IN QUEUE: Repeal "Reproductive Freedoms" [Complete]

Eluvatar

Eluvatar

TNPer
-
-
-
Pronouns
he/him/his
TNP Nation
Zemnaya Svoboda
Discord
Eluvatar#8517
Category: Repeal
Resolution: GA#286
Proposed by: Sciongrad

Repeal "Reproductive Freedoms":
Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #286: Reproductive Freedoms (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The General Assembly,

Affirming its recognition of reproductive rights and its responsibility to protect these rights,

Mindful, however, that there are reasonable and relevant interests in reducing abortions in certain circumstances that are prohibited by GAR#286 absolutely,

Regretting that GAR#286 prevents meaningful and necessary action against sex-selective abortion - a practice that often leads to crippling imbalances in gender demographics and exacerbates social gender inequality - undermining its enduring commitment to promoting social equality,

Understanding that the notion of terminating pregnancies up until the infant is birthed, which is permitted by GAR#286, poses a serious and legitimate ethical concern to many member nations,

Regarding GAR#286 as an immature and reckless exercise of World Assembly authority that does not reflect the legitimate underpinnings behind the right to reproductive choice,

Believing that such a radical approach to an issue as sensitive and divisive as reproductive choice is inconsistent with its extant commitment towards international cooperation,

Desiring a more moderate and refined approach to reproductive rights,

Hereby repeals GAR#286, "Reproductive Freedoms."
Click to expand...

Please vote: For | Against | Abstain | Present

"Abstain" means that you wish for the Delegate to not vote on the resolution at all.
"Present" means that you effectively choose not to participate in this vote. "Present" has no effect on how the Delegate votes.

Posts which do not include an explicit and unambiguous vote are not counted. (You do not have to color your vote).

Votes counted:

For: 3
Against: 10
Abstain: 0
Present: 0
 
mowa-seal.png

Abortion has long been a subject of debate, usually heated, in the World Assembly. The two resolutions "On Abortion" and "Reproductive Freedoms" have largely settled the matter for the past two years (or more, in the case of "On Abortion" settling the question of an outright ban). From time to time, however, an attempt is made to repeal "Reproductive Freedoms".

The present proposal to repeal "Reproductive Freedoms" is well constructed so as to plausibly pass. It opens its criticism of the resolution with a women's rights issue: sex-selective abortion. It follows this up with the unpleasant topic of late-term abortion. It encourages the notion of a replacement resolution, which would address the claimed deficiencies in "Reproductive Freedoms" while still protecting the same freedoms. This combines the two core arguments of two previous attempts to repeal the resolution, arguments related to improvements in policy the author suggests would be desirable.

Nonetheless, those with strong views in favor of reproductive freedoms will find antipathy to their views in the text. Reproductive Freedoms, which passed with a two thirds majority and has stood as WA law for nearly two years, is described as "an immature and reckless exercise of World Assembly authority". The nod toward a replacement insists that it be more "Moderate". The preferred law of this proposal author, a drafted replacement available on the onsite forums, would be. It would not protect reproductive freedoms as strictly from the legislative power of member states as current law. In particular, it requires only that regulations of abortion not "unnecessarily impugn" individual rights, rather than more sweepingly requiring that no regulations be tailored to abortion only.

On the substance of the proposal's criticisms of the resolution, there are three reasons one might seek to repeal the resolution. Either one disagrees with it on principle, believes more of the questions of policy it addresses should be resolved locally, or believes that the specific points of policy on sex-selective abortion or late-term abortion are problems worth re-legislating over. For many, this proposal is rooted in either certain moral values or the principles of national sovereignty. For others, values of social justice or valuing viable fetuses require pulling back a sweeping law to allow more flexible legislation. If one values a pregnant woman's individual rights higher, however, there is no question that personal autonomy is protected by the resolution in a way that is both necessary and proper.

Taking all these matters into consideration, the Ministry recommends against this resolution. We do not expect unanimity on this matter, and there is no issue with voting for the proposed repeal if you disagree with what we surmise to be the majority position. Indeed, voting your opinion is encouraged. We expect many will do so: this is not the sort of matter that sees a unanimous vote.
 
A few notes.

1. We have a treaty obligation involved with this proposal:
International Democratic Union Security Treaty:
6. The parties will support resolutions proposed by members of the other party in the General Assembly by a Delegate vote in favor within a minute of it reaching the floor so long as (i) the other party publicly registered the request sufficiently in advance, (ii) accommodated any limitations as to when the Delegate may be available to vote, and (iii) provided that a plurality of active WA members in the Delegate’s region do not thereafter object to the resolution while it is at vote.
Click to expand...

