[PASSED] Reproductive Freedoms

by **Eireann Fae** » Sat Jan 25, 2014 3:32 am

Reproductive Freedoms
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Human Rights ❀ Strength: Significant ❀ Proposed by: Eireann Fae

Description: BELIEVING in the reproductive rights of all individuals,

ACKNOWLEDGING that individuals may have cultural or religious misgivings regarding termination of pregnancy,

BEMOANING the fact that some nations codify such misgivings without regard for the freedom of the individuals to choose,

YEARNING to put the choice of whether or not to give birth firmly in the control of each individual;

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY

RECOGNISES that the termination of pregnancy is a medical procedure, with all the rights and protections afforded to such a practice,

MANDATES that Member Nations recognise the right of all individuals to have their pregnancies terminated through safe, openly accessible procedures,

DEMANDS that Member Nations prohibit any impediment to the termination of pregnancy that is not applied to medical procedures of similar risk and complexity,

REQUIRES Member Nations to ensure protection from targeted animosity to providers and patients of the procedures covered by this resolution,

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,

SUGGESTS that Member Nations encouraging live deliveries take unwanted offspring into their own care.

"Right then," says Rowan posting a fresh draft for the new chamber to mull over. "More of a long shot, this one, but we have to try."

"Ten bucks says we get attacked by a pro-lifer before being supported by a pro-choicer," offers Alexandra. Her colleague seems bemused.

"But... We do not have any money."

"Pssh. Chicken."

by **The Dark Star Republic** » Sat Jan 25, 2014 5:59 am

"Given the ardency of opposition to any WA legalisation of abortion by some, and my absolute belief that Ambassador Russell will be willing to stall all other legislative priorities in pursuit of their agenda, I do wonder whether this would put the Patient's Rights Act in jeopardy. If this passed, the logical course of action for them would be to repeal the Patient's Rights Act and replace it with someone redefining what a 'medical procedure' was.

"On a minor point, I would argue this should be Strong. Although it's only covering one policy area, it's incredibly broad. Nations cannot even restrict very late term abortions, sex-selective abortion, or abortion after a Down's test. The sheer scope of that freedom of choice deserves recognition. However, I don't consider that issue serious enough that I would challenge its legality or really argue the point further; the difference in such Strengths is basically a judgement call and probably unlikely to interest the Secretariat.

"Also, in terms of phrasing of the preamble 'of the individuals' is a bit odd. Which individuals? The only time you've referenced 'individuals' is in terms of those people having 'misgivings'; the women themselves you've referred to as 'inhabitants'. To be clear that you're putting the decision in the hands of the pregnant woman, and not in the hands of the people who have misgivings about her choice, I think you need to specify a bit more: 'in the hands of each individual person', for example.

"And I assume you're using 'sapient beings' for reasons of species preference (in which case, why are you limiting it only to those species who have hands?). I'm personally not convinced by that at all, because what we understand as 'abortion' in humans might pose considerably different ethical questions for other species (for example, those incubating a shared pregnancy). Still, 'people' or 'persons' would work equally well."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

by **Eireann Fae** » Sat Jan 25, 2014 6:29 am

"Glad you didn't take that bet..."

Smiling, but otherwise ignoring her cohort, Rowan responds to Ambassador Fungschlammer. "A little bird told us that he will likely not try again for another six months. As it stands now, though, the queue is currently quite full of pending votes for at least a couple of weeks, giving us time to work on separate drafts, as we said we would in the other chamber. Hopefully he will not cut off our efforts as he did recently in our effort to pass our Consent of Cosmetic Procedures proposal^†."

"We do agree that the sweeping effects of our proposed resolution may be regarded as having a strong effect in many nations, but were unsure if our fellow delegates, not to mention the Secretariat, would agree. I am sorry, though, did you say nations cannot permit very late-term abortions, or prohibit? We seek to give individuals the right to terminate their pregnancies for any reason, at any time. We do encourage live delivery of highly developed fetuses where doing so would not endanger the mother - such deliveries would not be a contradiction, as the pregnancy would still be ended. If any of this is unclear, perhaps you can explain the cause for obfuscation or confusion to us so that we may fix the issue."

