[ABANDONED] Repeal "Access to Abortion"

[Jutsa]

“The Council of Jutsa would like to clarify that it retains a pro-choice stance on abortion.”

---

Repeal "Access To Abortion"
Category: Repeal | Target: GA #499

---

General Assembly Resolution #499 “Access To Abortion” (Category: Health; Area of Effect; Healthcare) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Recognizing that this august body has upheld a pro-choice stance on abortion in its passing of multiple resolutions protecting rights to abortion,

Citing these resolutions as GA#128 On Abortion, which requires that abortion be carried out safely by a qualified surgeon and protects individuals from discrimination and harassment; and GA#286 Reproductive Freedoms, which forbids member states from regulating abortion more than similar medical procedures, protects those who've had abortions and those who perform them from animosity, and prohibits any form of impediment to the termination of pregnancy, which includes protests, government interference, and inaccessibility,

Convinced that the "rabidly anti-choice nations" breaking these laws speaks of a problem that is far beyond any legislation the target resolution implements,

Perplexed as to why this resolution specifically mandates abortions be paid by member nations and thus taxpayers, many of both being pro-choice, while ignoring other medical procedures of similar risk and complexity, including those which are life-threatening, to which any future legislation protecting such cases would, by definitions in resolution 286, also apply to abortions anyway,

Confused by Article 4a's requirement that members fully fund all treatment and transportation expenses to those who wish to access a clinic outside of the nation, in light of GA#456 Freedom to Seek Medical Care II's requirement that those who seek medical treatment abroad must arrange for and fund such treatment themselves,

Worried that any abortion client who can't access an abortion clinic in a 'speedily accessible' manor can request and expect to be flown to any country of their choosing, regardless of WA compliance, non-armed conflict or potential for armed conflict, human rights, sanitation, safety, geopolitical relations, distance, etc,

Puzzled that such a requirement is even brought up when member states are either required to construct easily-accessible abortion clinics or have their construction somehow paid for by this assembly's apparently bottomless well of financial resources,

Baffled as to why section 6 allows member states to restrict access to abortions requested on a sex-selective basis - itself an easy to work around requirement - while not explicitly requiring similar restrictions on abortions requested on any other genetic-selective basis (such as race, extra toes, or the practice of "designer babies"),

Believing this resolution's honorable attempt to fill loopholes from being exploited seems to create unnecessary mandates that only serve to hurt national security, beliefs, and finances while having little to no affect on nations violating the sweeping protections implied by existing legislation:

The General Assembly hereby repeals GA#499 "Access To Abortion".

---

Repeal "Access To Abortion"
Category: Repeal | Target: GA #499

---

General Assembly Resolution #499 “Access To Abortion” (Category: Health; Area of Effect; Healthcare) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Recognizing that this august body has upheld a pro-choice stance on abortion in its passing of multiple resolutions protecting rights to abortion,

Citing these resolutions as GA#128 On Abortion, which requires that abortion be carried out safely by a qualified surgeon and protects individuals from discrimination and harassment; and GA#286 Reproductive Freedoms, which forbids member states from regulating abortion more than similar medical procedures, protects those who've had abortions and those who perform them from animosity, and prohibits any form of impediment to the termination of pregnancy, which includes protests, government interference, and inaccessibility,

Convinced that the "rabidly anti-choice nations" breaking these laws speaks of a problem that is far beyond any legislation the target resolution implements,

Distraught that all abortions, transportation included, must be paid in full by the state whereas other medical procedures of equivalent or far more significant magnitude are left to the individual nation's laws to determine the payment of,

Confused by Article 4a's requirement that members fully fund all treatment and transportation expenses to those who wish to access a clinic outside of the nation, in light of GA#456 Freedom to Seek Medical Care II's requirement that those who seek medical treatment abroad must arrange for and fund such treatment themselves,

Saddened that one and only one person must accompany the client, regardless off whether the client wants multiple or no accompanied persons,

Horrified that any abortion client who deems access to a clinic "not speedy enough" can request and expect to be flown to any neighboring country, regardless of WA compliance, non-armed conflict or potential for armed conflict, human rights, sanitation, safety, geopolitical relations, etc,

Notifying this clause also states nations must let foreign travel from any other member nation into their own territory solely so they can access a WA Choice Plus clinic built on their territory,

