Repeal "On Abortion" [Complete] [Complete]

Abacathea

Abacathea

TNPer
Repeal "On Abortion"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.


Category: Repeal

Resolution: GA#128

Proposed by: Christian Democrats​


Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #128: On Abortion (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The General Assembly,

Recalling the passage of Resolution 286, Reproductive Freedoms, which provides a general right to abortion in international law,

Believing, therefore, that Resolution 128, On Abortion, which provides a limited right to abortion in international law, is no longer necessary,

Wishing to remove superfluities from international law,

Recognizing that On Abortion is also a resolution with many flaws, including:

On Abortion, when a pregnant person is incapacitated, allows next-of-kin to make abortion decisions, even if they are not acting in the best interests of the patient (example: refusing consent for a lifesaving abortion to be performed),

On Abortion, when a pregnant person is incapacitated, gives no alternative procedure for obtaining authorization for an emergency lifesaving abortion when no next-of-kin are available to provide consent,

On Abortion permits doctors, for personal moral reasons, to refuse to perform emergency lifesaving abortions, even when they are the only qualified people available to provide these urgent medical procedures,

On Abortion mandates that all abortion providers "be trained to the same accepted medical standards that all surgeons are held to" (emphasis added), even though not all abortion procedures are surgical,

Convinced that Resolution 29, the Patient's Rights Act, is wholly sufficient for protecting the medical rights of pregnant individuals,

Repeals Resolution 128, On Abortion, for the reasons outlined above.
 
mowa-seal.png

MINISTRY REVIEW​
​


For as long as there will be "On Abortion" there will be repeal attempts. This is simply an disreputable fact. And while there may often be valid reasons for wanting to remove legislation, and legislation of this nature, this repeal fails to convince this Minister that now is the time to do so.

This argument for example;

Recalling the passage of Resolution 286, Reproductive Freedoms, which provides a general right to abortion in international law,

Believing, therefore, that Resolution 128, On Abortion, which provides a limited right to abortion in international law, is no longer necessary
Click to expand...

Is actually not as valid as the author would have us believe. Res #286 serves to compliment #128 as an act in effect. Would #128 be repealed it would effectively weaken #286 to a significant degree.

On Abortion, when a pregnant person is incapacitated, allows next-of-kin to make abortion decisions, even if they are not acting in the best interests of the patient (example: refusing consent for a lifesaving abortion to be performed),
Click to expand...

This clause is rather weak as well considering the Patients Rights Act essentially affords the exact same protections as well.

On Abortion permits doctors, for personal moral reasons, to refuse to perform emergency lifesaving abortions, even when they are the only qualified people available to provide these urgent medical procedures,
Click to expand...

Again a weak argument, it's unlikely a patient will end up in a hospital where every single doctor refuses to perform a life saving operation, not implausible but unlikely.

On Abortion mandates that all abortion providers "be trained to the same accepted medical standards that all surgeons are held to" (emphasis added), even though not all abortion procedures are surgical,
Click to expand...

This argument on a cursory reading flawed in itself, On Abortion states that providers be trained to the same "standards" not level of knowledge, not skill sets, standards. Which means you'd expect the same level of hygiene, professionalism, and clinical care as you'd expect from a surgeon, not the same level of abilities with a scalpal. This is a very important thing to note, and isn't really to the detriment of On Abortion.

MINISTERS SUGGESTION​
​


There may indeed come a time when On Abortion is repealed, or more so when the assembly universally agrees to leave it alone, in any case, this repeal attempt seems exceptionally weak throughout and yet another attempt by a certain segment of nations to repeal this legislation. More worrying, after having brief communications with one of my WA counterparts is that should this be repealed, and it leave #286 open and vulnerable to a subsequent repeal, the protections the WA has tirelessly afforded women since the passage of this act will be done entirely.

Bearing in mind the above, the Minister is suggesting an AGAINST vote on this proposal, and furthermore recommending the delegate move to vote as swiftly as practical on this matter.

AS PER USUAL, THE ABOVE IS A RECOMMENDATION ONLY, PLEASE VOTE FOR, AGAINST, OR ABSTAIN ACCORDINGLY BELOW.
 
