NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT] Repeal "Access to Abortion"

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Jutsa
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5094
Founded: Dec 06, 2015
Civil Rights Lovefest

[DRAFT] Repeal "Access to Abortion"

Postby Jutsa » Mon Jul 13, 2020 9:04 pm

“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
Last edited by Jutsa on Sat Jul 25, 2020 9:11 am, edited 7 times in total.
Here is a list containing a bunch of factbooks I created that are Got Issues? related.
>List of issue ideas
>List of missing issues/options
>List of accepted issues~
^ I know this is hardly a flashy signature, but at least I have one now.

User avatar
Honeydewistania
Minister
 
Posts: 2589
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Corporate Police State

Postby Honeydewistania » Mon Jul 13, 2020 9:04 pm

"We offer our support to this"
Honeydewistania (Nation mostly does not represent real life views.)
Hell yeah I'm ancap... ANti-CAPitalist B)

Retired Regional Military Director of Lazarus
Ambassador to the WA: Benji Schubert Hepperle
Assistant to the Ambassador: Rekeil Wrigglesworth II
Official Coffee-fetcher and Masseuse: Jonathan Santos de Oliveira

The MT Army Warrior
Need me? Click here!
Biggest acheivement: Spelling

User avatar
Union of Sovereign States and Republics
Diplomat
 
Posts: 623
Founded: Nov 16, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Union of Sovereign States and Republics » Mon Jul 13, 2020 9:08 pm

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."
Current IC Year: 2029
The Union of Sovereign States and Republics; USSR
In 1991, a plane carrying would-be conspirators of an armed coup crashed in the Crimean Peninsula. Without the coup, the Union of Sovereign States treaty was signed; and the USSR survived... NS states are not canon.
Current Ruling Party: CENTER-LEFT COALITION; SDPSU, CPSU, APSU
News: Anti-globalist defectors in SDPSU form "National Party;" Center-Left Coalition weakened substantially - Soviet economist warns of "Second Cold War" between USA, USSR, and China - Federation talks collapse in East Africa

User avatar
Fubaria
Civilian
 
Posts: 1
Founded: Nov 09, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Fubaria » Mon Jul 13, 2020 9:37 pm

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

- Prime Minister Joanna DeKelley
Last edited by Fubaria on Mon Jul 13, 2020 9:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Tinhampton
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7765
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Mon Jul 13, 2020 9:40 pm

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.
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; -45 Darkspawn Kill Points; current WA Delegate of Auctor; "Tinhampton? the man's literally god"
Who am I, really? 45yo Tory woman; Cambridge graduate; possibly very controversial; currently reading your mind >:D

User avatar
Jutsa
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5094
Founded: Dec 06, 2015
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Jutsa » Mon Jul 13, 2020 9:46 pm

Tinhampton wrote: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."
Last edited by Jutsa on Mon Jul 13, 2020 9:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Here is a list containing a bunch of factbooks I created that are Got Issues? related.
>List of issue ideas
>List of missing issues/options
>List of accepted issues~
^ I know this is hardly a flashy signature, but at least I have one now.

User avatar
Eurasies
Envoy
 
Posts: 316
Founded: Feb 23, 2020
Ex-Nation

Postby Eurasies » Mon Jul 13, 2020 9:48 pm

You can count on our support for this project.
The Federal Republic of Eurasies
"Federation, Libereco & Capitalismo"


User avatar
Tinfect
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5165
Founded: Jul 04, 2014
Democratic Socialists

Postby Tinfect » Mon Jul 13, 2020 9:53 pm

OOC:
This is illegal, and incredibly poorly argued.
Raslin Seretis, Imperial Diplomatic Envoy, Male
Tolarn Feren, Civil Oversight Representative, Male
Jasot Rehlan, Military Oversight Representative, Female


Bisexual, Transgender (She/Her), Native-American, and Actual CommunistTM.

