[GA] Failed: Repeal "Reproductive Freedoms" [Complete]

---

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

Argument: The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the importance of protecting the individual right to reproductive choice on an international level,

Agreeing that legislation on such a sensitive and controversial subject should affirm essential rights while at the same time providing for a modicum of reasonable restrictions to prevent abuse and assure the safety of all those involved,

Regretting that Resolution #286: Reproductive Freedoms falls short in this regard,

Noting that the resolution, by the author's own admission, compels member states to legalize abortion at any point in a patient's pregnancy, even into the late term,

Contending that Reproductive Freedoms' across-the-board legalization of abortion, with few allowances for nations to regulate the practice, and with little regard for preventing abusive cultural customs such as forced abortions or gender-selective abortions, exposes the irresponsible manner in which the legislation was crafted,

Objecting to the fact that the resolution ignores relevant concerns about reducing the need for abortion, in that it forbids "impediments" to abortion-on-demand, which could include even medical counseling about alternatives to abortion,

Expressing its concern that had the voters known just how radical and extreme the measures of this resolution were, it would not have passed,

Seeking consensus on a more moderate reproductive-rights resolution,

Hereby repeals Resolution #286: Reproductive Freedoms.

---

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 in the tally.

Ministry vote recommendation: Against

Ministry Review
Written by [nation=short]HMS Unicorn[/nation]

Abortion rights remain a controversial issue in the General Assembly. The resolution targeted for repeal "Reproductive Freedoms" had the effect of requiring all nations to provide the right to abortion to all of their members. Reproductive Freedoms gives final choice over the matter to the pregnant parent at any time during the pregnancy. However, it allows nations to enact policies, such as educational programs, discouraging abortions under certain scenaria, for instance late-term abortions.

The proposed repeal focuses on two arguments. First, that there ought to be more flexibility in how nations choose to regulate abortion within their jurisdiction. The Ministry disagrees with this argument: The right to abortion ought to be a universal right, guaranteed to all individuals regardless of the nation they reside in. It is not an issue of national sovereignty, it is an issue of a universal right.

Second, the repeal argues that there ought to be further provisions for preventing abusive practices such as forced or gender-selective abortions. The Ministry agrees that Reproductive Freedoms ought to have addressed these issues more effectively. Individuals ought to be provided protection from forced abortions in particular, and the original could have emphasized the use of educational and informational campaigns to discourage gender-selective or other abusive abortion practices. However, as already pointed out above, Reproductive Freedoms does provide remedies for these issues, even if not perfect.

Finally, the author has proposed a replacement resolution, should this repeal pass. The proposed replacement enables nations to regulate abortion practices, which by the author's confirmation allows for prohibition of abortions under certain conditions to be determined at national level. The Ministry does not consider this a satisfactory replacement: as stated above, the Ministry considers abortion a universal right that all individuals should have access to, and which nations should not be able to take away even conditionally.

For all these reasons, the Ministry recommends a vote against this resolution. Of course, we understand that abortion rights remains a controversial issue in our days, and that many of our nations may disagree with our assessment above. In that case, as always nations are welcome to vote contrary to the Ministry's recommendation.

There is still plenty of voting time left in the other GA resolution that is currently at vote. But, given that the outcome of that one is basically determined, and that the next one in queue is going to be controversial, I am starting this thread early.

I am personally strongly against this repeal. I am strongly pro-choice in RL, and I believe that every person should be allowed to choose whether to have an abortion, at any stage of a pregnancy. I consider it paramount that everyone should be provided the right to make this choice, and that states may not be allowed to take this right away from their citizens. This is a fundamental right for everyone, and cannot be reduced to an issue of national sovereignty.

I recognize that the cultural aspects mentioned in the repeal proposal are a concern. However, those can be addressed within the framework of the existing legislation. The best way to address this concern is by providing citizens with proper education and information on the issues involved, something that the existing resolutions permits under the following clause:

"PERMITS Member Nations to enact policies encouraging individuals to allow live delivery of their offspring, provided such policies do not ultimately hinder the individual from terminating their pregnancy"

For these reasons, I encourage everyone to vote against this resolution. And of course, I am myself voting against.

