NationStates

It would be nice if Gensec reviewed this before getting to vote so we don't have to go through another legality challenge, thanks.

Repeal "Ban on Sterilisation of Minors etc"
Category: Repeal | Target: GA#472

---

The World Assembly,

Applauding its previous decision to regulate the sterilisation of minors in member-states,

Disappointed however, that the target resolution does not completely ban the sterilisation of minors even in non-emergency situations, as an IRB can still approve the sterilisation of a minor if it deems it necessary to long-term health,

Concerned that by giving the WACC prerogative to create secondary legislation, it creates dangerous precedent which might cause more resolutions in the future to allow World Assembly committees to create secondary legislation,

Observing that the target provides no guidelines as to the methods of staffing IRBs, allowing a member-state to staff its IRB with non-medical professionals,

Asserting that IRBs can delay sterilisations in cases of emergency by wasting time reviewing cases, or if they are inadequately staffed to deal with the workload given,

Cognisant that the opinion of an individual medical professional can be used to determine the necessity of a sterilisation in a more efficient manner than an IRB,

Perceiving the existence of GA#486 which renders the target superfluous and unnecessary,

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution 472, Ban on Sterilisation of Minors etc.

"Support," Linda said, not even bothering to read the actual draft. She was trying to decipher some more of miss Leveret's hand-written notes that had the look of having gone to war with a cup of hot cocoa and lost.

Do you have a counter-proposal?

Teretstein wrote:Do you have a counter-proposal?

OOC: Maowi was working on one, if he wishes to discontinue drafting it then I will write my own.

OOC
Superfluous apostrophe in the 'Applauding' line: Should be "its" rather than "it's"....

Marxist Germany wrote:Disappointed however, that the target resolution does not in fact ban the sterilisation of minors even in non-emergency situations,

OOC: Add a comma after "disappointed".

Noting the lack of definition for "incompetent persons" which can be abused by member-states with malicious intent to prevent people from undergoing sterilisation for the purposes of contraception,

I'd add "consensually" or "willingly" after "to prevent people from," and then that would let you get rid of "for the purposes of contraception" which is a bit awkward there.

Concerned by the power given to the World Assembly Compliance Commission, creating regulations and clarifications namely, which might not be popular amongst member-states, but might still be enforced because member-states cannot reject those regulations and clarifications,

Change that subclause after "World Assembly Compliance Commission" to "namely that of creating regulations and clarifications". But I don't think that's really a valid issue. The target allows the WACC to "make regulations to clarify upon and enforce this resolution." The WACC cannot go beyond the scope of the resolution, and definitely can't enact any actual policy changes, as the game wouldn't have any stat changes to reflect that. All that clause does is allow the WACC to issue regulations that explain, in practice, what compliance with that resolution would look like. There's no way it can enforce completely new laws.

Further concerned that by giving the WACC prerogative to create secondary legislation, it creates dangerous precedent which might cause more resolutions in the future to allow World Assembly committees to create secondary legislation,

I'd scratch the "by", the comma after the "legislation", and the subsequent "it", just to make it read a bit better. Anyway, same problem as above. Also, I'd think the ship has sailed in terms of precedent for legality. I don't think repealing it would change anything there.

Worried that the vagueness of the undefined term, that is "long-term health", can be abused by allows member-states to sterilise minors citing reasons such as prevention of cancer in the genitalia, which can be deemed as a long-term health benefit "long-term health benefits" by the Institutional Review Board,

This clause is awkward, I'd rephrase it as shown. And I also think it's invalid. The Institutional Review Board must deem the sterilisation necessary for the minor's long-term health: not just a benefit, not just a potential necessity in the future, but absolutely necessary - i.e. to deal with a health problem that is definitely or will definitely threaten the minor's long-term health.

Further observing that IRBs can delay sterilisations in cases of emergency by wasting time reviewing cases, or if they are inadequately staffed to deal with the workload given,

... that just seems like blatant bad faith "compliance" to me.

Edit:

Marxist Germany wrote:OOC: Maowi was working on one, if he wishes to discontinue drafting it then I will write my own.

I have a draft on forced sterilisation which would work with IA's resolution in place. I might bump it later today and write a version for how it would be without IA's resolution, just in case this passes. (Also - "she".)

"I have made several edits to this proposal, namely the ones suggested by the Maowese ambassador. In light of the passage of GA#486, the target resolution has been rendered useless, and should thus be repealed."

Marxist Germany wrote:"I have made several edits to this proposal, namely the ones suggested by the Maowese ambassador. In light of the passage of GA#486, the target resolution has been rendered useless, and should thus be repealed."

"On the contrary - GAR 486 complements GAR 472 perfectly and the two only provide comprehensive coverage of the issue in tandem. Repealing the latter would hamper the effectiveness of the former."

Maowi wrote:

Marxist Germany wrote:"I have made several edits to this proposal, namely the ones suggested by the Maowese ambassador. In light of the passage of GA#486, the target resolution has been rendered useless, and should thus be repealed."

"On the contrary - GAR 486 complements GAR 472 perfectly and the two only provide comprehensive coverage of the issue in tandem. Repealing the latter would hamper the effectiveness of the former."

"I am of the opinion that GA#472 does not cover any issues not already covered within #486."

Marxist Germany wrote:

Maowi wrote:"On the contrary - GAR 486 complements GAR 472 perfectly and the two only provide comprehensive coverage of the issue in tandem. Repealing the latter would hamper the effectiveness of the former."

"I am of the opinion that GA#472 does not cover any issues not already covered within #486."

"And I am not. While GAR 486 prevents Institutional Review Boards from engaging in misconduct in terms of approving, or not, the sterilisation of a legally incompetent individual, it is GAR 472 that mandates that only IRBs may grant approval of such a sterilisation in the first place. That is the substance of the issue of sterilisation of minors. Repealing it would remove vital legislation on the topic."

