

OOC: ^What she said, except for the raving lunatics remark. If you dropped the word "only", the 6th clause of the proposal would make more sense than over half the existing resolutions in the books, no matter their topic.

But I have to agree with the others that clause 8 won't mesh with the existing resolutions.

To clarify, if this replacement were to pass, pending the addition of a clause about first trimester abortions, if needed, WA policy on abortion would consist of:

• legalisation of abortion in cases of rape, incest, danger to the life of the mother, and foetal abnormality (On Abortion)
• legalisation of abortion in the first trimester (CoRR, potentially)
• protections against TRAP laws and (pending) protections against parental consent requirements for minors (CoRR)
• special requirements in health, welfare, and social services for countries that only legalise the bare minimum, and legal contraceptives (CoRR)
• legalisation of travelling abroad to seek an abortion (CoRR)
• protections against "targeted animosity" (CoRR)
• legalisation of procuring an abortion (ie. no woman seeking abortion can be penalised for it) (CoRR)
• proper medical treatment for women who have sought abortions (CoRR)
• medical standards for physicians and informed consent requirements (OA)
• ban on forcing doctors to perform abortions against their will (OA)

Compare this to WA law with RF and OA on the books:

• legalisation of all abortions, for any reason, at any point in pregnancy (RF)
• protections against TRAP laws and "targeted animosity" (RF)
• required parental consent laws (RF)
• medical standards for physicians and informed consent requirements (OA)
• ban on forcing doctors to perform abortions against their will (OA)
• permission for member states to ban travelling abroad to seek abortion (RF, by ommission)

Araraukar wrote:

6. Requires member nations that legalize only the World Assembly mandatory minimum of abortion rights

IC: "As long as that bit is included, specifically the word "only", then no sane nation could support this. Which is a pity, because it is otherwise far more sane than the raving lunatics having a go at reproductive rights otherwise."

OOC: ^What she said, except for the raving lunatics remark. If you dropped the word "only", the 6th clause of the proposal would make more sense than over half the existing resolutions in the books, no matter their topic.

But I have to agree with the others that clause 8 won't mesh with the existing resolutions.

Sure. We'll do that. Done.

“I think you should have ‘ensure’ before ‘the legal availability’ in clause 6.”