NATION

PASSWORD

[Draft] Repeal Access to Abortion

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Old Hope
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1173
Founded: Sep 21, 2014
Liberal Democratic Socialists

[Draft] Repeal Access to Abortion

Postby Old Hope » Mon May 16, 2022 3:46 am

Link to resolution: https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolutions/council=1/start=498
Yearning to give free access to abortion,
But also yearning to protect people, member states, and WA subsidiaries from unnecessary and very harmful excessive legal costs and other legal problems,
Relieved by the protections for abortion caused by General Assembly Resolution 29, Patient's Rights Act, and General Assembly Resolution 286, Reproductive Freedoms
Having found the following problems:
1)Provision of abortifacients according to clause 2 is unsafe. People may be coerced into ordering abortifacients. A mandated counselling(except in medical emergencies) would allow the state to protect it's citiziens from being coerced into an abortion. This is inconsistent with General Assembly Resolution 29, clauses II and IX.
2)Clinics according to clause 4b are mandated to provide abortifacients to any address that is reachable via post. This is unsafe for the reason outlined in 1).
Whereas Clause 8 of this resolution does allow older resolutions to supersede this resolution these legal frictions still create a legally unsafe legal sharp edge causing potentially massive and harmful legal misunderstandings, a massive number of legal actions and legal costs,
The World Assembly repeals General Assembly Resolution 499, Access to Abortion.

Repeal.
First draft.
Last edited by Old Hope on Mon May 16, 2022 2:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Imperium Anglorum wrote:The format wars are a waste of time.

User avatar
Attempted Socialism
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1357
Founded: Feb 21, 2011
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Attempted Socialism » Mon May 16, 2022 3:57 am

I know your standards are low, but your 1) and 2) are wrong, and 3) is not an argument for repealing. This draft is bad, given your prior response to feedback I don't think improvement is possible, and I won't support any argument for repeal without at least two even stronger pro-choice resolutions being passed first.


Represented in the World Assembly by Ambassador Robert Mortimer Pride, called The Regicide
Assume OOC unless otherwise indicated.
Cui Bono, quod seipsos custodes custodiunt?Who am I in real life, my opinions and notes

User avatar
Old Hope
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1173
Founded: Sep 21, 2014
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Old Hope » Mon May 16, 2022 4:00 am

Attempted Socialism wrote:I know your standards are low, but your 1) and 2) are wrong, and 3) is not an argument for repealing. This draft is bad, given your prior response to feedback I don't think improvement is possible, and I won't support any argument for repeal without at least two even stronger pro-choice resolutions being passed first.

Please give better arguments. If you accuse us of having low standards and having bad response to feedback then maybe actually tell us why you think what you told us(that 1 and 2 are wrong and 3 is not a good repeal argument)
Imperium Anglorum wrote:The format wars are a waste of time.

User avatar
Attempted Socialism
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1357
Founded: Feb 21, 2011
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Attempted Socialism » Mon May 16, 2022 4:12 am

Old Hope wrote:
Attempted Socialism wrote:I know your standards are low, but your 1) and 2) are wrong, and 3) is not an argument for repealing. This draft is bad, given your prior response to feedback I don't think improvement is possible, and I won't support any argument for repeal without at least two even stronger pro-choice resolutions being passed first.

Please give better arguments. If you accuse us of having low standards and having bad response to feedback then maybe actually tell us why you think what you told us(that 1 and 2 are wrong and 3 is not a good repeal argument)

1) and 2) have no bases in the resolution and there's nothing supporting your position in your own draft. It's like Lionel Hutz' line, "hearsay and conjecture (...) are kinds of evidence", except here there's not even that. It's an invention whole-cloth, and it's best dismissed as such.
3) presumes that (your invented) illegality is a reason for repeal. It's not; resolutions are legal when passed.

If you had arguments for repeal, you should have put them in the draft text.


Represented in the World Assembly by Ambassador Robert Mortimer Pride, called The Regicide
Assume OOC unless otherwise indicated.
Cui Bono, quod seipsos custodes custodiunt?Who am I in real life, my opinions and notes

User avatar
Old Hope
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1173
Founded: Sep 21, 2014
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Old Hope » Mon May 16, 2022 4:19 am

Attempted Socialism wrote:
Old Hope wrote:Please give better arguments. If you accuse us of having low standards and having bad response to feedback then maybe actually tell us why you think what you told us(that 1 and 2 are wrong and 3 is not a good repeal argument)

1) and 2) have no bases in the resolution and there's nothing supporting your position in your own draft. It's like Lionel Hutz' line, "hearsay and conjecture (...) are kinds of evidence", except here there's not even that. It's an invention whole-cloth, and it's best dismissed as such.
3) presumes that (your invented) illegality is a reason for repeal. It's not; resolutions are legal when passed.

If you had arguments for repeal, you should have put them in the draft text.

