[ABANDONED] Repeal "Access to Abortion"

[Jutsa]

*Walks into crowded room and sees a hot mess.* "They don't pay me enough for this—ahem, I mean, ah! Welcome all! Thank you all for your generous comments and concerns!"

I'd never support this as written, and here's detailed feedback why:

"We greatly appreciate all forms of feedback, as we'd frankly never support this as written without the thorough input of more affiliated members."

Not entirely certain how this helps you. Given you specifically mention women's rights, you're kinda shooting your repeal in the foot right out of the gates.

Fair. Will remove "women's rights".

I think you meant to write "such as".

Not when "these" is referencing the opening clause.

Instead of this, use the resolution's full name and GA number. You can add a link to it at the bottom of the first page, but the full name is necessary in the proposal.

"Understood."

which requires that abortion be carried out safely and by a qualified surgeon and protects individuals from discrimination and harassment

Again, how does this help you? I mean, sure, you can mention previous resolutions as a reason why the newest one might be unnecessary, but specifying their main drive here (rather than where you use them as justification) looks kind of like "yeah, and?" extra fluff.

This is meant specifically mentioned to point out that the target resolution indeed does not add anything to protect these particular laws if they're already carried out by existing legislation."
(ed) "Particularly when you look at section 3."

How the hell do you get animosity from the resolutions????

"My apologies. Misread 'protection from animosity' as 'anonymousity'; which we're glad for, because protection from animosity is a far better clause." *Smiles quirkily*

Also, rather than "conduct", use "perform", because "a procedure perfomed by a doctor" sounds better than "a procedure conducted by a doctor"

"Thank you, Ambassador."

Again, this is not a bad thing, so not entirely certain why it's here?

"It is not a bad thing. It is, again, pointing out the target resolution adds nothing of value to these areas."

Maybe (they're a minority), but the problem is entirely created by those nations and goes into such RP territory that the WA can't affect, because you can't force someone to RP in a certain way, no matter how many resolutions you pass.

"Then there's no point for the target resolution, Ambassador."

To my understanding transportation only needs to be paid if the person has to travel to one of the casinos WA-mandated abortion clinics to other nations

"Section 2; 'Members must pay for or provide directly abortions, abortifacients, and contraceptives to any recipient bona fide within their jurisdiction upon request.'"

Not true. There is a resolution that requires member nations to provide healthcare to their inhabitants and pay for it, if the person in question can't afford it otherwise.

"We reiterate, 'Members must pay for or provide directly abortions, abortifacients, and contraceptives to any recipient bona fide within their jurisdiction upon request.'"

Again, use the full name of the resolution that you're referring to, link to it outside the proposal. And please, point to me where that resolution says anything about urgent care. It says "medically necessary healthcare". Since I would argue that abortions actually are urgent and elective healthcare in most cases (pregnancies outside the womb, etc., would of course be necessary abortions because of the life-threatening condition) rather than just medically necessary, you're sort of shooting yourself in the foot here.

"Read carefully, Ambassador. We're pointing out that all medical procedures can be done outside of the nation at the person's expense. Abortion should be treated no differently, as stated in resolution #286."

Not true. The clinics in question are built by a WA committee, which obviously rules out non-member nations, and thus human rights and sanitation are a given, as is safety to certain amount of safe, such as their home nation can provide. Political stability sounds strange - would this mean that if it's presidential/parliamentary election day, the nation is somehow dangerous? And if the "geopolitical relation" refers to war, then there's a restriction allowed for "on-going armed conflict". If it's just diplomats growling at one another, I don't see how that has anything to do with healthcare reasons of travel.

"Excellent points, Ambassador. Of course, ongoing conflicts not involving armed conflict, nations not abiding by World Assembly regulation, are still problems to be sure, but if you can point out these in fact are non-issues, we'd be obliged to remove this clause. Until then, it will merely be edited accordingly."

What you've missed, is the last clause of the target, which says "In this resolution, older resolutions overrule conflicting provisions of this resolution" (which funnily enough will apply even if the older resolutions were ever repealed), so there are many reasons mentioned in previously passed resolutions why a member nation can restrict someone to travel out of the nation, that would seem to cover your complaints.

