An Analysis on an Attempt to Repeal

The following is an analysis of a resolution that attempted to repeal the GA resolution "Reproductive Freedoms". It was debated in the regional forums of the New Warsaw Pact. The resolution was soundly defeated by an overwhelming margin as of June 23rd, 2017. This is a extract from that debate, which analyzes the resolutions. At the time, the bill was at vote.

---

For this argument, I will look at it in two ways. The first is way is a legal viewpoint. I will look at what the standing resolution does, and what it implies. The second one is my personal moral point of view. I will address my personal bias toward the standing resolution. As a part of addressing the elephant in the room, you may disregard the second part and keep it in terms of the first viewpoint.

First, I would like to give an analysis of the repeal act. It is very poorly written. As mentioned, the bill starts with a circular argument, stating that "Reproductive Freedoms" is circular logic. Not a good start. Another point I would like to point out is that the repeal bill uses D&X as an example of an abortion. Note that "Reproductive Freedoms" does not specifically mention D&X, but any procedure that is safe and openly accessible. This doesn't mean that D&X is the only method of abortion. It is the most common one at this time, but there may be a safer method that becomes easily accessible in the future. The only reason the writer brings this up is to psychologically manipulate others, who may not follow the same ideological standpoint, to support the bill. This section can be written out as manipulative.

The bill states that "Reproductive Freedoms" forces nations to legalize abortions, regardless of circumstance. This is simply not true. "Reproductive Freedoms" only forces people to recognize that women, because men cannot get pregnant, have the freedom terminate a pregnancy at any time. That's the only thing it requires all nations to do by the word "mandate". It also requires nations to protect women from the social repercussions from the procedures covered by the resolution, which isn't specified, and I'll get to this later. What "Reproductive Freedoms" does do is demand that all nations give women access to the means to end a pregnancy at any time in a safe manner that is easily accessible. The key word is "demand". A demand and a mandate are not the same. A demand is a request. A mandate is an order. The resolution doesn't force all nations to legalize abortion, but it does ask strongly. Again, the repeal resolution does not tell the truth on this.

The bill does have some facts that are worth mentioning. It points out that "Reproductive Freedoms" is very vaguely written. There are no specifications for the terms it uses, which it relies on social and cultural interpretation. There is no criteria to define a "safe, easily accessible procedure". There is no criteria that protects the life of a viable unborn human fetus. As it is written, it "allows termination of pregnancy for any reason, including selection of offspring on account of sex, skin color, disability, or other discriminatory reasons". Women can get an abortion little or no reason. Women could abort because they have a boy and want a girl, and vise versa. They can have an abortion as a form of revenge against the father. They can have an abortion if they just wake up one day and decide that they don't want it. There is nothing that will save the life of a healthy fetus. I find this contradictory to one of the duties of the World Assembly, to protect the rights of individuals. In all, this repeal resolution is poorly written, and shouldn't have seen the light of day.

Now, I want to look at the resolution that is in question, "Reproductive Freedoms". As the repeal resolution is poorly written one, this one is even worse. This resolution is painted with a broad paintbrush, where anything related to abortion can be protected under it. It also is a gross invasion of national sovereignty and pressures social coercion to bear the burden of ending a pregnancy at any time. How? "Reproductive Freedoms" is a World Assembly resolution, ratified into the charter of the World Assembly. All member states are expected to follow and adhere to the mandates, demands, and statements of the World Assembly. Any member nation that defies any of them may face the risk of international sanctions or ostracism from other nations in the World Assembly. In defying a demand, a nation faces the risk of being painted as a villain and abuser of rights. This is a silent coercion. Yes, even though I said that the bill itself doesn't force nations to provide access to abortions, but due to international pressure, many nations will acquiesce out of fear of repercussion.

