NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Blood Donation Safety and Equality Act

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Crowheim
Attaché
 
Posts: 99
Founded: Aug 16, 2019
Left-wing Utopia

[PASSED] Blood Donation Safety and Equality Act

Postby Crowheim » Tue Mar 02, 2021 9:49 am

Image

Blood Donation Safety and Equality Act

Category: Civil Rights| Strength: Mild


Lauding previous efforts by the World Assembly to both increase the efficiency of the blood donation process and increase the rights of minorities,

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,

The General Assembly hereby enacts the following:

No restrictions may be placed upon the ability of a person to voluntarily donate blood based solely upon their race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, gender identity, or any other reductive or arbitrary characteristic.

If the safety of the recipients of donated blood is the reason given for a restriction on blood donations, the standards of safety must be applied equally to all donors.

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.

If a prospective blood donor knows or suspects that they are a carrier for a blood-borne illness they can be prohibited from donating blood, and it shall be considered a criminal offense to knowingly attempt to donate unsafe blood.

Existing scientific committees created by this body shall be utilized to share information related to blood-borne illnesses and blood donation across member states, as to mitigate any risk of contaminated blood.


Another proposal I've thought a bit about, not sure if it's something I'll seriously pursue, but thought I may as well post here in the case that I do want to move forward with it.

Here are the things that I specifically know I need help with:

1. I debated with myself between banning restrictions entirely or banning restrictions that imposed a time limit of over 3-4 months. I went with the total ban but am open to changing it.

2. Category / Area of Effect - no clue what this one would fall under, any help here would be appreciated.
Last edited by Frisbeeteria on Fri Apr 02, 2021 3:32 pm, edited 25 times in total.
-
Chipmunker Kyosson

Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the Rejected Times (NationState's best newspaper!)
Deputy World Assembly Officer for the Rejected Realms

User avatar
Tinhampton
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8007
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Tue Mar 02, 2021 7:23 pm

Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: Our main concern is that previous WA consensus documents have emphasised that rights not be denied to individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity, rather than explicitly and categorically granting rights to homosexuals or transgender individuals (for instance). Our delegation has therefore... slapped together the following for your consideration; as usual, you may cite Tinhampton as a co-author if the ambassador thinks we've done a good job and so on:
Noting that, despite the World Assembly's tireless work to strengthen minority rights and simplify the process of donating blood, it has room to improve in both of these areas,

Recognising that thoroughly unscientific restrictions on donating blood based solely on the donor's sexual history can unfairly disadvantage certain individuals (such as men who have sex with men, non-binary individuals and transgender women who have sex with men), which can prove detrimental both to the levels of blood that can be donated to blood banks and the ability of would-be blood recipients from receiving the medical treatment they need, and

Believing that the need to expand blood donation across the multiverse outweighs any increased risk that may be posed from accepting blood donations from such individuals, especially in light of recent scientific developments,

The General Assembly hereby forbids the imposition of any restriction upon the ability of any person to donate blood (including blood plasma) simply because of that individual's sexual orientation, sexual history or gender identity.


OOC: yus!!! :pandalove:
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): 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
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; -45 Darkspawn Kill Points; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; "Tinhampton? the man's literally god"
Who am I, really? 45yo Tory woman; Cambridge graduate; possibly very controversial; currently reading your mind >:D

User avatar
Crowheim
Attaché
 
Posts: 99
Founded: Aug 16, 2019
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Crowheim » Tue Mar 02, 2021 7:49 pm

Tinhampton wrote:Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: Our main concern is that previous WA consensus documents have emphasised that rights not be denied to individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity, rather than explicitly and categorically granting rights to homosexuals or transgender individuals (for instance). Our delegation has therefore... slapped together the following for your consideration; as usual, you may cite Tinhampton as a co-author if the ambassador thinks we've done a good job and so on:
Noting that, despite the World Assembly's tireless work to strengthen minority rights and simplify the process of donating blood, it has room to improve in both of these areas,

