[Drafting Still] Maternity and Childcare Support

[Kenmoria]

(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'?

(OOC: That would be a good title. It’s accurate and sounds good.)

[Godular]

OOC: And thus it is done. (renaming, anyway)

IC: Zodiac scribbles a bit more on his extra copy. "How 'bout this then? On another note, setting its category as 'Healthcare' seems... incorrect somehow. Is there another category that would apply to this, or no?"

[Kenmoria]

OOC: And thus it is done. (renaming, anyway)

IC: Zodiac scribbles a bit more on his extra copy. "How 'bout this then? On another note, setting its category as 'Healthcare' seems... incorrect somehow. Is there another category that would apply to this, or no?"

“This covers welfare, so social justice could work.”

[Godular]

OOC: And thus it is done. (renaming, anyway)

IC: Zodiac scribbles a bit more on his extra copy. "How 'bout this then? On another note, setting its category as 'Healthcare' seems... incorrect somehow. Is there another category that would apply to this, or no?"

“This covers welfare, so social justice could work.”

"Oooh, that's a good one..." Zodiac scribbles some more on the extra copy. His head pops up at some internal realization, and he snickers. "Heh, now I'm a social justice warrior."

[Godular]

"Out of curiosity, should I itemize expected features for the welfare and medical care, or have I applied sufficient due diligence to the matter?"

[Kenmoria]

"Out of curiosity, should I itemize expected features for the welfare and medical care, or have I applied sufficient due diligence to the matter?"

“I think the requirements already given in the proposal should be sufficient.”

[Godular]

"Out of curiosity, should I itemize expected features for the welfare and medical care, or have I applied sufficient due diligence to the matter?"

“I think the requirements already given in the proposal should be sufficient.”

"All right. I must say, there's been surprisingly little feedback so far. I had complaints from the pro-life folks about the free-abortion entry, but logically I have to include that with pregnancy-related-healthcare. After all, I'd figure that being able to access diagnostic services to determine any genetic issues would give all parents-- not just at-risk families-- an opportunity to cut a pregnancy short if a terminal condition is noted before it would be overly traumatic to do so. I mean... I looked up some of those chromosomal disorders? Trisomy 13! Just... daaaaaamn...

"Anyway, I'm just surprised, is all. I get more surprised as time goes on."

[Araraukar]

OOC: Maybe it's just that it's way too early in the day to try to wrangle Legalese, but I don't really see anything this proposal wants done to this particular group of people, that previous resolutions don't already mandate to be done to everybody? Or are you trying to amend GA #344, Minimum Standard of Living Act, clause 4?

[Godular]

OOC: I’m not sure how that applies, honestly. Either way, section 6 of #344 rather specifically speaks of not prohibiting later legislation on the subject of minimal standards of living, if that is what you mean.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I’m not sure how that applies, honestly. Either way, section 6 of #344 rather specifically speaks of not prohibiting later legislation on the subject of minimal standards of living, if that is what you mean.

OOC: The relevant bit of clause 4: "Exempts each member state from guaranteeing a minimum standard of living to individuals who ... refuse to make a good faith attempt to support themselves without government assistance, or to engage in government-mandated job training, temporary employment or community service, without a legitimate reason, such as a disability that would prevent them from doing so".

And clause 6 only applies when clause 2 applies: "Declares that each member state is required to guarantee a minimum standard of living to all inhabitants of that member state".

You would be giving a specific group of people (having a child is not a disability) higher standards of living than others, without allowing member nations to require said people to try and support themselves or their family first. (Do note that I very much disagree with MSoLA's clause 4 as being a good thing, but it is still a thing.)

While MSoLA doesn't ban future legislation on minimum standards of living, it would, according to its own mandates, only allow that when such new minimum standards are applied evenly to every inhabitant. And MSoLA still gives states the right to make people work (for the state) for their welfare handouts.

[United Massachusetts]

“I think the requirements already given in the proposal should be sufficient.”

"All right. I must say, there's been surprisingly little feedback so far. I had complaints from the pro-life folks about the free-abortion entry, but logically I have to include that with pregnancy-related-healthcare. After all, I'd figure that being able to access diagnostic services to determine any genetic issues would give all parents-- not just at-risk families-- an opportunity to cut a pregnancy short if a terminal condition is noted before it would be overly traumatic to do so. I mean... I looked up some of those chromosomal disorders? Trisomy 13! Just... daaaaaamn...

"Anyway, I'm just surprised, is all. I get more surprised as time goes on."

