NationStates Jolt Archive

Please support our attempt to improve upon the Abortion Rights resolution #61. As it stands this resolution is far too strong in theory while failing to protect women's rights in practice, and as such is in need of further clarification.

Defining 'abortion rights'
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Hippietania

Description: RECOGNIZING that all people must be secure in control over their own body;

AWARE OF the sensitive nature of the question of abortion;

SEEKING to balance the rights of women to control their body with the rights of the state to legislate law;

WORRIED that the previous Resolution #61 'Abortion Rights' fails to specify meaningfully what the 'right to abortion' consists of, or to protect said right in practice;

The NationStates United Nations:

1. DECLARES that abortions may only be carried out by qualified medical professionals certified by a nationally recognized regulatory body; and that such professionals may not be disaccredited, harassed or prosecuted for carrying out legal abortions;

2. STATES that nations may not disqualify from medical professions, from practice, or refuse to accredit such professionals on the basis of their offering or practising abortion if they meet all other criteria;

3. FORBIDS governments from banning medical schools from teaching the skills necessary for performing abortions;

4. ASSURES that medical practitioners may not be harassed by the government because they perform abortions;

5. RECOGNIZES the right of individual doctors to refuse to perform abortions;

6. MAINTAINS the right of nations to ban individual techniques of abortion, provided that some safe, medically approved techniques remain legal;

7. AFFIRMS the right of nations to forbid abortions in cases where the sex of the fetus is the reason for the abortion;

8. FURTHER AFFIRMS the right of nations to ban abortions after the sixth month of the pregnancy;

9. STRONGLY ENCOURAGES nations to engage in programs to impartially educate their populations about reproductive matters, and increase access to contraceptives and contraceptive techniques;

10. RECOGNIZES doctor-patient confidentiality, and the right of women seeking abortions to remain anonymous;

11. VEHEMENTLY AVOWS that no woman may ever be coerced in her decision whether or not to have an abortion.

Voting Ends: Tue Dec 14 2004Thanks.

I like it except for Article 7. It's a) too big of a loophole (governments could simply ban all abortions and put in their official records that all the abortions were because the fetus of the child was not of the right sex) and b) as long as the abortion was carried out along safe and non-rights abridging terms (e.g. the mother was not coerced into performing it), then there does not need to be any further legislation of the reasoning.

Otherwise, good work.

Article 7 makes it illegal.

Article 6 gives a loophole for complete ban of abortion by stating there is no "safe" method under law.

Article 1 is another loophole, as it can declare there is no abortion training.

No support.

Article 1 is another loophole, as it can declare there is no abortion training.

Actually, if I'm reading this, right your argument here is refuted by Article 3.

Nope.

3 allows training.

To use 1 offensively, you just don't certify anyone. So there is never any training that satisfies the requirement.

Nope.

3 allows training.

To use 1 offensively, you just don't certify anyone. So there is never any training that satisfies the requirement.

Ah, I see. I had my reservations about the proposal to begin with, but this just adds to them.

* Does the happy " I Have A Sticky " dance from here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029563&postcount=1). I know, I need to prolly update that as soon as I finish my post here ...

Now, the original document as the link here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030173&postcount=62) here shows, says this :Abortion Rights

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Vistadin

Description: Henceforth all women shall have the right to choose whether to have an abortion or not, no member nation will interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion.

Votes For: 9368

Votes Against: 6549

Implemented: Sat Jun 5 2004Now, if you look at the green part, then read on to the red part, you'll see that no member nation government may infringe in any way on the womans right to an abortion. This means no making laws or regulations to such an action as preforming an abortion can be made. This means that just 6, 7, 8, alone at a brief glance are not legal because of this. In fact, one could safely say any attempt at an " definition " is ruled out ...

Wel, that is how my U.N. eye reads it ... The danger of a short resolution like this is that it is a bitch to even try to wriggle out of, ;)

Thanks for the comments. I'm well aware it's of borderline legality, which is why I'm not pushing it hard but only submitting it as a test case. And also why I'm supporting sensible Repeal resolutions, like Frisbeeteria's.

But I do think a case can be made that it doesn't actually contradict the previous act, but merely interprets it appropriately. The trickiest articles are 6, 7 and 8, so here goes:

6 is OK, because it guarantees that some abortion method will be allowed. Vastiva is mistaken to suggest that governments can effectively ban abortion by declaring all methods unsafe: in that event, all methods will have to be legal. Check the wording of article 6: it's only possible to ban individual techniques if there is a safe method available. So, no safe method, no bans whatsoever.

7 and 8 rely on a certain linguistic and legalistic flexibility. 7 gives nations the right (not the duty - they can allow sexual selection if they want) to declare abortion for reasons of gender to be eugenics, rather than abortion. And 8 gives nations the right (again, not the duty - they can allow late abortions if they want) to declare abortion after the sixth month to be infanticide, rather than abortion. In both cases the right to abortion is still guaranteed, but how abortion is defined resides to a small extent with national government.

Consider the parallel with a fair trial. Do nations violate the right to a fair trial by dictating the colour of the judge's robe? No, because colour of apparel is not contained within the definition of 'fair trial'. This resolution attempts to clarify the definition of 'right to an abortion' and define 'interference' in that right. It argues that in some limited circumstances, the definitions are so controversial that they are best left to national governments.

Yes, it's sophistry, but this is the UN, and far, far more ridiculous resolutions have been allowed through.