Why did option 1 of issue 1142 LOWER civil rights?

[Black Flag Syndicate]

The option in question

“I’ll be dammed if this doesn’t keep coming up every couple years,” sighs a representative from the Womb Tang Clan, a leading abortion advocacy group. “Sneaking around in bathroom stalls is for politicians, not for women seeking legitimate healthcare! We need to keep abortion safe and legally accessible to all women, especially the vulnerable women who are most likely to need more than one abortion and would be most impacted by any attempt to limit or defund abortions. EVERYONE, we must mandate full healthcare provision of these vital, life-saving services and fund the distribution of free contraception to all women in Black Flag Syndicate.”

Now, from what I know, protection of abortion and providing free services tends to INCREASE civil rights. Did I just tick something off because of the word "mandate" being in the option??? I've had this issue in other nations but never has this option caused a decrease, especially given the precedence of other abortion related issues (with the exception of the one for religious discrimination)

[Kaparthia]

Results for option 1:
-0.42 to +2.43 Civil Rights (mean +0.3090)
You got unlucky.

[SherpDaWerp]

I will quote my colleague:

Awhile back, the team (aware of the deep and personal feelings around the sensitive issue of abortion) took the -- perhaps controversial decision -- to (generally speaking, allowing for individual stats) programme a civil rights rise for both banning and allowing abortion.

Due to the strength of emotion it raises, we felt it inappropriate to come down on either side of this debate.

While this says "rise", this means any abortion-based decision involves various competing sub-rights. We've done our best to make it usually rise, but in certain circumstances - like yours - your underlying sub-rights are setup such that the increase can't outweigh the decrease.

[Australian rePublic]

Adding to what SherpDaWerp and Free Joy said-

I am NOT taking sides in this threads. I'll try to be objective in THIS thread.

Some people consider abortion to be a human right, a civil right and women's rights. Others consider legaliser abortion to be a violation of human rights, a violation of the foetus' rights, specifically, the fetus' right to life. And it gets even more complicated when you add in the input of the father in cases of abortion

Considering that both sides have contradictory views on the cause, and for the most part, both sides are acting in good faith, I can understand why the issue editors have made that decision. Compare this to something such as free speech. With the exception of niche cases like hate speech or pro-terrorism speech or stuff like that, with the exception of those niche cases, everyone agrees that limiting free speech is a violation of civil liberty, that's objective. Abortion is more complicated