[Draft] Repeal Access to Abortion

[Old Hope]

Link to resolution: https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolutions/council=1/start=498

Yearning to give free access to abortion,
But also yearning to protect people, member states, and WA subsidiaries from unnecessary and very harmful excessive legal costs and other legal problems,
Relieved by the protections for abortion caused by General Assembly Resolution 29, Patient's Rights Act, and General Assembly Resolution 286, Reproductive Freedoms
Having found the following problems:
1)Provision of abortifacients according to clause 2 is unsafe. People may be coerced into ordering abortifacients. A mandated counselling(except in medical emergencies) would allow the state to protect it's citiziens from being coerced into an abortion. This is inconsistent with General Assembly Resolution 29, clauses II and IX.
2)Clinics according to clause 4b are mandated to provide abortifacients to any address that is reachable via post. This is unsafe for the reason outlined in 1).
Whereas Clause 8 of this resolution does allow older resolutions to supersede this resolution these legal frictions still create a legally unsafe legal sharp edge causing potentially massive and harmful legal misunderstandings, a massive number of legal actions and legal costs,
The World Assembly repeals General Assembly Resolution 499, Access to Abortion.

Repeal.
First draft.

[Attempted Socialism]

I know your standards are low, but your 1) and 2) are wrong, and 3) is not an argument for repealing. This draft is bad, given your prior response to feedback I don't think improvement is possible, and I won't support any argument for repeal without at least two even stronger pro-choice resolutions being passed first.

[Old Hope]

I know your standards are low, but your 1) and 2) are wrong, and 3) is not an argument for repealing. This draft is bad, given your prior response to feedback I don't think improvement is possible, and I won't support any argument for repeal without at least two even stronger pro-choice resolutions being passed first.

Please give better arguments. If you accuse us of having low standards and having bad response to feedback then maybe actually tell us why you think what you told us(that 1 and 2 are wrong and 3 is not a good repeal argument)

[Attempted Socialism]

I know your standards are low, but your 1) and 2) are wrong, and 3) is not an argument for repealing. This draft is bad, given your prior response to feedback I don't think improvement is possible, and I won't support any argument for repeal without at least two even stronger pro-choice resolutions being passed first.

Please give better arguments. If you accuse us of having low standards and having bad response to feedback then maybe actually tell us why you think what you told us(that 1 and 2 are wrong and 3 is not a good repeal argument)

1) and 2) have no bases in the resolution and there's nothing supporting your position in your own draft. It's like Lionel Hutz' line, "hearsay and conjecture (...) are kinds of evidence", except here there's not even that. It's an invention whole-cloth, and it's best dismissed as such.
3) presumes that (your invented) illegality is a reason for repeal. It's not; resolutions are legal when passed.

If you had arguments for repeal, you should have put them in the draft text.

[Old Hope]

Please give better arguments. If you accuse us of having low standards and having bad response to feedback then maybe actually tell us why you think what you told us(that 1 and 2 are wrong and 3 is not a good repeal argument)

1) and 2) have no bases in the resolution and there's nothing supporting your position in your own draft. It's like Lionel Hutz' line, "hearsay and conjecture (...) are kinds of evidence", except here there's not even that. It's an invention whole-cloth, and it's best dismissed as such.
3) presumes that (your invented) illegality is a reason for repeal. It's not; resolutions are legal when passed.

If you had arguments for repeal, you should have put them in the draft text.

3) I am not saying that this one is illegal, because it has passed. I am saying that the legal friction(either action A is mandated or action A is illegal) is a problem.
1) and 2) have bases in the resolution. A bona fide recipient can be decieved. Coercion is a grey area, but still... bona fide is not a catch all phrase.

[Outer Sparta]

I know your standards are low, but your 1) and 2) are wrong, and 3) is not an argument for repealing. This draft is bad, given your prior response to feedback I don't think improvement is possible, and I won't support any argument for repeal without at least two even stronger pro-choice resolutions being passed first.

Please give better arguments. If you accuse us of having low standards and having bad response to feedback then maybe actually tell us why you think what you told us(that 1 and 2 are wrong and 3 is not a good repeal argument)

You don't seem to notice that you put out drafts of repeals that aren't necessary well-written. Article 1 and 2 doesn't necessary specify anything and your claim that people "may be coerced into ordering abortifacients" is quite shaky.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"Clause 1: no it isn't."

"Clause 2: no it's not."

"Clause 3: Ambassador, Resolution 286 itself renders this argument false. The full clause reads:

PERMITS Member Nations to enact policies encouraging individuals to allow live delivery of their offspring, provided such policies do not ultimately hinder the individual from terminating their pregnancy,

- my own emphasis added, of course."

"The point is that there is literally no way for the two clauses to conflict. Encouragement which does not constitute a hindrance also does not constitute discrimination, restriction, taxation, or any of the other things forbidden in Resolution 499."