Imperium Central News Network: Preliminary trials of Military Doctrinal Reform prototypes to begin; IRPC 5-115, 5-298, 5-076 public details, Project Lead interviews released | Aeravahn occupation expands to 17% of the Exterior Territories, Internal Security orders full-stop to Civilian expeditions to Exterior | TCO - Vigilant Star declared missing following exit of Iraet orbital region | Indomitable Bastard #283
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

User avatar
Omigodtheykilledkenny
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5717
Founded: Mar 14, 2005
Capitalizt

Postby Omigodtheykilledkenny » Mon Jul 13, 2020 10:01 pm

Oh yeah, this is gonna go places. :roll:



(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.)
Omigodtheykilledkenny FAQ | "The Biggest Sovereigntist IN THE WORLD" - Chester Pearson

User avatar
Godular
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11183
Founded: Sep 09, 2004
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Godular » Mon Jul 13, 2020 10:30 pm

"If I offer to support this resolution, will you give me a gallon of chocolate-mint-marble ice cream?"
RL position
Active RP: ASCENSION
Active RP: SHENRYAX
Dormant RP: Throne of the Fallen Empire

Faction 1: The An'Kazar Control Framework of Godular-- An enormously advanced collective of formerly human bioborgs that are vastly experienced in both inter-dimensional travel and asymmetrical warfare.
A 1.08 civilization, according to this Nation Index Thingie
I don't normally use NS stats. But when I do, I prefer Dos Eckis I can STILL kill you.
Post responsibly.

User avatar
Drew Durrnil
Diplomat
 
Posts: 549
Founded: Apr 30, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Drew Durrnil » Mon Jul 13, 2020 10:34 pm

Jutsa wrote:
“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.
A Shark Republic
My Factbook
Atheris wrote:0/10. Using this fifth glyph in casual talk is not only inimical, but also shows that human minds act not of individual thoughts but of compulsory will by a dug-in aristocracy.
Atheris wrote:*pulls out anime weapons*
weeaboo mode!
*screams in depression and existential dread*
Nantoraka wrote:
The Nantorakan government would like to express their concerns about all the pedophiles lurking in this market. There's so much grease and body oil in the offers being made, that you could fry chicken in it. We strongly advise wearing a mask when making deals because the strong smell of kid-diddler permeates the air like a dead, fermenting animal.

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21018
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Tue Jul 14, 2020 12:10 am

The bit on Article 5 is incorrect and will get this marked illegal for an Honest Mistake violation.
THERE IS NO WAR IN BA SING SE
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
Minister of World Assembly Affairs, Viceroy for The East Pacific

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15384
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Tue Jul 14, 2020 1:54 am

OOC post.

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

Jutsa wrote:“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".


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.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Coronavirus related. This too. And this. These are all jokes. This isn't. This is, again, but it's also the last one.
Apologies for absences, RL has been hectic, nothing to do with COVID-19, I'm just busy with other things than NS.

User avatar
Attempted Socialism
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1205
Founded: Feb 21, 2011
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Attempted Socialism » Tue Jul 14, 2020 2:14 am

"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."


Represented in the World Assembly by
Ambassador and Chairperson of the Executive International Relations Committee
Marcie Elizabeth 'MacBeth' Illum
Assume OOC unless otherwise indicated.
Cui Bono, quod seipsos custodes custodiunt?
Ivory Tower Critical-Realistic Sardonic Marxist Curmudgeon
Danish Political Scientist Seeks True Love Tenure
Specialities: State development; corruption; IR theory; Vodka
Experiences: Office-running; political campaigns; navigating byzantine academia politics

User avatar
Picairn
Minister
 
Posts: 3327
Founded: Feb 21, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Picairn » Tue Jul 14, 2020 2:23 am

"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."
Picairn's Ministry of Foreign Relations
Minister: Edward H. Cornell
WA Ambassador: John M. Terry (Active)
Factbook | Constitution | Newspaper
Albrenia wrote:With great power comes great mockability.

Salus Maior wrote:Nothing we say here actually matters.

Moralityland wrote:big corporations allied with the communist elite
Center-left liberal, or "neoliberal scum"
according to the far-left and far-right.
Listen here Jack, we're going to destroy malarkey.

