[DRAFT II] Repeal #499 "Access to Abortion"

[Eliysum]

The World Assembly,

ACKNOWLEDGING that the intention of the legislation was in good faith and that they aimed to protect a person’s right to an abortion, specifically in member nations where abortion and any relating medical procedure was restricted;

ALARMED that in section 2 of the legislation, members are required to directly pay for abortions and other related medical items to terminate a pregnancy at a person’s request: even if the pregnancy is in the late-term and, under this technicality, abortions could be performed in the 3rd trimester;

SHOCKED that, as pointed out earlier, the legislation forces the governments of member nations to directly pay for abortion and does not allow the costs to be directed to administrative subdivisions or private enterprises: even if the member nation has delegated the responsibility of abortion healthcare to either;

HEREBY repeals GA#499 “Access to Abortion”

OOC: Expanded upon the arguments, decided to keep it short and simple since I find it reasonable that people are more likely to read short legislations compared to long ones. For example, I usually just skim through most of the longer WA legislations but fully read short ones.

Also, I don't really have any intention to replace. Not that I don't want to, I just don't think that I am capable of writing that. I am socially conservative IRL and I believe the people would be alot happier if somebody with their mindset wrote a replacement.

[The Ice States]

Ooc: Hello! This doesn't look to have been submitted, twice or otherwise, which is good -- this should be left up on the forums for at least a few weeks, preferably a month, before submission.

Much of the GA is strongly in favour of legalising abortion, so this is unlikely to succeed at vote. If, however, you still intend on pursuing this draft, I would recommend updating the formatting to begin with "The World Assembly", end clauses with a semicolon and end the penultimate clause with "and", so as to flow as one sentence. On the merits, the most compelling argument for repealing the target is that it requires funding for late-term abortions; I would support a repeal focused on those grounds coupled with a replacement which enacts the same policy with that exception.

[The Overmind]

Opposed in principle.

[Eliysum]

/bump

Draft II is out.

[Attempted Socialism]

I don't think arguments against late-term abortions are in any way cogent. Late-term abortions (In RL that is, not whatever Fantasyland that some US fascists make up) are essentially only medical in nature because no woman yet has carried a pregnancy for 6+ months only to decide that it's been fun while it lasted, but now they don't want to be pregnant anymore. Seeking to limit late-term abortions is an exercise in cruelty and killing women (as, indeed, many Republican governed states have proven). The argument made in this repeal fall flat on the merits.
However that's not the end of it. As the GA voting record has shown, again and again, abortion is considered an inviolable right. And when anti-choice activists previously attempted to repeal or circumvent that right, stronger resolutions have replaced weaker ones. In a way, the current legislation is as stridently pro-choice because anti-choice activists proved that we had the votes to pass stronger resolutions, and their attempts as undermining human rights proved that it was necessary.
The current resolutions are demonstrably the best deal anti-choice activists can wish for. It is a compromise between all relevant parties, and if anti-choice activists wish to argue that they aren't included in that compromise? They are; to the full extent that an anti-choice stance is legitimate and electorally relevant. Pray the majority doesn't alter the compromise again.

[Eliysum]

I don't think arguments against late-term abortions are in any way cogent. Late-term abortions (In RL that is, not whatever Fantasyland that some US fascists make up) are essentially only medical in nature because no woman yet has carried a pregnancy for 6+ months only to decide that it's been fun while it lasted, but now they don't want to be pregnant anymore. Seeking to limit late-term abortions is an exercise in cruelty and killing women (as, indeed, many Republican governed states have proven). The argument made in this repeal fall flat on the merits.
However that's not the end of it. As the GA voting record has shown, again and again, abortion is considered an inviolable right. And when anti-choice activists previously attempted to repeal or circumvent that right, stronger resolutions have replaced weaker ones. In a way, the current legislation is as stridently pro-choice because anti-choice activists proved that we had the votes to pass stronger resolutions, and their attempts as undermining human rights proved that it was necessary.
The current resolutions are demonstrably the best deal anti-choice activists can wish for. It is a compromise between all relevant parties, and if anti-choice activists wish to argue that they aren't included in that compromise? They are; to the full extent that an anti-choice stance is legitimate and electorally relevant. Pray the majority doesn't alter the compromise again.

Sure, the amount of late-term abortions that are not medically needed is incredibly low. However, the wording of this legislation allows for that to be possible. Simply put, just in the rare case that it happens, we shouldn't force member nations to federally fund late-term abortions that are not medically needed.

Also, my entire argument isn't about just late-term abortions. The legislation does not allow member nations to direct costs to administrative subdivisions and private enterprises even if the nation delegates the responsibility of healthcare/abortion healthcare to either. I believe we can both agree that a member nation should have the right to do that.

