[GA - Nearing Queue] Access to Abortion

Status
Not open for further replies.
AGAINST.

Grievances noted below. I request the Ministry of WA Affairs and the Delegate to take into consideration the below grievances and reevaluate its IFV dispatch.
1)
Clause 2 effectively forces governments to pay for a medical procedure. The clause forces a national government to bear a significant financial burden without in-fact highlighting a method to pay for it. This is of special importance in poorer countries. Additionally, if the government does not have a nationalized health service, this clause imposes additional costs in order to establish the infrastructure for the medical procedure itself. This could have worked around by providing a pathway through vouchers.

2)
In section 4,
"WA Choice Plus is established and may construct, per section 5, clinics with funds assessed by the General Accounting Office from members in which there does not exist, in the view of the WACC, adequate access to abortion."
The meaning is ambiguous. Would the clinics be built at the member's request or where WA finds necessary? If it is the latter, I believe it is a gross violation of the sovereignty of a nation.

3)
In section 5,
"The clinics will be built on land donated by members where the member doing so grants to the clinic a ten-year renewable lease in which no (a) direct tax or (b) indirect tax in excess of one per cent may be collected"
This is a blatant over-reach of WA authority in that it directs how member nations may tax their own land. The clinic may use utilities ranging from water and power to biomedical waste management services. These services have indirect fees. Why should not the clinics not pay fees for medical licensing or biomedical waste management? If it would be the case, shouldn't other medical establishments also be exempt from taxation? One might argue cancer and advanced age coronary disease treatment as just as necessary as abortion services and thus they should be exempt too?

4)
Pertaining to the same quotation from section 5 above, in a resolution as comprehensive as this, there is no mention of national governments might lease land if they do not control any. For example, a federation where the government has no direct control of their land. A relatively minor issue but shows that the resolution and its author have little regard for the diversity of governments which are WA members.
 
Reaffirming my opposition to a resolution that in its extremeness places it only among the abortion laws of China and the DPRK.
 
saintpeter:
a resolution that in its extremeness places it only among the abortion laws of China and the DPRK.
Click to expand...
Or, maybe like the totalitarian dictatorship of Justin Trudeau's Canada, where abortions are paid for by Canadian Medicare.

Abortion services are insured in all provinces and territories; however, access to these insured services varies within and between jurisdictions across the country. In Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, the services are only covered if performed in a hospital (for example, private clinic procedures are not covered). In addition, Prince Edward Island lacks abortion services on the island and residents must travel off the island to access them. In New Brunswick, access has improved because certification of medical necessity by two physicians, and performance of the service by a specialist in gynecology or obstetrics in a hospital are no longer required. Prince Edward Island service has improved because the province has eliminated the need for a referral from an Island doctor and now allows women to self-refer to a Moncton, New Brunswick, hospital.​


Chinar:
1)
Clause 2 effectively forces governments to pay for a medical procedure. The clause forces a national government to bear a significant financial burden without in-fact highlighting a method to pay for it. This is of special importance in poorer countries. Additionally, if the government does not have a nationalized health service, this clause imposes additional costs in order to establish the infrastructure for the medical procedure itself. This could have worked around by providing a pathway through vouchers.
Click to expand...
Yes it does. The reason is because nations have tried to use price floors to make abortions unaffordable. This policy makes such price floors self-defeating and against the interest of a nation as well as making those price floors irrelevant. All nations in the WA have a nationalised health service which is supported not only by domestic funding, but also be international transfers. See Quality in Health Services. Costs are borne in part by the IAO – using a test which only pays out if a member nation cannot afford it, something which I think ought to be put also in other pieces of legislation, – which is funded by mandatory contributions per WA General Fund, GA 17.

Chinar:
2)
In section 4,
"WA Choice Plus is established and may construct, per section 5, clinics with funds assessed by the General Accounting Office from members in which there does not exist, in the view of the WACC, adequate access to abortion."
The meaning is ambiguous. Would the clinics be built at the member's request or where WA finds necessary? If it is the latter, I believe it is a gross violation of the sovereignty of a nation.
Click to expand...
It's not ambiguous because of "per section 5".

Chinar:
3)
In section 5,
"The clinics will be built on land donated by members where the member doing so grants to the clinic a ten-year renewable lease in which no (a) direct tax or (b) indirect tax in excess of one per cent may be collected"
This is a blatant over-reach of WA authority in that it directs how member nations may tax their own land. The clinic may use utilities ranging from water and power to biomedical waste management services. These services have indirect fees. Why should not the clinics not pay fees for medical licensing or biomedical waste management? If it would be the case, shouldn't other medical establishments also be exempt from taxation? One might argue cancer and advanced age coronary disease treatment as just as necessary as abortion services and thus they should be exempt too?
Click to expand...
Similar objections ought to have been raised when the GA created the headquarters on land donated from a member nation. That said, complaining about a voluntary programme with terms in which nations can choose not to subscribe is foolish. Nations, like people, may have to accede to EULAs when opting in to some programme.

