[DRAFT] Repeal "On Abortion"

[Mahaj WA Seat]

I think we should at least see the newest draft before jumping to conclusions.

Who knows. Opinions could change.

All I can say is, this new draft better be a good one...

I understand, honoured ambassador, but there is a fear that CD's ambassador could exploit their draft repeal to shove restrictive alternatives down the throats of countries that practice life-saving abortions.

Wow. This has got to be the most popular proposal that never has come up to vote. Please, save us from your ill timed panic.

I will save more substantive remarks for if or when CD posts an actual viable draft of a repeal. Then, no doubt, I will have many objections.

I can only hope that CD's new repeal won't be as disingenuous, contradictory, and untruthful as the last attempt.

Thanks for at least waiting and not showing the same sort of jumping foolery that many other delegations have shown.

[The Cat-Tribe]

10. Requires that all abortions be performed by surgeons. No it doesn’t. It says that all abortions must be performed by physicians trained to “the same accepted medical standards” that surgeons are. These are not necessarily the same thing (for example, a doctor could be trained to that standard only for abortions, the way nurse practitioners are trained to perform and treat some "doctor-standard" diagnoses, such as asthma or diabetes).

Nor does OA specify that a physician or surgeon who is trained to perform surgical abortions has to perform only surgical abortions. Nor does it say that, because they are trained to do surgical abortions, they are rendered unable to prescribe an emergency contraceptive, anti-implantation or abortifacient drug.

This clause goes beyond acceptable rhetoric, to the stage of “the Resolution you’re repealing doesn’t say the thing you’re repealing it for”. Illegal.

I'm not going to make any edits until I resume this proposal; however, I do want to clarify this proposal's tenth concern. Section 4 of "On Abortion" says:

FURTHER MANDATES that physicians who carry out abortions must be trained to the same accepted medical standards that all surgeons are held to, and that abortions are carried out in a way that is as painless as possible while preserving the mother's physical health

My tenth concern says:

Section 4 requires all abortions to be performed by surgeons even though not all abortions are surgical. This provision makes it more difficult for women to access abortifacients such as mifepristone. This clause also limits women’s access to emergency contraception in nations where pregnancy is defined as beginning at fertilization.

Even if a physician is "trained to that [surgical] standard only for abortions," that doctor still is a surgeon because of his/her ability to perform a kind of surgery. Not all surgeons know how to perform all surgeries.

I never said (my proposal doesn't say) that such doctors could perform only surgical abortions nor did I say that "On Abortion" "rendered [such doctors] unable to prescribe an emergency contraceptive, anti-implantation or abortifacient drug." (Let me just note that emergency contraception and abortifacient drugs are different things. )

My proposal says that Section 4 of "On Abortion" renders other kinds of doctors, such as general practicioners and psychiatrists, unable to prescribe abortifacient drugs. This is a limitation that makes it more difficult for those pregnant to obtain drugs necessary to induce abortion. Such women now can receive prescriptions only from certain kinds of doctors, who may be overrun and, hence, unable to meet with these women in a timely manner. Because only certain kinds of doctors can prescribe such drugs, such women may have to wait to abort. (Later abortions have more potential complications than abortions that occur earlier in pregnancy.)

Under "On Abortion," drugs that prevent the implantation of fertilized ova are more difficult to obtain in nations that define pregnancy as beginning at fertilization. Whereas postcoital contraception could be obtained (in certain places) over-the-counter before "On Abortion," such contraception now requires a prescription. Because of this barrier, "On Abortion" does, in fact, limit "women’s access to emergency contraception" because such women now need to see a doctor before procuring morning after pills. (By the time she makes an appointment, etc., her fertilized ovum probably already has implanted if implantation is going to occur at all. This, however, assumes that fertilization even occurred in the first place. A woman may have to go to all the trouble to see a doctor when a sperm may have not even fertilized her egg.)

Thank you for taking the time to post a detailed analysis of and opinion on my proposal.

This argument for the legality of Clause 10 is flawed and involved exactly the type of verbal gymnastics and line-blurring that led to the original Mod ruling against the clause.

CD makes huge leaps in logic and linguistics in equating "all doctors who carry out abortions" with any physician who prescribes emergency contraception or even an abortifacient.

CD makes similar huge leaps in logic and linguistics in equating "must be trained to the same accepted medical standards that all surgeons are held to" and "must be performed or prescribed by a surgeon."

CD's argument about emergency contraception also fails the reasonable definition standard. Yes, a nation that wished to ban abortion and not implement "On Abortion" in good faith might try to use the language in a way to interfere with emergency contraception -- if it considered emergency contraception to be a form of abortion and wanted to ban it. But that is not reasonable. Also any nation so inclined would, in the absence of "On Abortion," ban such emergency contraception anyway.

This is a cynical, disingenuous argument that defies what "On Abortion" actually says. The ruling that it is illegal should stick.

[The Cat-Tribe]

I understand, honoured ambassador, but there is a fear that CD's ambassador could exploit their draft repeal to shove restrictive alternatives down the throats of countries that practice life-saving abortions.

Wow. This has got to be the most popular proposal that never has come up to vote. Please, save us from your ill timed panic.

