NationStates

The Palentine wrote:<snip>

"An interesting cover, senator. You have certainly put your own spin upon the original."

"To the authoring delegation: in the definition clause, we think it prudent to add the word 'device' lest these mandates be weak or loopholeable: '...a method, device, or procedure that is generally used...'"

Picairn wrote:The current consensus in Picairn's Parliament is Support, though we will only vote "For" once the delegate of Stellonia improves his resolution.

"What improvements do you desire?"

OOC: This is your last call to recommend any edits to the draft. I intend to submit this by Monday.

"Only polishing work, as recommended by other nations, are needed. Carry on, Ambassador. We will vote For once you submit the proposal."

Picairn wrote:"Only polishing work, as recommended by other nations, are needed. Carry on, Ambassador. We will vote For once you submit the proposal."

"We have made incorporated all of the recommendations made by other ambassadors into the draft."

“I have no objections - full support.”

Article 4: "Member states are encouraged to do X, Y and Z."
Article 5: "The World Health Authority is required to do X, Y and Z in all member states."
Article 7: "Member states cannot stop the WHA from doing X, Y, and Z."

Since when has the World Assembly interpreted "ENCOURAGES" to be a requirement, rather than a polite suggestion? Opposed.

I have a few thoughts:

To standardise the formatting, I would change the list to be numbered in Arabic, not Roman, numerals.

compelling individuals to either use or abstain from using birth control,

This would, as I read it, categorically ban member states from engaging in forced sterilisation practices? Good, good.

address any stigma against birth control that may exist among their citizens;

This isn't something many nations, United Massachusetts included, can tolerate. We are willing to ensure that birth control is legalised and available, but we don't think member nations, or the World Assembly for that matter, have an obligation to educate against moral stigmas, particularly if they are on a religious basis. We could definitely see the case for requiring nations to educate against mistruths, but it is not the role of a nation or of the World Assembly to actively denounce the creed of a religious group as part of a campaign against "stigma."

Ensure that all individuals under their jurisdiction can easily access and afford birth control,

What of member nations who cannot afford to make this happen? It seems to me that authorising the World Health Authority to "exercise measures" to help out here doesn't offer them the ability to use funds per se. Further, I'm not sure we should offer the WHA the ability to "use funds." It feels like a bit of a cop-out for a lack of a legislative solution to birth control affordability. Perhaps there is room to pioneer partnership with NGOs.

invest resources into the further development and research of birth control,

This is not a reasonable mandate for every nation. Not all nations should be researching everything. The most efficient use of research funds is in developed nations, where there exists the research infrastructure to begin with.

As it currently stands, we are opposed to this draft for the reasons listed. This is unfortunate -- United Massachusetts would be perhaps willing to support a draft on birth control given some edits.

We question whether the category (civil rights) is the best category for this proposal.

Tinhampton wrote:Since when has the World Assembly interpreted "ENCOURAGES" to be a requirement, rather than a polite suggestion? Opposed.

"We do not see how this is an issue. If this proposal required member states to make birth control affordable, it would face objections on the basis that some member states cannot afford to do so. If you want the World Assembly to compel member states to fund birth control, you should write your own proposal to require that."

United Massachusetts wrote:To standardise the formatting, I would change the list to be numbered in Arabic, not Roman, numerals.

"We shall make this change when we submit this proposal."

This would, as I read it, categorically ban member states from engaging in forced sterilisation practices? Good, good.

"You understand correctly."

This isn't something many nations, United Massachusetts included, can tolerate. We are willing to ensure that birth control is legalised and available, but we don't think member nations, or the World Assembly for that matter, have an obligation to educate against moral stigmas, particularly if they are on a religious basis. We could definitely see the case for requiring nations to educate against mistruths, but it is not the role of a nation or of the World Assembly to actively denounce the creed of a religious group as part of a campaign against "stigma."

