[Drafting Still] Maternity and Childcare Support

[Godular]

The list of supports in 2b kinda duplicates the list of supports in 1b.

Ah yeh... fixed that. Shouldn't have to explain which supports are mandated if I already defined what should be present.

[Godular]

Hmm... what strength would this proposal be? I worry if I put in significant versus strong it might be called illegal on that basis.

[Kenmoria]

Hmm... what strength would this proposal be? I worry if I put in significant versus strong it might be called illegal on that basis.

(OOC: Gensec aren’t normally too harsh on strengths that could plausibly fit. Personally, I would regard this as ‘significant’, since you are legislation on an area of healthcare rather than healthcare as a whole, especially one that not everyone will experience.)

[Godular]

BLOODY... hell.

I'm in my little self-contained region and the damn thing wants me to have endorsements in order to fire the proposal off. This is actually a problem.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Definition of "At-Risk Household" STILL. CATCHES. EVERY. SINGLE. FUCKING. PERSON. OR PERSONS. WHO. HAVE. CHILDREN.

Who do you actually want to target with this? What risk is the "at-risk" referring to? (In your own words, use a RL example, not repeating the meaningless definition.)

Also you don't need to define welfare, when you're using it in the dictionary definition.

Multiple EDITS because my keyboard hates a couple of keys for some reason.

[Godular]

OOC: Definition of "At-Risk Household" STILL. CATCHES. EVERY. SINGLE. FUCKING. PERSON. OR PERSONS. WHO. HAVE. CHILDREN.

I disagree on that, though I would like to hear thoughts from others on the matter.

Who do you actually want to target with this? What risk is the "at-risk" referring to? Risk of abortion? This is why I and others call this an anti-choice proposal, as it insanely focuses on abortions despite being a much better one if you left anything to do with abortions out of it.

It is targeting the factors that cause a risk of considering an abortion to be necessary. I fail to understand why you would see wanting to rectify the risk factors that could lead to feeling the need for an abortion (without actually limiting abortion access) to be anti-choice. Your argument in this regard feels very much like a non-sequitur.

Also you don't need to define well-fare, when you're using it in the dictionary definition.

There are things that would not generally be included, if it is necessary to expand on that I shall endeavor to do so.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Definition of "At-Risk Household" STILL. CATCHES. EVERY. SINGLE. FUCKING. PERSON. OR PERSONS. WHO. HAVE. CHILDREN.

I disagree on that, though I would like to hear thoughts from others on the matter.

OOC: The bits in the definition:

- financial: Having children is expensive. Paying for their food, their clothes, their travel, their hobbies, their school-related costs that aren't part of the education, etc. So that's every single family in RL. I'm using RL as the yardstick here.

- psychological: Having children is stressful. Not just lost sleep when the baby's small and needs to be fed every couple of hours or it has colic or gas and cries for hours, but also when you worry about them if they hurt themselves or get sick, when they get older you likely have to balance a career (to avoid the financial issues) with family, which is stressful all on its own, but also you'll be worrying that they don't get hurt when not in your company, older still you'll worry about them doing well in school and likely have to help them with homework and such, then you'll worry about them doing well in life in general and not getting themselves killed or hooked up on unhealthy drugs and finding a good loving partner and then probably having children of their own, etc., etc.

And that's even without touching such things as post-partum depression or psychosis. No-one's safe from mental health issues, stress increases the chance of some of them becoming a bigger issue (especially if you have to cut back/leave out a medication to safely carry the fetus to term and then breastfeed them). So nobody's safe from this in RL either.

- physiological: Honestly, you include pregnancy in the definition. This should be a no-brainer, but to start with, here:
https://www.livescience.com/50877-regna ... anges.html
https://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics ... plications

Now tell me how your definition does not catch every single family? Especially given it's an "or" list.

It is targeting the factors that cause a risk of considering an abortion

So it should instead be named "Preventing Reasons for Abortions" since that's your true angle.

[Flying Eagles]

It is targeting the factors that cause a risk of considering an abortion

So it should instead be named "Preventing Reasons for Abortions" since that's your true angle.

It supports many women who want to give birth but feel they have no choice but to abort due to circumstances in their life. What problem do you see in this?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Access to Pre-Natal Healthcare

But actual childcare is included in this proposal. I do not wish the title to be misleading.

Maternal Support

[Godular]

But actual childcare is included in this proposal. I do not wish the title to be misleading.

Maternal Support

Would 'Maternity Support' be more functional?

[The New Nordic Union]

Maternal Support

Would 'Maternity Support' be more functional?

OOC: Maybe 'Parental', since its not aimed solely at mothers.

[Godular]

Would 'Maternity Support' be more functional?

OOC: Maybe 'Parental', since its not aimed solely at mothers.

That was also going to be one of my considerations. Hmm.

[Araraukar]

OOC: The definition is still your biggest problem, not what you're going to call it.

And person with eagle flag, I don't have any problem with the intended effect of this thing, I'm just saying the definition makes it not have the intended effect. And if they leave the "at-risk" in the title, someone's going to do a counter-campaign to point out it means "at risk of abortion" and THAT is going to make this look like a sneaky pro-life thing, which is going to sink it.

