[PASSED] Access to Abortion

[Kenmoria]

Define "readily available". In Europe most nations provide abortions upon request, but with additional restrictions like time limits, waiting periods with counselling, and so on. A woman who doesn't like being hassled by these delays can travel abroad to seek abortions, and none of these European countries cover those travel costs. Not to mention IA's resolution is worded like the states will also have to cover transportation costs to clinics within their countries, like cars or trains to the abortion clinics. That's insane.

And we're not even touching the topic of building new clinics and maintaining them to provide speedy services, available upon request at any time.

OOC: Wait a minute, what the actual fuck? Is this really the case? Can anyone clarify this? Does the government has to pay for a woman's uber ride if she's going to get an abortion?

(OOC: If you saw what I posted pre-edit, ignore it. On further analysis, clause 2 requires governmental funding of transport only if there isn’t a reasonably swift way of getting to an abortion clinic. In most places, walking, cycling and driving are all perfectly fine ways of getting there.)

[Attempted Socialism]

Define "readily available". In Europe most nations provide abortions upon request, but with additional restrictions like time limits, waiting periods with counselling, and so on. A woman who doesn't like being hassled by these delays can travel abroad to seek abortions, and none of these European countries cover those travel costs. Not to mention IA's resolution is worded like the states will also have to cover transportation costs to clinics within their countries, like cars or trains to the abortion clinics. That's insane.

And we're not even touching the topic of building new clinics and maintaining them to provide speedy services, available upon request at any time.

OOC: Wait a minute, what the actual fuck? Is this really the case? Can anyone clarify this? Does the government has to pay for a woman's uber ride if she's going to get an abortion?

No, Picairn has misunderstood the clause. If there is no clinic you could reasonably travel to on your own, that is, if the state has pulled an Alabama and closed all but one clinic in a large area, the state is required to pay for travel. If you're a reasonable nation where abortion can be accessed at e.g. your GP, the state will never pay a dime for travel expenses.

[Attempted Socialism]

OOC: Wait a minute, what the actual fuck? Is this really the case? Can anyone clarify this? Does the government has to pay for a woman's uber ride if she's going to get an abortion?

(OOC: Unless the clinic is within walking distance then, according to clause 2 of this proposal, the government must fund transport to it.)

BS. First, it's clause 4 with the travel expenses and second "walking distance" is an insane and bad-faith interpretation.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: Unless the clinic is within walking distance then, according to clause 2 of this proposal, the government must fund transport to it.)

BS. First, it's clause 4 with the travel expenses and second "walking distance" is an insane and bad-faith interpretation.

(OOC: Check my edit; I mixed up the provision for abortion serves to be provided speedily and freely on clause 2 with the requirement in clause 4 for abortion clinics to be swiftly accessible.)

[Attempted Socialism]

BS. First, it's clause 4 with the travel expenses and second "walking distance" is an insane and bad-faith interpretation.

(OOC: Check my edit; I mixed up the provision for abortion serves to be provided speedily and freely on clause 2 with the requirement in clause 4 for abortion clinics to be swiftly accessible.)

Fair. It was also an uncharacteristic error from you.

[Ardiveds]

(OOC: If you saw what I posted pre-edit, ignore it. On further analysis, clause 2 requires governmental funding of transport only if there isn’t a free and reasonably swift way of getting to an abortion clinic. In most places, walking, cycling and driving are all perfectly fine ways of getting there.)

OOC: And if someone doesn't have a car? Does public transport not count?

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: If you saw what I posted pre-edit, ignore it. On further analysis, clause 2 requires governmental funding of transport only if there isn’t a free and reasonably swift way of getting to an abortion clinic. In most places, walking, cycling and driving are all perfectly fine ways of getting there.)

OOC: And if someone doesn't have a car? Does public transport not count?

(OOC: Public transport certainly counts. The clause requires only swift access, so any clinic that is on a transport route should be fine.)

[Attempted Socialism]

(OOC: If you saw what I posted pre-edit, ignore it. On further analysis, clause 2 requires governmental funding of transport only if there isn’t a free and reasonably swift way of getting to an abortion clinic. In most places, walking, cycling and driving are all perfectly fine ways of getting there.)

OOC: And if someone doesn't have a car? Does public transport not count?

It's written to avoid the Alabama and Texas examples where 5+ hours of travel to even get to the clinic is commonplace. If you can get an abortion at your GP (And every citizen has a GP), this is more than satisfied. The resolution is targeted at nations who make abortions "legal", but then legislates all clinics where you can get an abortion out of existence; if they do that, they'll pay the increased travel costs themselves, which ends up being more expensive for absolutely no gain.

[Servilis]

a. This is spicy,
b. holy shit you literally just wrecked a moderator
and c. holy fuck

sigh...

a. GH is not a moderator,
b. holy shit you're literally responding to a post from three months ago
and c. jiminy jillikers

OOC : listen buddy, if anyone has a nation whose name has a special colour, they are a moderator to me,

im gonna stop replying to this thread because i dont want to stir up any arguments

[Raegis]

Our kingdom has always been one of inclusiveness and progressive healthcare; especially in matters of reproductive health. We have always provided ample tools to both new parents and expectant women looking to terminate. We do not discriminate.
This legislation, however, seeks to strip member nations of their rights to govern on the grounds of their personal perspectives on abortion. This Assembly is supposed to foster cooperation; not target others for their personal beliefs. Therefore, we are opposed.