3) I am not saying that this one is illegal, because it has passed. I am saying that the legal friction(either action A is mandated or action A is illegal) is a problem.
1) and 2) have bases in the resolution. A bona fide recipient can be decieved. Coercion is a grey area, but still... bona fide is not a catch all phrase.
Imperium Anglorum wrote:The format wars are a waste of time.

User avatar
Outer Sparta
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13920
Founded: Dec 26, 2014
Democratic Socialists

Postby Outer Sparta » Mon May 16, 2022 10:37 am

Old Hope wrote:
Attempted Socialism wrote:I know your standards are low, but your 1) and 2) are wrong, and 3) is not an argument for repealing. This draft is bad, given your prior response to feedback I don't think improvement is possible, and I won't support any argument for repeal without at least two even stronger pro-choice resolutions being passed first.

Please give better arguments. If you accuse us of having low standards and having bad response to feedback then maybe actually tell us why you think what you told us(that 1 and 2 are wrong and 3 is not a good repeal argument)

You don't seem to notice that you put out drafts of repeals that aren't necessary well-written. Article 1 and 2 doesn't necessary specify anything and your claim that people "may be coerced into ordering abortifacients" is quite shaky.
I don't stand with Ukraine. I don't stand with Russia. I don't stand with the US, NATO, or EU. I stand with the innocent civilians being caught in the crossfire while the politicians, the media, and weapons manufacturers continue to stoke division and conflict in their geopolitical chess games and treat the people of Ukraine as mere pawns. Zelensky is a corrupt, opportunist oligarchic politician who is not fit to lead Ukraine through anything and wants to inflate his own ego and offshore accounts.

User avatar
Sierra Lyricalia
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 4175
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Mon May 16, 2022 10:56 am

"Clause 1: no it isn't."

"Clause 2: no it's not."

"Clause 3: Ambassador, Resolution 286 itself renders this argument false. The full clause reads:
Resolution 286 wrote:PERMITS Member Nations to enact policies encouraging individuals to allow live delivery of their offspring, provided such policies do not ultimately hinder the individual from terminating their pregnancy,
- my own emphasis added, of course."

"The point is that there is literally no way for the two clauses to conflict. Encouragement which does not constitute a hindrance also does not constitute discrimination, restriction, taxation, or any of the other things forbidden in Resolution 499."

"Ambassador, you are grasping at straws in the middle of a vast desert with nothing to drink and no bottles, cups, or juice boxes within a thousand kilometer radius. These arguments are simply without merit."




OOC: The third argument may actually constitute what we're still calling an Honest Mistake. The first two are wrong, but wrong in an appeal-to-real-life kind of way, which we don't touch. The third makes a clearly false statement about existing resolutions and I therefore have to rate it as illegal.
Principal-Agent, Anarchy; Squadron Admiral, The Red Fleet
The Semi-Honorable Leonid Berkman Pavonis
Author: 354 GA / Issues 436, 451, 724
Ambassador Pro Tem
Tech Level: Complicated (or not: 7/0/6 i.e. 12) / RP Details
.
Jerk, Ideological Deviant, Roach, MT Army stooge, & "red [who] do[es]n't read" (various)
.
Illustrious Bum #279


User avatar
Fachumonn
Diplomat
 
Posts: 981
Founded: Apr 11, 2021
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Fachumonn » Mon May 16, 2022 2:18 pm

Not the greatest draft I've ever seen, and definitely oppose it on principle.
There's also the fact that this would never pass based on the title alone.


WA Ambassador: The People | Pronouns: He/Him/His/They/Them/Their | RL Ideology: Libertarian Socialism/Anarcho-Communism | GP Alignment: Independent, Leans Defender

User avatar
Old Hope
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1173
Founded: Sep 21, 2014
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Old Hope » Mon May 16, 2022 2:21 pm

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:"Clause 1: no it isn't."

"Clause 2: no it's not."

"Clause 3: Ambassador, Resolution 286 itself renders this argument false. The full clause reads:
Resolution 286 wrote:PERMITS Member Nations to enact policies encouraging individuals to allow live delivery of their offspring, provided such policies do not ultimately hinder the individual from terminating their pregnancy,
- my own emphasis added, of course."

"The point is that there is literally no way for the two clauses to conflict. Encouragement which does not constitute a hindrance also does not constitute discrimination, restriction, taxation, or any of the other things forbidden in Resolution 499."

"Ambassador, you are grasping at straws in the middle of a vast desert with nothing to drink and no bottles, cups, or juice boxes within a thousand kilometer radius. These arguments are simply without merit."




OOC: The third argument may actually constitute what we're still calling an Honest Mistake. The first two are wrong, but wrong in an appeal-to-real-life kind of way, which we don't touch. The third makes a clearly false statement about existing resolutions and I therefore have to rate it as illegal.

I have removed clause 3, but you haven't told me why clause 1 or 2 are supposed to be wrong.

Fachumonn wrote:Not the greatest draft I've ever seen, and definitely oppose it on principle.
There's also the fact that this would never pass based on the title alone.

