NATION

PASSWORD

[Draft] LGBT Health Protections Act

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
The Hundred Worlds
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 7
Founded: Apr 11, 2017
Ex-Nation

[Draft] LGBT Health Protections Act

Postby The Hundred Worlds » Fri Apr 14, 2017 2:12 pm

I am trying to craft a resolution that will fit into the health category.

There are two policy goals:
1) Make it so being LGBT is neither a health nor physiological disorder,
2) Make it so conversion therapy must be entered into by adequately mature adults.

Key: Old stuff, existing stuff, new stuff

A Bill to Regulate Sexual and Gender Conversion Therapy

The civilized nations of the world, Generally Assembled,

Recognizing that the citizens of our nations have diverse sexual orientations and gender expressions;
Believing that each citizen has the right to try to alter their sexual orientation or gender expression if they freely desire;
Having in mind that such attempts at alteration come with inherent risk to the individual undergoing alteration; and,
Affirming that enrollment in a conversion program does not preclude citizens from the right to expect the highest standards of medical and psychological care available to them;

Have agreed as follows:

1) Individuals may not be treated as persons with mental illness because of their sexual orientation or gender expression.

2) Definitions of importance:
i. A "conversion program" is any program designed to change, alter, or suppress enrollees' sexual orientation or gender expression.
ii. "Conversion therapy" is the process of attempting to change, alter, or suppress sexual orientation or gender expression; it is the service provided by a conversion program.
iii. The "medical practitioners" are the staff of the program who are licensed by a capable authority and are employed by or otherwise provide the services of a conversion program.

3) The enrollment of an individual into a conversion program to take place by mutual consent.

4) No individual who is less than twenty three years of age the age of majority may enroll in a conversion program.

5) Conversion therapy may only be administered by medical practitioners.


A Bill to Enshrine Medical Protections for the LGBTQIAA+ Community

1
Defines ...

2
1
Recognizes, diversity in sexual orientation is an ordinary attribute of the human species;

3 2
Declares accordingly, sexual orientation may not be the basis for a diagnosis requiring medical treatment;

4 3
Further declares, individuals may not be treated as persons with mental illness because of their sexual orientation;

5
Requires, the standard of care at medical facilities shall not be negatively affected by a patient's sexual orientation;

6
Further requires, patients shall not be denied the care necessary to mitigate risk factors experienced exclusively or with significantly higher likelihood by individuals with their sexual orientation;

7
4
Mandates, no individual may be enrolled in a program designed to change, alter, or suppress enrollees' sexual orientation who has not reached the age of twenty three, and no individual may be compelled to enroll or otherwise participate in such a program;

8 5
Urges Requires, member nations encountering a public health hazard of infectious disease that affects exclusively or with significantly higher likelihood individuals with a non-majority sexual orientation to: i. Seek seek expert medical counsel to determine necessary medical precautions to be undertaken by individuals in the affected community; ii. Publicly and to publicly promulgate the findings of these medical experts, especially to the affected communities and to their medical caregivers.


Updated on Friday 21 April 2017.

Are there more, or better, ways to protect the health of the LGBT community?
Last edited by The Hundred Worlds on Thu Apr 27, 2017 11:06 am, edited 5 times in total.
Go to it, and good luck.

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15899
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Fri Apr 14, 2017 2:25 pm

The Hundred Worlds wrote:Are there more, or better, ways to protect the health of the LGBT community?

OOC: Welcome to the GA forum!

The extant resolutions already cover quite a few of your points, and some of your points might run afoul of them.

Here's the passed resolutions thread, you can search it easily with keywords: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30
- ambassador miss Janis Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.

User avatar
Kundu
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 8
Founded: Antiquity
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Kundu » Fri Apr 14, 2017 4:23 pm

I certainly like the ideas behind it. However, I would agree with the previous post and suggest a thorough review of previous resolutions to make sure that you're not duplicating or conflicting any of them!

