Araraukar wrote: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."
Fair. Will remove "women's rights".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.
I think you meant to write "such as".
Not when "these" is referencing the opening clause.
"Understood."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.
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 thecasinosWA-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."
"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."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.
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."
Exactly how?safety
"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."
Wallenburg wrote: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."
Godular wrote:"If I offer to support this resolution, will you give me a gallon of chocolate-mint-marble ice cream?"
"You've got it."
Attempted Socialism wrote:"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."
Kenmoria wrote:“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."
Servilis wrote:Seems fair, do you have replacement legislation?
"A replacement resolution seems unnecessary given existing resolutions, Ambassador."
Legolannd wrote:"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."