2. This proposal appears to have been submitted without an onsite forum topic (I started one). It does, however, seem to be related to this draft to repeal On Abortion with the argument that Reproductive Freedoms makes it redundant. (The GA community seems to prefer On Abortion to Reproductive Freedoms.)

Edit: Actually it had a thread, I just failed to find it. Here.
 
Eluvatar:
1. We have a treaty obligation involved with this proposal:
International Democratic Union Security Treaty:
6. The parties will support resolutions proposed by members of the other party in the General Assembly by a Delegate vote in favor within a minute of it reaching the floor so long as (i) the other party publicly registered the request sufficiently in advance, (ii) accommodated any limitations as to when the Delegate may be available to vote, and (iii) provided that a plurality of active WA members in the Delegate’s region do not thereafter object to the resolution while it is at vote.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
My interpretation of this has always been that if: 1) our offsite poll is started before the resolution goes to vote; and 2) the poll results at the time the gameside vote starts are against the resolution; then provision (iii) in the above clause is triggered and there is no obligation for the Delegate to vote in favor.

This is also how I implemented this provision during my time as delegate, and I hope the current and future Delegates will continue to apply it that way. It's a ridiculous treaty provision anyway.
 
Sciongrad of the IDU wrote in the debate thread:

While I'm aware that Mousebumples is in a position to stack against this, the North Pacific - a long time friend and ally of my region - is obligated, by treaty, to stack in favor of any resolution put forth by a member of the IDU. I'm not arrogant enough to assume that the TNP's early vote will guarantee this repeal's success by any means, but I don't think Europeia's delegate stacking against will be a significant issue. I'm in no rush to get this to vote, and I'll get my fair share of politicking in before I move forward.
Click to expand...

So they are clearly expecting us to honour our treaty obligation.

Of course, on current form we will "reinterpret" the treaty as expedient and vote however the delegate pleases.
 
update: Omigodtheykilledkenny seems to assume that we will do what Europeia tells us to do and follow Mousebumples lead, and therefore vote against.

Everyone seems to assume we will be SOMEONE'S bitch. the question seems to be, whose?
 
flemingovia:
Sciongrad of the IDU wrote in the debate thread:

While I'm aware that Mousebumples is in a position to stack against this, the North Pacific - a long time friend and ally of my region - is obligated, by treaty, to stack in favor of any resolution put forth by a member of the IDU. I'm not arrogant enough to assume that the TNP's early vote will guarantee this repeal's success by any means, but I don't think Europeia's delegate stacking against will be a significant issue. I'm in no rush to get this to vote, and I'll get my fair share of politicking in before I move forward.
Click to expand...

So they are clearly expecting us to honour our treaty obligation.

Of course, on current form we will "reinterpret" the treaty as expedient and vote however the delegate pleases.
Click to expand...
As I pointed out above, there is arguably no treaty obligation, so long as there is a forum poll before the resolution goes to vote. And that's how we've been interpreting that treaty for more than a year now.

flemingovia:
update: Omigodtheykilledkenny seems to assume that we will do what Europeia tells us to do and follow Mousebumples lead, and therefore vote against.

Everyone seems to assume we will be SOMEONE'S bitch. the question seems to be, whose?
Click to expand...
Of course, Kenny ignores the fact that many of our citizens, and certainly the majority of those regularly involved in WA affairs, have been vocal opponents of the many attempted repeals of Reproductive Freedoms, without the need to be told to do so by Europeia.
 
I agree with r3n's interpretation of the treaty. I am also, as an individual, highly against this proposed repeal. It is not "radical" to guarantee the right of women to control their own bodies, to choose whether and when to reproduce or decline altogether, and it is neither "moderate" nor "refined" to deprive them of that right.

I find the arguments made in the proposal specious. Reproductive Freedoms is an important resolution that protects women and should be preserved and protected.
 
To clarify, in case there were any doubts, this repeal is not some right-wing pro-life conspiracy. It's not really a secret that both personally and IC, I'm very pro-choice and I do not support a WA that fails to recognize reproductive rights. The arguments proposed reflect my sincere concerns with the resolution in question; they are not part of some anti-choice agenda. There is a replacement ready to be submitted immediately in the event that the repeal passes which guarantees reproductive rights. My concern with this resolution is that there are instances where unqualified access to abortions demonstrably causes social harm. "Gendercide" is a real world problem, and I don't think the WA should recognize the legitimacy of a patriarchal, misogynistic social institution that can cause irreparable social damage. The real world UN has condemned sex-selected abortion, but this resolution prevents the WA from taking any meaningful action against it. So if anyone happens to oppose this on account of their pro-choice leanings, understand that the repeal is not anti-choice. I fully intend to immediately see it replaced.