Chinar:
4)
Pertaining to the same quotation from section 5 above, in a resolution as comprehensive as this, there is no mention of national governments might lease land if they do not control any. For example, a federation where the government has no direct control of their land. A relatively minor issue but shows that the resolution and its author have little regard for the diversity of governments which are WA members.
Click to expand...
The idea that a member nation does not control any land belies the nature of a nation having the monopoly of force within its jurisdiction. This gets to what is a nation in the first place and also gets to reasonable nation theory's exclusion of strange or edge-case nations. See Repeal "Pesticide Regulations", [2017] GAS 7.
 
Last edited:
Chinar:
AGAINST.

Grievances noted below. I request the Ministry of WA Affairs and the Delegate to take into consideration the below grievances and reevaluate its IFV dispatch.
1)
Clause 2 effectively forces governments to pay for a medical procedure. The clause forces a national government to bear a significant financial burden without in-fact highlighting a method to pay for it. This is of special importance in poorer countries. Additionally, if the government does not have a nationalized health service, this clause imposes additional costs in order to establish the infrastructure for the medical procedure itself. This could have worked around by providing a pathway through vouchers.

2)
In section 4,
"WA Choice Plus is established and may construct, per section 5, clinics with funds assessed by the General Accounting Office from members in which there does not exist, in the view of the WACC, adequate access to abortion."
The meaning is ambiguous. Would the clinics be built at the member's request or where WA finds necessary? If it is the latter, I believe it is a gross violation of the sovereignty of a nation.

3)
In section 5,
"The clinics will be built on land donated by members where the member doing so grants to the clinic a ten-year renewable lease in which no (a) direct tax or (b) indirect tax in excess of one per cent may be collected"
This is a blatant over-reach of WA authority in that it directs how member nations may tax their own land. The clinic may use utilities ranging from water and power to biomedical waste management services. These services have indirect fees. Why should not the clinics not pay fees for medical licensing or biomedical waste management? If it would be the case, shouldn't other medical establishments also be exempt from taxation? One might argue cancer and advanced age coronary disease treatment as just as necessary as abortion services and thus they should be exempt too?

4)
Pertaining to the same quotation from section 5 above, in a resolution as comprehensive as this, there is no mention of national governments might lease land if they do not control any. For example, a federation where the government has no direct control of their land. A relatively minor issue but shows that the resolution and its author have little regard for the diversity of governments which are WA members.
Click to expand...
I will not be revising my vote. The reason is simple. I ran for the Delegacy promising to uphold the region's will in the WA. That means voting the way the majority of TNP's WA voters vote. My own opinions on this matter may be known to some of you but they are irrelevant to my decision to vote For. I would be voting Against if the majority of TNPers voted Against. They are voting For though, and I am carrying that majority opinion into the WA.

My Minister of WA Affairs, as well as his staff, know that the Ministry is to follow that lead- ie it recommends the will of the majority. It is clear that TNP's WA voters are in support of this Resolution and so they recommend accordingly.

Your issues with the target resolution are noted, but unless they sway the majority of For voters, neither I or the MoWAA will be changing our vote and IFV.
 
Last edited:
Prydania:
I will not be revising my vote. The reason is simple. I ran for the Delegacy promising to uphold the region's will in the WA. That means voting the way the majority of TNP's WA voters vote. My own opinions on this matter may be known to some of you but they are irrelevant to my decision to vote For. I would be voting Against if the majority of TNPers voted Against. They are voting For though, and I am carrying that majority opinion into the WA.

My Minister of WA Affairs, as well as his staff, know that the Ministry is to follow that lead- ie it recommends the will of the majority. It is clear that TNP's WA voters are in support of this Resolution and so they recommend accordingly.

Your issues with the target resolution are noted, but unless they sway the majority of For voters, neither I or the MoWAA will be changing our vote and IFV.
Click to expand...

I understand your concern. In a moment of outrage, I asked you to reconsider the vote without taking into consideration the will of the citizens. I retract it as best as possible.

On another note; Citizens, please take into account the grievances before voting as per your will.
 
Imperium Anglorum:
Or, maybe like the totalitarian dictatorship of Justin Trudeau's Canada, where abortions are paid for by Canadian Medicare.