User avatar
The Hundred Worlds
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 7
Founded: Apr 11, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby The Hundred Worlds » Fri Apr 14, 2017 8:55 pm

Thank you for your replies.

I've actually made this post directly in light of many of the existing GA resolutions. Perhaps that should be mentioned in the preamble, but I 'm not sure how to reference half a dozen resolutions in a coherent way.

For instance, World Assembly Resolution #320 only requires "that each nation encountering a public health hazard of infectious disease within their sovereign territory or any other territory under their jurisdiction: [to] Seek expert medical counsel to determine necessary medical precautions to be undertaken by visitors to that territory;" (emphasis mine). While in most instances, an infectious disease may be assured to make it to the national media and demand public attention, there is the very real fact that for certain plagues affecting people of minority sexual orientation, this is not necessarily a given. Because in a democracy, the LGBT+ community does not by itself make up a powerful constituency, and in a theocracy that doesn't even recognize that community--forget about them getting "special" medical attention.

I absolutely borrow the first clause from World Assembly Resolution #91, but only because "The Charter on Civil Rights," 1(c), is exceptionally vague and fails to define "discrimination" in any powerful way. This resolution puts to rest the argument that any individual may be treated the way an out member of the LGBT+ community is. This is preposterous in many countries--of course LGBT+ individuals are treated differently, just look at the different nations' marriage laws. The fact is, sexual orientation must be recognized as a normal state of human beings, and so may not be categorized as a disease. It's time the WA affirm this simple fact.

In the same vein, World Assembly Resolution #140 Section 5, pays some lip service to LGBT+ community, but does not go near enough to constitute adequate protection. WA Res 140 S 5 states that being gay, bi, trans, a lesbian, etc, may not "be the justification for a patient’s admittance to a mental health facility." It does not, however, preclude a member nation from listing such individual as having a mental illness according to their country's psychiatric laws and procedures.

In some counties, a married gay couple of tourists do not have the legal protections of a married straight couple. More importantly, LGBT+ kids in that country that does not recognize the LGBT+ marriage may still be treated as having a mental illness--given that may not be used as justification for institutionalizing them.

The World Assembly can do better.

There is, in my view, nothing that is redundant in these clauses. There are themes and topics which may, to the passer-by, seem redundant. I would encourage the ambassadors to this body to look more closely at the resolutions that have passed thus far. I would assure them that each of clause of this bill adds or introduces certain protections to the citizens of our countries, and that not one of them is redundant but that the least of these still increases explicitly important protections for a major minority of our populations.
Last edited by The Hundred Worlds on Fri Apr 14, 2017 9:10 pm, edited 7 times in total.
Go to it, and good luck.

User avatar
Andrew Wiggin
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 5
Founded: Apr 04, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Andrew Wiggin » Fri Apr 14, 2017 9:35 pm

"5
Requires, the standard of care at medical facilities shall not be negatively affected by a patient's sexual orientation;"


...is a strengthening (as much of this bill is a strengthening) of the Patients' Rights Act which does not qualify "sexual orientation" as explicitly qualifying for international recognition and protection. See:

(VII) The standard of care shall not be affected by religion, race, sex, nationality, country of birth, or other such grounds, except where such factors are medically relevant to the required course of action.


Are we, the millions/billions of LGBT+ folk, to live under the protection of bureaucrats in each of the several thousand member nations to the WA?

No! We must fight for our rights!

User avatar
Covenstone
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 471
Founded: Apr 09, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Covenstone » Sat Apr 15, 2017 3:30 am

c ) All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or sexual identity, or any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination, except for compelling practical purposes, such as hiring only female staff to work with battered women who have sought refuge from their abusers.


(The Charter of Civil Rights, Clause 1c)

i know i am new but wouldn't this cover almost all of your clause's?
CP A Winters, Queen of The Witches. ("I suffer from an overwhelming surplus of diggity.")

"Every time the Goddess closes a door, she opens a window.
Which is why the Goddess is NEVER allowed in a spaceship."