Recognising that thoroughly unscientific restrictions on donating blood based solely on the donor's sexual history can unfairly disadvantage certain individuals (such as men who have sex with men, non-binary individuals and transgender women who have sex with men), which can prove detrimental both to the levels of blood that can be donated to blood banks and the ability of would-be blood recipients from receiving the medical treatment they need, and

Believing that the need to expand blood donation across the multiverse outweighs any increased risk that may be posed from accepting blood donations from such individuals, especially in light of recent scientific developments,

The General Assembly hereby forbids the imposition of any restriction upon the ability of any person to donate blood (including blood plasma) simply because of that individual's sexual orientation, sexual history or gender identity.


OOC: yus!!! :pandalove:

OOC: My concern here is that the issue isn’t discrimination based on sexual orientation, it’s based on sexual activity. (Which I have realized I do need to improve on to cover all people who may be affected by such bans). It does have some implicit bias based upon orientation as the reasoning for these bans was a kneejerk and ill-informed response to the AIDS crisis. Since the bans target sexual activity, this ban-of-bans should as well. That does mean that in my opinion it falls under a different umbrella than the typical rights afforded by the GA to minorities, but I may be off there.
-
Chipmunker Kyosson

Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the Rejected Times (NationState's best newspaper!)
Deputy World Assembly Officer for the Rejected Realms

User avatar
Hulldom
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 62
Founded: Nov 16, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Hulldom » Tue Mar 02, 2021 8:19 pm

OOC:

1. I think you could cut the definition if you just reworded the second active clause to "No restrictions may be placed upon the ability of those who engage in same-sex intercourse, non-binary persons, or transgender people to donate blood based upon their sexual activity with men." Italicized is the rewording, bolding is for inclusivity, as is the strike. Alternatively you could just say "No restrictions may be placed upon eligibility for blood donation on the basis of sexual activity, sexual identity, or gender identity" and skip the definition entirely.

2. As for a category, there are a few that could work.

Civil Rights ---> Mild (Intriguing choice, if you view this as discrimination based solely on the basis of sexual identity/orientation/gender identity it could work.)
Health ---> Bioethics (If you view this as something dealing with medical ethics. Not sure.)
Health ---> Healthcare (Arguably the one that makes the most sense if you view this as a health issue.)
Card fiend. Second (but really first) nation of Boston Castle.
If I'm posting here, just assume I was too lazy to switch to BC.

Foreign Affairs Minister of Thaecia.
Views not those of Thaecia and her government. Though that should've been obvious.

User avatar
Crowheim
Attaché
 
Posts: 99
Founded: Aug 16, 2019
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Crowheim » Tue Mar 02, 2021 8:25 pm

Hulldom wrote:OOC:

1. I think you could cut the definition if you just reworded the second active clause to "No restrictions may be placed upon the ability of those who engage in same-sex intercourse, non-binary persons, or transgender people to donate blood based upon their sexual activity with men." Italicized is the rewording, bolding is for inclusivity, as is the strike. Alternatively you could just say "No restrictions may be placed upon eligibility for blood donation on the basis of sexual activity, sexual identity, or gender identity" and skip the definition entirely.

2. As for a category, there are a few that could work.

Civil Rights ---> Mild (Intriguing choice, if you view this as discrimination based solely on the basis of sexual identity/orientation/gender identity it could work.)
Health ---> Bioethics (If you view this as something dealing with medical ethics. Not sure.)
Health ---> Healthcare (Arguably the one that makes the most sense if you view this as a health issue.)

I like the second suggestion for the mandate, although I will probably tweak it a bit when I edit it in.