Now, I want to address the burden the member nations have to endure under this bill. Having addressed why most nations will adhere to the demand. "Reproductive Freedoms" demands that all member nations must not restrict any termination of pregnancy nor allow any impediment of it. This creates an undue economic burden for governments and private businesses. How? The statement is too broad. Without definitions, this demand is destined to be abused to no end with many loopholes. What is a restriction? What is an impediment? Take, for example, health insurance. Be it public, universal, or private, every nation is bound to have something that will cover the inherently expensive examinations, medicine, and procedures for the betterment of health. Health insurance, public or private, is funded by people, be it a tax or a payment for a service. All policies cover medical related expenses. Under the resolution, a section of funding must be diverged to provide for women who want to terminate a pregnancy at any time. Why? First, there is no definition for the term of pregnancy; the bill brushes it to any term in the pregnancy, from conception to the day before birth. At any time, a woman can end it all. Second, there is no definition for impediment or restriction. It doesn't exist. An impediment can be a law that actively prohibits abortions. However, it can also mean an impediment by omission. Insurance companies find themselves having to cover all expenses of abortions as a precaution that they won't be charged with violating human rights. With no definition, and woman who want the state or private company to cover all the expenses of their abortion or birth can simply say that their rights are being violated. Now, to be fair, an abortion would be covered comparably to other medical procedures, but as many nations entirely cover all expenses publicly, this isn't impossible. How do insurance companies compensate? They have no choice but to either increase costs to cover the coverage increase, or cut coverage of all procedures to compensate for the expenses without increasing the costs. People are going to have to carry the burden to provide for the terminations.

Another aspect I would like to cover is what it requires. The resolution doesn't define what adequate protection of patients against animosity is. I'm sure it is meant to be any form of discrimination and violence. But, on the other hand, can it be an insult? Can it be a Facebook comment? Can it be a like to a comment on facebook? The answer is yes. Yes to everything. The interpretation is left up to the "victim". Even if it isn't meant to be so, if an woman thinks you are targeting her based on a terminated pregnancy, you are violating her human rights. Even, for example, congratulation someone for the birth of their child. There is no definition, and thus, no end to what could constitute an attack. This is yet another loophole.

Now, I will step a little bit into morality, but I will use the WA as much as I can to support my argument.

Now, I want to address the violation of national sovereignty of nations. As stated before, "Reproductive Freedoms", while not explicitly stating it, does force nations to accommodate abortions. What does it really accomplish in terms of personal freedoms? Does it really protect the freedoms of reproduction? No. It fails to protect the reproductive freedoms of men. Does it protect the rights of humans? Some. Only if you are a woman, and especially if you are not a fetus. A fetus is human, in my eyes. They have a right to life. In fact, this resolution is a tool for many to kill for any reason possible. I think about the PRC during the early years of the one child policy, where the socially inferior girls were killed to make room for a son. Under this resolution, it is a right to violate the right to life, under World Assembly Resolution #35.

Now, I acknowledge that there are situations where the life of the mother is in jeopardy, or the child will be more of a burden than a productive member of society. I support an abortion in these situations. However, these conditions are already protected through an earlier resolution, World Assembly Resolution #128. So, what does "Reproductive Freedoms" accomplish? It makes a statement. It makes a statement that a woman can end a pregnancy at any time and for any reason. All member nations, by mandate, must declare that a pregnancy may be terminated at any time for any reason. The demands can be ignored at the nation's own risk. I, as a member nation, do not support this statement. The fetus in a womb has a right to life, as a human. This resolution makes General Assembly Resolution #355, in that the definition of a sentient being can't be properly defined under risk of violation of "Reproductive Freedoms". The resolution does nothing for the benefit for humanity, but does require nations to cover the expenditure of abortions. This, and the mandate of statement, does not follow the duties of the World Assembly, and is a gross coercion to other nations. It pushes for an ideology that all member nations must advocate under this resolution. It does not protect the rights of people, in fact it violates more rights than protects them. This steps outside the bounds of the authority of the World Assembly.

While the repeal bill is a very poor one, the current resolution should have never been passed. I will be voting for the repeal, but not for the bill. I will be voting for the repeal as a retroactive vote against the resolution in question. This resolution must be scrapped and rewritten, to protect the rights of all individuals and states. I do not vote for the current resolution, but I vote against a resolution that must be perfected. I wouldn't worry about what the pro-resolution fearmongers say, that women will lose their right to their body. That right is protected by World Assembly Resolution #128. I acknowledge that this is an unpopular opinion, but I believe it is the right step toward a World Assembly that promotes rights and peace, rather than control the government like a 1984 supernation.