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15899
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Sat Apr 15, 2017 6:56 am

Covenstone wrote:(The Charter of Civil Rights, Clause 1c)

i know i am new but wouldn't this cover almost all of your clause's?

OOC: Along with other extant resolutions, yes, it would.
- ambassador miss Janis Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.

User avatar
Tinhampton
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13700
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Tinhampton » Sat Apr 15, 2017 6:58 am

The Hundred Worlds wrote:Thank you for your replies.

I've actually made this post directly in light of many of the existing GA resolutions. Perhaps that should be mentioned in the preamble, but I 'm not sure how to reference half a dozen resolutions in a coherent way.

The House of Cards rule prevents you from mentioning past resolutions in any resolution that is not a repeal.
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 329,537): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549, SC#356, GA#559, GA#562, GA#567, GA#578, SC#374, GA#582, SC#375, GA#589, GA#590, SC#382, SC#385*, GA#597, GA#607, SC#415, GA#647, GA#656, GA#664, GA#671, GA#674, GA#675, GA#677, GA#680, Issue #1580, GA#682, GA#683, GA#684, GA#692, GA#693, GA#715
The rest of my CV: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; *author of the most popular SC Res. ever; anti-NPO cabalist in good standing; 48yo Tory woman w/Asperger's; Cambridge graduate ~ currently reading The World by Simon Sebag Montefiore

User avatar
Bananaistan
Senator
 
Posts: 3518
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Sat Apr 15, 2017 10:34 am

Tinhampton wrote:
The Hundred Worlds wrote:Thank you for your replies.

I've actually made this post directly in light of many of the existing GA resolutions. Perhaps that should be mentioned in the preamble, but I 'm not sure how to reference half a dozen resolutions in a coherent way.

The House of Cards rule prevents you from mentioning past resolutions in any resolution that is not a repeal.


OOC: That depends on how its done. A general reference to the theme of past resolutions would not be a HoC violation. For example, "Recalling the great strides towards equality between differing genders and orientations made by this assembly" would not be a HoC violation.

Regarding COCR, it has been a longstanding principle that slight duplication of past resolutions which expand the protections in the past resolutions has been permissible. For example, linked to this particular topic, GAR#91, A Convention on Gender, arguably contains slight duplication of both COCR and the Patients' Rights Act. In my opinion, although only at first glance, there is enough of a hole in existing legislation that can be covered by this idea without running into too much duplication. I offer the author any help I can in drafting this and I will return to this thread in the next few days with a detailed analysis and suggestions.
Last edited by Bananaistan on Sat Apr 15, 2017 10:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.
Ideological Bulwark #281
THIS

User avatar
Bakhton
Diplomat
 
Posts: 525
Founded: Dec 08, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Bakhton » Sat Apr 15, 2017 11:24 am

"What about gender identity? You can't just leave out the T in LGBT."
Big Blue Law Book
WA Voting Record
When your resolution fails.
Economic Left/Right: -6.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.23
Foreign Policy: -6.81
Culture Left/Right: -8.02

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15899
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Sat Apr 15, 2017 5:55 pm

Bakhton wrote:"What about gender identity? You can't just leave out the T in LGBT."

OOC: Already covered: viewtopic.php?p=2035664#p2035664
- ambassador miss Janis Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.

User avatar
The Hundred Worlds
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 7
Founded: Apr 11, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby The Hundred Worlds » Fri Apr 21, 2017 4:37 pm

The draft has been updated to be more narrowly tailored. I assure you, there are holes in existing WA Resolutions regarding these treatments of LGBT+++ persons, especially w.r.t paragraphs 1 & 2, and this is necessary. Nations currently classify gay and bisexuals as suffering from an illness. That must end.
Go to it, and good luck.

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15899
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Sat Apr 22, 2017 3:06 am

The Hundred Worlds wrote:I assure you, there are holes in existing WA Resolutions regarding these treatments of LGBT+++ persons

OOC: Drop the T from it, that's already covered, unless you mean transsexual rather than transgender. Also the plusses won't tell anything to most people. Also, see below for links where I'm disagreeing with it not being covered.

especially w.r.t paragraphs 1 & 2, and this is necessary.