For right now based on your thoughts I'd *probably* keep this as health/healthcare as the mandate would extend to people who are not minorities (for exampe women can be affected if they've had intercourse with an MSM). But depending on where it goes I may change to civil rights.
-
Chipmunker Kyosson

Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the Rejected Times (NationState's best newspaper!)
Deputy World Assembly Officer for the Rejected Realms

User avatar
Tinhampton
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8007
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Tue Mar 02, 2021 9:32 pm

Civil Rights proposals do not necessarily have to focus on the rights of minorities; see, for instance, Protecting Free Expression. Besides this, I have no concerns with the actual text of your proposal as it stands.
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): 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
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; -45 Darkspawn Kill Points; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; "Tinhampton? the man's literally god"
Who am I, really? 45yo Tory woman; Cambridge graduate; possibly very controversial; currently reading your mind >:D

User avatar
Hulldom
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 62
Founded: Nov 16, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Hulldom » Tue Mar 02, 2021 10:09 pm

Crowheim wrote:
Hulldom wrote:OOC:

1. I think you could cut the definition if you just reworded the second active clause to "No restrictions may be placed upon the ability of those who engage in same-sex intercourse, non-binary persons, or transgender people to donate blood based upon their sexual activity with men." Italicized is the rewording, bolding is for inclusivity, as is the strike. Alternatively you could just say "No restrictions may be placed upon eligibility for blood donation on the basis of sexual activity, sexual identity, or gender identity" and skip the definition entirely.

2. As for a category, there are a few that could work.

Civil Rights ---> Mild (Intriguing choice, if you view this as discrimination based solely on the basis of sexual identity/orientation/gender identity it could work.)
Health ---> Bioethics (If you view this as something dealing with medical ethics. Not sure.)
Health ---> Healthcare (Arguably the one that makes the most sense if you view this as a health issue.)

I like the second suggestion for the mandate, although I will probably tweak it a bit when I edit it in.

For right now based on your thoughts I'd *probably* keep this as health/healthcare as the mandate would extend to people who are not minorities (for exampe women can be affected if they've had intercourse with an MSM). But depending on where it goes I may change to civil rights.

I still think you need to include sexual orientation and gender identity (I don't have a clue what laws, if any, govern whether transgender people can donate blood and if so when and under what circumstances).According to the FDA's own guidance, it's a 3 month ban for sexually active gay men and women who also have relationships with sexually active gay men and here's a suggestion that some nations actually do discriminate against trans individuals in blood donation. The former is a pretty cut and dry case of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in my opinion.
Card fiend. Second (but really first) nation of Boston Castle.
If I'm posting here, just assume I was too lazy to switch to BC.

Foreign Affairs Minister of Thaecia.
Views not those of Thaecia and her government. Though that should've been obvious.

User avatar
Crowheim
Attaché
 
Posts: 99
Founded: Aug 16, 2019
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Crowheim » Thu Mar 04, 2021 6:25 am

Tinhampton wrote:Civil Rights proposals do not necessarily have to focus on the rights of minorities; see, for instance, Protecting Free Expression. Besides this, I have no concerns with the actual text of your proposal as it stands.

Hulldom wrote:
Crowheim wrote:I like the second suggestion for the mandate, although I will probably tweak it a bit when I edit it in.

For right now based on your thoughts I'd *probably* keep this as health/healthcare as the mandate would extend to people who are not minorities (for exampe women can be affected if they've had intercourse with an MSM). But depending on where it goes I may change to civil rights.

I still think you need to include sexual orientation and gender identity (I don't have a clue what laws, if any, govern whether transgender people can donate blood and if so when and under what circumstances).According to the FDA's own guidance, it's a 3 month ban for sexually active gay men and women who also have relationships with sexually active gay men and here's a suggestion that some nations actually do discriminate against trans individuals in blood donation. The former is a pretty cut and dry case of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in my opinion.

Noted to both, in that case I may tweak it a bit to fit that civil rights mantra more and change the classification.
-
Chipmunker Kyosson

Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the Rejected Times (NationState's best newspaper!)
Deputy World Assembly Officer for the Rejected Realms

User avatar
Maowi
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1165
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Thu Mar 04, 2021 4:05 pm

No restrictions may be placed upon the ability of a person to donate blood based solely upon their recent sexual activity.


