[PASSED] Blood Donation Safety and Equality Act

[Crowheim]

Took a first glance. Is it possible to explain why you chose to use the phrase "reductive or arbitrary characteristic" in clause 1? Or rather, what do you mean by it?

For the second clause, I am dissapointed that the author didn't use the opportunity to enact regulations that would help in ensuring safety of the blood donation process, especially since the title is "Blood Donation Safety and Equality Act"

The fourth clause is okay, but I think a better wording could help in improving the clarity. Right now, it is particularly mouthful and difficult to understand.

See the two above posts for the first point.

[Balkede]

I’m against this proposal, and slightly astounded that it has almost a hundred approvals despite numerous holes and flaws in it. This resolution is about safety, yet it relies on people being aware of their disease, instead of you know, mandating all prospective donors be tested and screened for such diseases in the first place? If this passes, I hope it’s repealed.

A person may be prohibited from donating blood if there are notable risks to the donor's health involved in the process of blood donation or their blood would pose a health risk to the recipient.

May be prohibited? Should that not be a requirement (in the latter case, at least).

[Junitaki-cho]

A question for the author: Does this proposal, as written, prohibit discrimination against people who engage in same-sex sexual activities? If so, how does the text accomplish this? If not, why not?

[Vrijstaat Limburg]

Recognizing that some restrictions exist upon certain minority groups, those of which are often not based in peer-reviewed science, and that beyond the obvious bigotry, they have a negative impact on the amount of blood that is able to be donated, meaning less people can receive the medical treatment that they may need, and that scientific developments have largely mitigated any risk that these restrictions may have once been based upon,

“Less people” should be “fewer people” (typo).

[Greater Cesnica]

Recognizing that some restrictions exist upon certain minority groups, those of which are often not based in peer-reviewed science, and that beyond the obvious bigotry, they have a negative impact on the amount of blood that is able to be donated, meaning less people can receive the medical treatment that they may need, and that scientific developments have largely mitigated any risk that these restrictions may have once been based upon,

“Less people” should be “fewer people” (typo).

"Alas, it appears that the proposal has made it onto the voting floor."

[Vrijstaat Limburg]

“Less people” should be “fewer people” (typo).

"Alas, it appears that the proposal has made it onto the voting floor."

“Then our nation should find it improper to support such a resolution. The World Assembly, an institution of the highest esteem, should not be pestered by common mistakes like these. Our tolerance knows its limits, I’m afraid.”

[Imperium Anglorum]

“Less people” should be “fewer people” (typo).

[Greater Cesnica]

"Alas, it appears that the proposal has made it onto the voting floor."

“Then our nation should find it improper to support such a resolution. The World Assembly, an institution of the highest esteem, should not be pestered by common mistakes like these. Our tolerance knows its limits, I’m afraid.”

"Typos comprise the least of your worries, Ambassador. Significant substantive flaws are manifest within the resolution."

[Vrijstaat Limburg]

“Then our nation should find it improper to support such a resolution. The World Assembly, an institution of the highest esteem, should not be pestered by common mistakes like these. Our tolerance knows its limits, I’m afraid.”

"Typos comprise the least of your worries, Ambassador. Significant substantive flaws are manifest within the resolution."

“The Free State thanks thee for the arguments, but seeks to inform the ambassador that: if Limburg votes against this motion, it only does so with the judgment that it seeks to protect the righteous jurisprudence within its own borders, as well as the laws of the World Assembly. This organization should not permit the erosion of proper speech, lest it seeks to undermine its own authority.

The highest reverence to the world assembly should not entail a blind acceptance of policy, but a conscious decision to call it to a higher standard. Do any less, and we will receive lesser laws, ambassadors.”

[Laka Strolistandiler]

Fully opposed.
While we applaud the decision to increase the amount of individuals who are allowed to donate blood, we nether the less simply cannot agree to the fact that every race can donate blood. Strolistandilerians are WAY too genetically modified to be able to receive blood donations from average people. It leads to some serious diseases, and since most of our populace have been modified, it’s only natural hat we care ‘bout them the most.
Also, why the hell does the safety resolution mandate the fact that the people KNOW about their illnesses but ARE NOT tested for it? This and excluding a number of typos. WA is slowly but surely becoming a globalist circus.
And yes, because we are homophobic and transphobic as hell, that goes ‘ere too.

[Crowheim]

A question for the author: Does this proposal, as written, prohibit discrimination against people who engage in same-sex sexual activities? If so, how does the text accomplish this? If not, why not?

Yes, it does. Between the initial clause outlawing direct discrimination and the clause about safety restrictions being applied fairly and equally, it would make it exceedingly difficult, in my opinion, for a blood donation facility to discriminate based upon sexual orientation, even with the excuse of “safety”, as is often propagated, despite the fact that it’s nearly as risky to get blood donated from anyone else.

[Crowheim]

Fully opposed.
While we applaud the decision to increase the amount of individuals who are allowed to donate blood, we nether the less simply cannot agree to the fact that every race can donate blood. Strolistandilerians are WAY too genetically modified to be able to receive blood donations from average people. It leads to some serious diseases, and since most of our populace have been modified, it’s only natural hat we care ‘bout them the most.
Also, why the hell does the safety resolution mandate the fact that the people KNOW about their illnesses but ARE NOT tested for it? This and excluding a number of typos. WA is slowly but surely becoming a globalist circus.
And yes, because we are homophobic and transphobic as hell, that goes ‘ere too.

