[Drafting Still] Maternity and Childcare Support

[Godular]

Zodiac steps up to the podium and taps the mike a couple times. "Well, I've never done this before, but when in doubt, go all-out, right? So I have a thing here, and I want to gauge the degree of interest and feasibility."

He holds up a document:

Maternity and Childcare Support
Category: Social Justice

---

The World Assembly,

COGNIZANT of the fact that many abortions are performed because of the impact that such a pregnancy would have upon one's economic and educational circumstances, in addition to any medical or psychological ramifications, and that the costs of childcare are often seen as prohibitive with unplanned pregnancies;

RESOLVED to put forward some means by which member states may ameliorate the financial ramifications of unplanned pregnancies, which are often among the root causes of the need for abortion services;

Hereby mandates the following:

1. Pregnancy-Related Healthcare: Members must provide options for cost-free health care for all health issues and procedures related to pregnancy. This includes means taken to prevent pregnancy, such as contraceptive medication and surgery.
   
2. Child-Related Healthcare: Members must provide options for cost-free pediatric healthcare for children up to the point of adolescence at minimum.
   
3. Childcare: Childcare service options must be available cost-free to parents engaged in occupational or educational pursuits.
   
4. Welfare: Members must enact policies providing expanded welfare support options to households. These support options must include at minimum:
   
   1. Cost-free parental training courses.
   2. Cost-free psychological therapy both for parent and child as needed.
   3. Social Services as needed.
   4. Financial assistance specifically directed towards cost-of-living expenses for children, focusing on food, clothing, and essential household items.
   Such welfare supports can and should remain subject to any currently established eligibility requirements.

Supporting At-Risk Households
Category: Social Justice

---

The World Assembly,

COGNIZANT of the fact that many abortions are performed because of the impact that such a pregnancy would have upon one's economic and educational circumstances, in addition to any medical or psychological ramifications, and that the costs of childcare are often seen as prohibitive with unplanned pregnancies;

RESOLVED to put forward some means by which member states may ameliorate the financial ramifications of unplanned pregnancies, which are often among the root causes of the need for abortion services;

Hereby enacts the following:

1. Definitions. In this resolution,
   
   1. Pregnancy-Related Health Care means any form of health care pertaining to a person's pregnancy, inclusive of diagnostic, surgical, and pharmaceutical extents, as well as childbirth and any other means of ending a pregnancy.
      
   2. Welfare Support means any form of financial assistance afforded to households so as to remedy any financial or psychological strain that At-Risk Households might experience with the result of an unplanned pregnancy, including child-care services, pediatric health care, tax relief, subsidies and any other services deemed appropriate. This is in addition to any extant welfare supports that might already be in place, unless such measures are already accounted for.
      
   3. At-Risk Household means any family that is experiencing circumstances that could lead to potential financial, psychological, or physiological detriment to the parent(s) due to pregnancy- or child-related circumstances. As a result of these conditions, the parent(s) involved are considered at-risk of choosing to terminate the pregnancy.
2. Mandates:
   1. Healthcare: Members must enact policies enabling Pregnancy-Related Healthcare Services to be offered free-of-charge to At-Risk Households.
      
   2. Welfare: Members must enact policies providing Welfare Support options to At-Risk Households. Such supports can and should remain subject to any currently established eligibility requirements.
      
   3. Funding: Resources from the World Assembly General Fund shall be utilized to address the needs of any nations that are verifiably unable to financially adhere to the mandates presented in this legislation.