♔ The Empire of Picairn ♔
-✯ ✯ ✯ ✯ ✯-—————————-✯ ✯ ✯ ✯ ✯-
✵ Certified brunch-loving liberal and resident optimist of NSG. All Hail Biden! ✵

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6530
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Tue Jul 14, 2020 3:21 am

“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.”
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Servilis
Diplomat
 
Posts: 509
Founded: May 07, 2017
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Servilis » Tue Jul 14, 2020 3:28 am

Seems fair, do you have replacement legislation?
she/her - they know me as yeoss

The Yeossist Manifesto

User avatar
Attancia
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 50
Founded: May 01, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Attancia » Tue Jul 14, 2020 5:28 am

"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."
Empire of Dunist wrote:There is a major difference between IRP and OORP. Please respect that border

-Dunist 2K20
The truest thing ever told.

User avatar
Legolannd
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 169
Founded: Nov 29, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Legolannd » Tue Jul 14, 2020 5:33 am

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."

User avatar
New Waldensia
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 412
Founded: Feb 18, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby New Waldensia » Tue Jul 14, 2020 5:40 am

The nation of New Waldensia supports this repeal.
IC WA Diplomat Josiah Garrett
Author of GA #414 (Freedom to Seek Medical Care) and GA #456 (Freedom to Seek Medical Care II)

Army of Freedom medals received:
N-Day² Medals -- N-Day³ Medals -- N-Day⁴ Medals
Z-Day6 Medals

User avatar
Honeydewistania
Minister
 
Posts: 2589
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Corporate Police State

Postby Honeydewistania » Tue Jul 14, 2020 5:41 am

New Waldensia wrote:The nation of New Waldensia supports this repeal.

Uh huh.
Honeydewistania (Nation mostly does not represent real life views.)
Hell yeah I'm ancap... ANti-CAPitalist B)

Retired Regional Military Director of Lazarus
Ambassador to the WA: Benji Schubert Hepperle
Assistant to the Ambassador: Rekeil Wrigglesworth II
Official Coffee-fetcher and Masseuse: Jonathan Santos de Oliveira

The MT Army Warrior
Need me? Click here!
Biggest acheivement: Spelling

User avatar
Foril
Attaché
 
Posts: 71
Founded: Apr 10, 2020
Democratic Socialists

Postby Foril » Tue Jul 14, 2020 6:04 am

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

User avatar
Radicalania
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 121
Founded: Dec 19, 2016
Democratic Socialists

Postby Radicalania » Tue Jul 14, 2020 6:18 am

Legolannd wrote: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?
Last edited by Radicalania on Tue Jul 14, 2020 6:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
Posts on this account represent Martyn Kiryu of The Communist Bloc.
Currently First Minister of TCB.

"Ask for work. If they don't give you work, ask for bread. If they don't give you work or bread, then take bread"-Emma Golding, Anarchism and Other Essays
ALL Cats Are Beautiful

User avatar
Ardiveds
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 435
Founded: Feb 28, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ardiveds » Tue Jul 14, 2020 6:40 am

Legolannd wrote: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."
If the ambassador acts like an ambassador, it's probably Delegate Arthur.
If he acts like an edgy teen, it's probably definitely Delegate Jim.... it's always Jim

User avatar
Picairn
Minister
 
Posts: 3327
Founded: Feb 21, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Picairn » Tue Jul 14, 2020 7:03 am

Kenmoria wrote:“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."
Picairn's Ministry of Foreign Relations
Minister: Edward H. Cornell
WA Ambassador: John M. Terry (Active)
Factbook | Constitution | Newspaper
Albrenia wrote:With great power comes great mockability.

Salus Maior wrote:Nothing we say here actually matters.

Moralityland wrote:big corporations allied with the communist elite
Center-left liberal, or "neoliberal scum"
according to the far-left and far-right.
Listen here Jack, we're going to destroy malarkey.

♔ The Empire of Picairn ♔
-✯ ✯ ✯ ✯ ✯-—————————-✯ ✯ ✯ ✯ ✯-
✵ Certified brunch-loving liberal and resident optimist of NSG. All Hail Biden! ✵

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Great Algerstonia, Nekomimea, Terttia, Tinhampton

Advertisement

Remove ads