"This is how Iceland has 'eradicated' Down's Syndrome -- by killing children diagnosed with it. It's an unfortunate sign of the ableism still prevalent in our society."

[Godular]

OOC: I’m not sure how that applies, honestly. Either way, section 6 of #344 rather specifically speaks of not prohibiting later legislation on the subject of minimal standards of living, if that is what you mean.

OOC: The relevant bit of clause 4: "Exempts each member state from guaranteeing a minimum standard of living to individuals who ... refuse to make a good faith attempt to support themselves without government assistance, or to engage in government-mandated job training, temporary employment or community service, without a legitimate reason, such as a disability that would prevent them from doing so".

And clause 6 only applies when clause 2 applies: "Declares that each member state is required to guarantee a minimum standard of living to all inhabitants of that member state".

You would be giving a specific group of people (having a child is not a disability) higher standards of living than others, without allowing member nations to require said people to try and support themselves or their family first. (Do note that I very much disagree with MSoLA's clause 4 as being a good thing, but it is still a thing.)

While MSoLA doesn't ban future legislation on minimum standards of living, it would, according to its own mandates, only allow that when such new minimum standards are applied evenly to every inhabitant. And MSoLA still gives states the right to make people work (for the state) for their welfare handouts.

OOC: Hmm. Alright, should I incorporate an addendum referring to accessibility requirements? I don’t see how access to childcare services would contradict MSoLA, but I can see how the others might cause an issue.

"All right. I must say, there's been surprisingly little feedback so far. I had complaints from the pro-life folks about the free-abortion entry, but logically I have to include that with pregnancy-related-healthcare. After all, I'd figure that being able to access diagnostic services to determine any genetic issues would give all parents-- not just at-risk families-- an opportunity to cut a pregnancy short if a terminal condition is noted before it would be overly traumatic to do so. I mean... I looked up some of those chromosomal disorders? Trisomy 13! Just... daaaaaamn...

"Anyway, I'm just surprised, is all. I get more surprised as time goes on."

"This is how Iceland has 'eradicated' Down's Syndrome -- by killing children diagnosed with it. It's an unfortunate sign of the ableism still prevalent in our society."

“I very specifically referenced Patau syndrome for a reason, sir. There are some stories that should not have to be forced on people. Besides, the option is still left to the parents. If they do not wish to abort, they should not have to. It goes both ways.”

[Godular]

OOC: After some thought on Araraukar's comment, I added in a mention to established eligibility requirements. Would this address the concern as it was raised? If I need to fix phrasing on the matter, please let me know.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I HATE clauses like 2.c., and don't really see why 2.b. shouldn't apply to all families. Though truth be told, the definition is so vague (having a child is bad for your finances, period) that it more or less does apply to all families, but I don't think most would appreciate being called "at-risk" anything, unless they really are.

In 2.a. I'd suggest changing "persons" into "inhabitants", so that WA nations don't end up taken advantage of as "free healthcare for non-member neighbours' pregnant peeps".

But why are you mandating "financial assistance for pediatric healthcare", when the WA nations are already required to provide healthcare for everyone (including minors) at an affordable cost? Also, what exactly is "financial assistance for low-income or single-parent households" for?

[Godular]

OOC: I HATE clauses like 2.c., and don't really see why 2.b. shouldn't apply to all families. Though truth be told, the definition is so vague (having a child is bad for your finances, period) that it more or less does apply to all families, but I don't think most would appreciate being called "at-risk" anything, unless they really are.

Specifically, the at-risk is focused on low-income households or single-parent households in which the parent is unable to afford childcare or other such services that might be considered beyond their means even under what is considered in good faith to be 'affordable'. One possible qualifier might be that they're already relying on welfare assistance in some form.

In 2.a. I'd suggest changing "persons" into "inhabitants", so that WA nations don't end up taken advantage of as "free healthcare for non-member neighbours' pregnant peeps".

Would not 'citizens' be a workable term as well?

But why are you mandating "financial assistance for pediatric healthcare", when the WA nations are already required to provide healthcare for everyone (including minors) at an affordable cost? Also, what exactly is "financial assistance for low-income or single-parent households" for?

Reducing the strain of childcare (regarding both). Even under certain good-faith assessments of 'affordable' pretty-much-anything, there are folks who would still be unable to afford it. That being said, I could probably be a bit more specific on the financial assistance. I was thinking somewhere on the order of educational or occupational supports such as daycare or even counseling.