"Not according to resolution #456, although this resolution is also, by the looks of it, having a repeal attempt as well."

Actually it doesn't. It just mandates paying for such a person, if the pregnant individual chooses one to travel with them. Do notice "one person of their choice". If they don't choose anyone, then they're not mandated to have someone. Just that the nations must pay for the one that's chosen. What you might have grumped about instead, is that there's no mention of this "one plus" person needing to accompany the pregnant individual to the clinic, or indeed travel with them. Alternatively (given how the sentence is constructed), the "one plus" must also be traveling to the clinic to receive treatment.

"My interpretation was 'their' applied to the member nation. Which was wrong, to be sure, but now any person could still choose to put any other person at a hypothetical risk. We will, however, mention the limitation of one person."
(ed) "Plus, if you actually read the text, it reads 'and one person of their choice'. It does not say they can choose nobody. It says they have to choose someone. 'noone' is not a person."

You complained about noncompliant nations before. Are they now suddenly not compliant?

"This doesn't make sense for compliant or noncompliant nations. Compliant nations would need no such clause. Noncompliant nations would ignore such a clause anyway."

Untrue, see "with funds assessed by the General Accounting Office from members in which there does not exist, in the view of the WACC, adequate access to abortion". It's only the noncompliant nations' mandatory donations to the General Fund, which can be used for it. I would be more concerned about the Wine And Crouton Conference being given the right to decide, given it is an entirely bureaucractic committee that has nothing to do with healthcare.

"It still would hypothetically not be enough resources, although we do agree about the point of a bureaucratic committee. Though we also support the Wine and Crouton Conference."

As was already pointed out, this is untrue. Clause 5 says "Any member may request the construction of section 4 clinics, if they can show to the WACC that construction would expand access to abortion in an area where it is inadequate.". So basically, the nation can ask for such to be built, only if it meets the requirement, and in return for the committee getting the noncompliant nations to pay for the building costs, they let the committee have the piece of land where it's built. Do note that there are many previous resolutions that require offices and whatnot to be built in member nations, without any mention of any compensation, so it's really a better deal than usual.

"Sure, members may request construction, but they also have to request construction if they can not afford the abortion clinics and abortion and transportation coverage mandated by this resolution, lest they fall short of compliance. So, yes, many member nations are forced to lease out some of their territory for a single medical procedure."

That's because when you sum together all previously passed resolutions, you can't legally grant personhood to a fetus. Basically IA is just reminding everyone about that fact. Also, it would be best if your arguments were in the order as the clauses in the target, so this should be at the end.

"This is somewhat a troubling fact, though perhaps beyond the scope of this repeal. However, agreed, we will try to rearranged these into numerical order."

To be in compliance with previously passed resolutions.

"This is... extremely concerning. Could you please recite which resolutions exactly attempt to ban sex-selective but not race-selective genetic screening?"

The previously passed resolutions do that. This one only concerns the access to abortion, which the previous resolutions were left with some loopholes for the noncompliant nations you're concerned about.

"Fair point, Ambassador. Will change."

NatSov is not a good argument in a repeal. Ever. No illegality here, obviously, but it's just not a good argument.

"Fair enough. Will remove."

safety

Exactly how?

"Perhaps this could have been highlighted better, but it's more in reference to clause 4a, although perhaps security is a bit less of an issue now that we consider it.
Of course, this also means that your nation has to be open to other nations' patients, which in of itself is also a security issue. Perhaps that should also be specified in one of the clauses."

Only of the noncompliant nations you wanted to punish earlier.

"We never explicitly stated we want them punished. We do, but we never explicitly stated such. And forcing nations to cover abortion fees, transportation, and clinic construction is, in fact, a strain on finances."

Why do you actually need to specifically mention the previously passed abortion-related resolutions by name and effect, given you only seem to mention them in the context of some nations being noncompliant with them?

