Interpretation. In this resolution: older resolutions overrule conflicting provisions of this resolution; provisions of this resolution found to contradict previous resolution do not render unenforceable several provisions of this resolution; singular words include the plural unless otherwise indicated; and section headers have no effect.
1. Contradiction Rule: This clause is in and of it's self a contradiction of the no contradiction rule as it specifically attempts to immunize this proposal from contradictions that may otherwise get it thrown out by General Secretariat. While this is not an exhausted list, several sections of the proposal are in conflict with with GAR#68 (National Economic Freedom) by mandating governments must fund abortion clinics and may not impose any tax specific to providing abortion services. GAR#68 grants Nations the right to regulate internal commerce within their territorial holdings, which includes taxation and spending on specific industries and services provided. Furthermore, the author of the proposal is the same person who manages the list of all passed and repealed resolutions and is in a unique position where it can be presumed that he is well aware of this contradiction as well as many possible others in this proposal and is deliberately trying to circumvent the challenges to contradiction to pass this law. The rules of the GA are quite clear that no proposal may contradict an extant Resolution and where contradictions exist, they render the law illegal. There is no rule that states contradictions shall be tolerated when a proper Interpretation is given, and giving such a mandated interpretation is in violation of the long held principle of creative compliance with Resolutions. It also opens a Pandora's box of where the line in similar clauses that would immunize scrutiny from other laws would be attempted if allowed. The rules for proposals are clearly defined and immutable and a proposal should not be allowed to immunize itself from breaking these rules. If anything, Section 8 is tacit admission that the author is writing a non-compliant law and should be excused.
2. Blocker Rule: This rule is a violation of the Blocker rule, as it specifically blocks repeals of prior Resolutions to have the intended consequences. Should any provision in this resolution be rendered null by a contradiction, the repeal of the prior resolution now enforces this law in it's place. Thus repeals of any contradicting law (as demonstrated in argument 1, contradictions need not exist in laws related to medical services or specifically abortion and can run a whole host of laws that do not, on their face, have any direct impact on this subject) will bring into force this law and immunize it against any replacement proposals that seek to fix other aspects of the resolution, while leaving the contradicting rule in place or modifying it to make clarifications. Furthermore, another resolution by the author has faced numerous attempts at repeals for a number of contradictions it introduced and while unsuccessful, and may be used to block or invoke an Honest Mistake challenge on any repeals that seek to point out that the proposal is contradicting and should not have been allowed in the first place. In addition, what is to prevent proposal that criminalizes abortion, but will only be effective where it is in compliance with previous resolution.
3. House Of Cards: This section creates a violation of the House of Cards rule as it legislates in that this proposals sections and clauses could change as prior Resolutions are repealed and will thus be changing what is in effect and not in effect. For every repeal of a Resoulution following this one's passage, the developers will have to go and change numbers so that not only are the changes for the repealed resolution are adjusted, but also for this extant resolution. In the simplest sense, Section 8 means this law's numbers outcome could change with every Repeal of all the Resolutions that come before it and create for the code team additional work that this rule and the Amendment Rule were designed to prevent. No where does this proposal say it is in perpetuity and must be treated like a repealed older law still exists, nor does it allow for a zero sum where either it's all complaint or nothing is (it specifically states, only the portions in conflict are null and void). There is no good faith read of section 8 that allows this proposal to stand on it's own and not rely on any other Resolutions to be in effect and preserve it's effects at the time it was voted on.
In short, It is my argument that this resolution seeks to undermined long held rules for writing proposals. Per the GA Rules, a Proposal cannot be written in a way that violates these rules, and thus, writing in any immunities to illegal proposal rules such as Section 8 violate both the spirit and letter of the GA Rules and open a Pandora's box of future clauses that try to skirt around the rules for writing legal proposals.