I am against repealing this. My opinion is its non of my business what a person and a doctor decide to do. Its not the governments business. Its not religions business. Its a private contract between doctor and paitent that is how i feel about it.

I am generally pro-choice though I have personal reservations on the act of Abortion it's self. But again not my choice. I dont want to be told how to live my life I shouldnt tell others how to live thiers.

When I first came to Nation States and joined the WA one of the first votes was on 'reproductive freedoms' i voted Yes, not because im all about Abortion but because it is a personal choice.

Now with that. This repeal suggests the "On abortion" resolution was flawed as it doesnt provide Doctors the ability to act to perform a life saving act when consent of paitent or next of kin isnt available. While I agree that needs adressed, what I am most concered about and am planning to vote no on this and keep it on the books is it wants to seek to remove a doctors ability to refuse to perform the procedure on moral grounds.

So, while I agree a womans right to have the procedure is hers and the doctors to make and no outside interference from the govt or religion should interfere, I also feel that a Doctor should be able to refuse the procedure if they are uncomfortable with it. Just as someone has a right to have one or not a doctor should have the right to choose to participate or not. If a doctor doesnt want to they shouldnt have to and the paitent should be directed to a doctor willing to perform it. In an emergency a doctor willing to perform it should be on call to come in incase the primary doctor has moral objections.

It is in our core of beliefs that:

1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
Click to expand...

We suggest a NAY vote on this and will direct our WA Delegate from LibertarianLand to draft a formal statement at a more convient time to post on the Debate thread in the GA to accompany our NAY vote
 
This is our official response from our WA delegate that will be posted on the voting thread of the GA assembly momentarily.

I figured my friends in TNP would like to read our offical WA response. Thanks.

[align=center]From the Desk of the Delegacy fromThe Democratic States of LibertarianLand To the World Assembly[/align]

Date: March 14th, 2014

Dear World Assembly members,

It is the intent of The Delegacy from LibertarianLand to vote NAY on the motion to repeal the World Assembly GA Resolution titled "On Abortion"

In our countries Statement of beliefs and Principles is as follows:

1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
Click to expand...

Like many countries ours is no different people are divided on this issue and stauchly pro-choice or pro-life. We believe it is a personal decision between the Paitent seeking the act and the Doctor who is willing to perform the act and no one; not government or religious institutions have a right or a say in the matter or to try to restrict someones right to try and make the best decision they can for thierselves. Many in the government of our country have strong personal feelings on abortion and on the sacredness of life, however, they also recognize thier wish not to have thier rights violated so they seek not to violate anothers, in this case a woman and her fundamental right to terminate her pregnancy. (My officals hope that people would consider alternative means first before abortion however they recognize it is the persons choice alone on what to do with thier body)

Recognizing that It is a personal choice we reserve the right of the people to make decisions for thierselves as such we have no real restrictions on abortion at our federal level and when we first came to the WA our first vote was a YES vote for "Reproductive Freedom" and we were happy to do so.

We understand and respect the fact that this repeal is attempting to get rid of the overlap in International Law we appreciate the housekeeping efforts and even agree that it needs to be addressd the right of the doctors to be able to perform a life saving abortion if the pregnant indivdual becomes unresponsive and cannot consent and next of kin is unavailable. We believe doctors should be able to do what is in the best intrests of thier patients.

However, repealing "On Abortion" also would repeal any recourse for a Doctor for moral reasons to object to performing an abortion.

We feel in the intrests of if abortion is a private matter between woman and doctor and a woman has a right to choose to have an abortion or not then a doctor also has a right to refuse to perform an abortion or consent to providing the procedure as well. If a doctor refuses the paitent can be directed to a different provider who is willing to perform the procedure. As repealing this resolution would take away a doctors recourse in this matter to refuse we in good conscious cannot support a "repeal on abortion" at this time.

Let the record show the The Democratic States of LibertarianLand has Voted NO on this Resolution.

Thank you.


Pelswick VonHammerstein Senior Delegate to the WA from The Democratic States of LibertarianLand


Michael Wiltberger
Vice Delegate to the WA from The Democratic States of LibertarianLand

[align=center]
Paul Washington
President of The Democratic States of LibertarianLand[/align]
 
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.
 
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