Puzzled that such a requirement is even brought up when member states are either required to construct easily-accessible abortion clinics or have their construction somehow paid for by this assembly's apparently bottomless well of financial resources,

Distressed that Article 5 requires any member state, who can’t afford to provide funding for abortion clinics, to either lease out, with hardly any taxation, their own territory to an international body (the World Assembly) for the sole purpose of performing a single medical operation, or be forced into noncompliance with the resolution,

Baffled as to why section 6 allows member states to restrict access to abortions requested on a sex-selective basis - itself an easy to work around requirement - while not explicitly requiring similar restrictions on abortions requested on any other genetic-selective basis (such as race, extra toes, or the practice of "designer babies"),

Believing this resolution's honorable attempt to fill loopholes from being exploited seems to create unnecessary mandates that only serve to hurt national security and finances while having little to no affect on nations violating the sweeping protections implied by existing legislation:

The General Assembly hereby repeals GA#499 "Access To Abortion".

---

Repeal "Access To Abortion"
Category: Repeal | Target: GA #499

---

General Assembly Resolution #499 “Access To Abortion” (Category: Health; Area of Effect; Healthcare) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Recognizing that this august body has upheld a pro-choice stance on abortion in its passing of multiple resolutions protecting rights to abortion,

Citing these resolutions as GA#128 On Abortion, which requires that abortion be carried out safely and by a qualified surgeon and protects individuals from discrimination and harassment; and GA#286 Reproductive Freedoms, which forbids member states from regulating abortion more than similar medical procedures (which includes through taxation), protects those who've had abortions and those who perform them from animosity, and prohibits any form of impediment to the termination of pregnancy, which includes protests, government interference, and inaccessibility,

Convinced that the "rabidly anti-choice nations" breaking these laws speaks of a problem that is far beyond any legislation the target resolution implements,

Distraught that all abortions, transportation included, must be paid in full by the state whereas other medical procedures of equivalent or far more significant magnitude are left to the individual nation's laws to determine the payment of,

Confused by Article 4a's requirement that members fully fund all treatment and transportation expenses to those who wish to access a clinic outside of the nation, in light of GA#456 Freedom to Seek Medical Care II's requirement that those who seek medical treatment abroad must arrange for and fund such treatment themselves,

Saddened that one and only one person must accompany the client, regardless off whether the client wants multiple or no accompanied persons,

Horrified that any abortion client who deems access to a clinic "not speedy enough" can request and expect to be flown to any neighboring country, regardless of WA compliance, non-armed conflict or potential for armed conflict, human rights, sanitation, safety, geopolitical relations, etc,

Notifying this clause also states nations must let foreign travel from any other member nation into their own territory solely so they can access a WA Choice Plus clinic built on their territory,

Puzzled that such a requirement is even brought up when member states are either required to construct easily-accessible abortion clinics or have their construction somehow paid for by this assembly's apparently bottomless well of financial resources,

Distressed that Article 5 requires any member state, who can’t afford to provide funding for abortion clinics, to either lease out, with hardly any taxation, their own territory to an international body (the World Assembly) for the sole purpose of performing a single medical operation, or be forced into noncompliance with the resolution,

Baffled as to why section 6 allows member states to restrict access to abortions requested on a sex-selective basis - itself an easy to work around requirement - while not explicitly requiring similar restrictions on abortions requested on any other genetic-selective basis (such as race, extra toes, any disability, or the practice of "designer babies"),

Believing this resolution fails to add much actual protection to abortion rights while simultaneously creating unnecessary mandates that only serve to hurt national security and finances:

The General Assembly hereby repeals GA#499 "Access To Abortion".

---

Repeal "Access To Abortion"
Category: Repeal | Target: GA #499

---

General Assembly Resolution #499 “Access To Abortion” (Category: Health; Area of Effect; Healthcare) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Recognizing that this august body has upheld a pro-choice stance on abortion in its passing of multiple resolutions protecting women's rights to abortion,

Citing these resolutions as GA#128, which requires that abortion be carried out safely and by a qualified surgeon and protects individuals from discrimination and harassment; and GA#286, which forbids member states from regulating abortion more than similar medical procedures (which includes through taxation), provides animosity to those who've had abortions and those who conduct them, and prohibits any form of impediment to the termination of pregnancy, which includes protests, government interference, and inaccessibility,