"In the third preambulatory clause, we are speaking of nations' effects on their inhabitants; in the fourth, we are indeed speaking of all individuals, without reference to their nations. We apologise for any confusion this may have caused. We can edit the text to read the individuals instead of their inhabitants in the former clause. Also, our intention was not to discriminate against beings which lack hands," Rowan adds, blushing a little. "This is an unfortunate oversight in the turn of phrase that I chose to use. Epiſkœ's words were fœ'föbinʒü win - 'in her control'. To alleviate your concerns, I shall edit the clause to read '...firmly in the control of each individual'. I do not currently see any particularly compelling need to append the clause with 'person', but you are welcome to try and convince me otherwise."

"Finally, I do agree with your assertion that 'persons' would work equally well in the first clause of the proposal, and would save us from being accused of... 'species wankery', I believe the term is. We thank you for suggestions, and shall implement such changes immediately." Rowan sets to work on a revised draft and a new 'Items of Consideration' document.

^† Which, for the record, is still on the table. We've edited it to avoid contradictions with extant resolutions, but I'm working on this topic now. Still, people are free to make suggestions about CoCP in its thread :-)

by **The Dark Star Republic** » Sat Jan 25, 2014 6:38 am

Eireann Fae wrote:"We do agree that the sweeping effects of our proposed resolution may be regarded as having a strong effect in many nations, but were unsure if our fellow delegates, not to mention the Secretariat, would agree. I am sorry, though, did you say nations cannot permit very late-term abortions, or prohibit?

Inky glares at his translator, who was too busy watching reruns of the Knicks game to notice his error.

"I will have my comments adjusted in the formal record of debate; of course, I meant 'prohibit', not 'permit'.

"Your other comments appear to satisfy my concerns for now."

He sits down smiling, unaware his final comments have been rendered unintelligible by his translator, who is more interested in admiringly replaying the highlight video of a half-court shot.

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

by **Mousebumples** » Sat Jan 25, 2014 7:21 am

OOC: I've been thinking on this some over the past few days - mentally searching for loopholes, etc. - and I wondered if this proposal would in any way prohibit some of the "morally just" actions that some US states have passed into law. (i.e. forcing women to view an ultrasound before being able to have an abortion; reciting "facts" at women seeking an abortion to theoretically convince them, morally, that abortion is wrong, etc.)

Depending on clause wording, I think that could arguably be viewed as something that should/could be included within this draft.

by **Eireann Fae** » Sat Jan 25, 2014 7:27 am

(OOC: Being a native Texan, I completely understand such concerns. I'll ponder on such things, and welcome any further thoughts on the matter [from you and others]. For now, though, I must go to bed. I have a horrible habit I'm trying to break of staying up on my nights off and ruining my nocturnal rhythms :-)

by **Omigodtheykilledkenny** » Sat Jan 25, 2014 11:11 am

Theoretically, there are many kinds of restrictions/conditions/regulations that could be legally imposed by member states under this resolution; I don't see why we should be focusing on one particular form of condition, just because it pertains to an RL political development. I am amenable to this draft, and would be willing to offer my support, but I can withdraw it just as easily if the author allows it to become bogged down by RL political considerations.

by **Rotwood** » Sat Jan 25, 2014 1:03 pm

We are liking this. We are slightly disappointed, however, that you didn't decide to pursue the other side of your proposal first, as it seems to have triggered a certain member to put forward their own.

by **Unibot III** » Sat Jan 25, 2014 2:40 pm

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Theoretically, there are many kinds of restrictions/conditions/regulations that could be legally imposed by member states under this resolution; I don't see why we should be focusing on one particular form of condition, just because it pertains to an RL political development. I am amenable to this draft, and would be willing to offer my support, but I can withdraw it just as easily if the author allows it to become bogged down by RL political considerations.