What of member nations who cannot afford to make this happen? It seems to me that authorising the World Health Authority to "exercise measures" to help out here doesn't offer them the ability to use funds per se. Further, I'm not sure we should offer the WHA the ability to "use funds." It feels like a bit of a cop-out for a lack of a legislative solution to birth control affordability. Perhaps there is room to pioneer partnership with NGOs.

This is not a reasonable mandate for every nation. Not all nations should be researching everything. The most efficient use of research funds is in developed nations, where there exists the research infrastructure to begin with.

"These are all recommendations, not obligations."

As it currently stands, we are opposed to this draft for the reasons listed. This is unfortunate -- United Massachusetts would be perhaps willing to support a draft on birth control given some edits.

"Our hope is that we have addressed these concerns."

Christian Democrats wrote:We question whether the category (civil rights) is the best category for this proposal.

"Which category would you prefer?"

Stellonia wrote:

Christian Democrats wrote:We question whether the category (civil rights) is the best category for this proposal.

"Which category would you prefer?"

As far as legality is concerned, it'd probably fit better into the health category.

Christian Democrats wrote:

Stellonia wrote:"Which category would you prefer?"

As far as legality is concerned, it'd probably fit better into the health category.

"We still think Civil Rights is more appropriate."

Stellonia wrote:

Christian Democrats wrote:As far as legality is concerned, it'd probably fit better into the health category.

"We still think Civil Rights is more appropriate."

I agree. The majority of the clauses in this resolution remove restrictions on people's ability to do something. To various degrees, there are aspects of Civil Rights (increasing personal liberties), health (establishing health policy), and social justice (reducing socioeconomic and developmental inequities.) The most vital clauses happen to fall under the first category.

Stellonia wrote:

This isn't something many nations, United Massachusetts included, can tolerate. We are willing to ensure that birth control is legalised and available, but we don't think member nations, or the World Assembly for that matter, have an obligation to educate against moral stigmas, particularly if they are on a religious basis. We could definitely see the case for requiring nations to educate against mistruths, but it is not the role of a nation or of the World Assembly to actively denounce the creed of a religious group as part of a campaign against "stigma."

What of member nations who cannot afford to make this happen? It seems to me that authorising the World Health Authority to "exercise measures" to help out here doesn't offer them the ability to use funds per se. Further, I'm not sure we should offer the WHA the ability to "use funds." It feels like a bit of a cop-out for a lack of a legislative solution to birth control affordability. Perhaps there is room to pioneer partnership with NGOs.

This is not a reasonable mandate for every nation. Not all nations should be researching everything. The most efficient use of research funds is in developed nations, where there exists the research infrastructure to begin with.

"These are all recommendations, not obligations."

1. I don't think we should be encouraging member nations to embark on campaigns to attack religiously-based stigma against contraceptive use. In any case, the WHA, which you require to do just that, should not either -- it is one thing to educate about the efficacy and safety of condoms, but it is not the place of a health regulatory body to argue that contraceptive use is morally good. We would prefer 4.c and 5.d to be re-written in reference to education about the facts of contraceptive use, rather than some "campaign against stigma"
   
   
2. Once again, the World Health Authority's funds are not a bottomless pit. Is there a more creative way to secure funding for implementation of these plans in developed nations? Could it be possible to partner with non-governmental organisations in some way?
   
   
3. Fair enough with regards to research. I misread.

OOC: It's so late that the sun has come up, so I'm too tired for IC. Some comments.

Stellonia wrote:RECOGNIZING that birth control can reduce the rate of abortion without diminishing or restricting individuals’ ability to obtain an abortion, and

Are you still trying to sabotage this while pretending you're totally pro-birth control? Leave any mention of abortion out of this.

BELIEVING that the right to use birth control enables individuals and families to exercise greater control over their lives, while simultaneously

UNDERSTANDING that some citizens and governments of member states find birth control to be objectionable, but nevertheless

HOLDING that the improvements provided by the legality and availability of birth control outweigh these objections,

These make very little sense together. The understanding clause should be rewritten, because you're basically saying "I know what your beliefs are, but fuck your beliefs, this is now gonna be the law". Also, "greater control over their lives" sounds... weird. I mean, it's technically true, but it again reads as if you were really not trying to pass this, but were just pretending to. Family planning is not all about "control". It's a proven way to prevent poverty (having more children than you can afford to provide good lives for), to provide planned children with better living conditions and more attention paid to them by their parents (imagine being a middle child in a brood of 17 , versus one in a series of siblings numbering only three) which usually means the child getting help and emotional support necessary for normal development. And so forth. If you're really serious about this, research your subject better.