Hence the clause which prevents blood from being donated to someone if it poses a health risk.

[Brilliantly]

Full support for this one. This one creates equality and non-discrimination which is important in the nationstates community.

[GreaterFrance]

I don't really understand the purpose of this vote to be honest, I mean it has always been the choice of every and each civilian of any country to give his or her blood or not and I never heard about "racial or religious" restrictions for example.
Even if I voted "for" I don't see what this resolution will change.

[Old Dominion Virginia]

Old Dominion Virginia disagrees with the concept of donations.

[Crowheim]

I don't really understand the purpose of this vote to be honest, I mean it has always been the choice of every and each civilian of any country to give his or her blood or not and I never heard about "racial or religious" restrictions for example.
Even if I voted "for" I don't see what this resolution will change.

Oftentimes there are restrictions placed specifically upon gay men's ability to donate blood that are not grounded in science like they claim to be. Most directly, this proposal aims to block that from happening while keeping blood donation safe.

[GreaterFrance]

I don't really understand the purpose of this vote to be honest, I mean it has always been the choice of every and each civilian of any country to give his or her blood or not and I never heard about "racial or religious" restrictions for example.
Even if I voted "for" I don't see what this resolution will change.

Oftentimes there are restrictions placed specifically upon gay men's ability to donate blood that are not grounded in science like they claim to be. Most directly, this proposal aims to block that from happening while keeping blood donation safe.

Oh ok didn't know that, people can be strange sometimes

[Crowheim]

Oftentimes there are restrictions placed specifically upon gay men's ability to donate blood that are not grounded in science like they claim to be. Most directly, this proposal aims to block that from happening while keeping blood donation safe.

Oh ok didn't know that, people can be strange sometimes

Yes they certainly can, glad to have helped clear that up

[Marxist Germany]

"This resolution serves no purpose other than the addition of more bureaucracy. The topic of discrimination is covered by GA#35, and I am not sure how this does not almost-entirely duplicate it. The only clauses that are not duplication is the penultimate and final clauses, and the penultimate clause appears to have a glaring grammatical error."

[Thermodolia]

"This resolution serves no purpose other than the addition of more bureaucracy. The topic of discrimination is covered by GA#35, and I am not sure how this does not almost-entirely duplicate it. The only clauses that are not duplication is the penultimate and final clauses, and the penultimate clause appears to have a glaring grammatical error."

Ambassador if you believe it’s a duplication you may launch a legal challenge with the proper authorities

[Feyrisshire]

"We are not happy with the last provision whereas a prospective blood donor who "knows or suspects" that they are a carrier for blood-borne illness knowingly attempts to donate "unsafe" blood is considered a criminal offense.

We consider it unjust to consider such a criminal offense when such "knowledge" or "suspicion" that one is supposedly a carrier for a blood-borne illness has not been proven by medical testing, therefore this is tantamount to criminalizing such a vague suspicion.

A criminal offense is also unnecessary here, considering that it can be dealt with by civil legislation (by a civil punishment) or other alternative legal mechanisms.

The wording "knows or suspects that they are a carrier for a blood-borne illness" which can be prohibited from donating blood is also vague and can be used by homophobic and bigoted jurisdictions as a euphemism for LGBT+ people or MSM, defeating the very purpose for this legislation in the first place."

[Laka Strolistandiler]

Hence the clause which prevents blood from being donated to someone if it poses a health risk.

As I stated, it was one of the many reasons, the other ones being that our nation does not like gay people very much. We believe that they can exist but cannot be seen or heard. Say so, they should censor themselves. We oppose this resolution because it would obstruct us ways to further regulate and repress LGBTQ+ community. Yes, we are the baddies.

[Outer Sparta]

Hence the clause which prevents blood from being donated to someone if it poses a health risk.

As I stated, it was one of the many reasons, the other ones being that our nation does not like gay people very much. We believe that they can exist but cannot be seen or heard. Say so, they should censor themselves. We oppose this resolution because it would obstruct us ways to further regulate and repress LGBTQ+ community. Yes, we are the baddies.

Ambassador Tavoularoglou: Well, I am rather impressed at your delegation saying out loud you are the baddies. That's way different from others who often oppress certain groups in their nation and deny any repression going on.

[Laka Strolistandiler]

Ambassador Tavoularoglou: Well, I am rather impressed at your delegation saying out loud you are the baddies. That's way different from others who often oppress certain groups in their nation and deny any repression going on.

We prefer to say the truth more often than not. After all, if we denied this would it change anything? Wouldn’t you know about it after all? In our culture, saying the truth is extremely important, and you can actually see the results of this in our nation’s economy. For example, take a hint, how much of a disposable income our queen has after paying all the taxes? 20 thousand dollars per year. And yes, she doesn’t receive any other donations from the state. She doesn’t deserve them and if she was allowed to receive presents that means that she would be subject to corruption. And we don’t want corruption.

[Ainland]

Terrible proposal. This sort of thing is literally looking for discrimination where there is none. If taking blood from people with a certain characteristic, can be shown to increase a certain virus in the blood supply depsite testing, for example, then they are excluded on the basis of safety. To suggest this is some sort of institutional discrimination really is ridiculous. And, like I said, desperately looking for discrimination where there is none. It's about safe blood. That's literally it.