OOC: Kenny's right that there is a lot of possible ways that member-states could go about it, but perhaps a vaguer clause about not restricting access through policies that intimidate or misinform patients?

by **Mousebumples** » Sat Jan 25, 2014 3:40 pm

Unibot III wrote:
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Theoretically, there are many kinds of restrictions/conditions/regulations that could be legally imposed by member states under this resolution; I don't see why we should be focusing on one particular form of condition, just because it pertains to an RL political development. I am amenable to this draft, and would be willing to offer my support, but I can withdraw it just as easily if the author allows it to become bogged down by RL political considerations.

OOC: Kenny's right that there is a lot of possible ways that member-states could go about it, but perhaps a vaguer clause about not restricting access through policies that intimidate or misinform patients?

Yeah, I don't think that a micromanagey clause would be right ... But something more general on the subject about how the right to access shall not be limited by XYZ-oriented influences or something.

by **Serocia** » Sat Jan 25, 2014 5:58 pm

We are fully against this proposal. We have a duty to defend the life of the defenseless and innocent, this includes the unborn children being murdered daily through abortion.

by **Auralia** » Sat Jan 25, 2014 6:17 pm

I suppose we might as well note that we are vehemently opposed to this proposal, for reasons that should be obvious to most of this Assembly at this point.

by **Eireann Fae** » Sat Jan 25, 2014 8:44 pm

Rowan smiles as she addresses the Kennyite ambassador. "We have no intention of enumerating all possible workarounds that Member Nations may dream up and explicitly prohibiting each one, Minister. We apologise for the early inclusion of a 'partial-birth' exception in our previous effort on the subject; abortion is almost unheard of in Eireann Fae, and most of what we know on the matter comes from outside sources. The loudest of those sources makes many a reference to the procedure aforementioned - we did not know it was a regional concept. How about phrasing along these lines?"

STIPULATES that Member Nations may not enact legislation making the termination of pregnancy any more difficult or time-consuming a process than it physically needs to be.

"Not a perfect clause perhaps, but we are, as ever, open to suggestions as to the phrasing. We feel such a clause would prevent nations from increasing the difficulty of the procedure by making the tools needed to carry out such a procedure inaccessible, as well as prevent them from requiring onerous counselling or sonograms or otherwise wasting time before the procedure may be carried out."

The girl turns her attention to Sir Jericho, bemused. "To which competing legislation do you refer. If you mean Mr. Russell's effort^†, we feel that our effort here is exactly what we needed to pursue, and such a thing is precisely why we went this direction. His vexatious efforts would not hinder family planning services, but they would certainly put a damper on abortion. Unfortunately, it seems that Ambassador Fungschlammer was correct in his assertion that the Auralian diplomat would indeed be working on this particular issue much sooner than we had hoped. It seems the bœʃ-melʃinaʒü is positively determined to make life as difficult for people as possible."

"In any case, we thank you for your support." The girl turns her attention to an unfamiliar delegate. "We are sorry to hear that, Ambassador. However, we are aware that this is a highly contentious topic, to say the least, and expect that your statement of utter opposition is merely the first of many which we will have to endure."

She then turns an uncharacteristically icy gaze to the Auralian Ambassador. "Yes, we are well aware of your position, Martin Russell. Good day, sir."

^† That is, Auralia's "Protocol on Abortion". It may also be noted that she did not use an honorary title for him (and later calls him a 'stupid beast' in Fe'rœſ Fenſaför). Poor girl is losing her composure :-)

by **Serocia** » Sat Jan 25, 2014 8:51 pm

Eireann Fae wrote:The girl turns her attention to an unfamiliar delegate. "We are sorry to hear that, Ambassador. However, we are aware that this is a highly contentious topic, to say the least, and expect that your statement of utter opposition is merely the first of many which we will have to endure."

[OoC: I like your IC style, such as italicizing certain parts and quoting what's said and so on. I am going to mimic it respectfully if I may.]