"We felt it was necessary to do because the entire introduction to the target resolution was this:"

Whereas some rabidly anti-choice nations lack medical professionals willing to perform abortions, meaning the ability to access them is non-existent without funds needed for foreign travel, denying constructively abortion rights because of income and birth location:

And whereas discrimination in state policy or administration of tax on abortion recipients and providers is unfair and grossly unjust:

And whereas people have natural rights to property in their own person:

And your whole point of noncompliance seems to... not go anywhere. In addition to which, the entire target resolution exists to specifically address the noncompliant nations and try to force them to comply!

"That's the entire point, Ambassador. This addresses noncompliant nations as much as it addresses non-member nations. It only puts unnecessary burdens on compliant nations."

All in all, this has enough untruths in it to be illegal for Honest Mistake (it's badly named, it basically means blatantly lying about the target) many times over.

"Honest mistakes were made, but our points were anything but intentional lying. Also, saying this resolution's badly named is not going to deter us from pursuing this further.

We thank you for your input, Ambassador, though we're still not certain how many of your claims are true. However, those we do see as adequate shall be rectified in an upcoming draft."

---

---

The bit on Article 5 is incorrect and will get this marked illegal for an Honest Mistake violation.

"Technically not, Ambassador, for the reason I addressed earlier: if a nation can not afford abortion clinics, then it must request a clinic be built lest face the consequences of being noncompliant."

"If I offer to support this resolution, will you give me a gallon of chocolate-mint-marble ice cream?"

"You've got it."

"Do we need to say it? Perhaps. Against, for obvious reasons. This draft tries to appear sympathetic, but all it does is allowing anti-choice nations to remain non-compliant with existing resolutions on the topic."

"If nations are finding ways around existing legislation, then this resolution does nothing to stop that."

“I don’t agree with Ambassador Warburton’s assertion that this is the worst repeal ever presented, since it did convince me when I first read it. However, under closer inspection, a lot of your clauses rely on misunderstandings of the target resolution or don’t take into account other pieces of extant law. At present, I can offer no support for this repeal.”

"Absolutely, Ambassador. That's why we have it up for peer review, since the entire resolution was written by yours truly after little prior training."

Seems fair, do you have replacement legislation?

"A replacement resolution seems unnecessary given existing resolutions, Ambassador."

"My nation is pro-life and will always be. We will vote to repeal this bill. Our government will not fund abortions, they are banned in Legolannd."

"While we're pleased by your approval, we wish to reiterate that abortion is already banned par resolution #286. Which is another reason why we added this to the repeal."

"Thank you all for your feedback and support, or, in some cases, thoroughly warranted caution against. We hope to have an updated draft shortly. If anyone has any concerns with our own line of reasoning or more concerns regarding the upcoming draft, please do say something."

[Araraukar]

OOC: My feedback was given OOCly, so replying to it in IC makes no sense. When I use my IC ambassador, she "talks like this".

If you insist on using IC to reply to OOC, then instead of "ambassador", use "Post Marshal" as that's my post-count forum title.

[Separatist Peoples]

"The author is certainly welcome to spend their time here as they wish, but one wonders why they feel the need to pursue ultimately futile efforts when the electorate has been very clear about their opinion regarding abortion."

[Jutsa]

"The author is certainly welcome to spend their time here as they wish, but one wonders why they feel the need to pursue ultimately futile efforts when the electorate has been very clear about their opinion regarding abortion."

"Just because you're in favor of a stance does not mean you should support every piece of legislation that propagates that stance."

OOC: My feedback was given OOCly, so replying to it in IC makes no sense. When I use my IC ambassador, she "talks like this".

If you insist on using IC to reply to OOC, then instead of "ambassador", use "Post Marshal" as that's my post-count forum title.

OOC: Oops sorry xd sorry, Post Marchal. But seriously many thanks for your thorough instigation into my proposal.

[Separatist Peoples]

"The author is certainly welcome to spend their time here as they wish, but one wonders why they feel the need to pursue ultimately futile efforts when the electorate has been very clear about their opinion regarding abortion."

"Just because you're in favor of a stance does not mean you should support every piece of legislation that propagates that stance."

"I cannot disagree, ambassador. But one still must wonder why tilting at windmills is a better solution?"

