[Locked] 'Repeal "On Abortion"' and 'Regarding Abortion'

Status
Not open for further replies.
Auralia

Auralia

TNPer
This is a repeal and replace of the current World Assembly resolution on abortion, On Abortion. On Abortion requires member nations to legalize abortion in cases of rape, fetal abnormality and threats to the pregnant individual's health or life at all stages of pregnancy. My goal is to replace it with a national sovereigntist blocker.
 
Repeal "On Abortion"​
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.​
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GA#128 | Proposed by: Auralia​

Aware of the controversy surrounding abortion,

Regretting that the flaws present in GAR #128, "On Abortion", necessitate its repeal,

Concerned that the first clause of the target resolution compels nations to legalize abortions in cases of rape at all stages of pregnancy, including after fetal viability and even immediately prior to birth,

Remarking that abortions after fetal viability are largely unnecessary, even in the case of rape, since the pregnant individual can give birth and place the infant up for adoption instead of killing the fetus,

Emphasizing that abortions immediately prior to birth, even in the case of rape, are inhumane and should not be permitted by the target resolution,

Noting with alarm that the target resolution compels member nations to permit the pregnant individual's next of kin to make abortion decisions on behalf of the pregnant individual when the pregnant individual is incapacitated, even in cases where the next of kin is not acting in the best interests of the patient,

Shocked that the next of kin could conceivably deny the pregnant individual lifesaving medical treatment under the provisions of the target resolution,

Believing that the decision of whether to legalize abortion should primarily be left to individual World Assembly member nations,

Hoping that a resolution that permits nations to largely determine for themselves whether to legalize abortion will be passed in short order,

The General Assembly,

Repeals GAR #128, "On Abortion".


Convention on Abortion​
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.​
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Auralia​

Recognizing the controversy surrounding the legality of induced abortion,

Strongly condemning the practice of forced or unsafe abortions,

Affirming the right of pregnant individuals to receive appropriate lifesaving medical treatment,

Believing that the decision of whether to legalize or prohibit induced abortion in all other cases should be handled by individual World Assembly member nations,

The General Assembly,

1. Defines induced abortion as the intentional termination of a pregnancy resulting in or accompanied by the death of the prenatal offspring;

2. Recognizes induced abortion as a medical procedure subject to the same general rules and guidelines as any other medical procedure regulated by a member nation's domestic law or international law, except with regards to its legality;

3. Mandates that induced abortions only be performed with the free and informed consent of the pregnant individual, subject to the provisions of national and international law governing consent in cases where an individual is unable to give free and informed consent or is substantially endangering the health or well-being of others;

4. Requires member nations to permit and make available appropriate lifesaving medical treatment for a pregnant individual, even when the termination of pregnancy is an unavoidable side effect of such treatment;

5. Urges member nations to take appropriate measures to prevent unintended pregnancies and unsafe abortions;

6. Permits member nations to freely legalize, prohibit or otherwise regulate induced abortion within their jurisdiction, subject only to the provisions of this and previous World Assembly resolutions.
 
I'm home in a few hours. I'll give a ministerial synopsis then. Basically you'll see what I'll be sending to the TNP voters en mass. I try to keep them as objective as possible so please bear that in mind at the time.
 
Ok, so having reviewed both texts, I'm going to give the ministry's position on both. Again nothing personal.

Repeal "On Abortion"

A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal | Resolution: GA#128 | Proposed by: Auralia


Aware of the controversy surrounding abortion,

Regretting that the flaws present in GAR #128, "On Abortion", necessitate its repeal,

Concerned that the first clause of the target resolution compels nations to legalize abortions in cases of rape at all stages of pregnancy, including after fetal viability and even immediately prior to birth,

Noting that abortions after fetal viability are largely unnecessary, even in the case of rape, since the pregnant individual can give birth and place the infant up for adoption instead of killing the fetus,

Emphasizing that abortions immediately prior to birth, even in the case of rape, are inhumane and should not be permitted by the target resolution,

Convinced that the decision of whether to legalize abortion should primarily be left to individual World Assembly member nations,

Hoping that a resolution that permits nations to largely determine for themselves whether to legalize abortion will be passed in short order,

The General Assembly,

Repeals GAR #128, "On Abortion".
Click to expand...

