NationStates

Wayneactia wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"This alone seems a reasonable basis to support this."

"Quite agreed."

Wayne

OOC: Can we finally pass a fucking repeal on this bullshit and get it over with? Full shoe banging support!

OOC: You mean... Wayne actually voting for a proposal? No way.

Atheris wrote:

Wayneactia wrote:"Quite agreed."

Wayne

OOC: Can we finally pass a fucking repeal on this bullshit and get it over with? Full shoe banging support!

OOC: You mean... Wayne actually voting for a proposal? No way.

IC: "It's best to not look a gift horse in the mouth."

Retired WerePenguins wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:Noting that GAR #128 requires all abortion physicians to meet the same qualifications as surgeons and receive a degree of training equitable to that of surgeons, despite the vast majority of abortions not requiring any surgery,

You only noticed this recently?

OOC: I, at least, have known this for three years, give or take. That I did not attempt this repeal sooner does not mean I did not know of the target's flaws.

On the other hand, I have heard arguments that gynecologists in general lack the surgical expertise to handle complications.

HOW DOES ABORTION TAKE PLACE?
In 2017, medical abortions accounted for 39% of all abortions (AGI).
In 2018, 60% of reported abortions were accomplished by curettage (which includes dilatation and evacuation). Most curettage abortions are suction procedures (CDC).
Medical abortions made up approximately 40% of all abortions reported in 2018 (CDC).
Ninety-six per cent of the more than 140,000 second-trimester abortions that occur annually in the USA are accomplished by dilation and evacuation (D&E) (NAF).

ABORTION FATALITY
In 2017, two women were reported to have died as a result of complications from induced abortion. Between 1973-2015, a reported 447 women died due to complications from legal abortion (CDC).

Now given this, the fact that only two fatalities happened in a year might suggest that the requirement might be overkill. Of course that doesn't consider uterine perforation which could lead to the inability to have any children in the future.

But, sure, we need Sweeney Todd to perform abortions.

"You would represent yourself more intelligently to consider that physicians may be qualified to perform medical abortions but not surgical ones. I also care not for your unceremonious blathering of figures which do not concern this body. The figures of one nation across a selective time period concerning abortion do not represent the circumstances which all member states face. The target resolution would require all abortion providers to be surgically trained even if every abortion in their home nation were performed medically. These requirements are outlandish and intended solely to restrict access to reproductive care."

I'll bump this for good measure. No need to submit right now instead of tomorrow.

"Seeing that this directly contradicts two other resolutions, specifically pointing out GA#286 and GA#499, this has our full support."

Full support.

The World Assembly Delegation of the Imperial State of Novakia has been instructed to support this repeal. "On Abortion" seems entirely redundant in light of the multitude of other resolutions on the subject, and it realistically only serves to cause complication and make the process of procuring a legal abortion more rigorous than it already is.

The following is a transcript of the statement made by His Excellency, Erwin-Ottokar von Schneider, Her Imperial Majesties Ambassador to the World Assembly.

As I see it, GAR #128 has already covered everything necessary for the purpose of ensuring access to abortions in WA Member States, mandating the legalization under most probable circumstances. It seems your main issue here is that it includes a clause allowing the attending physician to refuse to undertake the operation if it conflicts with their personal moral beliefs. Now if that is the issue at hand then we could add a sub-clause mandating that in this scenario, the physician in question be lawfully required to refer the patient to another medical professional equally qualified to carry out the operation. I believe women deserve every right to control their bodies and abortion is one of those rights, thats not the issue here, it absolutely should be legal and accessible. However if a surgeon determines it would violate their personal beliefs, be they religious, philosophical, moral, to conduct said operation, they must be allowed to decline the patient’s request for THEM to perform. Not decline outright, just decline on their PERSONAL behalf, and refer them to an equally qualified surgeon. Therefore I would suggest that rather than repeal GA#128, you instead seek a subclause mandating that should a surgeon decline to perform the operation that they be required to refer the patient to an equally capable and qualified medical professional whom will conduct the operation.

New Decius wrote:The following is a transcript of the statement made by His Excellency, Erwin-Ottokar von Schneider, Her Imperial Majesties Ambassador to the World Assembly.

As I see it, GAR #128 has already covered everything necessary for the purpose of ensuring access to abortions in WA Member States, mandating the legalization under most probable circumstances. It seems your main issue here is that it includes a clause allowing the attending physician to refuse to undertake the operation if it conflicts with their personal moral beliefs. Now if that is the issue at hand then we could add a sub-clause mandating that in this scenario, the physician in question be lawfully required to refer the patient to another medical professional equally qualified to carry out the operation. I believe women deserve every right to control their bodies and abortion is one of those rights, thats not the issue here, it absolutely should be legal and accessible. However if a surgeon determines it would violate their personal beliefs, be they religious, philosophical, moral, to conduct said operation, they must be allowed to decline the patient’s request for THEM to perform. Not decline outright, just decline on their PERSONAL behalf, and refer them to an equally qualified surgeon. Therefore I would suggest that rather than repeal GA#128, you instead seek a subclause mandating that should a surgeon decline to perform the operation that they be required to refer the patient to an equally capable and qualified medical professional whom will conduct the operation.