[Jutsa]

"I cannot disagree, ambassador. But one still must wonder why tilting at windmills is a better solution?"

"Sometimes you want to destroy the windmills because they genuinely look like giants to schizophenic energy ministers."

I'm way too comfortable with GI

[Jutsa]

This choice of coauthor may actually hurt your chances, as they've in recent months built a reputation of presenting badly written, not-thought-out proposals.

"We believe legislation should be judged by the legislation and not the author. However, given the political nature of this assembly,
as well as the fact that most of their edits were edited again by yours truly, for better or worse, and given the representative of Tinhampton's edits were made
prior to an actual request for such edits and simply taken with their permission as they at the time seemed better written,
we have removed their coauthorship from the second iteration, lest an argument be made that they should, in fact, still have coauthorship."

OOC: Sorry Tin but in hindsight I kinda ended up rewriting most of your rewrites anyway.
Updated the draft. Still could use a crap ton of work for sure, but hopefully it's in a somewhat better position now.

[Separatist Peoples]

"I cannot disagree, ambassador. But one still must wonder why tilting at windmills is a better solution?"

"Sometimes you want to destroy the windmills because they genuinely look like giants to schizophenic energy ministers."

I'm way too comfortable with GI

Bell blinked, clearly not expecting anything remotely like this response. He opened his mouth to respond, thought better of it, and sat back down, pondering the nature of insanity.

[Logon]

Strongly, without a doubt, AGAINST. This proposal is badly written and does not argue its case well.

When they use grammar as a reason to not vote for your legislation, then they must not have any legitimate reasons, and you therefore have won.

[Separatist Peoples]

Strongly, without a doubt, AGAINST. This proposal is badly written and does not argue its case well.

When they use grammar as a reason to not vote for your legislation, then they must not have any legitimate reasons, and you therefore have won.

"No, ambassador. It means that the delegation took issue with the grammar. If you want the reason why ambassadors oppose this, look to the transcript of the passed resolution for arguments. No need to repeat the entire debate a day later."

[Flying Eagles]

Let’s focus on providing adoption and other assorted supports so people don’t have to abort in the first place.

[WayNeacTia]

Let’s focus on providing adoption and other assorted supports so people don’t have to abort in the first place.

Here's a better option. Let's push contraceptive use as hard as abortion is pushed, and see what happens.

[La Xinga]

"Support"

Let’s focus on providing adoption and other assorted supports so people don’t have to abort in the first place.

Here's a better option. Let's push contraceptive use as hard as abortion is pushed, and see what happens.

"Access to Abortion" as it is called, makes mention of contras.

[Jutsa]

OOC: Honestly ngl pushing to make contraceptives free to everyone is probably the best thing about this resolution imo.
Not sure if other* legislation covers that or not tbh

[Jutsa]

OOC: Bump~ Reworded slightly, hope the final clause is also a bit less trite and a bit more respectful. Any concerns with any of the mentioned clauses are welcome to be brought up.

[Wallenburg]

This is still riddled with Honest Mistake violations, at least some of which have been pointed out already.

[New Saharia]

The Executor jumps from his seat in excitement.

"Yes! Repeal this abhorrent resolution! You have the full support of the Saharian Republic to tear the "Access to Abortion" resolution from the World Assembly!"

Everyone stares angrily back at the outburst.

"My apologies. Please continue..."

[Ardiveds]

"As a nation that is in favour of repealing this resolution due to the economic burden it has put upon us, we'd like to point out some issue:

The 'citing' clause's claims that the previous resolutions protect from inaccessibility is, in our opinion, inaccurate. This is because the previous resolution does not prevent a govenment from not working to support abortion. For instance, if there is only one abortion clinic, that is not accessible to the majority of citizens, the government can't close it down but has no incentive to make more.

We are frankly perplexed your 'distraught' clause. There is nothing stopping you from writing a proposal mandating all life saving medical procedures be government funded

Your 'saddened' clause reads like a mockery of your own repeal

Your 'horrified' clause starts with an honest mistake. The access to abortion has to be reasonably speedy, one can't just stay beside an abortion clinic and deem it not speedy enough."