"I believe the exclusion of the word "recent" from this mandate would be favourable. While it is of course even less logical to take into account a person's sexual activity in their distant past when deciding whether to permit them to donate blood, I do not believe that precludes member states with archaic views on sexual minorities from doing so.

"Overall, though, we are glad to see this proposal and are supportive of this effort."

Author of GARs 457, 480, 486, 489, 508, and 537
Co-author of GARs 479 and 536, and SCR 341

Factbooks

User avatar
Barfleur
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 475
Founded: Mar 04, 2019
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Barfleur » Thu Mar 04, 2021 4:40 pm

"While I support the underlying principles of this proposal, I do think there are perfectly rational reasons for nations to not allow people who have engaged in sexual activity or who have received blood transfusions to donate blood. Perhaps it would be better to emphasize that no distinction may be drawn on the grounds of sexual activity that was engaged in earlier than, say, two months before the blood was donated. As long as the requirement is applied equally (i.e. without discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation), I do not find it problematic."
Barfleur: Unus pro omnibus et omnes pro uno
Citizen of The East Pacific
“Sweatpants are a sign of defeat. You lost control of your life so you bought some sweatpants.”
― Karl Lagerfeld
Ambassador: Roger MacGeorge
Military Attaché: Colonel Lyndon Q. Ralston
Co-author, GA#534.
The Barfleurian World Assembly Mission can be found at Room 1903, Floor 19, WAHQ.

User avatar
Edrace
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 17
Founded: Mar 01, 2021
New York Times Democracy

Postby Edrace » Thu Mar 04, 2021 4:57 pm

You should definitely define “recent sexual activity” if someone gets an STD or AIDS it’s pretty obvious they shouldn’t donate blood

User avatar
Crowheim
Attaché
 
Posts: 99
Founded: Aug 16, 2019
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Crowheim » Fri Mar 05, 2021 10:42 am

Barfleur wrote:"While I support the underlying principles of this proposal, I do think there are perfectly rational reasons for nations to not allow people who have engaged in sexual activity or who have received blood transfusions to donate blood. Perhaps it would be better to emphasize that no distinction may be drawn on the grounds of sexual activity that was engaged in earlier than, say, two months before the blood was donated. As long as the requirement is applied equally (i.e. without discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation), I do not find it problematic."

“The issue at hand is that these restrictions are only ever applied to gay people even though others have similar risks of STDs at this point in time so your point doesn’t really land with me.”
-
Chipmunker Kyosson

Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the Rejected Times (NationState's best newspaper!)
Deputy World Assembly Officer for the Rejected Realms

User avatar
Crowheim
Attaché
 
Posts: 99
Founded: Aug 16, 2019
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Crowheim » Fri Mar 05, 2021 10:47 am

Maowi wrote:
No restrictions may be placed upon the ability of a person to donate blood based solely upon their recent sexual activity.


"I believe the exclusion of the word "recent" from this mandate would be favourable. While it is of course even less logical to take into account a person's sexual activity in their distant past when deciding whether to permit them to donate blood, I do not believe that precludes member states with archaic views on sexual minorities from doing so.

"Overall, though, we are glad to see this proposal and are supportive of this effort."

“Edited to fit your request.”

Edrace wrote:You should definitely define “recent sexual activity” if someone gets an STD or AIDS it’s pretty obvious they shouldn’t donate blood

I’ve explicitly put in an exception to allow a block on those with STDs, that should resolve the issue.

Unrelated: switched category and added a segment about the homophobic bias of these restrictions.
-
Chipmunker Kyosson

Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the Rejected Times (NationState's best newspaper!)
Deputy World Assembly Officer for the Rejected Realms

User avatar
Deacarsia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1193
Founded: May 12, 2019
Right-wing Utopia

Blood Donation Equality Act

Postby Deacarsia » Fri Mar 05, 2021 11:37 am

I strongly oppose this insane proposal.