Against

Against.

Speaking as the author of this resolution (using my IDU nation name), I would be willing to address any questions or comments you may have.

Right now I can say that you needn't worry yourself over being "pro-choice" or "pro-life" as the motivator for your vote. This is not a campaign to deny women's rights; it is the first step of a two-step process to reform abortion rights so that more power is in the hands of nations to regulate such brutish cultural practices such as forced abortion and gender-selective abortion, even late-term abortion. All due respect to r3n, I really don't think a throw-away clause to "allow" nations to "encourage" live-birth procedures is enough to end gender-selective abortion, for example. Nations where the practice is widely common can simply ignore it.

I can show you the replacement draft, once it's posted on the NS forums (a little later today). In the meantime I would happy to field any other queries.

Thank you for coming here Kenny. Sorry for the late (as in, past critical stacking/stomping time) reply, I just got back from work.

I think a lot more people would be willing to support the repeal if the replacement was posted ahead of time. You know probably better than I do what a sensitive matter abortion has become in the GA. I believe several of those voting against are concerned that this repeal can result in a hard "pro-life" replacement - even if it doesn't come by you, someone could try to take the opportunity to pass one as soon as Reproductive Freedoms is gone.

I do agree with you that the clause you mentioned could be improved. I would support a replacement that guarantees all women the right to choose, while improving on that clause. However, I would be wary of supporting a repeal before a replacement draft along these lines is ready for submission.

I have now read the replacement. The salient clauses are the following:

RESERVES to member states the authority to regulate this practice, provided such policies do not unnecessarily impugn the rights of individuals to avail themselves of such procedures, and that relevant stipulations of previous standing WA resolutions are honored,

FURTHER INSTRUCTS member states to take all necessary measures to protect such patients from undue harassment, intimidation or coercion.

Click to expand...

I like the inclusion of the latter clause. But I think the former clause overreaches. As you stated in the NS GA thread, it does allow nations to prevent abortions. I am personally against any such prohibitions anyway, so that would already be a deal breaker for me personally, but I can understand that others do not take the same extreme view as I do. The latter half of the clause tries to ameliorate the issue, by placing barriers on these national regulations; however, it seems to be very broad and open to interpretation as to essentially allow very far-reaching prohibitions of abortions.

I think such a clause would work a lot better if it focused on education and information campaigns, rather than hard regulation.

r3naissanc3r:

I believe several of those voting against are concerned that this repeal can result in a hard "pro-life" replacement

Click to expand...

That would not be possible. Even if Reproductive Freedoms were ever repealed, On Abortion would still remain in place.

For

Acoustic Siberia:

r3naissanc3r:

I believe several of those voting against are concerned that this repeal can result in a hard "pro-life" replacement

Click to expand...

That would not be possible. Even if Reproductive Freedoms were ever repealed, On Abortion would still remain in place.

Click to expand...

It depends what you consider "hard 'pro-life'". It is not really hard to come up with creative ways to "regulate" abortions with the explicit purpose of inhibiting them. You can just look at Texas for ideas .

But yes, an outright ban would fortunately not be possible.

Just to be clear, I am not saying that Kenny's replacement does that - though as I said above, I have other issues with his replacement.

r3naissanc3r:

Just to be clear, I am not saying that Kenny's replacement does that - though as I said above, I have other issues with his replacement.

Click to expand...

What his replacement does or doesn't do is irrelevant. No proposal could "result in a hard "pro-life" replacement" with On Abortion in place. You may want to read the "blocker on blockers" ruling in this thread. It is not a valid concern.

I think you read my post before I finished editing it.

The last line was explicitly to exclude someone from misconstruing my comments as applying to Kenny's proposed replacement.

Are you being willfully obtuse as some kind of misguided ploy, or do you genuinely not understand? This repeal, and any possible replacement, are all completely irrelevant. With On Abortion on the books, there is simply no way a legal "hard pro-life" resolution can be written. (This setting aside that the WA would obviously never pass such a resolution anyway.) The "fear" of such a replacement is totally misplaced, and if you are correct that "several of those voting against are concerned" about such an eventuality, then they should reconsider.