And, finally, it seems like you are implying I am anti-choice. I'm really not, and my repeal proposal is simply made with the intent for a reform that I believe is beneficial for both parties.

Good day!

[The Overmind]

I don't think arguments against late-term abortions are in any way cogent. Late-term abortions (In RL that is, not whatever Fantasyland that some US fascists make up) are essentially only medical in nature because no woman yet has carried a pregnancy for 6+ months only to decide that it's been fun while it lasted, but now they don't want to be pregnant anymore. Seeking to limit late-term abortions is an exercise in cruelty and killing women (as, indeed, many Republican governed states have proven). The argument made in this repeal fall flat on the merits.
However that's not the end of it. As the GA voting record has shown, again and again, abortion is considered an inviolable right. And when anti-choice activists previously attempted to repeal or circumvent that right, stronger resolutions have replaced weaker ones. In a way, the current legislation is as stridently pro-choice because anti-choice activists proved that we had the votes to pass stronger resolutions, and their attempts as undermining human rights proved that it was necessary.
The current resolutions are demonstrably the best deal anti-choice activists can wish for. It is a compromise between all relevant parties, and if anti-choice activists wish to argue that they aren't included in that compromise? They are; to the full extent that an anti-choice stance is legitimate and electorally relevant. Pray the majority doesn't alter the compromise again.

Sure, the amount of late-term abortions that are not medically needed is incredibly low. However, the wording of this legislation allows for that to be possible. Simply put, just in the rare case that it happens, we shouldn't force member nations to federally fund late-term abortions that are not medically needed.

Also, my entire argument isn't about just late-term abortions. The legislation does not allow member nations to direct costs to administrative subdivisions and private enterprises even if the nation delegates the responsibility of healthcare/abortion healthcare to either. I believe we can both agree that a member nation should have the right to do that.

And, finally, it seems like you are implying I am anti-choice. I'm really not, and my repeal proposal is simply made with the intent for a reform that I believe is beneficial for both parties.

Good day!

Do you believe in harm reduction? Because your proposal advocates for greater harm on the principle that some people may have a moral preference for it. Mandating that late-term abortions be demonstrably medically necessary won't reduce the number of abortions in any appreciable amount, but will result in the erection of standards for justifiable late-term abortions that result in the deaths of women for whom medical evidence was not decisive enough. The idea that these women should be considered necessary sacrifices to balance the moral scales against virtually nonexistent "frivolous" late-term abortions is as unjust as it is an affront to bodily autonomy.

Instead of trying to fix something that isn't broken, why not write legislation promoting the development of the technology and medical procedures necessary to conduct survival abortions (i.e. ones in which the fetus might survive despite termination of the pregnancy) for viable fetuses, or even nonviable, if you wish to promote the development of some form of abiological incubation that will see fetuses of early abortions to viability. That, while not so "easy" to legislate as depriving women of choice and casting them as sacrifices to empty moralistic ideals, would actually show some meaningful thought toward the necessity of preserving universal bodily autonomy while attempting to satisfy the moral inclination to personify fetuses (all of the arguments against notwithstanding).

See if this moralizing minority of member nations are as keen on saving fetuses when it actually costs them something.

[Trinitraria]

Strongly against. Body autonomy is a basic right.

[Kyete]

Agreed on principle. I am strongly against abortion and I believe other nations should not have to fund it (this is why I left the WA). Also, I agree that shorter legislation tends to be read more. I would see if there are any words or phrases that could be removed, as parts of it (specifically SHOCKED that...) seem very wordy.

[Eliysum]

Sure, the amount of late-term abortions that are not medically needed is incredibly low. However, the wording of this legislation allows for that to be possible. Simply put, just in the rare case that it happens, we shouldn't force member nations to federally fund late-term abortions that are not medically needed.

Also, my entire argument isn't about just late-term abortions. The legislation does not allow member nations to direct costs to administrative subdivisions and private enterprises even if the nation delegates the responsibility of healthcare/abortion healthcare to either. I believe we can both agree that a member nation should have the right to do that.

And, finally, it seems like you are implying I am anti-choice. I'm really not, and my repeal proposal is simply made with the intent for a reform that I believe is beneficial for both parties.

Good day!

Do you believe in harm reduction? Because your proposal advocates for greater harm on the principle that some people may have a moral preference for it. Mandating that late-term abortions be demonstrably medically necessary won't reduce the number of abortions in any appreciable amount, but will result in the erection of standards for justifiable late-term abortions that result in the deaths of women for whom medical evidence was not decisive enough. The idea that these women should be considered necessary sacrifices to balance the moral scales against virtually nonexistent "frivolous" late-term abortions is as unjust as it is an affront to bodily autonomy.