What is "w.r.t"? Also, drop the "of the human species" or replace it with "of many sapient species". Not everyone's population is human.

Nations currently classify gay and bisexuals as suffering from an illness. That must end.

Well, expressing one's sexuality is probably covered by this: viewtopic.php?p=392#p392
Sexual orientation is still covered by CoCR: viewtopic.php?p=414#p414
Sexual orientation also mentioned as not a valid reason here: viewtopic.php?p=5103076#p5103076
As it's also a very private matter, this might be relevant: viewtopic.php?p=10914292#p10914292

And just so you understand that this is very personal for me OOCly, you might want to know that I'm a gay transman. I still feel this all is already covered, with possible exception of the conversion therapy.
- ambassador miss Janis Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.

User avatar
Bears Armed
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21475
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Sat Apr 22, 2017 8:01 am

Araraukar wrote:What is "w.r.t"?

OOC: "with respect to", i.e. "concerning"
Last edited by Bears Armed on Sat Apr 22, 2017 8:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Confrederated Clans (and other Confrederated Bodys) of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Population = just under 20 million. Economy = only Thriving. Average Life expectancy = c.60 years. If the nation is classified as 'Anarchy' there still is a [strictly limited] national government... and those aren't "biker gangs", they're traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies', generally respected rather than feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152, 1474, 1521.

User avatar
The Hundred Worlds
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 7
Founded: Apr 11, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby The Hundred Worlds » Sun Apr 23, 2017 8:50 pm

Araraukar wrote:I still feel this all is already covered, with possible exception of the conversion therapy.


I continue to assert that there are nations within the WA who twist and twirl around the GA resolutions, including the ones you posted, and continue to persecute the non-cis-hetero community in a legal way.

That being said, I have changed the scope of the bill to focus nearly exclusively on conversion therapy. I find it easier to focus on regulating the beast rather than treating it only in passing, especially because I was finding it extremely difficult to word the mandate: "being LGBT+ does not make a person sick."
By shifting srategies, my grand idea is to require that the only place for LGBT+ persons to recieve medical treatment on the basis of being LGBT+ is in one of these programs.
Obviously, I forgot this idea while I was writing the first draft of the new strategy. :meh:

I include the psychological paragraph because the related GA resolution only requires individuals not to be institutionalized for their sexuality, but says nothing about being treated for it. I may be repeating the trans-protections resolution by adding "gender expression" to that first paragraph, so I will change that if it would be best to.

I will drop the last clause after a good laugh, because it is not germane to this health bill.
Does everybody find wording resolutions to be exceedingly difficult, or is it just me? :blink:
Last edited by The Hundred Worlds on Sun Apr 23, 2017 8:51 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Go to it, and good luck.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 12655
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sun Apr 23, 2017 10:03 pm

Why are states not granted the authority to ban conversion therapy as necessary?

Tinhampton wrote:The House of Cards rule prevents you from mentioning past resolutions in any resolution that is not a repeal.

No, it doesn't.
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Sun Apr 23, 2017 10:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Author: 1 SC and 56+ GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
GenSec (24 Dec 2021 –); posts not official unless so indicated
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15899
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Mon Apr 24, 2017 2:12 am

The Hundred Worlds wrote:Does everybody find wording resolutions to be exceedingly difficult, or is it just me?

OOC: Not just you, trust me, we've all been there. :P

The Hundred Worlds wrote:
6) Every country must perform gay marriage and recognize them as legally valid.

Don't do that in the proposal text.

To others, not author: is there an extant resolution legalizing gay marriage WA-wide? GA #200 doesn't. Only actual protection against that discrimination that I can think of is CoCR.
Last edited by Araraukar on Mon Apr 24, 2017 2:19 am, edited 2 times in total.
- ambassador miss Janis Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.