DEFINES birth control, for the sole purpose of interpreting and enforcing this resolution, as "a method, device, or procedure that is generally used for the primary purpose of intentionally reducing or eliminating the likelihood that a sexual act results in conception";

This still classifies abstinence as birth control, so a nation that didn't want to bother with this, could claim compliance simply by allowing people to choose to not have sex.

REQUIRES member states to

legally permit the development, research, production, and distribution of birth control under their jurisdiction,

You can drop the "legally", because if you require member states to permit something, then it is legal to do that something, because not permitting it would mean breaking the WA law. Also, given these first three subclauses have all the "legally permit" as starter, consider list in a list, or two separate requires clauses? Repetition tells you your form needs improving.

legally permit the access and use of temporary forms of birth control by individuals under their jurisdiction,

legally permit the access and use of permanent and potentially irrevocable forms of birth control by individuals of legal majority under their jurisdiction,

Why is there an age limit?

hold pharmaceutical drugs used as birth control to the same legal and regulatory standards as other pharmaceutical drugs, and

hold procedures used as birth control to the same legal and regulatory standards as other procedures;

These are rife for abuse as is, by nations not very willing to permit birth control. Taken together with the "requires ... permit ... access and use", it's also dangerously close to internal contradiction. Adding "of similar nature" or something like that to the end of each might be in order. I mean, birth control drugs are usually hormonal (local or systemic), so slamming them with stricter law than other hormones (say, for example, the side-effects that do not have to do with reproduction), would be in accordance with this, but totally against the spirit. And vasectomy is usually done under local anesthesia and not necessarily in a fully kitted operation room, but a nation might mandate that it must be done under general anesthesia and in the nation's only hospital accredited to do urological surgeries, or whatever, which would make it horribly difficult to get one, and also dangerous (because general anesthesia is always dangerous).

Do you see what I mean?

PROHIBITS member states from

compelling individuals to either use or abstain from using birth control,

Given that condoms definitely count for this, requiring someone to use a condom when they still have the possibility to pass on a seriously deadly disease (RL example, ebola or HIV), is definitely something nations should be allowed to require people to do.

imposing laws or regulations that have the effect of preventing individuals under their jurisdiction from accessing and using birth control, and

Again skirting with internal contradiction, given the previous clauses. And even then you might want to think of a wording that allows nations to prevent an individual from accessing a given form of birth control, just not all of them. Your II.C. allows nations to restrict permanent birth control methods to adults. Yet this clause seems to prohibit nations from doing so. Certainly teens should be allowed condoms and if doctor okays it, hormonal methods too, but if your intent is allowing nations to withhold them vasectomies or tubal litigations before they've turned adults, then this one needs some changing, since "regulation ... preventing ... from accessing and using birth control" is very much what an age limit on a vasectomy is.

prohibiting speech and activism on the basis that such speech or activism promotes or relates to birth control;

Have you checked the free speech resolution? It allows some restrictions. You can't give a blanket ban on any restrictions, without likely contradicting that one. Also "activism that relates to birth control" also equals "stabbing condom packages with needles and then passing them on as freebies", so be very careful with this one.

ENCOURAGES member states to

Ensure that all individuals under their jurisdiction can easily access and afford birth control,

Again, all forms of it or any that works?

incorporate education regarding birth control into their educational curricula, and

Isn't there a resolution that already does this?

address any stigma against birth control that may exist among their citizens;

Address =/= do something to eliminate it. This, again, sounds like you're not really serious about this and just pretend that you are.