The ambassador from Venolia to the W.A., Celidonius Lancius, said, "Not only is this one among many cases of utter opposition, it is a very strong and very stern condemnation of the draft."
He continued, "Whatsoever is opposed to life itself, such as abortion, is an infamy indeed. It, like the institution of slavery and like genocide, poisons human society, but it does more harm to the persons, who practice it, than those, who suffer from the injury. It is a supreme dishonor to the dignity of man and to God."

by **Eireann Fae** » Sat Jan 25, 2014 9:03 pm

(OOC: Glad you like it ☺ Unfortunately, I'm still going to have to unleash Alexandra on you, lest Rowan lose it completely; the following is totally IC, of course :-)

Before Rowan can say anything, Alex rises from her seat, glaring at Ambassador Lancius. "Wooo, a stern commendation of our draft. Who the hell are you that you think we should care? Like Ro said, we're expecting such opposition, and we expect it from those with a lot more clout than you can manage, I'm sure. Ambassador Stupid-Beast carries a lot more weight in this Assembly than you do, and we've already told him to piss off. Comparing abortion to genocide just shows how narrow-minded you Jesus-freaks really are. So I'll tell you like Rowan told Russell - piss off, and take your God with you."

by **Serocia** » Sat Jan 25, 2014 9:14 pm

Eireann Fae wrote:(OOC: Glad you like it ☺ Unfortunately, I'm still going to have to unleash Alexandra on you, lest Rowan lose it completely; the following is totally IC, of course :-)

Before Rowan can say anything, Alex rises from her seat, glaring at Ambassador Lancius. "Wooo, a stern commendation of our draft. Who the hell are you that you think we should care? Like Ro said, we're expecting such opposition, and we expect it from those with a lot more clout than you can manage, I'm sure. Ambassador Stupid-Beast carries a lot more weight in this Assembly than you do, and we've already told him to piss off. Comparing abortion to genocide just shows how narrow-minded you Jesus-freaks really are. So I'll tell you like Rowan told Russell - piss off, and take your God with you."

Ambassador Lancius, unimpressed with the tantrum, said, "Please, have a modicum of civility! You, as a so-called diplomat, lack a sense diplomacy. How you made it to represent your country is beyond me." He added, "This puerile outburst. . . What does this look like to you? A playground?"

by **Separatist Peoples** » Sat Jan 25, 2014 9:50 pm

Serocia wrote:
Eireann Fae wrote:(OOC: Glad you like it ☺ Unfortunately, I'm still going to have to unleash Alexandra on you, lest Rowan lose it completely; the following is totally IC, of course :-)

Before Rowan can say anything, Alex rises from her seat, glaring at Ambassador Lancius. "Wooo, a stern commendation of our draft. Who the hell are you that you think we should care? Like Ro said, we're expecting such opposition, and we expect it from those with a lot more clout than you can manage, I'm sure. Ambassador Stupid-Beast carries a lot more weight in this Assembly than you do, and we've already told him to piss off. Comparing abortion to genocide just shows how narrow-minded you Jesus-freaks really are. So I'll tell you like Rowan told Russell - piss off, and take your God with you."

Ambassador Lancius, unimpressed with the tantrum, said, "Please, have a modicum of civility! You, as a so-called diplomat, lack a sense diplomacy. How you made it to represent your country is beyond me." He added, "This puerile outburst. . . What does this look like to you? A playground?"

"Considering Alex and Rowan are both under the chronological age of 18 (I believe), its not surprising that the outburst is puerile. And, since you asked, the WA is full of puerile ambassadors who find the WA to be little more then a legal playground with a very well-stocked bar.

"In the interest of the righteousness human rights and the cold, calculating dispassion that is law, I have to second that sentiment towards any god."

by **ALMF** » Sun Jan 26, 2014 10:50 am

Eireann Fae wrote:Rowan smiles as she addresses the Kennyite ambassador. "We have no intention of enumerating all possible workarounds that Member Nations may dream up and explicitly prohibiting each one, Minister. We apologise for the early inclusion of a 'partial-birth' exception in our previous effort on the subject; abortion is almost unheard of in Eireann Fae, and most of what we know on the matter comes from outside sources. The loudest of those sources makes many a reference to the procedure aforementioned - we did not know it was a regional concept. How about phrasing along these lines?"