I will save more substantive remarks for if or when CD posts an actual viable draft of a repeal. Then, no doubt, I will have many objections.

I can only hope that CD's new repeal won't be as disingenuous, contradictory, and untruthful as the last attempt.

Thanks for at least waiting and not showing the same sort of jumping foolery that many other delegations have shown.

Let us be clear: CD does plan to repeal "On Abortion" and replace it with something that restricts abortions, at the cost of lives. He made that clear before. His signature re-affirms that commitment.

[Christian Democrats]

Wow. This has got to be the most popular proposal that never has come up to vote. Please, save us from your ill timed panic.


Thanks for at least waiting and not showing the same sort of jumping foolery that many other delegations have shown.

Let us be clear: CD does plan to repeal "On Abortion" and replace it with something that restricts abortions, at the cost of lives. He made that clear before. His signature re-affirms that commitment.

Huh? My signature is advertising a region/regional alliance committed to repealing On Abortion and opposing any legislation to liberalize international abortion law in the future. If a repeal passes, I won't try to install any unreasonable restrictions. Remember a repeal can't do anything but reverse previously adopted legislation.

(There are some reasonable restrictions that the GA could pass after a repeal such as limiting abortions to being performed by physicians, informed consent, and allowing physicians to opt out of having to perform abortions for moral/ethical reasons.)

[Dilange]

Let us be clear: CD does plan to repeal "On Abortion" and replace it with something that restricts abortions, at the cost of lives. He made that clear before. His signature re-affirms that commitment.

Huh? My signature is advertising a region/regional alliance committed to repealing On Abortion and opposing any legislation to liberalize international abortion law in the future. If a repeal passes, I won't try to install any unreasonable restrictions. Remember a repeal can't do anything but reverse previously adopted legislation.

(There are some reasonable restrictions that the GA could pass after a repeal such as limiting abortions to being performed by physicians, informed consent, and allowing physicians to opt out of having to perform abortions for moral/ethical reasons.)

Lets end this once and for all......Abortion is a female decision.

Government, pro-dominantly patriarchally ruled, seems to make this decision for women which is a sign of men being superior. Leave this as an individual choice. This has nothing to do with any religion nor policy....in fact I dont think that government has a right to tell people what to do with their bodies. Its natural rights and all people have these rights. THe government, especially the WA, has no right mandating some resolution that restricts a person from doing something with their own body.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Let us be clear: CD does plan to repeal "On Abortion" and replace it with something that restricts abortions, at the cost of lives. He made that clear before. His signature re-affirms that commitment.

Huh? My signature is advertising a region/regional alliance committed to repealing On Abortion and opposing any legislation to liberalize international abortion law in the future. If a repeal passes, I won't try to install any unreasonable restrictions. Remember a repeal can't do anything but reverse previously adopted legislation.

(There are some reasonable restrictions that the GA could pass after a repeal such as limiting abortions to being performed by physicians, informed consent, and allowing physicians to opt out of having to perform abortions for moral/ethical reasons.)

Meh. It was a fair comment based on your past activity on this subject and the fact that there is nothing really wrong with "On Abortion." The only purpose for making objections you don't even really believe in is that you want to tear down the reasonable, limited protections provided for by "On Abortion."

Also, your "reasonable restrictions" aren't reasonable. They are buzzwords. Informed consent tends to be lies and scare tactics. On Abortion already limits abortions to physicians -- and you've argued against that! Similarly, "On Abortion" already allows physicians to opt out of performing abortions.

[Christian Democrats]

Leave this as a nation's choice

I agree.

[Dilange]

Leave this as a nation's choice

I agree.

Wasnt the point.....the point was its an individual's own choice that should not be banned by religion or law. If not leave it as a choice for the individual nation.

[Terishany]

Abortions only in the case of a woman's life in danger. No more.

[Dilange]

Abortions only in the case of a woman's life in danger. No more.

How about whenever the women feels like it? Government has no authority to tell people what to do with their bodies.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Let us be clear: CD does plan to repeal "On Abortion" and replace it with something that restricts abortions, at the cost of lives. He made that clear before. His signature re-affirms that commitment.

Huh? My signature is advertising a region/regional alliance committed to repealing On Abortion and opposing any legislation to liberalize international abortion law in the future. If a repeal passes, I won't try to install any unreasonable restrictions. Remember a repeal can't do anything but reverse previously adopted legislation.

(There are some reasonable restrictions that the GA could pass after a repeal such as limiting abortions to being performed by physicians, informed consent, and allowing physicians to opt out of having to perform abortions for moral/ethical reasons.)

Ambassador from Christian Democrats, you previously attempted to ban late-term abortion back in January: late-term was ill defined meaning that there was a loophole. In addition, your draft did not explicitly protect cases where the decision to perform an abortion is a matter of life or death for the pregnant woman (highlighted for emphasis). This is why Ms. Harper had to step in.

Therefore, Ambassador, there is nothing wrong with On Abortion. On Abortion did not bias itself towards any faith. In fact the right for an individual, regardless of faith, to get a life-saving abortion, if they wish, is currently protected from interference by anti-abortion governments, just as much as the Freedom of Expression.