Abortion services are insured in all provinces and territories; however, access to these insured services varies within and between jurisdictions across the country. In Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, the services are only covered if performed in a hospital (for example, private clinic procedures are not covered). In addition, Prince Edward Island lacks abortion services on the island and residents must travel off the island to access them. In New Brunswick, access has improved because certification of medical necessity by two physicians, and performance of the service by a specialist in gynecology or obstetrics in a hospital are no longer required. Prince Edward Island service has improved because the province has eliminated the need for a referral from an Island doctor and now allows women to self-refer to a Moncton, New Brunswick, hospital.​



Yes it does. The reason is because nations have tried to use price floors to make abortions unaffordable. This policy makes such price floors self-defeating and against the interest of a nation as well as making those price floors irrelevant. All nations in the WA have a nationalised health service which is supported not only by domestic funding, but also be international transfers. See Quality in Health Services. Costs are borne in part by the IAO – using a test which only pays out if a member nation cannot afford it, something which I think ought to be put also in other pieces of legislation, – which is funded by mandatory contributions per WA General Fund, GA 17.


It's not ambiguous because of "per section 5".


Similar objections ought to have been raised when the GA created the headquarters on land donated from a member nation. That said, complaining about a voluntary programme with terms in which nations can choose not to subscribe is foolish. Nations, like people, may have to accede to EULAs when opting in to some programme.


The idea that a member nation does not control any land belies the nature of a nation having the monopoly of force within its jurisdiction. This gets to what is a nation in the first place and also gets to reasonable nation theory's exclusion of strange or edge-case nations. See Repeal "Pesticide Regulations", [2017] GAS 7.
Click to expand...

I think grievance 1 does not hold if the international community provides fair support to poorer nations. The resolution makes no mention of how it will support nations in such situations but it will make the resolution too long anyway. Additionally, having a national health service does not mean the nation does not bear costs. I would have loved to see a provision for a private procedure where the government simply pays the full bill.

Grievances 2, and 3 are addressed completely. Thank you.

Grievance 4 is my question in scenario of an edge-case nation. Say something like 18th century America. More of a federation under some common duties rather than a nation where the government controls much as federal land. Given the diversity of NS, there would no doubt be such nations present in WA.
 
Against. The incurred costs are unacceptable. Governments have a million other things to spend on and we can't dramatically increase funding to one sector without cutting others.
 
The Empire of Picairn:
Against. The incurred costs are unacceptable. Governments have a million other things to spend on and we can't dramatically increase funding to one sector without cutting others.
Click to expand...
Would you be so kind as to comprehensively list the other million things to spend on?
 
Praetor:
Would you be so kind as to comprehensively list the other million things to spend on?
Click to expand...
Hmm... Scientific inventions, biomedical research, military, law and order, welfare, social services, administration, education, foreign affairs and diplomacy, public transportation, public healthcare, public pensions (Social Security), business subsidization, infrastructure, agriculture, energy, etc.
 
The Empire of Picairn:
Against. The incurred costs are unacceptable. Governments have a million other things to spend on and we can't dramatically increase funding to one sector without cutting others.
Click to expand...
Most governments that provide Universal Healthcare are often not stricken with terrible debt. Plenty of WA legislation requires some level of government spending. Funding abortion is nothing compared to tasks that almost all governments handle such as education, police and the armed forces.
 
Comfed:
Most governments that provide Universal Healthcare are often not stricken with terrible debt. Plenty of WA legislation requires some level of government spending. Funding abortion is nothing compared to tasks that almost all governments handle such as education, police and the armed forces.
Click to expand...
Most governments that provide Universal Healthcare also employ cost-sharing methods to avoid ballooning deficits, such as higher taxes, small premiums, copays, deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses, or ultilizing private insurance to help cover all people. "First-dollar" coverage, where the government pays 100% of the bill, is actually not that popular and the amount of how much the government pays varies by countries.

This resolution is unprecedented. Not only does it require governments to pay 100% of all abortion costs, but it also prohibits all kind of taxes and cost-sharing methods related to abortion services.
 
Last edited:
The Empire of Picairn:
Hmm... Scientific inventions, biomedical research, military, law and order, welfare, social services, administration, education, foreign affairs and diplomacy, public transportation, public healthcare, public pensions (Social Security), business subsidization, infrastructure, agriculture, energy, etc.
Click to expand...
I count 16/1000000. You're close but not quite there yet.

Furthermore, I would note that this proposal falls under public healthcare. Something that you think is a priority!
 
Praetor:
I count 16/1000000. You're close but not quite there yet.

Furthermore, I would note that this proposal falls under public healthcare. Something that you think is a priority!
Click to expand...
Way to be pedantic. Also public healthcare includes other health departments than just abortions.
 
The Empire of Picairn:
Most governments that provide Universal Healthcare also employ cost-sharing methods to avoid ballooning deficits, such as higher taxes, small premiums, copays, deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses, or ultilizing private insurance to help cover all people. "First-dollar" coverage, where the government pays 100% of the bill, is actually not that popular and the amount of how much the government pays varies by countries.

This resolution is unprecedented. Not only does it require governments to pay 100% of all abortion costs, but it also prohibits all kind of taxes and cost-sharing methods related to abortion services.
Click to expand...
It does not ban all higher taxes, it only bans taxes that make it deliberately difficult to get an abortion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top