"Barfleur supports this repeal. As long as civil rights legislation only applies to "mentally competent" people, it is very possible for governments to abuse this loophole and oppress anyone they see fit. No one should be sterilized against their will, even if they are not in their right mind. What's next, legalizing slavery for "mentally incompetent" people?"

OOC: Yes, I know the last sentence is a slippery slope. Ambassador MacGeorge just wanted to make a point.

Barfleur wrote:"Barfleur supports this repeal. As long as civil rights legislation only applies to "mentally competent" people, it is very possible for governments to abuse this loophole and oppress anyone they see fit. No one should be sterilized against their will, even if they are not in their right mind. What's next, legalizing slavery for "mentally incompetent" people?"

"Ambassador, that makes ... no sense. The target of this repeal expressly makes illegal the sterilisation of incompetent people, barring medical necessity, which is the opposite of what you are apparently claiming it does."

Maowi wrote:

Barfleur wrote:"Barfleur supports this repeal. As long as civil rights legislation only applies to "mentally competent" people, it is very possible for governments to abuse this loophole and oppress anyone they see fit. No one should be sterilized against their will, even if they are not in their right mind. What's next, legalizing slavery for "mentally incompetent" people?"

"Ambassador, that makes ... no sense. The target of this repeal expressly makes illegal the sterilisation of incompetent people, barring medical necessity, which is the opposite of what you are apparently claiming it does."

"How is it a medical necessity to sterilize someone against their will? What's to stop a nation from filling its IRB will people with no medical qualifications, who will allow anyone the government doesn't like to be forcibly sterilized? Repealing (and hopefully replacing) this resolution is the only way to prevent unspeakable abuses."

Barfleur wrote:

Maowi wrote:"Ambassador, that makes ... no sense. The target of this repeal expressly makes illegal the sterilisation of incompetent people, barring medical necessity, which is the opposite of what you are apparently claiming it does."

"How is it a medical necessity to sterilize someone against their will? What's to stop a nation from filling its IRB will people with no medical qualifications, who will allow anyone the government doesn't like to be forcibly sterilized? Repealing (and hopefully replacing) this resolution is the only way to prevent unspeakable abuses."

"The idea here is not to sterilise people against their will, but to make sure that should a medical emergency occur for someone legally unable to give consent to the procedure, and the safest, best way of solving that emergency resulted in their sterilisation, they would be able to be given the treatment necessary. And the situation you have just described is certainly not "certifying after review the necessity of the sterilisation for their long-term health". It is non-compliance."

“I don’t think ‘Repeals’ should be capitalised in the last line.”

Kenmoria wrote:“I don’t think ‘Repeals’ should be capitalised in the last line.”

"Subsequently fixed."

Barfleur wrote:"How is it a medical necessity to sterilize someone against their will?"

IC: "Have you never heard of cancer in the gonads? A person unable to understand the seriousness of cancer or the consequences of the removal of the gonads, is also unable to give consent to the procedure that is the first part of a lifesaving course of treatments. Or would you prefer they be left to die rather than give them a fighting chance at a long life by providing them with the appropriate treatments?"

OOC: Not the only example I could provide, but definitely the one with least amount of gore involved in the explanation.

"I will be submitting this in the next few days if there are no objections pertaining to its legality or content."

“I think there should be an ‘a’ before ‘dangerous precedent’ in the ‘concerned’ clause. Other than that, I have nothing to add. This looks to be good for submission.”

"Would you care to address the gaping hole repealing this resolution would leave? I do not appreciate being ignored, ambassador."

Maowi wrote:

Marxist Germany wrote:"I am of the opinion that GA#472 does not cover any issues not already covered within #486."

"And I am not. While GAR 486 prevents Institutional Review Boards from engaging in misconduct in terms of approving, or not, the sterilisation of a legally incompetent individual, it is GAR 472 that mandates that only IRBs may grant approval of such a sterilisation in the first place. That is the substance of the issue of sterilisation of minors. Repealing it would remove vital legislation on the topic."

I fully agree with Maowi.

Maowi wrote:"Would you care to address the gaping hole repealing this resolution would leave? I do not appreciate being ignored, ambassador."

Maowi wrote:"And I am not. While GAR 486 prevents Institutional Review Boards from engaging in misconduct in terms of approving, or not, the sterilisation of a legally incompetent individual, it is GAR 472 that mandates that only IRBs may grant approval of such a sterilisation in the first place. That is the substance of the issue of sterilisation of minors. Repealing it would remove vital legislation on the topic."

"Apologies for missing that portion of your criticism, it seems I was a bit unfocused when reading the transcripts. In my opinion, clause 4 of GA#486, which reads as follows:

implies that the WACC must ensure that approvals of sterilisations of minors or other non-legally competent persons may only occur if it is necessary for long-term health. It should thus cover any issues in that regard."

"The clause specified does not state that sterilisations of minors require any sort of external approval to take place, whether from IRBs or other sources."

Maowi wrote:"The clause specified does not state that sterilisations of minors require any sort of external approval to take place, whether from IRBs or other sources."

"From my reading I have discerned that the following:

Is a requirement that addresses your issue."

Marxist Germany wrote:"From my reading I have discerned that the following:

to ensure that sterilisations of minors or other non-legally competent peope are approved if and only if the necessity of sterilisation for the long-term health of that person has been certified;

Is a requirement that addresses your issue."

"Congratulations for ripping this from all context entirely. It is only mandated that decisions by IRBs be overseen, not all decisions on the matter ever. Currently, the two are equivalent. If you repeal the target, they will not be equivalent."