[Araraukar]

Even under certain good-faith assessments of 'affordable' pretty-much-anything, there are folks who would still be unable to afford it.

OOC: Not how WA law works. If it says affordable, the state must make it affordable on a case-by-case basis. If someone cannot afford to pay anything, the state must see to it that they get it free.

[Godular]

Even under certain good-faith assessments of 'affordable' pretty-much-anything, there are folks who would still be unable to afford it.

OOC: Not how WA law works. If it says affordable, the state must make it affordable on a case-by-case basis. If someone cannot afford to pay anything, the state must see to it that they get it free.

OOC: I should like confirmation of that from a second source/poster if possible.

Though, mayhap I should just outright specify that it should be free.

[Ardiveds]

OOC: Not how WA law works. If it says affordable, the state must make it affordable on a case-by-case basis. If someone cannot afford to pay anything, the state must see to it that they get it free.

OOC: I should like confirmation of that from a second source/poster if possible.

Though, mayhap I should just outright specify that it should be free.

OOC: Please don't make it free. Let those with money pay for it themselves.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I should like confirmation of that from a second source/poster if possible.

OOC: Would a GenSec member do?
viewtopic.php?p=35469694#p35469694
viewtopic.php?p=35471740#p35471740

[Godular]

OOC: I should like confirmation of that from a second source/poster if possible.

OOC: Would a GenSec member do?
viewtopic.php?p=35469694#p35469694
viewtopic.php?p=35471740#p35471740

Righto. And those even include a relevant resolution. Thanks.

Hmm. Would lumping pregnancy-related care and pediatric care together as completely free be functional?

[Araraukar]

Righto. And those even include a relevant resolution. Thanks.

OOC: Sorry, I thought you were aware of what resolution we were talking about.

Hmm. Would lumping pregnancy-related care and pediatric care together as completely free be functional?

Well, yes, kinda, but what's wrong with "affordable"? You'll have a much bigger fight if you try to make it completely free. (Personally I'm all for making it free, but as you've already seen, others might not agree.)

I think what I'm trying to get at is, what's the justification here? Like, you don't need to convince me, but rather the voters, who might not be from RL nations with even affordable (nevermind universal) healthcare. What makes pregnant individuals' and children's healthcare more special than any other group of people who might also be vulnerable and have special needs? Figure out the answer and put it in the preamble, and you'll have a better chance at passing it.

EDIT: Oh and remove everything about abortions from the preamble.

[Godular]

Righto. And those even include a relevant resolution. Thanks.

OOC: Sorry, I thought you were aware of what resolution we were talking about.

Hmm. Would lumping pregnancy-related care and pediatric care together as completely free be functional?

Well, yes, kinda, but what's wrong with "affordable"? You'll have a much bigger fight if you try to make it completely free. (Personally I'm all for making it free, but as you've already seen, others might not agree.)

I think what I'm trying to get at is, what's the justification here? Like, you don't need to convince me, but rather the voters, who might not be from RL nations with even affordable (nevermind universal) healthcare. What makes pregnant individuals' and children's healthcare more special than any other group of people who might also be vulnerable and have special needs? Figure out the answer and put it in the preamble, and you'll have a better chance at passing it.

EDIT: Oh and remove everything about abortions from the preamble.

The stuff about abortion IS the justification! The whole point of this thing is as a ‘compromise’ measure to help in reducing abortions while retaining free access to them.

[Araraukar]

The stuff about abortion IS the justification! The whole point of this thing is as a ‘compromise’ measure to help in reducing abortions while retaining free access to them.

OOC: So basically what my earlier draft tried to do as well... Though be aware that this may fail just for a preamble full of abortion stuff.

Still, I don't know why you would want this all to be instituted just to reduce abortions? Rather than, you know, helping people?

[Godular]

The stuff about abortion IS the justification! The whole point of this thing is as a ‘compromise’ measure to help in reducing abortions while retaining free access to them.

OOC: So basically what my earlier draft tried to do as well... Though be aware that this may fail just for a preamble full of abortion stuff.

Still, I don't know why you would want this all to be instituted just to reduce abortions? Rather than, you know, helping people?

That is exactly the point of it. It is specifically geared towards addressing many of the reasons that a woman might have to get an abortion by simply making them into a non-factor.

[WA Kitty Kops]

That is exactly the point of it. It is specifically geared towards addressing many of the reasons that a woman might have to get an abortion by simply making them into a non-factor.

OOC: But you could easily do that without underlining the anti-abortion ideology...