CHANGELOG 1: Tinhampton's recommendations partially incorporated
CHANGELOG 2: Kenmoria’s correction incorporated
CHANGELOG 3: Separatist People's corrections/recommendations incorporated.
CHANGELOG 4: New Title, lemme know what ya think
CHANGELOG 5: New Category, per Kenmoria
CHANGELOG 6: Per Araraukar's suggestion, incorporated additional text to section 2B.
CHANGELOG 7: Replaced section 2c with a funding arrangement for nations that might have difficulty accounting for the mandates contained within the proposal.
CHANGELOG 8: Revised section 2C according to Kenmoria’s suggestion
CHANGELOG 9: Revised section 2C according to Araraukar's suggestion
CHANGELOG 10: Revised at-risk definition according to Araraukar’s suggestion
CHANGELOG 11: Revised minor grammatical issue, per Kenmoria's suggestion
CHANGELOG 12: Revised letter-case issue, per Morover's suggestion
CHANGELOG 13: Revised title, per Araraukar's observation
CHANGELOG 14: Revised multiple portions of the proposal according to suggestions by Flying Eagles
CHANGELOG 15: Fixed a minor grammatical issue that I totally just now noticed, as well as entered in a slight bit of clarification in the definition of 'At-Risk Household'
CHANGELOG 16: Revised multiple elements per Araraukar's suggestions.
CHANGELOG 17: Revised multiple elements to correct punctuation and redundancy errors per Flying Eagles and Kenmoria's notes
CHANGELOG 18: Massive overhaul

[Godular]

Zodiac adds: "So this is a exceedingly rough first draft, as I'm sure you all can recognize. I welcome any and all corrections, suggestions, and any concerns you might have. I will also give credit to any representatives that assist in phrasing and formatting, if not on the document, then maybe a very tasteful cheese basket."

[Tinhampton]

Healthcare has no strengths - this is either Healthcare, International Aid, Research, or Bioethics (probably Healthcare).

ACKNOWLEDGING: The word "That" should not start with a capital T.
Articles 1a and 1b: Why are you defining words that you only use in your preamble to justify Article 2? O_O
Article 1f: I'd assume that "members" meaning "WA members" is well known.
Article 1g: Cut it. You don't use the singular word "Resolution" outside of Article 1.

Are you proposing to reduce abortions (at least in part) by guaranteeing free abortions?

[Godular]

Healthcare has no strengths - this is either Healthcare, International Aid, Research, or Bioethics (probably Healthcare).

ACKNOWLEDGING: The word "That" should not start with a capital T.
Articles 1a and 1b: Why are you defining words that you only use in your preamble to justify Article 2? O_O
Article 1f: I'd assume that "members" meaning "WA members" is well known.
Article 1g: Cut it. You don't use the singular word "Resolution" outside of Article 1.

Are you proposing to reduce abortions (at least in part) by guaranteeing free abortions?

"Its focus is on reducing any financial or physiological strains that might result from an unplanned pregnancy, thereby risking it turning into an unwanted pregnancy. Should I remove the free termination of pregnancy part in the event that Access To Abortions passes? Otherwise, I'll make the changes you mentioned, though I'm not sure what to do in regards to your concerns for 1a and 1b."

[United Massachusetts]

We would clap and applaud enthusiastically at this did it not mandate state funding for "termination of pregnancy."

[Godular]

"Well, if I'm honest, it's sorta already included on an unspoken level, if one includes the fact that it is treated as a medical procedure already according to Reproductive Freedoms. That particular aspect however is both up to interpretation and potentially moot if Access to Abortion is voted in.

"Oh, should I add anything about WA assistance for nations financially incapable of meeting the obligations of this bill? I for one can guarantee a daily allotment of 15 seconds of replicator time to produce any necessary amounts of gold, tungsten, or any other potentially useful material for the purposes of ensuring such measures are funded. I'm not sure if that would be important though. We already earmarked 15 seconds for general purpose donations."

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

We would clap and applaud enthusiastically at this did it not mandate state funding for "termination of pregnancy."

I echo this statement; I would suggest leaving it out. If it has popular support, Access To Abortion will pass and it becomes redundant. And if the proposal fails, it apparently has no popular support in which case it is better to leave it out as well.

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

[Kenmoria]

“Assuming Access to Abortion passes, there is no issue with mandating state-funded abortions, since this proposal would make the mandate harder to remove by a repeal. Assuming Access to Abortion fails, this proposal could be vital in guaranteeing access to abortions regardless of economic situation. In summary, I see no reason for state-funded abortions to not be mandated.”

(OOC: There is an agreement error in the ‘cognisant’ clause. It should either be ‘costs of medical services are’ or ‘cost of medical services is’.)