Convinced that the "rabidly anti-choice nations" breaking these laws speaks of a problem that is far beyond any legislation the target resolution implements,

Distraught that all abortions, transportation included, must be paid in full by the state whereas other medical procedures of equivalent or far more significant magnitude are left to the individual nation's laws to determine the payment of,

Confused by Article 4a's requirement that members fully fund all treatment and transportation expenses to those who wish to access a clinic outside of the nation, in light of GA#456's requirement that those who seek urgent medical treatment abroad must arrange for and fund such treatment themselves,

Horrified that any person who deems access to a clinic "not speedy enough" can request and expect to be flown to any neighboring country, regardless of WA membership, political stability, human rights, sanitation, safety, geopolitical relations, etc, while also necessarily mandating another party to accompany said person,

Puzzled that such a requirement is even brought up when member states are either required to construct easily-accessible abortion clinics or have their construction somehow paid for by this assembly's apparently bottomless well of financial resources,

Distressed that Article 5 requires any member state, who can’t afford to provide funding for abortion clinics, to lease out, with hardly any taxation, their own territory to an international body (the World Assembly) for the sole purpose of performing a single medical operation in order to comply with the target resolution,

Perplexed by section 8's declaration that personhood begins at birth when existing legislation

Baffled as to why section 6 allows member states to restrict access to abortions requested on a sex-selective basis - itself an easy to work around requirement - while not explicitly requiring similar restrictions on abortions requested on any other genetic-selective basis (such as "designer babies" or abortions requested on the grounds that the newborn is likely to be born with any disability), and

Believing this resolution fails to add much actual protection to abortion rights while simultaneously creates unnecessary mandates that only serve to hurt national sovereignty, security, and finances:

The General Assembly hereby repeals GA#499 "Access To Abortion".

Coauthored by Tinhampton

[Honeydewistania]

"We offer our support to this"

[Union of Sovereign States and Republics]

Ambassador Grigorev rises from his seat, reading glasses on his face.

"The Soviet Union's official status on GA#499, in light of this proposal, has been changed. The Ambassador from Jutsa has brought notable issues in the proposal to light. As such, the USSR stands in support of this motion."

[Fubaria]

As a nation that supports reproductive choice, Fubaria stands in agreement and would support this resolution as written.

- Prime Minister Joanna DeKelley

[Tinhampton]

Delegate-Ambassador Alexander Smith: The Jutsan ambassadors appear to have included a misspelling of "he World Assembly" when they edited our original. Regardless, we are happy to attach ourselves in support.

[Jutsa]

Delegate-Ambassador Alexander Smith: The Jutsan ambassadors appear to have included a misspelling of "he World Assembly" when they edited our original. Regardless, we are happy to attach ourselves in support.

"That was an unfortunate consequence of last-minute swapping of commas for parentheses and a byproduct of 'he' being a word, Ambassador. Rectified."

[Eurasies]

You can count on our support for this project.

[Tinfect]

OOC:
This is illegal, and incredibly poorly argued.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Oh yeah, this is gonna go places.



(Sorry, no offense, but this is hopeless. You may as well wait for every single delegate in office now to either die off or be overthrown. 'Cause maybe then you'll have a shot.)

[Godular]

"If I offer to support this resolution, will you give me a gallon of chocolate-mint-marble ice cream?"

[Drew Durrnil]

“The Council of Jutsa would like to clarify that it retains a pro-choice stance on abortion.”

---

Repeal "Access To Abortion"
Category: Repeal | Target: GA #499

---

General Assembly Resolution #499 “Access To Abortion” (Category: Health; Area of Effect; Healthcare) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Recognizing that this august body has upheld a pro-choice stance on abortion in its passing of multiple resolutions protecting women's rights to abortion,

Citing these resolutions as GA#128, which requires that abortion be carried out safely and by a qualified surgeon and protects individuals from discrimination and harassment; and GA#286, which forbids member states from regulating abortion more than similar medical procedures (which includes through taxation), provides animosity to those who've had abortions and those who conduct them, and prohibits any form of impediment to the termination of pregnancy, which includes protests, government interference, and inaccessibility,

Convinced that the "rabidly anti-choice nations" breaking these laws speaks of a problem that is far beyond any legislation the target resolution implements,