Based on the title alone? No. The title makes it more difficult. But not impossible!
Last edited by Old Hope on Mon May 16, 2022 2:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Imperium Anglorum wrote:The format wars are a waste of time.

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 22087
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Wallenburg » Mon May 16, 2022 3:11 pm

Clause 1 is an Honest Mistake violation by the protections of GAR #29 and the general irrelevance of the question of forced medical procedures to the separate issue of providing access to abortion. Clause 2 is also either an Honest Mistake violation by inheriting the mix of false and irrelevant arguments in Clause 1, or simply a bad argument by failing to actually demonstrate that mailing abortifacients is unsafe. Your last argument against it is borderline nonsense. There is no "legal friction" between A2A and older resolutions when A2A explicitly surrenders at even the sight of friction.
I want to improve.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
Kiu Ghesik wrote:harris' interpretation of bidenism and subsequent establishment of a bidenist vanguard party to root out malarkey and revisionist elements in society was revisionist in and of itself and should never have been implemented.

King of Snark, Minister of World Assembly Affairs, Arbiter for The East Pacific

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 16754
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Mon May 16, 2022 5:57 pm

Wallenburg wrote:Clause 1 is an Honest Mistake violation by the protections of GAR #29 and the general irrelevance of the question of forced medical procedures to the separate issue of providing access to abortion. Clause 2 is also either an Honest Mistake violation by inheriting the mix of false and irrelevant arguments in Clause 1, or simply a bad argument by failing to actually demonstrate that mailing abortifacients is unsafe. Your last argument against it is borderline nonsense. There is no "legal friction" between A2A and older resolutions when A2A explicitly surrenders at even the sight of friction.

Ooc: frankly, I would call it facially an HM violation to suggest there is any friction given the explicit clause defaulting to older resolutions. So three HMs. Impressive, but, like, in a bad way.

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence, Arbiter of Right, Toxic Globalist Dog, Dark Psychic Vampire, and Chief Populist Elitist!
Separatist Peoples should RESIGN!

User avatar
Chipoli
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 45
Founded: Mar 16, 2022
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Chipoli » Tue May 17, 2022 1:07 pm

Old Hope wrote:Link to resolution: https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolutions/council=1/start=498
Yearning to give free access to abortion,
But also yearning to protect people, member states, and WA subsidiaries from unnecessary and very harmful excessive legal costs and other legal problems,
Relieved by the protections for abortion caused by General Assembly Resolution 29, Patient's Rights Act, and General Assembly Resolution 286, Reproductive Freedoms
Having found the following problems:
1)Provision of abortifacients according to clause 2 is unsafe. People may be coerced into ordering abortifacients. A mandated counselling(except in medical emergencies) would allow the state to protect it's citiziens from being coerced into an abortion. This is inconsistent with General Assembly Resolution 29, clauses II and IX.
2)Clinics according to clause 4b are mandated to provide abortifacients to any address that is reachable via post. This is unsafe for the reason outlined in 1).
Whereas Clause 8 of this resolution does allow older resolutions to supersede this resolution these legal frictions still create a legally unsafe legal sharp edge causing potentially massive and harmful legal misunderstandings, a massive number of legal actions and legal costs,
The World Assembly repeals General Assembly Resolution 499, Access to Abortion.

Repeal.
First draft.


I don't see any strong arguments to repeal the resolution in this case.

User avatar
Equai
Envoy
 
Posts: 253
Founded: Mar 05, 2022
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Equai » Wed May 18, 2022 3:01 pm

Opposed. All arguments provided in the draft are illogical, wrong intended, weak and has no basis to stand on its own. Federation of Equai sees this as nothing but a nitpicking and overthinking and by that risk to strip a fundamental human rights off the oppressed group.

We do not deny that somewhere out there someone was coerced into getting an abortion. On contrary, it probably did happened, just how it happened that person was denied access to abortion. In most cases the latter occupies far more often then the former so repealing human rights in other to please severe overthinkers that somewhere out there someone is going to abuse the law is ridiculous at best and dangerous at worst. If we use that logic then why don't abolish all human rights? Like we stated above, this repeal is illogical, wrong intended, weak and has no basis to stand on its own and we will be opposed to do it all the way.
She/Her

Queer Liberation, Not Rainbow Capitalism! | After almost six hours since the final talks began Leona Kiwi and Timothy Kansas left the meeting room and declared the formation of Equaian United Peoples Communist Party. "We decided that we need the solidarity and unity in this dividing times", said Kiwi for the press conference. | 33 passengers died and 2 are injured when the freight train sliced through the bus in High Hills Valley, North Odrela.


Queer Anarcho-Socialist, anarchist, communist. Far-left in general, ACAB, anti-war, anti-imperialist, pro-choice, atheist.
⚧♀Trans woman♀⚧
9Axes Results
LeftValues Results
InfValues Results
SapplyValues Results
PoliticalCompass Results


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads