In re Reduction of Abortion Act Repeal

[Culture of Life]

SENATE OF RIGHT TO LIFE
In re Reduction of Abortion Act Repeal
Decided May 21, 2013

In the NationStates General Assembly, a proposal has been submitted to repeal Resolution 44, the Reduction of Abortion Act, raising two constitutional questions. First, is the President required by law to vote against an attempt to repeal Resolution 44? Second, do citizens violate their oath by voting in favor of a proposal to repeal Resolution 44?

According to regional law, "The President . . . may act on World Assembly proposals however he chooses provided that he approves and votes for every General Assembly proposal that would advance the pro-life cause and does not approve and votes against every General Assembly proposal that would promote abortion" (RTL Const. 3:1).

Regional law also says, "The oath of citizenship is 'I, [insert nation name], hereby affirm that I am pro-life; I am against elective abortion in all or most cases.' Only someone who is pro-life can hold citizenship. Someone pro-life must be opposed to elective abortion in all or most cases. A citizen may support legal access to therapeutic abortions and abortions in cases of rape, incest, and fetal defects" (RTL Const. 1:2-3).

PRUSSIA delivered the opinion of the Senate.

With regard to the president, the question is a moot point since Texoma, the current president, has pledged to vote against the repeal proposal if it reaches the floor. The Senate does not need to render a judgment on this issue, so it will not render a judgment on this issue.

On the second question, the Right to Life Senate has concluded that it would not be illegal for citizens of the region to vote in favor of Repeal "Reduction of Abortion Act" because it is possible for the citizen to believe that the Act currently does not do enough to lower abortion rates, needs to be replaced, or has some other problem that does not even have anything to do with abortion. Citizens shall be allowed to vote as they please on the repeal proposal without fear of charges being pressed against them because there are legitimate reasons why it would be possible to be pro-life and for repeal.

It is so ordered.