So yeah, the title is a small problem, but the definition is a HUGE problem.

[Godular]

OOC: The definition is still your biggest problem, not what you're going to call it.

And person with eagle flag, I don't have any problem with the intended effect of this thing, I'm just saying the definition makes it not have the intended effect. And if they leave the "at-risk" in the title, someone's going to do a counter-campaign to point out it means "at risk of abortion" and THAT is going to make this look like a sneaky pro-life thing, which is going to sink it.

So yeah, the title is a small problem, but the definition is a HUGE problem.

I could always make a clarification point in the introduction specifying that though we consider the right to seek out an abortion to be one of the most fundamental rights possible, that seeking to reduce the possibility that somebody would feel it necessary to get an abortion without limiting their capacity to do so would still be a laudable goal. That was the primary intent of the argument in the original paragraph of the preamble.

The problem is that entirely too many folks on this forum consider the concept of pro-choice and pro-life to be mutually exclusive (on both sides), but this does not need to be the case.

[Godular]

So hey, I'm wondering if I should add stuff to make the 'welfare supports' section more extensive or more specific... I'm thinking that it might be overly vague and could be interpreted to mean that parents should simply receive some kind of token welfare support.

Also, how might I refine the definition then, if the primary purpose is to relieve potential stressors that might lead to a woman/parent feeling it necessary to seek out abortion services? The whole point in this case is that it WOULD apply to pretty much all pregnancies, but should still be somewhat subject to existing eligibility requirements.

[Kenmoria]

So hey, I'm wondering if I should add stuff to make the 'welfare supports' section more extensive or more specific... I'm thinking that it might be overly vague and could be interpreted to mean that parents should simply receive some kind of token welfare support.

Also, how might I refine the definition then, if the primary purpose is to relieve potential stressors that might lead to a woman/parent feeling it necessary to seek out abortion services? The whole point in this case is that it WOULD apply to pretty much all pregnancies, but should still be somewhat subject to existing eligibility requirements.

(OOC: I think the definition itself is fine, but you are correct that 2b can be interpreted to mean that at-risk households simply need to receive at least one form of welfare support, once. Personally, changing 2b to clarify that said welfare support needs to be sufficient to provide at-risk households with sufficient resources to cope with a pregnancy seems easier than trying to make the definition encompass only the proper amount of support.)

[Maowi]

OOC: Your 1.c. definition of an at-risk household includes pretty much any household with a pregnant person. Having a child will inevitably result in some sort of "financial detriment" – it's just that that detriment may be more damaging to one family than to another.

[Godular]

OOC: Your 1.c. definition of an at-risk household includes pretty much any household with a pregnant person.

That's the point, really. The intent of this legislation is to remedy any potential stressors that might lead someone to seek out abortion services WITHOUT limiting their access to those services.

[Godular]

Alrighty... I did a rather drastic overhaul. Removed the definitions section entirely, both to address the concerns about the definition being too broad and because I realized I don't actually need the damn thing. I also expanded and clarified the mandates section to more specifically address intended points of concern.

AAAAAAAAND also I changed the name.

[Kenmoria]

“Clause 4c is somewhat vague. What sort of ‘social services’ are you requiring?”

[Godular]

“Clause 4c is somewhat vague. What sort of ‘social services’ are you requiring?”

What aid does a typical social worker provide? I was too tired to look it up the other day.

[Maowi]

Such welfare supports can and should remain subject to any currently established eligibility requirements.

OOC: A minor point, but is "should" binding or a mere recommendation? I have the impression there's no real consensus on that, so I'd recommend choosing something less ambiguous. If it is supposed to be binding, I'd change that, because there may be cases where member state may want to tweak eligibility requirements anyway for a legitimate purposes.

[Kenmoria]

“Clause 4c is somewhat vague. What sort of ‘social services’ are you requiring?”

What aid does a typical social worker provide? I was too tired to look it up the other day.

(OOC: Generally, at least in the UK, a social worker provides general plans for wellbeing and support, utilising various other resources to do so. A social worker might prepare various ways to get support to their designated person, or put that person in contact with other people that could.)

[Godular]

What aid does a typical social worker provide? I was too tired to look it up the other day.

(OOC: Generally, at least in the UK, a social worker provides general plans for wellbeing and support, utilising various other resources to do so. A social worker might prepare various ways to get support to their designated person, or put that person in contact with other people that could.)

That would be the general intent, to make sure that people are aware of the services they have available.

[Godular]

Such welfare supports can and should remain subject to any currently established eligibility requirements.

OOC: A minor point, but is "should" binding or a mere recommendation? I have the impression there's no real consensus on that, so I'd recommend choosing something less ambiguous. If it is supposed to be binding, I'd change that, because there may be cases where member state may want to tweak eligibility requirements anyway for a legitimate purposes.

Not everyone has the same requirements for their citizens to be eligible for welfare. The point of that addendum is to specify that such requirements need not be abrogated.