Instead of trying to fix something that isn't broken, why not write legislation promoting the development of the technology and medical procedures necessary to conduct survival abortions (i.e. ones in which the fetus might survive despite termination of the pregnancy) for viable fetuses, or even nonviable, if you wish to promote the development of some form of abiological incubation that will see fetuses of early abortions to viability. That, while not so "easy" to legislate as depriving women of choice and casting them as sacrifices to empty moralistic ideals, would actually show some meaningful thought toward the necessity of preserving universal bodily autonomy while attempting to satisfy the moral inclination to personify fetuses (all of the arguments against notwithstanding).

See if this moralizing minority of member nations are as keen on saving fetuses when it actually costs them something.

A. This is assuming that a replacement, which I would not even be writing as I have said I would not make a replacement and that someone else who is more qualified in that matter, would be heavily restrictive and require extensive medical proof for an late-term abortion. Considering the fact that the WA has been greatly praised for being heavily liberal by many people, this probably wouldn't occur because the requirements of a late-term abortion on grounds of a medical emergency would be very loose. (Sure, I am being VERY speculative here. I admit that this is pure speculation. However, I believe that the technology present within the WA (considering that from the legislations I have read, the tech present is MASSIVELY more advanced than IRL) would allow for a quick and speedy approval of late-term abortions that are medically necessary.)

B. I would also like to point out that nobody is responding to the second argument within my repeal proposal. I get why the argument is centered around my first argument, but I believe my second argument should also receive some detail.

C. I will look into this. If this repeal fails (which it most likely will), I will take the next best step and look into the possibility of development of technology to make sure that, even with the termination of a pregnancy, a fetus can survive. (Really, I'm not evil or anti-choice. Not saying you called me this, I just feel like you are assuming that I am just a traditional social conservative. My main purpose is to protect the life of a fetus, not to remove a woman's right to choose.)

Strongly against. Body autonomy is a basic right.

I feel the need to address this. It seems like you didn't read my repeal proposal since I am not advocating for the right to choose to be taken away. I am simply arguing that the proposal has some flaws and that it should be repealed/replaced.

Agreed on principle. I am strongly against abortion and I believe other nations should not have to fund it (this is why I left the WA). Also, I agree that shorter legislation tends to be read more. I would see if there are any words or phrases that could be removed, as parts of it (specifically SHOCKED that...) seem very wordy.

I am glad you agree. If you were still in the WA, I would understand your concerns. One of my main arguments in this repeal proposal was to make sure that member nations could direct the costs to administrative subdivisions or private enterprises so you wouldn't have to bear the cost if your nation government doesn't operate healthcare on a national level/had a private healthcare system.

[Panay Islands and Guimaras]

Agreed on principle. I am strongly against abortion and I believe other nations should not have to fund it (this is why I left the WA). Also, I agree that shorter legislation tends to be read more. I would see if there are any words or phrases that could be removed, as parts of it (specifically SHOCKED that...) seem very wordy.

I'm also against it, so I'll support that.

[Alkzine]

fully support. wonderful resolution and there is more than ample moral argument to argue against third-term abortion being universally available even when not medically necessary. the procedure is extremely painful for the fetus being killed.

[Pangurstan]

No repeal of that resolution will pass unless you have a replacement lined up for submission.

Edit: If you want any extra things to put in your repeal, you could add that "no (a) direct tax or (b) indirect tax in excess of one per cent may be collected" (in section 5) implies that WA abortion clinics are exempt from property taxes in jurisdictions where property taxes are over 1%. Also "No limitation, except to prohibit travel to nations in which there is an on-going armed conflict, may be enforced by a member on a person's ability to exit a member for purposes of travelling to a clinic unless permitted by resolution." in section 4 seems highly abusable (for example, it could be used by criminals to flee to countries without extradition treaties).

[Astrobolt]

Tappe: Late term abortions should be permitted in all member states.

[Lumiere du Premier]

Support because of the technicality allowing for third-trimester abortion. I'm mostly neutral on this topic but third-trimester is far too late unless the woman's life is at risk.

I would support a new legislation covering abortion with those issues resolved. This repeal looks nice, it has my support but I would add maybe a couple more points if you can find them, because some people might not be persuaded by such few words.

So what Pangurstan said probably should be taken into consideration

[Lumiere du Premier]

Tappe: Late term abortions should be permitted in all member states.

I agree but only under certain conditions (like the woman's life being at risk)

[The Overmind]

As you have probably already noted, you have opened a can of worms that iteratively opens in this legislative body over time as people forget what a shit show it was the previous time.

[Lumiere du Premier]

I see you need a replacement ready for this to have a chance of succeeding...hey Ferb I know what we're going to do today!

Oh yeah! Woman's Rights!... That sounded very corny and I will never use that tone again

[Panay Islands and Guimaras]

I see you need a replacement ready for this to have a chance of succeeding...hey Ferb I know what we're going to do today!