Ministerial Review;

There's some suspect on the illegality of this resolution to the ministry. The bulk of the repeal seems to address what could only be considered at this time a NatSov view, which the secretariat has ruled before is not the basis for a repeal. The author has addressed one singular aspect of the actual target resolution and then stemmed off on it to a large degree. While the argument the author makes pertaining to prior birth abortion could be considered valid, one has to wonder if common sense really would overrule the highlighted flaw here.

Ministerial Suggestion

Per the review of the above, the ministry has no recourse but to suggest an AGAINST vote in relation to this proposal.

--------------------

Convention on Abortion

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Auralia


Recognizing the controversy surrounding the legality of induced abortion,

Strongly condemning the practice of forced or unsafe induced abortion,

Affirming the right of pregnant individuals to receive appropriate lifesaving medical treatment,

Believing that the decision of whether to legalize or prohibit induced abortion in all other cases should be handled by individual World Assembly member nations,

The General Assembly,
Defines induced abortion as the intentional termination of a pregnancy resulting in or accompanied by the death of the prenatal offspring;
Recognizes induced abortion as a medical procedure subject to the same general rules and guidelines as any other medical procedure regulated by a member nation's domestic law or international law, except with regards to its legality;
Mandates that induced abortions only be conducted with the free and informed consent of the pregnant individual or the pregnant individual's health care proxy, as appropriate;
Requires member nations to permit appropriate lifesaving medical treatment for a pregnant individual, even when the termination of pregnancy is an unavoidable side effect of such treatment;
Urges member nations to take appropriate measures to prevent unintended pregnancies and unsafe abortions;
Permits member nations to freely legalize, prohibit or otherwise regulate induced abortion within their jurisdiction, subject only to the provisions of this and previous World Assembly resolutions.
Click to expand...

Ministerial Review;

The preamble of this text actually reads well, and the act itself appears to have been well thought out both structurally and grammatically on the part of the author. The mandates seem fair, reasonable and in truth common sense up to a point. But that point is where ultimately the resolution falls on its face specifically here;

"Permits member nations to freely legalize, prohibit or otherwise regulate induced abortion within their jurisdiction, subject only to the provisions of this and previous World Assembly resolutions".

The Ministry sees no point in actively passing legislation that affirms the ability to opt out of it, this is simply passing legislation to affirm the status quo. Nations which had not opted to perform the services prior, are no more likely to do so now, which ultimately moots the good the act this one seeks to repeal had done.

Ministerial Review;

Considering the above, the ministry has to suggest an AGAINST vote in relation to this. The Ministry simply cannot indulge resolutions which have the potential to do great good, while allowing nations an opt out clause.

As per usual, these are only suggested votes, voters will be free to vote FOR, AGAINST OR ABSTAIN as per TNP protocol and policy on WA voting.
 
The bulk of the repeal seems to address what could only be considered at this time a NatSov view, which the secretariat has ruled before is not the basis for a repeal.
Click to expand...

It does contain a NatSov argument, but NatSov arguments are not the only arguments the proposal makes, which means that it is perfectly legal. And, for what it's worth, as far as I know, nobody else has questioned the proposal's legality.

While the argument the author makes pertaining to prior birth abortion could be considered valid, one has to wonder if common sense really would overrule the highlighted flaw here.
Click to expand...

Partial-birth abortion exists. It's relatively rare, but it exists.

The Ministry sees no point in actively passing legislation that affirms the ability to opt out of it, this is simply passing legislation to affirm the status quo.
Click to expand...

It's not an "opt-out clause", but a blocker. Note that the clause states that the freedom of member states to regulate abortion is "subject only to the provisions of this and previous World Assembly resolutions."
 
Auralia:
Aba? Are you going to comment on anything I've said?
Click to expand...
Apologies, my time on TNP isn't usually as occupied as it has been lately. Especially the dignified end of life choices fiasco that needed resolving. I really should point out to McM that when I became TNP Cabinet I didn't expect to be called out quite so much.

Anyway, to the crux of the argument.