[Christian Democrats]

Huh? My signature is advertising a region/regional alliance committed to repealing On Abortion and opposing any legislation to liberalize international abortion law in the future. If a repeal passes, I won't try to install any unreasonable restrictions. Remember a repeal can't do anything but reverse previously adopted legislation.

(There are some reasonable restrictions that the GA could pass after a repeal such as limiting abortions to being performed by physicians, informed consent, and allowing physicians to opt out of having to perform abortions for moral/ethical reasons.)

Meh. It was a fair comment based on your past activity on this subject and the fact that there is nothing really wrong with "On Abortion." The only purpose for making objections you don't even really believe in is that you want to tear down the reasonable, limited protections provided for by "On Abortion."

Also, your "reasonable restrictions" aren't reasonable. They are buzzwords. Informed consent tends to be lies and scare tactics. On Abortion already limits abortions to physicians -- and you've argued against that! Similarly, "On Abortion" already allows physicians to opt out of performing abortions.

Exactly. Those are the parts I'd keep. (The doctor's provision needs some changing, though, because the current "surgeon" restriction doesn't make any sense.)

The other provisions of On Abortion are why I wish to repeal the resolution:

• Legalization of elective abortion for minors thereby encouraging irresponsibility
• Allowance of older women to abort children they conceived from illegally engaging in sexual intercourse with pubescent boys
• Allowance of certain abortions even when the fetus is viable and labor induction is an option
• Unspecific "foetal abnormality" loophole
• Unspecific mental health loophole
• Execution of On Abortion with respect to loner women
• Next-of-kin deciding in certain cases when they shouldn't have the power to request abortions

[The Cat-Tribe]

Meh. It was a fair comment based on your past activity on this subject and the fact that there is nothing really wrong with "On Abortion." The only purpose for making objections you don't even really believe in is that you want to tear down the reasonable, limited protections provided for by "On Abortion."

Also, your "reasonable restrictions" aren't reasonable. They are buzzwords. Informed consent tends to be lies and scare tactics. On Abortion already limits abortions to physicians -- and you've argued against that! Similarly, "On Abortion" already allows physicians to opt out of performing abortions.

Exactly. Those are the parts I'd keep. (The doctor's provision needs some changing, though, because the current "surgeon" restriction doesn't make any sense.)

The other provisions of On Abortion are why I wish to repeal the resolution:

• Legalization of elective abortion for minors thereby encouraging irresponsibility
• Allowance of older women to abort children they conceived from illegally engaging in sexual intercourse with pubescent boys
• Allowance of certain abortions even when the fetus is viable and labor induction is an option
• Unspecific "foetal abnormality" loophole
• Unspecific mental health loophole
• Execution of On Abortion with respect to loner women
• Next-of-kin deciding in certain cases when they shouldn't have the power to request abortions

You've already been shown ad naseum to be wrong about each of these "concerns" (in this thread! -- see, e.g., link) and you aren't being honest about your true objections to "On Abortion."

When you have a new draft, we can discuss things. Until then, you are wasting everyone's time.

[Jedi8246]

I agree.

Wasnt the point.....the point was its an individual's own choice that should not be banned by religion or law. If not leave it as a choice for the individual nation.

The Republic of Jedi8246 seconds that decision. Though we would not be opposed to legislation mandating abortion in the case of danger to the women. On Abortion does more than that, and thus we support the repeal of it.

Sir William Hemsworth
Jedi8246 WA Representative
8th Degree Knight of the First Jedi8246 Templar

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

Abortions only in the case of a woman's life in danger. No more.

How about whenever the women feels like it? Government has no authority to tell people what to do with their bodies.

Well, it'd better not be because "it's not a boy". Because that has nothing to do with their bodies.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Wasnt the point.....the point was its an individual's own choice that should not be banned by religion or law. If not leave it as a choice for the individual nation.

The Republic of Jedi8246 seconds that decision. Though we would not be opposed to legislation mandating abortion in the case of danger to the women. On Abortion does more than that, and thus we support the repeal of it.

Sir William Hemsworth
Jedi8246 WA Representative
8th Degree Knight of the First Jedi8246 Templar

As far as the best of my knowledge, the resolution concerned covers all possible essential cases, as well as standards and consent. Simple.

[Hirota]

I'm hoping we can have a well reasoned draft to debate over rather than a draft overflowing with hyperbole and misrepresentation.

[Moronist Decisions]

As far as the best of my knowledge, the resolution concerned covers all possible essential cases, as well as standards and consent. Simple.

We agree with Ms. Harper. Honestly, beyond that, what you do is your business in your nation.
Plus, in a more moralistic nation than ours, we believe that these rights won't be used that readily.

Jane Cockcroft, BA
Intern

[Christian Democrats]

Moderators,

I no longer need clarification on the ruling issued in January. I've written a new draft without those clauses.

I'll post the new draft later today. I still need to do some proofreading and revision.

[Ardchoille]

For the sake of clarity and ease of access, closing this thread, then. While separate threads for each new draft are forbidden, this sounds like a substantially new repeal, so let's give it its own thread.