Oh yeah! Woman's Rights!... That sounded very corny and I will never use that tone again

you're right it's because their opinions are too unrealistic, amrite?

[Attempted Socialism]

I don't think arguments against late-term abortions are in any way cogent. Late-term abortions (In RL that is, not whatever Fantasyland that some US fascists make up) are essentially only medical in nature because no woman yet has carried a pregnancy for 6+ months only to decide that it's been fun while it lasted, but now they don't want to be pregnant anymore. Seeking to limit late-term abortions is an exercise in cruelty and killing women (as, indeed, many Republican governed states have proven). The argument made in this repeal fall flat on the merits.
However that's not the end of it. As the GA voting record has shown, again and again, abortion is considered an inviolable right. And when anti-choice activists previously attempted to repeal or circumvent that right, stronger resolutions have replaced weaker ones. In a way, the current legislation is as stridently pro-choice because anti-choice activists proved that we had the votes to pass stronger resolutions, and their attempts as undermining human rights proved that it was necessary.
The current resolutions are demonstrably the best deal anti-choice activists can wish for. It is a compromise between all relevant parties, and if anti-choice activists wish to argue that they aren't included in that compromise? They are; to the full extent that an anti-choice stance is legitimate and electorally relevant. Pray the majority doesn't alter the compromise again.

Sure, the amount of late-term abortions that are not medically needed is incredibly low. However, the wording of this legislation allows for that to be possible. Simply put, just in the rare case that it happens, we shouldn't force member nations to federally fund late-term abortions that are not medically needed.

As The Overmind notes, allowing barriers to be put up between a woman and an acutely needed medical intervention is an actual threat to women's health. If someone comes into a hospital in the third trimester with a complication affecting their pregnancy, you wouldn't want the doctors to waste critical time checking whether it's the 0.000001% non-medical late term abortions, because while that's going on the woman might die.

Also, my entire argument isn't about just late-term abortions. The legislation does not allow member nations to direct costs to administrative subdivisions and private enterprises even if the nation delegates the responsibility of healthcare/abortion healthcare to either. I believe we can both agree that a member nation should have the right to do that.

That is not something we can agree on. Too many anti-choice activists tried to play around with making abortions legal but so expensive that they were actually unattainable, or making them funded by a private entity that then did not have any finances to deal with the costs. The resolution you seek to repeal made sure to close down such loopholes; the prohibition on buck-passing was a feature, not a bug in the resolution. If fewer anti-choice activists had been flaunting the previous resolutions on the topic that would not have been necessary, but alas, some of those anti-choice activists were fundamentally dishonest in their pursuit of making women into incubators. While I don't think more abortion legislation is needed, if something has to happen it should be placing the costs of abortions more squarely on the shoulders of anti-abortion activists and countries.

And, finally, it seems like you are implying I am anti-choice. I'm really not, and my repeal proposal is simply made with the intent for a reform that I believe is beneficial for both parties.

I don't know you or what you believe about yourself, but the resolution you're targeting was the best deal that anti-choice activists could have hoped for at the time. It is already beneficial for both parties. Since then the powers of regressive anti-choice activists has diminished even further, giving us on the pro-choice side even more leverage. You will not succeed with this, but even if you did, a stronger resolution would be voted through. That has been the historical lesson, and I hope anti-choice activists have learnt it.

[Haymarket Riot]

"You best start charging rent if our bodies are going to be living in your head" Jolene Jefferson remarks.

[Torregal]

Categorically opposed. Abortion should be available to all pregnant people at any point in the pregnancy. Trimester-based limits are a slippery slope to further restrictions.

[Elyreia]

The third-trimester abortion argument is a strawman. If a woman has dedicated to carrying a pregnancy for 7-9 months, they've probably already had massive monetary and emotional investments to carrying the child to term; almost all third trimester abortions are due to the inviability of the foetus, or due to unacceptable risks to the survival or mother or child should the pregnancy continue.

We would much rather see a theoretical small handful of people who would allegedly abuse the process, than see potentially millions suffer or die if the safeguard is removed. Full and vehement opposition to the repeal, even on the grounds that nations are forced to cover costs if they have no other provisions in place - that is the job of government, to provide safety nets for the people who need it.

[Midlona]

Midlona strongly supports repealing pro-abortion, pro-infanticide resolutions. This includes GAR #250, Repeal: Reduction of Abortion Act; GAR 286, Reproductive Freedoms; GAR #582, Access to Effective Medications; and others.

No one has a right to kill children. Midlona applauds your nation for standing up for principles of morality and truth, even if it is (sadly) unpopular in this specific space.

[Ostrovskiy]

I'll be real for a minute. This will never pass, so I wouldn't bother to spend more time on this draft unless you shift your lense to a more palatable argument.