[GA - Discarded] Repeal: "Ban on Sterilisation of Minors etc"

Status
Not open for further replies.
mcmasterdonia

mcmasterdonia

Just like a queef in the wind, so is life
-
-
-
TNP Nation
McMasterdonia
ga.jpg

Repeal: "Ban on Sterilisation of Minors"
Category: Repeal | Target: GA #472
Proposed by: East Meranopirus | Onsite Topic​


Recognising the efforts made in GA #472, Ban on Sterilisation of Minors etc to prevent unnecessary sterilisation of minors;

However dismayed that the resolution bears a misleading title, as it does not actually ban the sterilisation of minors;

Asserting that the purpose of independent review can be achieved with individual qualified medical professionals;

Concerned that Institutional Review Boards, as defined by GA#111, are bureaucratic institutions that are not required to be staffed with medical experts and thus serve no real purpose, except wasting the state's resources in setting up and maintaining such institutions;

Worried that requiring the permission of an Independent Review Board could unnecessarily prolong decision making in an emergency or in time-sensitive cases;

Alarmed that clause two freely allows the World Assembly Compliance Commission (WACC) to create further regulations on behalf of the World Assembly, without needing to consult the will of the combined member nations;

Fearing the precedent could in the future cause the approval of delegates from the World Assembly member nations to become irrelevant to new legislation created directly by the multitudous committees;

Confident that regulations to ensure the proper review procedures for the sterilisation of minors can be instituted by further legislation without reducing the relevancy of member nations in the decisions concerning their own future;

Hereby repeals GA#472 "Ban on Sterilisation of Minors etc".
Click to expand...
 
This is a proposal drafted by our very own @Gorundu. Given the substantive debate about this proposal amongst WA members, I welcome feedback on this proposal. The author indicated (in the NS forum threads) that they intend to introduce it soon.
 
For. Fully agree with the resolution and its reasons for repeal are the reasons why we do not support the original resolution in the first place.
 
Nowhere near a sufficient replacement. For that reason, against.
 
St George:
Is there a replacement resolution?
Click to expand...
mcmasterdonia:
Looks like there is a work in progress draft here: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=473679
Click to expand...
lol I was typing up a response then got distracted. Here's what's actually going on:

I'm not currently working on the replacement, because I'm pretty confident that the content covered will be worked into another sterilisation proposal currently being drafted in the forums:
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=472213
 
Last edited:
Gorundu:
lol I was typing up a response then got distracted. Here's what's actually going on:

I'm not currently working on the replacement, because I'm pretty confident that the content covered will be worked into another sterilisation proposal currently being drafted in the forums:
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=472213
Click to expand...
The linked resolution could be passed without repealing this one, so I'm not sure I see the point of passing this repeal.
 
St George:
The linked resolution could be passed without repealing this one, so I'm not sure I see the point of passing this repeal.
Click to expand...
Because it's bad as stated by the points raised in the repeal >_>

I'm not repealing this because of the linked proposal. This is independent from that. I'm just saying the linked proposal will be changed if the repeal is passed, to incorporate elements ensuring sterilisation of minors is subject to review, so that this area will still be covered.
 
In the first place I have no idea why such short proposals existed in the first place. The one on bank runs got repealed back in Jan, showing how the GA doesn't tolerate short proposals that do little. Yet the same thing happened again, and I don't think we should wait for the replacement before repealing it... That proposal in the draft seems quite bad if it was passed as a single resolution without this resolution's content incorporated so I think we are better off repealing this one and propose a new one
 
Against. I disfavour rapid repeals in general. I am not sure a replacement will, in fact, follow soon and, in any event, it seems to me that the opponents of the original resolution would be just as likely to oppose the replacement and I see no reason to run the risk of the replacement failing.

As I indicated in the debate on the original resolution, I do not consider some of the objections to be substantive enough when compared to the merits of the resolution. I do not consider there is a serious risk of delays impeding necessary treatments, nor do I consider that IRBs as defined by resolution #111 are actually unsuited to the work that they are put to by the original resolution (or, indeed, that it is actually correct to say that they are not required to be medical experts).

As to the regulations argument, I do not think there is anything alarming about it and it is not, contrary to the tenor of the repeal, all that unusual for committees to have regulatory power. The International Transport Safety Committee is given regulation making power in resolution #34; the GESTAPO is given power to establish minimum standards (ie, regulations) on passports in resolution #76; the International Bureau of Water Safety is given power to establish minimum standards on water safety in resolution #107; the World Assembly Patent Office has regulatory power in relation to patents by resolution #394; the International Securities and Exchange Commission may regulate stock exchanges under resolution #401; the Waterbody Health and Mitigation Management Organization can establish best management practices which must be adopted by member states so effectively makes regulations under resolution #413. Other committees may well have regulation making power as well under resolutions other than those establishing them; further a number of committees have power to establish soft law in the form of guidelines. The long and short of my point is that the original resolution does not actually establish any precedent in relation to regulations being made by committees and, that precedent having already been set, the feared irrelevance of the WA does not seem to have come to pass.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top