Distraught that all abortions, transportation included, must be paid in full by the state whereas other medical procedures of equivalent or far more significant magnitude are left to the individual nation's laws to determine the payment of,

Confused by Article 4a's requirement that members fully fund all treatment and transportation expenses to those who wish to access a clinic outside of the nation, in light of GA#456's requirement that those who seek urgent medical treatment abroad must arrange for and fund such treatment themselves,

Horrified that any person who deems access to a clinic "not speedy enough" can request and expect to be flown to any neighboring country, regardless of WA membership, political stability, human rights, sanitation, safety, geopolitical relations, etc, while also necessarily mandating another party to accompany said person,

Puzzled that such a requirement is even brought up when member states are either required to construct easily-accessible abortion clinics or have their construction somehow paid for by this assembly's apparently bottomless well of financial resources,

Distressed that Article 5 requires any member state, who can’t afford to provide funding for abortion clinics, to lease out, with hardly any taxation, their own territory to an international body (the World Assembly) for the sole purpose of performing a single medical operation in order to comply with the target resolution,

Perplexed by section 8's declaration that personhood begins at birth, and not during a generally accepted timeframe beforehand when abortions generally yield live results and fetuses have vital signs and brain activity,

Baffled as to why section 6 allows member states to restrict access to abortions requested on a sex-selective basis - itself an easy to work around requirement - while not explicitly requiring similar restrictions on abortions requested on any other genetic-selective basis (such as "designer babies" or abortions requested on the grounds that the newborn is likely to be born with any disability), and

Believing this resolution fails to add much actual protection to abortion rights while simultaneously creates unnecessary mandates that only serve to hurt national sovereignty, security, and finances:

The General Assembly hereby repeals GA#499 "Access To Abortion".

Coauthored by Tinhampton

Support.

[Wallenburg]

The bit on Article 5 is incorrect and will get this marked illegal for an Honest Mistake violation.

[Araraukar]

OOC post.

I'd never support this as written, and here's detailed feedback why:

“The Council of Jutsa would like to clarify that it retains a pro-choice stance on abortion.”

This isn't really necessary. Add it into your forum siggy for the duration of the repeal attempt, or something like that, because trying to repeal a pro-abortion resolution will STILL get you labeled as anti-choice.

Recognizing that this august body has upheld a pro-choice stance on abortion in its passing of multiple resolutions protecting women's rights to abortion,

Not entirely certain how this helps you. Given you specifically mention women's rights, you're kinda shooting your repeal in the foot right out of the gates.

Citing these resolutions as

I think you meant to write "such as".

GA#128,

Instead of this, use the resolution's full name and GA number. You can add a link to it at the bottom of the first page, but the full name is necessary in the proposal.

which requires that abortion be carried out safely and by a qualified surgeon and protects individuals from discrimination and harassment

Again, how does this help you? I mean, sure, you can mention previous resolutions as a reason why the newest one might be unnecessary, but specifying their main drive here (rather than where you use them as justification) looks kind of like "yeah, and?" extra fluff.

and GA#286, which forbids member states from regulating abortion more than similar medical procedures (which includes through taxation)

Same as above.

provides animosity to those who've had abortions and those who conduct them

How the hell do you get animosity from the resolutions???? Did you mean to use some other word? Also, rather than "conduct", use "perform", because "a procedure perfomed by a doctor" sounds better than "a procedure conducted by a doctor".

and prohibits any form of impediment to the termination of pregnancy, which includes protests, government interference, and inaccessibility,

Again, this is not a bad thing, so not entirely certain why it's here?

Convinced that the "rabidly anti-choice nations" breaking these laws speaks of a problem

Maybe (they're a minority), but the problem is entirely created by those nations and goes into such RP territory that the WA can't affect, because you can't force someone to RP in a certain way, no matter how many resolutions you pass.

that is far beyond any legislation the target resolution implements,

That's because all resolutions passed since IA's double attempt to force compliance RP, rely on those resolutions (and those passed before them largely rely on the gameside enforced compliance of "your laws have been changed to comply" TG) as the enforcement method. Given character count and duplication issues, repeating what they say would be a waste of space.