[Tinfect]

Distraught that all abortions, transportation included, must be paid in full by the state whereas other medical procedures of equivalent or far more significant magnitude are left to the individual nation's laws to determine the payment of,

"The fact that foreign governments often refuse to operate their medical systems effectively does not justify repeal of a resolution that requires them to do so in specific circumstances."

Saddened that one and only one person must accompany the client, regardless off whether the client wants multiple or no accompanied persons,

"Poor argumentation; Member-States need not be obligated to ensure that entire families can be present for this particular medical procedure, and certainly it would be a poor reading indeed that would require the individual seeking treatment to choose a person."

Horrified that any abortion client who deems access to a clinic "not speedy enough" can request and expect to be flown to any neighboring country, regardless of WA compliance, non-armed conflict or potential for armed conflict, human rights, sanitation, safety, geopolitical relations, etc,

"This is a complete falsehood. Nothing in the legislation places the definition of 'speedily accessible' on the individual seeking treatment, and nor is there anything in the legislation that requires the nation in which they are to be transited to be one of their choice."

Notifying this clause also states nations must let foreign travel from any other member nation into their own territory solely so they can access a WA Choice Plus clinic built on their territory,

"Another falsehood. The resolution handles exit of a Member-State, not entry."

Distressed that Article 5 requires any member state, who can’t afford to provide funding for abortion clinics, to either lease out, with hardly any taxation, their own territory to an international body (the World Assembly) for the sole purpose of performing a single medical operation, or be forced into noncompliance with the resolution,

"It's a generous offer, Ambassador; Member-States lacking the funds to comply are able to access a nearly costless alternative. Hardly 'distressing' at all."

The General Assembly hereby repeals GA#499 "Access To Abortion".

"Unlikely, especially with such flawed and ludicrous arguments as these."

[Jutsa]

The 'citing' clause's claims that the previous resolutions protect from inaccessibility is, in our opinion, inaccurate. This is because the previous resolution does not prevent a govenment from not working to support abortion. For instance, if there is only one abortion clinic, that is not accessible to the majority of citizens, the government can't close it down but has no incentive to make more.

"But the clause specifically says the following: 'MANDATES that Member Nations recognise the right of all individuals to have their pregnancies terminated through safe, openly accessible procedures'. If abortion clinics must be openly accessible, then that surely means accessible to the majority of its citizens, no?"

We are frankly perplexed your 'distraught' clause. There is nothing stopping you from writing a proposal mandating all life saving medical procedures be government funded

"The fact that foreign governments often refuse to operate their medical systems effectively does not justify repeal of a resolution that requires them to do so in specific circumstances."

"And I'd like to ask why legislation like this doesn't exist. Has it just not been proposed, or has there been some other issue? Existing legislation prohibits any impediment to abortion not in effect on other medical procedures of similar risk or complexity, which technically includes price and how the government might handle credits to those who can't afford it. Meanwhile by definition abortion would be protected under any other passed legislation on healthcare affordability. Either way, it's either a protection specifically for abortion affordability in otherwise unreasonably expensive nations or a needless protection that'd already be covered by other healthcare legislation.

That's not to say it's a reason to repeal this resolution, though; it's there to point out that this is not a particularly strong reason to protect it."

Your 'saddened' clause reads like a mockery of your own repeal

"Poor argumentation; Member-States need not be obligated to ensure that entire families can be present for this particular medical procedure, and certainly it would be a poor reading indeed that would require the individual seeking treatment to choose a person."

"Fair enough. It was only added as 'another argument' and in hindsight should be removed. Done so."

Your 'horrified' clause starts with an honest mistake. The access to abortion has to be reasonably speedy, one can't just stay beside an abortion clinic and deem it not speedy enough."

"This is a complete falsehood. Nothing in the legislation places the definition of 'speedily accessible' on the individual seeking treatment,

"The speedily accessible thing was honestly a pretty silly thing for us to misinterpret. We'll only be happy to change this line, as it was a genuine mistake."

and nor is there anything in the legislation that requires the nation in which they are to be transited to be one of their choice."