[Island Girl Herby]

Our kingdom has always been one of inclusiveness and progressive healthcare; especially in matters of reproductive health. We have always provided ample tools to both new parents and expectant women looking to terminate. We do not discriminate.
This legislation, however, seeks to strip member nations of their rights to govern on the grounds of their personal perspectives on abortion. This Assembly is supposed to foster cooperation; not target others for their personal beliefs. Therefore, we are opposed.

Ehhhhhh what? How does a nation have personal beliefs? Individuals have personal beliefs, and if you care about individuals then you will give them every opportunity to adhere to those beliefs, by making abortion freely accessible to those who want one, and allowing those who disagree with the idea of abortion to freely not get one. Maybe by reducing the cost maybe to like ehhhh zero for delivery and adoption and any other options you may have. Pretty simple, yeah?

[Picairn]

"I really do not see the reason for this level of hostility. Can one not acquire an abortive pill at one's general practitioner? In the Solidarity Movement 80+% of abortions happen within the first eight weeks, which is a single doctors visit where the patient gets a simple treatment in pill form. No travel subsidies or medical equipment is necessary except in less than one-in-twenty cases, which are generally medical emergencies anyway. Is your medical apparatus not able to handle current requests for abortions, or have you set up a system where people already have to travel far to obtain an abortion? I know that the extensive social net of the Solidarity Movement is not commonplace, but one would assume a health service as well-funded as the Picairnian already has the necessary GP clinics, gynecologists and hospitals for much this resolution to be moot. We have free medicine and contraception, so this resolution will have literally no effect for us, as we already fulfill the requirements for access, thus negating the need for new clinics and subsidies for travel. I think you could check if you already fulfill the requirements, it might save you a headache."

"Hostility? You should see the comments from the Ambassador of Austria-Bohemia-Hungary where he claimed that my nation has a GDP per capita (PPP) of less than 2$/person, or when he claimed that I have an ulterior motive outside of economic objections, or when he strawmanned me into being against contraceptives when I have said nothing of the sort.

Travel subsidies, as mandated in this resolution, would require the state to cover all transportation costs abroad and at home, from the most expensive plane to the cheapest car. Abortion patients may choose to go first-class on any plane, train or vehicle to any abortion clinics, and the state still has to pay up. That is ridiculous.

Furthermore, we would have to build new clinics and hospitals in remote areas to cover all citizens. While Picairn already has a plan to gradually cover all people in several more years, this resolution would abruptly put a strain on our budget. Governments have a million things to do, and this radical proposal would cause us to cut funding to other health departments, which may lead to longer wait times, decreased quality, and more bureaucratic hassles.

If your nation is so advanced that it has already covered abortions to all citizens, then good for you. Not so for poorer nations than yours, or mine."

[Cellaronia]

Opposed entirely and if it passes I will endlessly fight for a repeal. Cellaronia will never comply with this rubbish.

[Separatist Peoples]

"I really do not see the reason for this level of hostility. Can one not acquire an abortive pill at one's general practitioner? In the Solidarity Movement 80+% of abortions happen within the first eight weeks, which is a single doctors visit where the patient gets a simple treatment in pill form. No travel subsidies or medical equipment is necessary except in less than one-in-twenty cases, which are generally medical emergencies anyway. Is your medical apparatus not able to handle current requests for abortions, or have you set up a system where people already have to travel far to obtain an abortion? I know that the extensive social net of the Solidarity Movement is not commonplace, but one would assume a health service as well-funded as the Picairnian already has the necessary GP clinics, gynecologists and hospitals for much this resolution to be moot. We have free medicine and contraception, so this resolution will have literally no effect for us, as we already fulfill the requirements for access, thus negating the need for new clinics and subsidies for travel. I think you could check if you already fulfill the requirements, it might save you a headache."

"Hostility? You should see the comments from the Ambassador of Austria-Bohemia-Hungary where he claimed that my nation has a GDP per capita (PPP) of less than 2$/person, or when he claimed that I have an ulterior motive outside of economic objections, or when he strawmanned me into being against contraceptives when I have said nothing of the sort.

Travel subsidies, as mandated in this resolution, would require the state to cover all transportation costs abroad and at home, from the most expensive plane to the cheapest car. Abortion patients may choose to go first-class on any plane, train or vehicle to any abortion clinics, and the state still has to pay up. That is ridiculous.

Furthermore, we would have to build new clinics and hospitals in remote areas to cover all citizens. While Picairn already has a plan to gradually cover all people in several more years, this resolution would abruptly put a strain on our budget. Governments have a million things to do, and this radical proposal would cause us to cut funding to other health departments, which may lead to longer wait times, decreased quality, and more bureaucratic hassles.