[Godular]

“Assuming Access to Abortion passes, there is no issue with mandating state-funded abortions, since this proposal would make the mandate harder to remove by a repeal. Assuming Access to Abortion fails, this proposal could be vital in guaranteeing access to abortions regardless of economic situation. In summary, I see no reason for state-funded abortions to not be mandated.”

(OOC: There is an agreement error in the ‘cognisant’ clause. It should either be ‘costs of medical services are’ or ‘cost of medical services is’.)

OOC: Awhoops! Issue has been corrected.

IC: “Hmm... seems like there is some disagreement on that portion, then. Do any other ambassadors care to weigh in?”

[Slaughter None]

Full Support, Hope it passes.

[Separatist Peoples]

"There are now several definitions that go unused, and can be safely deleted. As it stands, however, it does very little to encourage retention of pregnancies, nor does it articulate why this is a useful goal. I would advise the author rename the proposal to focus on access to prenatal care. It might aid the ambassador to make no distinction between intentional and unintentional pregnancies, given that care is identical until such time as individual exercise their extant right to abortion on demand."

[Godular]

"There are now several definitions that go unused, and can be safely deleted. As it stands, however, it does very little to encourage retention of pregnancies, nor does it articulate why this is a useful goal. I would advise the author rename the proposal to focus on access to prenatal care. It might aid the ambassador to make no distinction between intentional and unintentional pregnancies, given that care is identical until such time as individual exercise their extant right to abortion on demand."

"Righto, erm... sorry, which definitions should be eliminated? I'm rather terrible at editing. Do we mean the definitions for unwanted/unplanned pregnancies?"

Zodiac pulls out an extra copy and scribbles in some changes, while mumbling to himself "Change... this thing... tell THAT thing to fuck right off... toss this OTHER thing out the window..."

[Godular]

OOC: Out of curiosity, what is an average timeframe for the drafting process? Will input pick up a bit after Access to Abortion either goes through or doesn't?

[Kenmoria]

OOC: Out of curiosity, what is an average timeframe for the drafting process? Will input pick up a bit after Access to Abortion either goes through or doesn't?

(OOC: Typically a draft will take a few months, but some have taken years to properly develop whereas others are ready in a matter of weeks. It does very much depend on whether people happen to be active at the right time and whether any issues that are found are easily addressable. Whether input will pick up after Access to Abortion resolves is anyone’s guess.)

[Godular]

“Oh, well that was a twist. The bill that I was looking at earlier wound up dying during the procedural voting! AND the contraceptive access proposal too! I actually wasn’t expecting that one. Would they be offended if I considered adding bits and pieces about contraceptives and mandating standardized sex ed? Would that make the bill overly broad? Hmm.”

[United Massachusetts]

“Oh, well that was a twist. The bill that I was looking at earlier wound up dying during the procedural voting! AND the contraceptive access proposal too! I actually wasn’t expecting that one. Would they be offended if I considered adding bits and pieces about contraceptives and mandating standardized sex ed? Would that make the bill overly broad? Hmm.”

"To my knowledge, the bill on contraceptive access will be resubmitted."

[Godular]

“Ah, well. Saves me trouble then. I thought it was a decent bill, m’self. Did it not have campaign support? Ah, no matter. This is about my bill, so I’d like to see if anybody’ll be popping in now that those other two got however temporarily binned.”

[Godular]

"After further consideration, I've shifted the name back to something resembling the original format. The other name it had been given would be disingenuous, given it also works to ensure welfare support for at-risk households, not solely a healthcare related thing. That being said, I'm curious as to whether advocacy for some kind of minimally standardized sex education would be untoward in this bill."

[Araraukar]

IC: "Is the author of the proposal title aware that pregnancies have a natural endpoint at some point, and that they cannot be maintained indefinitely? Some other title - any other title, almost - would be more accurate."

OOC: Also, I think most people are waiting for IA's thing to go into vote to see what happens with it (will probably pass), because it's wasted effort from both commenters and you to work hard on this and then have parts of it made redundant by another proposal passing.

But what you really need to decide is what you want to focus on? Actually working to make life better for people having or thinking about having babies, or trying to sneak in some anti-abortion attitude, which seems to be the current goal (with the title changed back to retention). If the latter, expect considerable resistance from various sources.