REQUIRES the World Health Authority to

invest resources into the further development and research of birth control,

Why? Why not make this the nations' task? Remember that all committees draw their money from the whole of the WA - I don't entirely see a reason for why non-human nations should fork over money for the development of human birth control methods, or vice versa.

ensure that all individuals under the jurisdiction of member states can easily access and afford birth control,

So are the nations doing it or the WA? And how would WHA even do that? By, again, forking over money? So let's say Araraukar decides to save on its health budget costs and stops providing all this on its own. The WHA steps in and does it and pays for it, drawing from all the WA nations (Araraukar included, but its part of the pot would diminish by a great deal), and thus Araraukar is compliant with the earlier requirement, since the WHA is ensuring that happens, it means Araraukar is covered. Budget savings, wheee! Now multiply the problem with 20k WA nations.

ensure that all individuals under the jurisdiction of member states can easily access education regarding effective use of birth control, and

Again, 1. already done by an existing resolution and 2. why tell the nations to do this at all if the WA is going to do it? Like seriously, these both work fine as mandates to the nation, leave the WHA out of them.

educate against any stigma against birth control that may exist within member states;

WHA is not an educational committee. Make the nations do this, don't involve the committee.

PERMITS the World Health Authority to exercise measures that it reasonably deems necessary to accomplish these purposes; and

Blanket permissions to do whatever they want, to committees, are considered overreach. If you have no bloody idea how this would work, don't put it in. If you do, put in the details. In detail.

PROHIBITS member states from obstructing any of the actions performed by the World Health Authority in accordance with this resolution.

Again, why you need the committee at all? Make the nations do all of it, so you don't need to worry about them obstructing a committee. And besides, if someone's going to go for blatant noncompliance, they're not going to listen no matter how many clauses of "you must do this" you put in.

Overall, good idea, slightly badly executed, author needs to do more research on the subject.

United Massachusetts wrote:

1. I don't think we should be encouraging member nations to embark on campaigns to attack religiously-based stigma against contraceptive use. In any case, the WHA, which you require to do just that, should not either -- it is one thing to educate about the efficacy and safety of condoms, but it is not the place of a health regulatory body to argue that contraceptive use is morally good. We would prefer 4.c and 5.d to be re-written in reference to education about the facts of contraceptive use, rather than some "campaign against stigma"

"Nobody said anything about attacking anyone, Ambassador. But even if they had, you would still be wrong on this question. It is absolutely the proper role of any agency concerned with public health to advocate for things that advance public health. In this case, pregnancies (to say nothing of sexually transmitted illnesses) among people ill-prepared for them are bad for public health and for society generally. Therefore normalization of things that prevent them is squarely in the WHA's wheelhouse, and ought to be on the agenda of member states as well."

"To be clear, nobody is saying that the WHA or member states should tell people that bronze age tribesmen have nothing useful to say about sexual behavior to an interconnected global civilization; the fact that they don't is irrelevant and outside the scope of any possible WA resolution. But governments and the WA have a valid interest in helping their people understand that there is in fact nothing shameful, dishonorable, bad, evil, or wrong about using contraceptives. The alternative to spending time and money on campaigns to advance this agenda is a deliberate sabotage of public health and of the best interests of member states' inhabitants."

"Imagine if there was a global pandemic of a disease that was virulently transmitted through breathing air close to those who are infected. Imagine further there is some major religious group with a taboo on covering up one's face. Would the WHA then have some duty to refrain from arguing against the stigma of wearing protective facemasks? I stipulate that pregnancy is not a pandemic disease, Dr. Malthus notwithstanding; but the difference is in degree, not kind. Where public health is concerned, public health agencies have a duty to educate their people not to be ashamed of doing things to protect their health."

Araraukar wrote:OOC: It's so late that the sun has come up, so I'm too tired for IC. Some comments.

OOC: I appreciate it. Get some sleep though — it's more important than this proposal.

Are you still trying to sabotage this while pretending you're totally pro-birth control? Leave any mention of abortion out of this.

This is a baseless insinuation, and I would appreciate it greatly if you were to drop it.

