[WITHDRAWN] Sexual Freedom Assurance Act

[Quadrimmina]

Sexual Freedom Assurance Act
As Passed by the Board of World Assembly Resolutions, originally titled the "Contraception Rights Act"
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Rationale:The world is plagued by a lack of sexual freedom, people are constantly afraid of pregnancy and STI spread, and these two are the primary reasons that sex is not practiced as much as it could be, mere fear. The purpose of this resolution establishes a right to sexual freedom by establishing protections to defend sapient individuals from these two threats of sexual intercourse.

THIS WORLD ASSEMBLY,

CONVINCED that all sapient individuals in a World Assembly nation have a right to sexual freedom, with regard to being able to perform sexual acts with reasonable certainty that, if performed responsibly, such acts will have minimal consequences.

HOPING to reduce the incidence of unwanted pregnancy and the spread of sexually transmitted infections.

HEREBY defines the following terms:
1) "Contraception" as the act of using barrier or medical methods of preventing pregnancy and/or the transmission of infections during sexual acts.
2) "Post-coital contraception" as contraception that prevents pregnancy up to five days after sexual intercourse.
3) "Contraception-inclusive sex education" as any educational program that involves teaching about contraception, its availability, its appropriate use, and its efficacy.
4) "Sexually transmitted infection" as any infection that is accepted to be sexually communicable and can be prevented from transmission via refraining from sex.

FORBIDS any nation from banning, either outright or in effect, the sale, distribution, or use of methods of contraception, including post-coital contraception, to any person in their nation.

ENCOURAGES nations to promote the use of contraception via advertising campaigns or orienting sexual education programs to promote the use of contraception during sex.

FURTHER ENCOURAGES contraception-inclusive sex education as opposed to abstinence-only programs to educate those above the age of consent about contraception.

RECOMMENDS that nations criminalize the following:
1) Sabotage of contraception with intent to induce paternity or maternity against the will of the victim.
2) Non-notification of sexual partners of the condition of having chronic sexually transmitted infections before intercourse.

[Manticore Reborn]

You need to get rid of any mention of GA#16. I'll take a further look at the proposal soon.

[American Capitalist]

Perhaps you should just leave Abortive contraceptives out of there as I can't see a global ban or legalization passing at all. I under stand that this does neither so its basically useless as a term/clause in this resolution.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Some member states may choose to promote abstinence,i.e. of staying away from sexual activity to solve STD issues. Although it is not our policy in Charlotte Ryberg, some states choose this, making this resolution as written half ineffective due to the contraception clause. As for sexual education, well, Ms. Harper thinks GAR#44 might have covered this, where the right to comprehensive sex education is guaranteed.

[Quadrimmina]

Some member states may choose to promote abstinence,i.e. of staying away from sexual activity to solve STD issues. Although it is not our policy in Charlotte Ryberg, some states choose this, making this resolution as written half ineffective due to the contraception clause. As for sexual education, well, Ms. Harper thinks GAR#44 might have covered this, where the right to comprehensive sex education is guaranteed.

Of course, however, it must be noted that the clause here makes sure that contraception is the focus of the education. That's the large part of the change. Then, making contraception methods available to the general public. Those two together are the gist of this proposal.

[Mousebumples]

RECOGNIZING the intent of GA#16.

HoC violation - illegal.

2) "Post-coital contraception" as contraception that prevents pregnancy up to five days after sexual intercourse.
3) "Abortive contraception" as contraception that prevents pregnancy more than five days after sexual intercourse.

OOC: I'm guessing that you have Plan B in mind for this item. Speaking as a RL pharmacist, Plan B is (officially) only good for 72 hours (3 days) after intercourse.

4) "Contraception-oriented sexual education" as the method of educating children about the availability and proper use of contraception.

Already mandated in WA#44, so duplication and thereby illegal. WA#44 mandates access to comprehensive sex education, specifically, among other things.

FORBIDS any nation from banning, either outright or in effect, the sale, distribution, or use of methods of contraception, including post-coital contraception, to any person in their nation.