[Godular]

IC: “I’m not entirely certain how you draw Indefinite Pregnancy Retention from the title. I should think that all organic folks would presume that pregnancy has a natural conclusion. Would ‘Promoting Live Birth’ be more apropos?”

OOC: It is an intended compromise measure, focusing on reducing any potential for an unplanned pregnancy to become problematic. If anything, the sneakiest bit in there is the fact that this bill includes abortion as pregnancy-related healthcare and is thereby covered in the free-healthcare section. This has been noted by UMass and St. Peter.

[Araraukar]

IC: “I’m not entirely certain how you draw Indefinite Pregnancy Retention from the title. I should think that all organic folks would presume that pregnancy has a natural conclusion. Would ‘Promoting Live Birth’ be more apropos?”

IC: "That's really no better, because the opposire of live birth is not abortion but stillbirth."

OOC: It is an intended compromise measure

OOC: The current title is an anti-choice one, so do consider carefully if you want to keep it, given the WA is largely pro-choice currently.

[Godular]

IC: “I’m not entirely certain how you draw Indefinite Pregnancy Retention from the title. I should think that all organic folks would presume that pregnancy has a natural conclusion. Would ‘Promoting Live Birth’ be more apropos?”

IC: "That's really no better, because the opposire of live birth is not abortion but stillbirth."

Zodiac nods slowly, quirking an eyebrow. “Soooooo, I’m having trouble understanding what your issue is. If you’ve a suggestion for a name that summarizes both the intent and content of this bill in a more cogent fashion, I am all ears. I feel as if you think I’m trying to restrict some form of personal liberties, and at no point in the text does such a thing occur.”

OOC: It is an intended compromise measure

OOC: The current title is an anti-choice one, so do consider carefully if you want to keep it, given the WA is largely pro-choice currently.

OOC: That’s bull. One can be pro-choice while still endeavoring to reduce the factors that lead to a person deciding to seek an abortion. That is rather specifically my outlook, ask damn near anyone in the NSG abortion megathread I’ve personally curated... four times now? Maybe 5?

I cannot help but suspect that I (and my character) have been unduly characterized.

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

OOC: The current title is an anti-choice one, so do consider carefully if you want to keep it, given the WA is largely pro-choice currently.

OOC: That’s bull. One can be pro-choice while still endeavoring to reduce the factors that lead to a person deciding to seek an abortion. That is rather specifically my outlook, ask damn near anyone in the NSG abortion megathread I’ve personally curated... four times now? Maybe 5?

I cannot help but suspect that I (and my character) have been unduly characterized.

OOC: No-one was calling you anti-abortion, merely saying that many pro-abortion nations would vote against after reading the title without reading the proposal.

[Kenmoria]

OOC: That’s bull. One can be pro-choice while still endeavoring to reduce the factors that lead to a person deciding to seek an abortion. That is rather specifically my outlook, ask damn near anyone in the NSG abortion megathread I’ve personally curated... four times now? Maybe 5?

I cannot help but suspect that I (and my character) have been unduly characterized.

OOC: No-one was calling you anti-abortion, merely saying that many pro-abortion nations would vote against after reading the title without reading the proposal.

(OOC: In my opinion, the vast majority of nations willing to vote based solely on the title, would not be reading so far in the title so as to arrive at a pro-life conclusion. That requires a degree of analysis that I don’t think would be attempted by a nation that doesn’t even read the active clauses. I can think of a more ‘positive’ title, but it isn’t as accurate as the current one: ‘Supporting Childbearing Parents’.)

[Godular]

OOC: No-one was calling you anti-abortion, merely saying that many pro-abortion nations would vote against after reading the title without reading the proposal.

(OOC: In my opinion, the vast majority of nations willing to vote based solely on the title, would not be reading so far in the title so as to arrive at a pro-life conclusion. That requires a degree of analysis that I don’t think would be attempted by a nation that doesn’t even read the active clauses. I can think of a more ‘positive’ title, but it isn’t as accurate as the current one: ‘Supporting Childbearing Parents’.)

OOC: What about 'Supporting At-Risk Parents'?