"This last part about a nation being of their own choice is an excellent point... if only I could agree with you.
However, there's this line: 'No limitation, except to prohibit travel to nations in which there is an on-going armed conflict, may be enforced by a member on a person's ability to exit a member for purposes of travelling to a clinic unless permitted by resolution.'
Wouldn't that mean that, no matter what, you can not deny a person access to any nation? Because if you do, then you're technically limiting their ability to exit your nation, surely?"

"Another falsehood. The resolution handles exit of a Member-State, not entry."

"This, however, I can agree with. It never even crossed my mind that a member state can deny entry to outsiders, since it's not the same as denying exit of their own country. Excellent point, we will remove this clause."

"It's a generous offer, Ambassador; Member-States lacking the funds to comply are able to access a nearly costless alternative. Hardly 'distressing' at all."

"I agree. It is a generous offer. It's still a shame that nations who can't easily afford the medical care have to lease out their territory,
however, I must agree, it's much better than not having the option at all. Consider this section removed also."

"Unlikely, especially with such flawed and ludicrous arguments as these."

"I admit, you've convinced me quite thoroughly that some of my arguments were in fact extremely flawed. And we've come to appreciate what the proposal offers.

I'd still like to point out, however, that section 4a is more of a liability than an asset, as well as the strange specificity of permitting all abortions except for sex and not any other factors,
and also that this legislation feels more of a financial burden and an unnecessarily rude slap in the face to those who don't want to foot the bill for someone else's abortion.

But I admit, the repeal is much weaker than once thought. Which is good. Not for our odds of repealing it, but for the fact that things aren't as bad as we had once thought."

OOC: Hope I addressed everything right. If there are any other concerns, or arguments to my arguments, I'd only be delighted to address them. I updated the main draft, and hopefully I didn't accidentally miss any of the points that were addressed.

[Ardiveds]

The 'citing' clause's claims that the previous resolutions protect from inaccessibility is, in our opinion, inaccurate. This is because the previous resolution does not prevent a govenment from not working to support abortion. For instance, if there is only one abortion clinic, that is not accessible to the majority of citizens, the government can't close it down but has no incentive to make more.

"But the clause specifically says the following: 'MANDATES that Member Nations recognise the right of all individuals to have their pregnancies terminated through safe, openly accessible procedures'. If abortion clinics must be openly accessible, then that surely means accessible to the majority of its citizens, no?"

"Openly accessible as in one can easily find it on a map or otherwise and when they reach the clinic, they will be able to easily access the procedure. However, this says nothing about how hard it has to be to actually reach the clinic, at least in our eyes, and that is where the 'speedily accessible' bit of the AtA comes in."

[Jutsa]

"But if you can't access the clinic holding the openly accessible procedure, wouldn't that indicate that the procedure is, in fact, not openly accessible? And in what nation exactly would a procedure need to be done so quickly so as to not be accessible in a 'speedy manor' without it, by definition, no longer being openly accessible? I'd also add nations are also enforced to not only not create, but actively prohibit any impediment to abortions not also applied to other medical procedures of a similar risk and complexity. In other words, if a nation's not giving adequate access to abortion already, it's not giving adequate access to other medical procedures, in theory.

This last point, of course, is a somewhat iffy point about the existing legislation as it is rather vague in what 'similar medical procedures' means, but you do see my point?"

[Ardiveds]

"If the majority of citizens knows where they can get a procedure done and once they reach that place, they can easily access said procedure, it is openly accessible even if it takes them months to reach that place because. That is how we interpret 'openly accessible'.

We're honestly not that sure about your second point because we honestly have no idea about its exact meaning and implication."

[Syrgastan]

I’m pro choice but that fact that this contradicts other law’s and requires that member nations pay for it is bullshit. Also I think that you should add in this repeal that 3rd term abortions be banned.

[Ardiveds]

I’m pro choice but that fact that this contradicts other law’s and requires that member nations pay for it is bullshit. Also I think that you should add in this repeal that 3rd term abortions be banned.

OOC: No legislating in repeals. Also banning 3rd term abortions could contradict reproductive freedoms.