STIPULATES that Member Nations may not enact legislation making the termination of pregnancy any more difficult or time-consuming a process than it physically needs to be.

"Not a perfect clause perhaps, but we are, as ever, open to suggestions as to the phrasing. We feel such a clause would prevent nations from increasing the difficulty of the procedure by making the tools needed to carry out such a procedure inaccessible, as well as prevent them from requiring onerous counselling or sonograms or otherwise wasting time before the procedure may be carried out."

The girl turns her attention to Sir Jericho, bemused. "To which competing legislation do you refer. If you mean Mr. Russell's effort^†, we feel that our effort here is exactly what we needed to pursue, and such a thing is precisely why we went this direction. His vexatious efforts would not hinder family planning services, but they would certainly put a damper on abortion. Unfortunately, it seems that Ambassador Fungschlammer was correct in his assertion that the Auralian diplomat would indeed be working on this particular issue much sooner than we had hoped. It seems the bœʃ-melʃinaʒü is positively determined to make life as difficult for people as possible."

"In any case, we thank you for your support." The girl turns her attention to an unfamiliar delegate. "We are sorry to hear that, Ambassador. However, we are aware that this is a highly contentious topic, to say the least, and expect that your statement of utter opposition is merely the first of many which we will have to endure."

She then turns an uncharacteristically icy gaze to the Auralian Ambassador. "Yes, we are well aware of your position, Martin Russell. Good day, sir."

^† That is, Auralia's "Protocol on Abortion". It may also be noted that she did not use an honorary title for him (and later calls him a 'stupid beast' in Fe'rœſ Fenſaför). Poor girl is losing her composure :-)

How about a clause forbidding unreasonable or burdensome restrictions by government and requiring the government to protect agenst unreasonable or burdensome interference. Your draft language does the first Id at least add the second.

on the strength protecting a medical procedure from being singled out on the basis of misogynistic malice hardly seems to justify "strong"

by **ALMF** » Sun Jan 26, 2014 10:54 am

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Serocia wrote:
Ambassador Lancius, unimpressed with the tantrum, said, "Please, have a modicum of civility! You, as a so-called diplomat, lack a sense diplomacy. How you made it to represent your country is beyond me." He added, "This puerile outburst. . . What does this look like to you? A playground?"

"Considering Alex and Rowan are both under the chronological age of 18 (I believe), its not surprising that the outburst is puerile. And, since you asked, the WA is full of puerile ambassadors who find the WA to be little more then a legal playground with a very well-stocked bar.

"In the interest of the righteousness human rights and the cold, calculating dispassion that is law, I have to second that sentiment towards any god."

If a second second is uesfull its here. Especially any HUMAN god --yuck {shivers}.

by **Rotwood** » Sun Jan 26, 2014 12:40 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Serocia wrote:
Ambassador Lancius, unimpressed with the tantrum, said, "Please, have a modicum of civility! You, as a so-called diplomat, lack a sense diplomacy. How you made it to represent your country is beyond me." He added, "This puerile outburst. . . What does this look like to you? A playground?"

"Considering Alex and Rowan are both under the chronological age of 18 (I believe), its not surprising that the outburst is puerile. And, since you asked, the WA is full of puerile ambassadors who find the WA to be little more then a legal playground with a very well-stocked bar.

"In the interest of the righteousness human rights and the cold, calculating dispassion that is law, I have to second that sentiment towards any god."

And thirded here. To reiterate our policy, since no religion is universally accepted, and there have been known to be gods directly ruling countries here, religion has no place in secular politics. Let the priests preach from the pulpit, not legislate covering those who choose to ignore them.

by **Eireann Fae** » Sun Jan 26, 2014 3:24 pm

In response to the Serocian Ambassador, Rowan mutters, "You should see how she acts in the Bar..." Turning her attention to the Separatist Person, the girl smiles. "She and I are indeed seventeen and thirteen years of age, Ambassador. But I would like it noted that the outburst was not mine. I do try whenever possible, to maintain a professional air within these chambers, whereas my colleague is more... Spirited."