For those interested in the replacement, see here: http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=21963800#p21963800

EDIT:

I agree with r3n's interpretation of the treaty. I am also, as an individual, highly against this proposed repeal. It is not "radical" to guarantee the right of women to control their own bodies, to choose whether and when to reproduce or decline altogether, and it is neither "moderate" nor "refined" to deprive them of that right.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, that is not the argument I'm making. The argument is that absolute and unqualified access to abortion is radical and reckless policy because it legitimates sex-selective abortion, which is the argument that would logically follow if the clause was contextualized with the rest of the repeal argument. Again, this resolution is decidedly not anti-choice.
 
At the rate at which it's receiving approvals, I expect this proposal to reach the voting floor the next update, just over 10 hours from now.
 
Sciongrad:
My concern with this resolution is that there are instances where unqualified access to abortions demonstrably causes social harm. "Gendercide" is a real world problem, and I don't think the WA should recognize the legitimacy of a patriarchal, misogynistic social institution that can cause irreparable social damage. The real world UN has condemned sex-selected abortion, but this resolution prevents the WA from taking any meaningful action against it. So if anyone happens to oppose this on account of their pro-choice leanings, understand that the repeal is not anti-choice. I fully intend to immediately see it replaced.
Click to expand...
The repeal that I was linked to that you indicated support for does nothing to directly address the concerns you mention about either sex-selective or during-labor abortions.

Additionally, I don't find either one a compelling concern. In nations where sex-selective abortion is practiced widely enough to cause "gendercide", there is a deeper social and/or legal issue at play that needs to be addressed as the root of the problem - banning the symptom will only force people into other, possibly worse, measures. In nations where it is not practiced widely enough to cause "gendercide", it is difficult if not impossible to separate out those who are seeking abortions over sex and those seeking abortions due to supposedly more acceptable rationales.

As for the viability issue, it's another one that I find relatively specious. IRL, late-term abortions are overwhelmingly needed due to issues with fetal viability. Almost nobody (to the extent that I can't find any reliable reports of it happening at all) asks for a late-term abortion due to normal earlier reasons (desire not to have child, unable to afford child, etc). The huge, huge majority of cases are due to severe medical issues that sometimes go so far as to destroy the fetus' future quality of life - fetal encephalopathy is an example.

Abortion during labor? I genuinely haven't even heard of such a thing. It's genuinely unfathomable to me that someone might endure an entire pregnancy only to get to actually being in labor and decide "eh, nah". Were it to occur, given the statistics of late-term abortions, there is a very strong argument that it would again only be in cases of severe fetal trauma such that life was all but impossible. I don't see a compelling reason to bar a practice that basically doesn't exist.
 
A MoWA recommendation has been drafted, and edited into the second post of this topic. It will be sent out as part of the Information For Voters message soon.
 
The repeal that I was linked to that you indicated support for does nothing to directly address the concerns you mention about either sex-selective or during-labor abortions.
Click to expand...
That's correct, although I'm not sure how that's particularly relevant. That replacement is meant to guarantee access to reproductive rights while permitting the WA to act on sex selective abortion separately. They're separate issues and addressing them in one resolution wouldn't be feasible.

Additionally, I don't find either one a compelling concern. In nations where sex-selective abortion is practiced widely enough to cause "gendercide", there is a deeper social and/or legal issue at play that needs to be addressed as the root of the problem - banning the symptom will only force people into other, possibly worse, measures. In nations where it is not practiced widely enough to cause "gendercide", it is difficult if not impossible to separate out those who are seeking abortions over sex and those seeking abortions due to supposedly more acceptable rationales.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, sex selective abortion is very much a compelling concern. So much so that real world nations where sex-selective abortion is widespread are facing real and potentially catastrophic demographic crises. Furthermore, I agree with your next point that addressing the root problems is essential to preventing sex-selective abortion, but it's frankly absurd to say that there's nothing to be gained from preventing the symptoms, especially when addressing the root of the problem can take centuries, and the symptoms can cause irreparable social harm. To your last point - that's simply incorrect. The real world UN has prescribed several policy solutions to preventing sex-selective abortion.

As for the viability issue, it's another one that I find relatively specious. IRL, late-term abortions are overwhelmingly needed due to issues with fetal viability. Almost nobody (to the extent that I can't find any reliable reports of it happening at all) asks for a late-term abortion due to normal earlier reasons (desire not to have child, unable to afford child, etc). The huge, huge majority of cases are due to severe medical issues that sometimes go so far as to destroy the fetus' future quality of life - fetal encephalopathy is an example.
Click to expand...
My point wasn't necessarily that the only thing standing between us an a world where people are aborting their pregnancies during labor is this repeal. Rather, I'm suggesting that while statistically insignificant, late term abortions can pose a serious and good faith ethical issue for a lot of people. But this argument really isn't central, and I'd rather not get too hooked up on it.
 
Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the WA Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top