Distraught that all abortions, transportation included, must be paid in full by the state

To my understanding transportation only needs to be paid if the person has to travel to one of the casinos WA-mandated abortion clinics to other nations, because their own nation denies them easy and fast access to abortion. So basically that part specifically deals with what you're complaining about above, about the noncompliant nations.

whereas other medical procedures of equivalent or far more significant magnitude are left to the individual nation's laws to determine the payment of,

Not true. There is a resolution that requires member nations to provide healthcare to their inhabitants and pay for it, if the person in question can't afford it otherwise.

Confused by Article 4a's requirement that members fully fund all treatment and transportation expenses to those who wish to access a clinic outside of the nation, in light of GA#456's requirement that those who seek urgent medical treatment abroad must arrange for and fund such treatment themselves,

Again, use the full name of the resolution that you're referring to, link to it outside the proposal. And please, point to me where that resolution says anything about urgent care. It says "medically necessary healthcare". Since I would argue that abortions actually are urgent and elective healthcare in most cases (pregnancies outside the womb, etc., would of course be necessary abortions because of the life-threatening condition) rather than just medically necessary, you're sort of shooting yourself in the foot here.

Horrified that any person who deems access to a clinic "not speedy enough" can request and expect to be flown to any neighboring country, regardless of WA membership, political stability, human rights, sanitation, safety, geopolitical relations,

Not true. The clinics in question are built by a WA committee, which obviously rules out non-member nations, and thus human rights and sanitation are a given, as is safety to certain amount of safe, such as their home nation can provide. Political stability sounds strange - would this mean that if it's presidential/parliamentary election day, the nation is somehow dangerous? And if the "geopolitical relation" refers to war, then there's a restriction allowed for "on-going armed conflict". If it's just diplomats growling at one another, I don't see how that has anything to do with healthcare reasons of travel.

What you've missed, is the last clause of the target, which says "In this resolution, older resolutions overrule conflicting provisions of this resolution" (which funnily enough will apply even if the older resolutions were ever repealed), so there are many reasons mentioned in previously passed resolutions why a member nation can restrict someone to travel out of the nation, that would seem to cover your complaints.

while also necessarily mandating another party to accompany said person,

Actually it doesn't. It just mandates paying for such a person, if the pregnant individual chooses one to travel with them. Do notice "one person of their choice". If they don't choose anyone, then they're not mandated to have someone. Just that the nations must pay for the one that's chosen. What you might have grumped about instead, is that there's no mention of this "one plus" person needing to accompany the pregnant individual to the clinic, or indeed travel with them. Alternatively (given how the sentence is constructed), the "one plus" must also be traveling to the clinic to receive treatment.

Puzzled that such a requirement is even brought up when member states are either required to construct easily-accessible abortion clinics

You complained about noncompliant nations before. Are they now suddenly not compliant?

or have their construction somehow paid for by this assembly's apparently bottomless well of financial resources,

Untrue, see "with funds assessed by the General Accounting Office from members in which there does not exist, in the view of the WACC, adequate access to abortion". It's only the noncompliant nations' mandatory donations to the General Fund, which can be used for it. I would be more concerned about the Wine And Crouton Conference being given the right to decide, given it is an entirely bureaucractic committee that has nothing to do with healthcare.

Distressed that Article 5 requires any member state, who can’t afford to provide funding for abortion clinics, to lease out, with hardly any taxation, their own territory to an international body (the World Assembly) for the sole purpose of performing a single medical operation in order to comply with the target resolution,

As was already pointed out, this is untrue. Clause 5 says "Any member may request the construction of section 4 clinics, if they can show to the WACC that construction would expand access to abortion in an area where it is inadequate.". So basically, the nation can ask for such to be built, only if it meets the requirement, and in return for the committee getting the noncompliant nations to pay for the building costs, they let the committee have the piece of land where it's built. Do note that there are many previous resolutions that require offices and whatnot to be built in member nations, without any mention of any compensation, so it's really a better deal than usual.

Perplexed by section 8's declaration that personhood begins at birth, and not during a generally accepted timeframe beforehand when abortions generally yield live results and fetuses have vital signs and brain activity,

That's because when you sum together all previously passed resolutions, you can't legally grant personhood to a fetus. Basically IA is just reminding everyone about that fact. Also, it would be best if your arguments were in the order as the clauses in the target, so this should be at the end.

Baffled as to why section 6 allows member states to restrict access to abortions requested on a sex-selective basis

To be in compliance with previously passed resolutions.

while not explicitly requiring similar restrictions on abortions requested on any other genetic-selective basis

To be in compliance with previously passed resolutions.