These make very little sense together. The understanding clause should be rewritten, because you're basically saying "I know what your beliefs are, but fuck your beliefs, this is now gonna be the law".

Alternatively, it could be read as "I know what your beliefs are, but the benefits of birth control take precedence over your beliefs." Which they should — facts ought to take precedence over feelings.

Also, "greater control over their lives" sounds... weird. I mean, it's technically true, but it again reads as if you were really not trying to pass this, but were just pretending to. Family planning is not all about "control". It's a proven way to prevent poverty (having more children than you can afford to provide good lives for), to provide planned children with better living conditions and more attention paid to them by their parents (imagine being a middle child in a brood of 17 , versus one in a series of siblings numbering only three) which usually means the child getting help and emotional support necessary for normal development. And so forth. If you're really serious about this, research your subject better.

"Greater control over their lives" encompasses all of the reasons that someone would have for using birth control. Some people use birth control to avoid falling into poverty, but others do it because they do not wish to have a child at a certain point of their lives — which is up to them. Do you reckon that Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates stopped using birth control once they made their first billion?

This still classifies abstinence as birth control, so a nation that didn't want to bother with this, could claim compliance simply by allowing people to choose to not have sex.

This is untrue based on Articles 2D and 2E, and also the change to 2A.

You can drop the "legally", because if you require member states to permit something, then it is legal to do that something, because not permitting it would mean breaking the WA law.

OK.

Also, given these first three subclauses have all the "legally permit" as starter, consider list in a list, or two separate requires clauses? Repetition tells you your form needs improving.

I shall not implement this recommendation. It would save only two words while adding a list within a list, so it would add more complexity than simplicity.

These are rife for abuse as is, by nations not very willing to permit birth control. Taken together with the "requires ... permit ... access and use", it's also dangerously close to internal contradiction. Adding "of similar nature" or something like that to the end of each might be in order. I mean, birth control drugs are usually hormonal (local or systemic), so slamming them with stricter law than other hormones (say, for example, the side-effects that do not have to do with reproduction), would be in accordance with this, but totally against the spirit. And vasectomy is usually done under local anesthesia and not necessarily in a fully kitted operation room, but a nation might mandate that it must be done under general anesthesia and in the nation's only hospital accredited to do urological surgeries, or whatever, which would make it horribly difficult to get one, and also dangerous (because general anesthesia is always dangerous).

Do you see what I mean?

Taken into consideration.

Given that condoms definitely count for this, requiring someone to use a condom when they still have the possibility to pass on a seriously deadly disease (RL example, ebola or HIV), is definitely something nations should be allowed to require people to do.

I will add a caveat to accommodate this possibility.

imposing laws or regulations that have the effect of preventing individuals under their jurisdiction from accessing and using birth control, and

Again skirting with internal contradiction, given the previous clauses. And even then you might want to think of a wording that allows nations to prevent an individual from accessing a given form of birth control, just not all of them. Your II.C. allows nations to restrict permanent birth control methods to adults. Yet this clause seems to prohibit nations from doing so. Certainly teens should be allowed condoms and if doctor okays it, hormonal methods too, but if your intent is allowing nations to withhold them vasectomies or tubal litigations before they've turned adults, then this one needs some changing, since "regulation ... preventing ... from accessing and using birth control" is very much what an age limit on a vasectomy is.

Have you checked the free speech resolution? It allows some restrictions. You can't give a blanket ban on any restrictions, without likely contradicting that one. Also "activism that relates to birth control" also equals "stabbing condom packages with needles and then passing them on as freebies", so be very careful with this one.

"On the basis" is an important part of this clause. Stabbing condoms would be banned not on the basis that it is activism relating to birth control, but on the basis that it endangers public health and causes people to use faulty protection.

Address =/= do something to eliminate it. This, again, sounds like you're not really serious about this and just pretend that you are.

Would you rather have me drop this proposal? Other people have made this point without questioning or attacking my intentions.

Why? Why not make this the nations' task? Remember that all committees draw their money from the whole of the WA - I don't entirely see a reason for why non-human nations should fork over money for the development of human birth control methods, or vice versa.