Again, duplication of WA#44 since access/availability of contraceptives is mandated by that resolution.

REQUIRES that all persons above the age of consent in a nation be offered contraception-oriented sexual education to educate themselves about safe-sex practices, either as a separate lesson or as part of a "health education" curriculum.

Again, as a comprehensive sex education program is already mandated by WA#44, this is duplication.

Yours,
Ambassador Lizzy Hall
Leader of the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Freeoplis]

We agree with our esteemed colleagues from Mousebumples that much of the proposal at hand has been legislated for within the Reduction of Abortion Act.

[Quadrimmina]

RECOGNIZING the intent of GA#16.

HoC violation - illegal.

2) "Post-coital contraception" as contraception that prevents pregnancy up to five days after sexual intercourse.
3) "Abortive contraception" as contraception that prevents pregnancy more than five days after sexual intercourse.

OOC: I'm guessing that you have Plan B in mind for this item. Speaking as a RL pharmacist, Plan B is (officially) only good for 72 hours (3 days) after intercourse.

4) "Contraception-oriented sexual education" as the method of educating children about the availability and proper use of contraception.

Already mandated in WA#44, so duplication and thereby illegal. WA#44 mandates access to comprehensive sex education, specifically, among other things.

FORBIDS any nation from banning, either outright or in effect, the sale, distribution, or use of methods of contraception, including post-coital contraception, to any person in their nation.

Again, duplication of WA#44 since access/availability of contraceptives is mandated by that resolution.

REQUIRES that all persons above the age of consent in a nation be offered contraception-oriented sexual education to educate themselves about safe-sex practices, either as a separate lesson or as part of a "health education" curriculum.

Again, as a comprehensive sex education program is already mandated by WA#44, this is duplication.

Yours,
Ambassador Lizzy Hall
Leader of the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

Ambassador Hall is thanked for their thoughtful reply. You seem to echo many of the concerns of our esteemed colleagues, and I hope to properly address them.

1) Will be erased, however the HoC rule exists due to possibility of repeal. Repeal doesn't repeal the intent.
2) Also had in mind a drug called ellaOne, which works up to 5 days after sex. In RL, the FDA is considering it.
3-4) Will remove that part of the Act to ensure there is no conflict with GA#44, however we don't feel a conflict exists, considering GA#44 simply requests that abortion-reducing measures be used, but not making any mandatory. We mandated comprehensive education, however, we think the new language covers that.

[Enn]

If you're going to open with mentioning both pregnancy and STIs, why only focus on pregnancy later on? Some forms of contraception work very well to prevent STIs (the condom, for instance), while others are useless (or may even create a false sense of security, which can be even worse). Some safer sex equipment is specifically designed for activities that cannot cause pregnancy - dental dams, for instance.

Not everyone has penis-vagina sex, you know.

Angelo Lanerik,
Acting WA Ambassador for Enn

[Quadrimmina]

If you're going to open with mentioning both pregnancy and STIs, why only focus on pregnancy later on? Some forms of contraception work very well to prevent STIs (the condom, for instance), while others are useless (or may even create a false sense of security, which can be even worse). Some safer sex equipment is specifically designed for activities that cannot cause pregnancy - dental dams, for instance.

Not everyone has penis-vagina sex, you know.

Angelo Lanerik,
Acting WA Ambassador for Enn

Of course not everyone has penis-vagina sex. Contraceptive education as a blanket term involves education as to what prevents against STIs and which only prevent against pregnancy. Ill make that more clear in my definition.

Also, I don't refer to just pregnancy later on, I talk about STI's and pregnancy. However, we appreciate the sentiment and concern and hope to have your support on this issue.

[Glen-Rhodes]

2) Non-notification of sexual partners of the condition of having sexually transmitted infections before intercourse.

While this is likely the case in many nations for incurable and terminal STIs, is it really being suggested that we jail people for spreading the clap? Yeah, the people are jerks, but I wouldn't say they're criminals.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Sionis Prioratus]

2) Non-notification of sexual partners of the condition of having sexually transmitted infections before intercourse.

