[DRAFT #1] Advancing Sexual Privacy

[Tinhampton]

Character count: 1,346
Word count: 200

ICly by Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly.

OOC (bolding not mine):

Uttar Pradesh, India's most populous state, has unveiled a controversial bill for curbing population growth. It proposes denying government jobs, promotions, subsidies and the right to contest local elections to anyone who has more than two children.

UP, which is home to over 220 million people, has long been a governance challenge and has consistently ranked low on development indices. But experts say its population growth - like India's - is already slowing.

Experts have warned against a "coercive" two-child policy that denies women agency and further increases unsafe or sex-selective abortions, given the deep-rooted and overwhelming preference for sons. They are baffled by the bill, which has been drafted by the state's law commission, since it contradicts Uttar Pradesh's (UP) population control policy which was also released on Sunday...

Advancing Sexual Privacy
A resolution to improve worldwide human sapient and civil rights.

Category: Civil Rights

Strength: Mild

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

Applauding GA#383 "Right to Sexual Privacy" for protecting those who engage in consensual, non-harmful sexual activity from governmental repercussion for doing so, yet

Baffled at the lack of international law directly protecting the ability of inhabitants of member states to access government services without regard to how many children they have given birth to or adopted...

The General Assembly hereby:

1. requires member states to treat the statuses of being pregnant; having given birth to any number of children (including zero children); having adopted or fostered any number of children (including zero children); otherwise having parental responsibility or equivalent for any number of children (including zero children); or having received any number of abortions (including zero abortions) as being arbitrary and reductive criteria,
2. reminds members that they must not discriminate against individuals solely because of their possession of the statuses introduced in Article a, and
3. clarifies that Article b does not prevent members from taking action to prosecute individuals who abuse those children who they have given birth to, adopted, fostered or otherwise have parental responsibility or a duty of care towards, nor employers from dismissing or refusing to employ such individuals for those reasons.

[Hanovereich]

‘Zero’ sounds weird. ‘No’ or ‘None’ will work just as well. Other than that I see nothing to be opposed to and good job.

[Bears Armed]

Provisional support; not sure about the choice of title.

[Bananaistan]

"Unintended consequences galore here. Equality is not treating everyone exactly the same regardless of their personal circumstances - reasonable accommodations being made for, say, pregnant women such as reserved seating at the front of the bus, or reserved parking spaces for parents with children near shop entrances are perfectly fine. These states outlined in section a are simply not "arbitrary and reductive criteria" and the WA can no more make them "arbitrary and reductive criteria" than it can make water dry. Opposed."