Alright, let me rephrase if you insist. I expect people are concerned that the repeal will open up the way for a replacement that does not guarantee all individuals the right to an abortion, but instead allows nations to regulate and inhibit or even prohibit abortions (sans those guaranteed by "On Abortion"). This is not a "hard pro-life" change according to DSR, but it is still a change towards a more pro-life direction.

r3naissanc3r:

Alright, let me rephrase if you insist. I expect people are concerned that the repeal will open up the way for a replacement that does not guarantee all individuals the right to an abortion, but instead allows nations to regulate and inhibit or even prohibit abortions (sans those guaranteed by "On Abortion"). This is not a "hard pro-life" change according to DSR, but it is still a change towards a more pro-life direction.

Click to expand...

Well, that's not at all what you said originally. So long as we're agreed that a "hard pro-life replacement" is not a concern, I'm happy for you to shift the goalposts onto something else entirely: a repeal of Reproductive Freedoms would indeed restore the status quo that had been the case for over three and a half years since On Abortion passed. That's basically what a repeal does.

As an aside, I'm not sure how useful the "pro-choice" and "pro-life" dichotomy you keep resorting to really is here. It's perfectly possible to hold a "pro-choice" position and a sovereigntist one. If the current NatSov pretenders had an ounce of intellectual honesty that would be much more apparent.

As I clarified three posts ago, for me a resolution that allows nations to regulate abortions counts as a "hard pro-life" replacement:

It depends what you consider "hard 'pro-life'". It is not really hard to come up with creative ways to "regulate" abortions with the explicit purpose of inhibiting them. You can just look at Texas for ideas .

Click to expand...

I understand that this is an extreme viewpoint, but it is perfectly consistent with what I said originally. And the concern it represents is likewise a perfectly valid one.

Also, I never claimed "pro-choice" and "pro-life" is a black and white categorization. There is a whole grey spectrum between the two extreme positions (complete legalization and complete ban of abortions), and people can stand on different points between the two extremes.

r3naissanc3r:

And the concern it represents is likewise a perfectly valid one.

Click to expand...

No, it is not, because for the ten millionth time, such a resolution would not be legal with On Abortion in place, regardless of whether Reproductive Freedoms were repealed, repealed twice, repealed infinity times plus one and no backsies, or set on fire and tossed from the top of the Empire State Building.

It would be like me being concerned that if Reproductive Freedoms were repealed, the WA would ban nuclear weapons.

r3naissanc3r:

I have now read the replacement. The salient clauses are the following:

RESERVES to member states the authority to regulate this practice, provided such policies do not unnecessarily impugn the rights of individuals to avail themselves of such procedures, and that relevant stipulations of previous standing WA resolutions are honored,

FURTHER INSTRUCTS member states to take all necessary measures to protect such patients from undue harassment, intimidation or coercion.

Click to expand...

I like the inclusion of the latter clause. But I think the former clause overreaches. As you stated in the NS GA thread, it does allow nations to prevent abortions. I am personally against any such prohibitions anyway, so that would already be a deal breaker for me personally, but I can understand that others do not take the same extreme view as I do. The latter half of the clause tries to ameliorate the issue, by placing barriers on these national regulations; however, it seems to be very broad and open to interpretation as to essentially allow very far-reaching prohibitions of abortions.

I think such a clause would work a lot better if it focused on education and information campaigns, rather than hard regulation.

Click to expand...

Well, it's all purely theoretical at this point (as there's little hope for the repeal), but I am certainly open to suggestions to improve the language if you are willing to post them on the NS forums. My aim in that clause is only to prevent unnecessary and arbitrary limitations on abortion freedoms. A fair reading of the clause would permit a ban on late-term abortions, for example, but not abortions "past the first week of pregnancy" or "on a fetus conceived during a New Years' celebration." I think the Reasonable Nation law in the WA would prevent nations (at least reasonable ones) from passing wacky (or even far-reaching) restrictions that serve only to infringe on individual rights.

However, as I said, I'm open to suggestions.

I could offer suggestions, however, as you said, currently this is merely theoretical (and I see you've "officially" turned the draft to "aborted" on the forum). If you attempt it again, I'll be sure to post in the GA forum.

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.