"Ambassador, you are grasping at straws in the middle of a vast desert with nothing to drink and no bottles, cups, or juice boxes within a thousand kilometer radius. These arguments are simply without merit."

---

OOC: The third argument may actually constitute what we're still calling an Honest Mistake. The first two are wrong, but wrong in an appeal-to-real-life kind of way, which we don't touch. The third makes a clearly false statement about existing resolutions and I therefore have to rate it as illegal.

[Fachumonn]

Not the greatest draft I've ever seen, and definitely oppose it on principle.
There's also the fact that this would never pass based on the title alone.

[Old Hope]

"Clause 1: no it isn't."

"Clause 2: no it's not."

"Clause 3: Ambassador, Resolution 286 itself renders this argument false. The full clause reads:

PERMITS Member Nations to enact policies encouraging individuals to allow live delivery of their offspring, provided such policies do not ultimately hinder the individual from terminating their pregnancy,

- my own emphasis added, of course."

"The point is that there is literally no way for the two clauses to conflict. Encouragement which does not constitute a hindrance also does not constitute discrimination, restriction, taxation, or any of the other things forbidden in Resolution 499."

"Ambassador, you are grasping at straws in the middle of a vast desert with nothing to drink and no bottles, cups, or juice boxes within a thousand kilometer radius. These arguments are simply without merit."

---

OOC: The third argument may actually constitute what we're still calling an Honest Mistake. The first two are wrong, but wrong in an appeal-to-real-life kind of way, which we don't touch. The third makes a clearly false statement about existing resolutions and I therefore have to rate it as illegal.

I have removed clause 3, but you haven't told me why clause 1 or 2 are supposed to be wrong.

Not the greatest draft I've ever seen, and definitely oppose it on principle.
There's also the fact that this would never pass based on the title alone.

Based on the title alone? No. The title makes it more difficult. But not impossible!

[Wallenburg]

Clause 1 is an Honest Mistake violation by the protections of GAR #29 and the general irrelevance of the question of forced medical procedures to the separate issue of providing access to abortion. Clause 2 is also either an Honest Mistake violation by inheriting the mix of false and irrelevant arguments in Clause 1, or simply a bad argument by failing to actually demonstrate that mailing abortifacients is unsafe. Your last argument against it is borderline nonsense. There is no "legal friction" between A2A and older resolutions when A2A explicitly surrenders at even the sight of friction.

[Separatist Peoples]

Clause 1 is an Honest Mistake violation by the protections of GAR #29 and the general irrelevance of the question of forced medical procedures to the separate issue of providing access to abortion. Clause 2 is also either an Honest Mistake violation by inheriting the mix of false and irrelevant arguments in Clause 1, or simply a bad argument by failing to actually demonstrate that mailing abortifacients is unsafe. Your last argument against it is borderline nonsense. There is no "legal friction" between A2A and older resolutions when A2A explicitly surrenders at even the sight of friction.

Ooc: frankly, I would call it facially an HM violation to suggest there is any friction given the explicit clause defaulting to older resolutions. So three HMs. Impressive, but, like, in a bad way.

[Chipoli]

Link to resolution: https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolutions/council=1/start=498

Yearning to give free access to abortion,
But also yearning to protect people, member states, and WA subsidiaries from unnecessary and very harmful excessive legal costs and other legal problems,
Relieved by the protections for abortion caused by General Assembly Resolution 29, Patient's Rights Act, and General Assembly Resolution 286, Reproductive Freedoms
Having found the following problems:
1)Provision of abortifacients according to clause 2 is unsafe. People may be coerced into ordering abortifacients. A mandated counselling(except in medical emergencies) would allow the state to protect it's citiziens from being coerced into an abortion. This is inconsistent with General Assembly Resolution 29, clauses II and IX.
2)Clinics according to clause 4b are mandated to provide abortifacients to any address that is reachable via post. This is unsafe for the reason outlined in 1).
Whereas Clause 8 of this resolution does allow older resolutions to supersede this resolution these legal frictions still create a legally unsafe legal sharp edge causing potentially massive and harmful legal misunderstandings, a massive number of legal actions and legal costs,
The World Assembly repeals General Assembly Resolution 499, Access to Abortion.

Repeal.
First draft.

I don't see any strong arguments to repeal the resolution in this case.

[Equai]

Opposed. All arguments provided in the draft are illogical, wrong intended, weak and has no basis to stand on its own. Federation of Equai sees this as nothing but a nitpicking and overthinking and by that risk to strip a fundamental human rights off the oppressed group.

We do not deny that somewhere out there someone was coerced into getting an abortion. On contrary, it probably did happened, just how it happened that person was denied access to abortion. In most cases the latter occupies far more often then the former so repealing human rights in other to please severe overthinkers that somewhere out there someone is going to abuse the law is ridiculous at best and dangerous at worst. If we use that logic then why don't abolish all human rights? Like we stated above, this repeal is illogical, wrong intended, weak and has no basis to stand on its own and we will be opposed to do it all the way.