by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

3

DispatchMetaReference

by The South Pacifican Government of Office of WA Legislation. . 25 reads.

GA Recommendation Archive: 'Access to Abortion' opinions | OWL

.







'Access to Abortion'

Background Information

Proposal title: 'Access to Abortion'
Author: Imperium Anglorum
Purpose: To improve access to abortion using a vast array of means such as state-provided or funded abortions, abortifacients, contraceptives; non-discrimination regulations; WA-funded clinics via WA Choice Plus for members with no-adequate access.

Links


.No Recommendation.

The Office's Analysis
Since this resolution's OWL vote established no majority which is expected for a controversial resolution, OWL views this resolution as something a WA nation should decide for themselves, hence, OWL does not make any recommendation about this proposal and the Delegate will vote along with the majority of WA nations near the end of this resolution's vote. Opinions for and against this resolution will still be provided for nations that wish to use them.

Supplementary Opinions

For

From TSP Citizens

Nakarisaune is the Prime Minister of the South Pacific.

Nakarisaune wrote:Might as well make sure nations can't technically provide abortions, but make them so hard to access that in practise they aren't practical for many people. Expensive abortions aren't accessible to low-income people who are in most nations probably more likely to require abortions, and far-away clinics aren't practical and, having a large catchment area, are likely to have longer waiting times.

Honeydewistania is a citizen of the South Pacific and a GA author.

Honeydewistania wrote:One of the biggest reasons for abortion is economic reasons. By having poor infrastructure for abortion, it means unsafe abortions will be carried out and could cause death to both the pregnant woman and the unborn child.

Auphelia is a member of the Local Council and a citizen of the South Pacific.

Auphelia wrote:This proposal, while going far in a few places, is vital in preventing nations whose views on abortion are quite negative from instituting de facto pro-life policies in preventing the poor from accessing abortions, a group that also happen to be the most undereducated and most likely to suffer from unwanted pregnancies. It also provides protection to healthcare workers who provide abortions, an important consideration when fear of prosecution can negatively impact the willingness of trained healthcare professionals to provide abortion services. In terms of current abortion protections, I trust the nit picking pedantry of the GA forums to have seen merit in this proposal to negate any ambivalence we may have on that point. Finally, in regard to the expenses mandated, I would argue that the up front costs of providing for abortions is much less than the lifetime burden of having nations use welfare to provide for millions and billions of families who cannot afford to raise children they were unable to abort due to stringent laws. As stated, poorer families are more at risk of unwanted pregnancy, either from poorer education, lack of contraceptive resources, or any number of reasons. Especially in youth, the burden of a child for the unprepared can ruin the chances of a parent from accessing further education or being afforded the vocational opportunities to advance their careers. And if the individual costs of flying their citizens to where abortion clinics are is simply too much, perhaps that is an incentive to build their own, or appeal to the WACC to have clinics built on their land if the up front financial burden of a few buildings is simply too much to bear. I will also note that GA#286 does not address cost in any meaningful way, stating that nations may only add barriers that would be present for procedures of similar complexity . . . which in some nations, could reasonably be determined to mean the price paid for the abortion, assuming that nation has an inadequate healthcare system that fails their poorest citizens. Also, upon reading, it is noted just how vague the protections provided from this six year old proposal are. Any low skilled lawyer could work their way out of or around it in ten minutes. Without exacting standards, nations that do not want to provide abortions will find a way, putting their most vulnerable citizens at risk.

From the World

Saperisole is a citizen of the North Pacific and they posted the following on TNP's WA forum.

Saperisole wrote:This seems like a much improved version of GA #286 and should patch the issues in that legislation that are noted in its attempted repeal.

Against

From TSP Citizens

Tepertopia is a citizen of the South Pacific.

Tepertopia wrote:GA#286 "Reproductive Freedoms" already guarantees an "Access to Abortion", and effectively enough so. The proposal at hand however takes the whole debate one step too far - forcing member states to provide free travel to free abortions makes abortion but a lighthearted ridiculousness, a rash decision made on a whim, where possible recipients are animated to quickly and thoughtlessly abort offspring rather than carefully consider this very emotional and heavy decision.

United States of Vietnam is the Secretary of OWL and a citizen of the South Pacific.

United States of Vietnam wrote:Aside from critical flaws on principles such as requiring states to directly fund abortions and excessive micromanagement like providing free traveling to and funding for WA-run clinics. This proposal seems to not be a good faith effort to improve access to abortion. Looks like it was made solely to spite on the pro-life crowds.

From the World

Auralia is a government official in Catholic and seasoned GA author. They posted the following on the NationStates WA Forum.

Auralia wrote:I believe this proposal is probably legal, though it shouldn't be. No person -- including the proposer -- seriously believes this is an appropriate way to improve abortion access in member states. Most supporters of abortion rights acknowledge that whether to have an abortion is a very serious decision requiring careful consideration. It is very painful for many people. It is absolutely not a subject to make light of, yet that is exactly what this proposal does. It should be apparent to all that this proposal is not an attempt to advance a policy goal in good faith, especially since existing legislation already effectively guarantees abortion access. Rather, this proposal exists to mock fellow players on the opposite side of this issue. The proposer no doubt finds it hilarious to leverage the political power of his faction to pass something completely outrageous, then watch the panicked and ultimately ineffectual reaction.





LinkLink


RawReport