User avatar
Collected States
Civilian
 
Posts: 1
Founded: Apr 23, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Collected States » Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:26 pm

I have a few questions about this bill if you don't mind my asking:

Firstly, before I dive into my questions, I must state that I do not observe more than the two traditional Genders (being Male and Female), however, if it be that this Bill is passed by the Assembly, I would accept the bill, i must ask the following questions.

1. Are the health programs/therapies handled by the Government or by Private businesses? If it is ran by the government, is there a certain limit on how much would be necessary for spending? Or would we be allowed to fund it how we so pleased?
If ran by the private businesses, would we need to put in Government to intervene in the ways that the businesses are being run and conducting the therapies?

2. For those coming out as LGBT, Would these be a requirement, or would they be an optional choice?

I may have more questions at a later point, thank you for taking the time to respond.

Respectfully,
The Republic of Collected States

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15899
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Wed Apr 26, 2017 10:31 am

Collected States wrote:Firstly, before I dive into my questions, I must state that I do not observe more than the two traditional Genders (being Male and Female), however, if it be that this Bill is passed by the Assembly, I would accept the bill, i must ask the following questions.

OOC: That has already been passed: GA #91, A Convention on Gender.
- ambassador miss Janis Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.

User avatar
Draconae
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 103
Founded: Jan 14, 2016
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Draconae » Wed Apr 26, 2017 5:20 pm

The Hundred Worlds wrote:4) No individual who is less than twenty three years of age may enroll in a conversion program.

OOC: A quick note: Instead of 23 years old, you probably would want to use "less than the age of majority" because there are many nations that RP with inhabitants that mature at different rates.
General Centrist
Economic Left/Right: -1.5
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.49
Draconae is a WA Nation
Ambassador: Marcus Valorus
Author: Internet Neutrality Act
Tech Level: MT + ~30 years (Tier 6.5)
Magic: None (Level 0)
Influence: Regional Power (Type 5)

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15899
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Wed Apr 26, 2017 5:39 pm

Draconae wrote:OOC: A quick note: Instead of 23 years old, you probably would want to use "less than the age of majority" because there are many nations that RP with inhabitants that mature at different rates.

OOC: ^What he said.

And also do note that while in most RL nations 18 is the age of majority, the age at which people gain control of their own medical decisions varies widely, at least from 12 to 18.
- ambassador miss Janis Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.

User avatar
Bears Armed
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21475
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Thu Apr 27, 2017 9:47 am

OOC
Specifying any standardised age here would make the proposal illegal for contradiction of existing legislation: GA Resolution #299 'Legal Competence', clause 4, specifies that setting age/maturity thresholds for anything falls within the jurisdiction of the separate member nations individually, rather than within the jurisdiction of the WA as a whole.
The Confrederated Clans (and other Confrederated Bodys) of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Population = just under 20 million. Economy = only Thriving. Average Life expectancy = c.60 years. If the nation is classified as 'Anarchy' there still is a [strictly limited] national government... and those aren't "biker gangs", they're traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies', generally respected rather than feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152, 1474, 1521.

User avatar
The Hundred Worlds
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 7
Founded: Apr 11, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby The Hundred Worlds » Thu Apr 27, 2017 11:13 am

Updated the age requirement, thanks for the tip!

I worry that definition iii wouldn't preclude the "therapists" of today from getting licensed. I wanted it to be more medicinally focused, like "only licensed therapists and doctors." I'm working on that now.

Still torn between expanding the latter parts or cutting it down into a brief "1) not a psychological illness; 2) must not be compelled; 3) must be older than the age of majority."

This is a yuge opportunity to promote/protect the health of a significant population of the world, and I worry that by focusing it too narrowly this bill will miss out on so much more that could be accomplished. I just haven't the faintest idea of what more there can be... Back to the whiteboard!
Go to it, and good luck.


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Hulldom, Simone Republic, Tigrisia

Advertisement

Remove ads