"Ain't that the fuckin' truth."

"In any case, we appreciate the latter part of your response, along with two others, in driving home the point that this Assembly does not make it a habit to cater to deities or their followers."

The girl turns her attention to the delegate from ALMF. "Our concern is mostly with government interference in such procedures - we have no desire to force compliance on individuals in their private practices from opposing the act themselves. We understand your concern, but such a clause will have to be carefully worded so as to not infringe on the rights of doctors, priests, pharmaceutical organisations, et cetera. We will ponder on the matter, and see if we cannot combine such a notion with our previous suggested clause. We welcome further input on the matter."

by **Normlpeople** » Sun Jan 26, 2014 11:16 pm

We like this draft. This is the first one we've seen in this chamber that adresses all of our concerns regarding this issue.

While this doesn't affect our nation much (as pretty much all parts of it are current practice), we will still look forward to voting in favor of it.

by **ALMF** » Mon Jan 27, 2014 1:50 am

Eireann Fae wrote:In response to the Serocian Ambassador, Rowan mutters, "You should see how she acts in the Bar..." Turning her attention to the Separatist Person, the girl smiles. "She and I are indeed seventeen and thirteen years of age, Ambassador. But I would like it noted that the outburst was not mine. I do try whenever possible, to maintain a professional air within these chambers, whereas my colleague is more... Spirited."

"Ain't that the fuckin' truth."

"In any case, we appreciate the latter part of your response, along with two others, in driving home the point that this Assembly does not make it a habit to cater to deities or their followers."

The girl turns her attention to the delegate from ALMF. "Our concern is mostly with government interference in such procedures - we have no desire to force compliance on individuals in their private practices from opposing the act themselves. We understand your concern, but such a clause will have to be carefully worded so as to not infringe on the rights of doctors, priests, pharmaceutical organisations, et cetera. We will ponder on the matter, and see if we cannot combine such a notion with our previous suggested clause. We welcome further input on the matter."

We are concerned about the harassment of doctors and clients, especially in human-and/or-monotheist majority communities. Our model legislation to combat this comes, ironically, form legislation 9 centuries ago on earth. A subdivision thereof called the United States of Amarica (or was that 'marka?) passed a law, Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994 and another called Massachusetts General Law Part IV TITLE I CHAPTER 266 Section 120E1/2. That protected patients and doctors from vilance. (Historians Note: 1994 is from a dating system of prewarp earth called Anno Domini. The date 1994 is a little less than 9 centuries ago)

As to doctors and other staff, infantry (as a profession) includes the use of force. Just as it wold be inappropriate for a person who systemically objects to the use of force to be an infantry professional, it is inappropriate for someone who objects to abortion tobe a medical professional.

by **Eireann Fae** » Mon Jan 27, 2014 4:43 am

"We thank Normlpeople for your support," Rowan says with a smile, then returns her attention to the delegate from ALMF. "I must admit, I am unfamiliar with this 'United States of Amarica'; my fields of study include linguistics and religion, but I am sadly lacking in historical knowledge."

"In any case, would this clause gain the wide approval of this chamber?"

REQUIRES Member Nations to enact legislation to prevent anyone, public or private, from making the termination of pregnancy any more difficult or time-consuming a process than it physically needs to be.

"We believe this would serve to prevent the government itself from posing any obstructive regulations, as well as protect individuals seeking abortions from being barred from entering clinics or forced to seek counselling or otherwise be hindered in their efforts to terminate their pregnancies."

by **The Dark Star Republic** » Mon Jan 27, 2014 4:49 am

"I'm not sure about 'physically'. How about 'than is medically necessary'? An alternative approach would be to prohibit any provision that is applied to abortion and not to medically similar procedures, so as to ensure that abortion is not being singled out."

[PASSED] Reproductive Freedoms

[PASSED] Reproductive Freedoms

Who is online