While this is likely the case in many nations for incurable and terminal STIs, is it really being suggested that we jail people for spreading the clap? Yeah, the people are jerks, but I wouldn't say they're criminals.

- Dr. B. Castro

Uncouth language aside, add to that the worrisome fact that people are much more likely to be raped while incarcerated - need we say about the existence of safe sex in such conditions? - therefore infecting other inmates, therefore increasing the rate of infection/transmission in the general population, therefore actively producing harm to the society. This needs to be tackled before we can take this effort more seriously.

Yours,

[Nullarni]

2) Non-notification of sexual partners of the condition of having sexually transmitted infections before intercourse.

While this is likely the case in many nations for incurable and terminal STIs, is it really being suggested that we jail people for spreading the clap? Yeah, the people are jerks, but I wouldn't say they're criminals.

- Dr. B. Castro

I would suggest that knowingly infecting someone, (even if it is not perminant or life threatening,) should be considered to be on the exact same level as intentionally causing physical harm, which is illegal in most nations. However, we do not feel that this is dire enough to need a WA mandate.

[Manticore Reborn]

However, we do not feel that this is dire enough to need a WA mandate.

The Kingdom of Manticore Reborn seconds the opinion of the honorable ambassador from Nullarni.

[Quadrimmina]

However, we do not feel that this is dire enough to need a WA mandate.

The Kingdom of Manticore Reborn seconds the opinion of the honorable ambassador from Nullarni.

Our nation must respectfully disagree. To go anywhere and be misled into being given an STI because you were uninformed about the STI is a blatant violation of a person's right to control his/her own medical status. Therefore, it must be criminalized. Even if criminals get an STI, and even if they give it to someone else by nonnotification, they'll just get jailed again. It would increase STI rates in prisons...maybe, but not significantly in the general population.

[Nullarni]

However, we do not feel that this is dire enough to need a WA mandate.

The Kingdom of Manticore Reborn seconds the opinion of the honorable ambassador from Nullarni.

Our nation must respectfully disagree. To go anywhere and be misled into being given an STI because you were uninformed about the STI is a blatant violation of a person's right to control his/her own medical status. Therefore, it must be criminalized. Even if criminals get an STI, and even if they give it to someone else by nonnotification, they'll just get jailed again. It would increase STI rates in prisons...maybe, but not significantly in the general population.

I completely agree. But I still standfast in the belief that this is not so horrible and inhumane that an international body must mandate the criminalization of it.

[Quadrimmina]

However, we do not feel that this is dire enough to need a WA mandate.

The Kingdom of Manticore Reborn seconds the opinion of the honorable ambassador from Nullarni.

Our nation must respectfully disagree. To go anywhere and be misled into being given an STI because you were uninformed about the STI is a blatant violation of a person's right to control his/her own medical status. Therefore, it must be criminalized. Even if criminals get an STI, and even if they give it to someone else by nonnotification, they'll just get jailed again. It would increase STI rates in prisons...maybe, but not significantly in the general population.

I completely agree. But I still standfast in the belief that this is not so horrible and inhumane that an international body must mandate the criminalization of it.

Actually, it is urging the criminalization of it.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Alright, so far, you're spanning four categories: Human Rights, Social Justice, Education and Creativity and International Security. How 'bout picking one category and writing to it?

Before the sovereigntists put up their blocker and render this entire effort moot, I mean.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Our nation must respectfully disagree. To go anywhere and be misled into being given an STI because you were uninformed about the STI is a blatant violation of a person's right to control his/her own medical status. Therefore, it must be criminalized. Even if criminals get an STI, and even if they give it to someone else by nonnotification, they'll just get jailed again. It would increase STI rates in prisons...maybe, but not significantly in the general population.