If your nation is so advanced that it has already covered abortions to all citizens, then good for you. Not so for poorer nations than yours, or mine."

"Do better, I guess. It is a strained reading to argue the government must cover first class plane tickets as part of the travel expenditures, but if your nation wishes to create an onerous burden for itself, who am I to stop you?"

Opposed entirely and if it passes I will endlessly fight for a repeal. Cellaronia will never comply with this rubbish.

"Enjoy the punitive response from the ACA."

[Picairn]

"Do better, I guess. It is a strained reading to argue the government must cover first class plane tickets as part of the travel expenditures, but if your nation wishes to create an onerous burden for itself, who am I to stop you?"

"Do better"? Just like that? Do you think that we have magic or something?"

"Strained reading? From Section 2 itself: "Members must also provide a means to access such services and commodities speedily and free at the point of service or provision." What's stopping a rich woman from requesting a Ferrari to deliver her to the best private hospital in the country for an abortion? A Ferrari qualifies more than enough as "speedily". Before you complain about "bad-faith misinterpretation", remember, the written word is the law."

[Picairn]

No, Picairn has misunderstood the clause. If there is no clinic you could reasonably travel to on your own, that is, if the state has pulled an Alabama and closed all but one clinic in a large area, the state is required to pay for travel. If you're a reasonable nation where abortion can be accessed at e.g. your GP, the state will never pay a dime for travel expenses.

See my response to Separatist Peoples. Nothing in Section 2 would prevent free rides for the rich.

Edit: Clause a of Section 4 says: "Members must arrange fully subsidised travel for any recipient bona fide, and one person of their choice, to receive care offered by such a clinic if abortion services are not speedily accessible." Does "of their choice" part mean that abortion patients can choose whatever their preferred type of transportation and clinic are?

[Blueflarst]

Our kingdom has always been one of inclusiveness and progressive healthcare; especially in matters of reproductive health. We have always provided ample tools to both new parents and expectant women looking to terminate. We do not discriminate.
This legislation, however, seeks to strip member nations of their rights to govern on the grounds of their personal perspectives on abortion. This Assembly is supposed to foster cooperation; not target others for their personal beliefs. Therefore, we are opposed.

Finally someone on this General Assembly that shares my views about national sovereignity

[Cyng]

The world assembly is a shithole.

[Blueflarst]

The world assembly is a shithole.

I am inside just for gaining influence on my region

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

No, Picairn has misunderstood the clause. If there is no clinic you could reasonably travel to on your own, that is, if the state has pulled an Alabama and closed all but one clinic in a large area, the state is required to pay for travel. If you're a reasonable nation where abortion can be accessed at e.g. your GP, the state will never pay a dime for travel expenses.

See my response to Separatist Peoples. Nothing in Section 2 would prevent free rides for the rich.

Edit: Clause a of Section 4 says: "Members must arrange fully subsidised travel for any recipient bona fide, and one person of their choice, to receive care offered by such a clinic if abortion services are not speedily accessible." Does "of their choice" part mean that abortion patients can choose whatever their preferred type of transportation and clinic are?

Person of their choice means accompanying partner.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Do better, I guess. It is a strained reading to argue the government must cover first class plane tickets as part of the travel expenditures, but if your nation wishes to create an onerous burden for itself, who am I to stop you?"

"Do better"? Just like that? Do you think that we have magic or something?"

"Sure. Do better."

"Strained reading? From Section 2 itself: "Members must also provide a means to access such services and commodities speedily and free at the point of service or provision." What's stopping a rich woman from requesting a Ferrari to deliver her to the best private hospital in the country for an abortion? A Ferrari qualifies more than enough as "speedily". Before you complain about "bad-faith misinterpretation", remember, the written word is the law."

"Oh, honey. You don't need to explain to me how the law works. Members must provide means of access to services and commodities in a speedy fashion. You do not need a sports car to do so. There is no requirement that the means provided be the fastest possible or unreasonably expensive."

OOC: This argument is sufficiently bad faith and contorted that I'd mark it as an HM if I saw it in a repeal.

[United Massachusetts]

And the money goes drip, drip, drip out of the bottomless abortion money pit. The General Assembly needs to stop pretending it has limitless funds.

[Keswickholt]

This proposal is an issue not for the World Assembly, but for the Nation.

I have spoken to the Federal Parliament and they have voted in favour of voting against this proposal on the grounds of National Sovereignty and not for any other reason.

[Prussian-Germany]

This proposal is an issue not for the World Assembly, but for the Nation.

I have spoken to the Federal Parliament and they have voted in favour of voting against this proposal on the grounds of National Sovereignty and not for any other reason.

My nation not only agrees with this view, but the Congress is actually debating wither or not to leave the World Assembly.

I fear the World Assembly is turning into the UN...

[Astrobolt]

This proposal is an issue not for the World Assembly, but for the Nation.

I have spoken to the Federal Parliament and they have voted in favour of voting against this proposal on the grounds of National Sovereignty and not for any other reason.

"And why must the rights of women to control their own bodies and make their own decisions be a national concern? It doesn't make sense that Astrobolt let women's rights be infringed just because they happen in another country."