"Resolutions cannot be amended, and if a physician is unwilling to provide medical care, they should not be physicians."

I have submitted this.

Support.

"Full support, godspeed Ambassador."

"As the representative of a new WA member unaware of the author of this repeal, I headed into this draft expecting some pro-life jabber about the evil of abortion. The draft and ensuing related laws that I read, however, proved Wallenburg's point and the necessity of this repeal well and succinctly. Completely supported."

"Full support.

It is better that we have streamlined and fewer resolutions guaranteeing reproductive rights rather than duplicate resolutions that does little to further reproductive freedoms."

Support. Good luck, Ambassador.

Against.

In my opinion, it's unethical to force doctors to do abortions if they don't want to. "On Abortion" protects the right of doctors to choose not to perform abortions. After all, there is a resolution (Access to Abortion) that mandates that abortions are provided. All that repealing this will do is allow member-states to force doctors to perform abortion even if they have conscensious objections, and since it's very controversial there will be a lot of doctors who have an objection (most other medical operations aren't that controversial). Forcing them to do something they have a moral objection against is just wrong.

The Python wrote:Forcing them to do something they have a moral objection against is just wrong.

Refusing to provide medical care on the grounds that you do not personally want the patient to receive medical care is, itself, highly unethical.

The Python wrote:In my opinion, it's unethical to force doctors to do abortions if they don't want to. "On Abortion" protects the right of doctors to choose not to perform abortions. After all, there is a resolution (Access to Abortion) that mandates that abortions are provided. All that repealing this will do is allow member-states to force doctors to perform abortion even if they have conscensious objections, and since it's very controversial there will be a lot of doctors who have an objection (most other medical operations aren't that controversial). Forcing them to do something they have a moral objection against is just wrong.

Access to Abortion does not allow member nations to force doctors who have philosophical or religious objections to abortion to perform abortions. Nor does it do so itself. It merely makes it such that inhabitants of member nations have access to abortion. Even if a nation has no abortion clinics because it has no doctors willing to perform them (an absurd scenario), it still does not require doctors to perform abortions. It instead requires that nation to have the abortion done elsewhere at that nation's expense.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

The Python wrote:In my opinion, it's unethical to force doctors to do abortions if they don't want to. "On Abortion" protects the right of doctors to choose not to perform abortions. After all, there is a resolution (Access to Abortion) that mandates that abortions are provided. All that repealing this will do is allow member-states to force doctors to perform abortion even if they have conscensious objections, and since it's very controversial there will be a lot of doctors who have an objection (most other medical operations aren't that controversial). Forcing them to do something they have a moral objection against is just wrong.

Access to Abortion does not allow member nations to force doctors who have philosophical or religious objections to abortion to perform abortions. Nor does it do so itself. It merely makes it such that inhabitants of member nations have access to abortion. Even if a nation has no abortion clinics because it has no doctors willing to perform them (an absurd scenario), it still does not require doctors to perform abortions. It instead requires that nation to have the abortion done elsewhere at that nation's expense.

Yes, Access to Abortion mandates that nations provide abortions. The only difference is whether the doctors who have to perform them want to, or don't want to.

"So, this is why the four horsemen delivered the mail today. Not only has a delegate managed to provide a reasonable basis for repealing On Abortion, which is second only to Reproductive Freedoms in the sheer volume of challenges to it, but it has also been a repeal of an Abortion-Related resolution that at least one extremely pro-life nation has voiced ardent opposition to. For that reason alone I've gotta give this thing a solid thumbs-up."

This is now at vote.

Ooc: holy shit, Wally, you're not getting crushed

"My opposition to this repeal is affirmed."

*banging shoe on the table*
FULLY OPPOSED!!! FULLY OPPOSED!!!
Now, dear ambassadors, our nation is fully opposed to this resolution due to the fact that our society is against abortions in, practically, all forms other than when the fetus is defective, when it’s a result of a rape or when there is a threat to the mother’s life, not body. This resolution had allowed us to further suppress mainly all forms of abortion excluding above stated on basis of “moral rejectment”. We were and will continue to enforce our pro-life values even if the resolution that takes place of this one will strip the medical specialists of their right to refuse abortion and will force member nations to establish planned parenthood organizations. We shall never surrender in our quest to protect the lives of the unborn children. Lakan women never needed, nor will never need such large abortion industry for it is against His will. Our bodies and lives do not belong to us, but instead to the people, and as such as the people do not wish for any of us to perform abortions, we shall keep finding loopholes and ways to work around WA law to contin7e enforcing our rights, as a collective.
God have mercy on this place...

Of course it's not enough that people can do it, you have to force doctors to perform it! Nothing insane about that.
Can we at least cut it out with the euphemisms? Reproductive rights, just call it elective murder. For most of history it has been understood that some parents are going to decide to kill their kids, before or after they're born. Just like it was normal for lots of them to die on their own before and after.