What? It's that person's responsibility to ask and be proactive before sleeping around with half the village. There's no innocent party, here. In fact, if a person doesn't ask if their sexual partner has an STI, they may as well be complicit in the spreading of it to any other people they lay around with, so they should be considered a criminal, too. Under this law, of course.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Nullarni]

However, we do not feel that this is dire enough to need a WA mandate.

The Kingdom of Manticore Reborn seconds the opinion of the honorable ambassador from Nullarni.

Our nation must respectfully disagree. To go anywhere and be misled into being given an STI because you were uninformed about the STI is a blatant violation of a person's right to control his/her own medical status. Therefore, it must be criminalized. Even if criminals get an STI, and even if they give it to someone else by nonnotification, they'll just get jailed again. It would increase STI rates in prisons...maybe, but not significantly in the general population.

I completely agree. But I still standfast in the belief that this is not so horrible and inhumane that an international body must mandate the criminalization of it.

Actually, it is urging the criminalization of it.

Touché.

[Quadrimmina]

Our nation must respectfully disagree. To go anywhere and be misled into being given an STI because you were uninformed about the STI is a blatant violation of a person's right to control his/her own medical status. Therefore, it must be criminalized. Even if criminals get an STI, and even if they give it to someone else by nonnotification, they'll just get jailed again. It would increase STI rates in prisons...maybe, but not significantly in the general population.

What? It's that person's responsibility to ask and be proactive before sleeping around with half the village. There's no innocent party, here. In fact, if a person doesn't ask if their sexual partner has an STI, they may as well be complicit in the spreading of it to any other people they lay around with, so they should be considered a criminal, too. Under this law, of course.

- Dr. B. Castro

Not at all Dr. Castro. In fact, according to the act, there is simply a notification requirement. In other words, the hope is that nations will criminalize the nonnotification of the condition of having an STI. Of course, someone could ask before sleeping around with half the village, but there is a little something called...lying. A lot of people do it. Especially people with STIs who want to get laid.

[Quadrimmina]

Alright, so far, you're spanning four categories: Human Rights, Social Justice, Education and Creativity and International Security. How 'bout picking one category and writing to it?

Before the sovereigntists put up their blocker and render this entire effort moot, I mean.

The current proposal, as drafted, focuses on the argument that everyone has a right to sexual freedom. The other arguments our delegation have made are supplementary. Therefore, we have rated it Human Rights/Mild. We have made the intent more specific to fit that category.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Not at all Dr. Castro. In fact, according to the act, there is simply a notification requirement. In other words, the hope is that nations will criminalize the nonnotification of the condition of having an STI. Of course, someone could ask before sleeping around with half the village, but there is a little something called...lying. A lot of people do it. Especially people with STIs who want to get laid.

Sexual promiscuity is a two-way street. Criminalizing the spreading of easily treatable STIs is ridiculous, even if the World Assembly is only 'urging' it. Talk about a nanny state.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Alright, so far, you're spanning four categories: Human Rights, Social Justice, Education and Creativity and International Security. How 'bout picking one category and writing to it?

Before the sovereigntists put up their blocker and render this entire effort moot, I mean.

The current proposal, as drafted, focuses on the argument that everyone has a right to sexual freedom. The other arguments our delegation have made are supplementary. Therefore, we have rated it Human Rights/Mild. We have made the intent more specific to fit that category.

You do realize category reflects the effect of the resolution, not its argument? Your operational clauses are a cross-category violation and therefore deem the proposal illegal.

[Sionis Prioratus]

It would increase STI rates in prisons...

So Your Excellency admits this text would cause active harm. Inmates are already being dutifully penalized by being lawfully incarcerated. To knowingly increase their risk of getting STD's while serving their sentences is cruel and unusual punishment.

maybe, but not significantly in the general population.

This assertion is laughable and completely unfounded. It would only make sense if all inmates in Your Excellency's national prison system are serving life sentences, or on the death row. The majority of inmates, sooner or later, is going to be lawfully returned to the general population, does Your Excellency dispute that? What about intimate visits? Should inmates' spouses be exposed to risks as well?

Yours,