I shall make this change, with the caveat that the WHA shall assist those nations that cannot do so themselves.

So are the nations doing it or the WA? And how would WHA even do that? By, again, forking over money? So let's say Araraukar decides to save on its health budget costs and stops providing all this on its own. The WHA steps in and does it and pays for it, drawing from all the WA nations (Araraukar included, but its part of the pot would diminish by a great deal), and thus Araraukar is compliant with the earlier requirement, since the WHA is ensuring that happens, it means Araraukar is covered. Budget savings, wheee! Now multiply the problem with 20k WA nations.

See above.

WHA is not an educational committee. Make the nations do this, don't involve the committee.

To use a real-life analogy (I assume I can do this in OOC), the World Health Organization runs public health campaigns.

Blanket permissions to do whatever they want, to committees, are considered overreach. If you have no bloody idea how this would work, don't put it in. If you do, put in the details. In detail.

Then I shall remove this clause.

Again, why you need the committee at all? Make the nations do all of it, so you don't need to worry about them obstructing a committee. And besides, if someone's going to go for blatant noncompliance, they're not going to listen no matter how many clauses of "you must do this" you put in.

"Blatant noncompliance" is prohibited by the World Assembly, even if done so in a way that is technically legal. See Article 9 of GA #2.

Overall, good idea, slightly badly executed, author needs to do more research on the subject.

I will accept that.

OOC: The fifth draft is out. The most notable change is that the recommendations posed to member states have been changed to requirements, with the caveat that the World Health Authority must assist member states in fulfilling these requirements if they cannot do so themselves.

Zodiac hovers over his chair, looking over the proposal. After a moment, he shrugs.

"Seems fine to me, but then I just got here."

Godular wrote:Zodiac hovers over his chair, looking over the proposal. After a moment, he shrugs.

"Seems fine to me, but then I just got here."

"Do you approve of Article 4? We want to know if it would be a point of contention."

Reading the proposal while floating upside down, Zodiac replies: "Siiiiiiiiiince you asked... Were it me, I'd not sweat the presence of any oversight committee to gauge whether nations are capable of fulfilling their obligations under this law. The expectation is that they'll be adhering to the other articles to the best of their ability and in the spirit that this law was intended. I'd worry that the article would be taken as an opportunity by some member nations to de facto ignore this law if they felt so inclined and let WA resources be expended in accounting for it instead.

"But again, that is just my reading and I just got here, so I'm hardly an authority on the matter. This law is one that my people would agree with in both intent and execution."

"We don't see Article 4 having that effect. The World Assembly possesses data about the financial state of each nation, so the World Health Authority would be capable of assessing whether a nation could or could not meet its obligations to expand birth control access."

OOC: I will have this submitted in about six hours from now. For me, that will be around 9:15 PM, as I live in the US Central Time Zone. If you have anything to say, please say it now.

"We have submitted the proposal."

https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1589854140

If this does come to a vote, the Holy Empire of Pope Saint Peter the Apostle will cast a vote in opposition. The use of birth control is evil in the eyes of the Lord, as outlined in the Bible. 'Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform your duty as a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother. But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord; so He took his life also.' (Genesis 38:8-10 NASB)

The Holy Empire calls upon the members of this Assembly to affirm the right of every State to make moral decisions with regards to birth control by refusing to endorse this proposed Resolution.

--Saint Gerard Majella, C.Ss.R., patron of the unborn children
Senior consuasor ad Sancti Imperium

Pope Saint Peter the Apostle wrote:The use of birth control is evil in the eyes of the Lord, as outlined in the Bible. 'Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform your duty as a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother. But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord; so He took his life also.' (Genesis 38:8-10 NASB)

"This passage refers not to birth control in general, but rather to a specific act of birth control in which Judah defied God's commandment to impregnate his brother's wife. At the present moment, God does not command us to impregnate anyone, so we do not derelict our duties by failing to do so. We add that sentiments like yours regarding birth control are the precise reason we have decided to issue this proposal."