Believing this resolution fails to add much actual protection to abortion rights

The previously passed resolutions do that. This one only concerns the access to abortion, which the previous resolutions were left with some loopholes for the noncompliant nations you're concerned about.

while simultaneously creates unnecessary mandates that only serve to hurt national sovereignty,

NatSov is not a good argument in a repeal. Ever. No illegality here, obviously, but it's just not a good argument.

security

Exactly how?

and finances:

Only of the noncompliant nations you wanted to punish earlier.

Coauthored by Tinhampton

This choice of coauthor may actually hurt your chances, as they've in recent months built a reputation of presenting badly written, not-thought-out proposals.

Why do you actually need to specifically mention the previously passed abortion-related resolutions by name and effect, given you only seem to mention them in the context of some nations being noncompliant with them? And your whole point of noncompliance seems to... not go anywhere. In addition to which, the entire target resolution exists to specifically address the noncompliant nations and try to force them to comply!

All in all, this has enough untruths in it to be illegal for Honest Mistake (it's badly named, it basically means blatantly lying about the target) many times over.

[Attempted Socialism]

"Do we need to say it? Perhaps. Against, for obvious reasons. This draft tries to appear sympathetic, but all it does is allowing anti-choice nations to remain non-compliant with existing resolutions on the topic."

[Picairn]

"Ambassador, while the Empire of Picairn offers full support for any repeal attempt on a purely economic but still pro-choice stance, we can not say the same for this proposal. It is, frankly, the worst repeal I've ever seen with contradictory clauses and misrepresentations of the resolution. Cooperation with Tinhampton does not help at all, considering his recent notoriety in writting proposals with poor quality. Our old Ambassador John Terry, while he argued passionately for days against what he deemed as too high a cost in the mandates, would no doubt rail against this proposal with the same ferocity for its poorly-written nature. Fortunately you won't have to see him for another week - he's on vacation to keep his sanity after the absolute storm that went down in Imperium Anglorum's office. As of now, I will temporarily represent him in WA affairs and I must regrettably inform you that we will vote Against."

[Kenmoria]

“I don’t agree with Ambassador Warburton’s assertion that this is the worst repeal ever presented, since it did convince me when I first read it. However, under closer inspection, a lot of your clauses rely on misunderstandings of the target resolution or don’t take into account other pieces of extant law. At present, I can offer no support for this repeal.”

[Servilis]

Seems fair, do you have replacement legislation?

[Attancia]

"We stand and applaud for this repeal. While also agreeing with your points, another thing could be brought to light -- the WA brands nations like us as "rabidly anti-choice", a name that doesn't reflect our reasoning in the slightest. It's funny, then, that they have a hissy-fit whenever we call them "pro-death" or "pro-abortion"... What hypocrites. I must reiterate that this repeal has our full support."

[Legolannd]

Ambassador Harrison stands

"My nation is pro-life and will always be. We will vote to repeal this bill. Our government will not fund abortions, they are banned in Legolannd."

[New Waldensia]

The nation of New Waldensia supports this repeal.

[Honeydewistania]

The nation of New Waldensia supports this repeal.

Uh huh.

[Foril]

Strongly, without a doubt, AGAINST. This proposal is badly written and does not argue its case well.

[Radicalania]

Ambassador Harrison stands

"My nation is pro-life and will always be. We will vote to repeal this bill. Our government will not fund abortions, they are banned in Legolannd."

Good Ambassador, are you claiming that your country is in breach of the World Assembly resolutions?

[Ardiveds]

Ambassador Harrison stands

"My nation is pro-life and will always be. We will vote to repeal this bill. Our government will not fund abortions, they are banned in Legolannd."

"Ambassador, you have no reason to support this repeal then because you are already in violation of WA laws and if this repeal passes, you'll still be in violation of WA laws."

[Picairn]

“I don’t agree with Ambassador Warburton’s assertion that this is the worst repeal ever presented, since it did convince me when I first read it.”

"It all boils down to personal taste, Ambassador. Old Jerry (a combination of John and Terry) has more experience and seniority than I in WA affairs, and no doubt has seen badly-written proposals a lot of the time. Before being employed as a staff member under him, I spent years working in the Empire's Parliament, which holds itself at higher standards than this cesspool known as the WA."