Firstly, it's important to note that you are the author, and my role here is to critique, the end result is, as the author you will be defensive of your end product no matter what, and that is by no means not understandable. But, and this is a central part of the process of allowing authors into the TNP forum to lobby for their works, you're not just lobbying me here. I as a cabinet minister will always only make a suggested vote. The region can, and has albeit not often, gone against it before. So there's little I can do in that regard. In this instance being an author myself I can lend advice and support to the drafting process but the end here can and may be that we still end up disagreeing. I need to ensure that's understood. I may actually pin something to this effect to the start of the proposals forum for future note.

Now, to your specific comments;

It does contain a NatSov argument, but NatSov arguments are not the only arguments the proposal makes, which means that it is perfectly legal. And, for what it's worth, as far as I know, nobody else has questioned the proposal's legality.
Click to expand...

I'm alright with the legality, I only highlighted it as a possibility, my understanding of the NatSov rule was it couldn't be the sole basis of a repeal argument. Which in this case it isn't. So the review in that instance will be changed.

Partial-birth abortion exists. It's relatively rare, but it exists.
Click to expand...

In truth, I'm not now nor was I at the time disputing it, I was simply saying in essence what I'm saying now, that I would hope common sense would prevail outside of anything else here, I'm a strong believer in the "good faith" compliance aspect of legislation, despite repeated attempts over my tenure for people to attempt to highlight otherwise for me.

It's not an "opt-out clause", but a blocker. Note that the clause states that the freedom of member states to regulate abortion is "subject only to the provisions of this and previous World Assembly resolutions."
Click to expand...

Douria and I discussed this recently, and this actually stems from differing views on what the WA should be doing as a whole. My view on the WA has always been that laws of significant importance/public interest should be passed with the purview of keeping all nations in the WA on the same page on issues. Blockers usually contravene this by allowing member nations to chose whether or not to actually enact the legislation, just with instructions on what to do should they. It effectively affirms the status quo as nations who had no intention of legalizing the practice prior to the act, will undoubtedly continue the same way after.

That said, on reflection of what I've just put forth, this seems fairly IntFed of an argument, and thus not as objective a review in hindsight.

Considering the compliments I gave the draft in terms of it's authorship, it's possible objectively only, I may suggest for, while voting against. It's really the best I can do to do both myself and the position in which I'm placed the most justice. The reviews will essentially be formed around the finished product.
 
Abacathea:
Firstly, it's important to note that you are the author, and my role here is to critique, the end result is, as the author you will be defensive of your end product no matter what, and that is by no means not understandable. But, and this is a central part of the process of allowing authors into the TNP forum to lobby for their works, you're not just lobbying me here. I as a cabinet minister will always only make a suggested vote. The region can, and has albeit not often, gone against it before. So there's little I can do in that regard. In this instance being an author myself I can lend advice and support to the drafting process but the end here can and may be that we still end up disagreeing. I need to ensure that's understood. I may actually pin something to this effect to the start of the proposals forum for future note.
Click to expand...

Don't worry; I understand your position completely.

Abacathea:
In truth, I'm not now nor was I at the time disputing it, I was simply saying in essence what I'm saying now, that I would hope common sense would prevail outside of anything else here, I'm a strong believer in the "good faith" compliance aspect of legislation, despite repeated attempts over my tenure for people to attempt to highlight otherwise for me.
Click to expand...

I take that approach as well, though in this case I think that, given that the procedure occurs in real life, it could occur even under a "good faith" interpretation of On Abortion.

Abacathea:
My view on the WA has always been that laws of significant importance/public interest should be passed with the purview of keeping all nations in the WA on the same page on issues.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with that approach as well, though only on issues on which there is general agreement among WA nations. In my opinion, abortion doesn't qualify.
 
Given this is no doubt hurtling to quorum now, I'd like to see how TNP plans to approach (a) the repeal and (b) the issue of a replacement.
 
Acoustic Siberia:
Given this is no doubt hurtling to quorum now, I'd like to see how TNP plans to approach (a) the repeal and (b) the issue of a replacement.
Click to expand...
The ministry will be reviewing based on the debate with the author and the text itself. How the region will vote is anyone's guess though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top