Regardless of opinions on such activity, it is obvious that these restrictions were enacted for the purpose of protecting public health and preventing the spread of disease.
Síc enim Deus díléxit mundum, ut Fílium suum únigenitum daret: ut omnis quí crédit in eum, nón pereat, sed habeat vítam æternam.

User avatar
Crowheim
Attaché
 
Posts: 99
Founded: Aug 16, 2019
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Crowheim » Fri Mar 05, 2021 11:56 am

Deacarsia wrote:I strongly oppose this insane proposal.

Regardless of opinions on such activity, it is obvious that these restrictions were enacted for the purpose of protecting public health and preventing the spread of disease.

These restrictions were put in place as a knee-jerk and homophobic reaction the AIDS epidemic, and scientific developments and further information becoming available in recent years has effectively eliminated the need for these restrictions.
-
Chipmunker Kyosson

Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the Rejected Times (NationState's best newspaper!)
Deputy World Assembly Officer for the Rejected Realms

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10303
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sat Mar 06, 2021 9:28 am

Hulldom wrote:Health ---> Healthcare (Arguably the one that makes the most sense if you view this as a health issue.)

Allowing people to donate blood doesn't expand healthcare directly. The specific area of effect is about 'governments coughing up funds to improve the health and general wellness of their people'.



As to the content, I'd prefer something which just would require that if you say 'safety', you have to apply such standards equally. I'd have to think about it though.
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Sat Mar 06, 2021 9:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

Author: 1 SC and 42 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Toxic villainous globalist kittehs
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley (EMW); OOC unless otherwise indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Barfleur
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 475
Founded: Mar 04, 2019
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Barfleur » Sat Mar 06, 2021 9:58 am

Crowheim wrote:
Barfleur wrote:"While I support the underlying principles of this proposal, I do think there are perfectly rational reasons for nations to not allow people who have engaged in sexual activity or who have received blood transfusions to donate blood. Perhaps it would be better to emphasize that no distinction may be drawn on the grounds of sexual activity that was engaged in earlier than, say, two months before the blood was donated. As long as the requirement is applied equally (i.e. without discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation), I do not find it problematic."

“The issue at hand is that these restrictions are only ever applied to gay people even though others have similar risks of STDs at this point in time so your point doesn’t really land with me.”

"I meant, Ambassador, there are legitimate reasons to ban people who have had any sexual encounter, regardless of what gender they or their partner are, in the past month or so to protect against STDs. As long as the restrictions are applied to heterosexuals on the same conditions as they are to homosexuals, I see no problem."
Barfleur: Unus pro omnibus et omnes pro uno
Citizen of The East Pacific
“Sweatpants are a sign of defeat. You lost control of your life so you bought some sweatpants.”
― Karl Lagerfeld
Ambassador: Roger MacGeorge
Military Attaché: Colonel Lyndon Q. Ralston
Co-author, GA#534.
The Barfleurian World Assembly Mission can be found at Room 1903, Floor 19, WAHQ.

User avatar
Hulldom
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 62
Founded: Nov 16, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Hulldom » Sat Mar 06, 2021 11:15 am

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Hulldom wrote:Health ---> Healthcare (Arguably the one that makes the most sense if you view this as a health issue.)

Allowing people to donate blood doesn't expand healthcare directly. The specific area of effect is about 'governments coughing up funds to improve the health and general wellness of their people'.



As to the content, I'd prefer something which just would require that if you say 'safety', you have to apply such standards equally. I'd have to think about it though.


Ah, my misunderstanding of what exactly that area of effect did then.
Card fiend. Second (but really first) nation of Boston Castle.
If I'm posting here, just assume I was too lazy to switch to BC.

Foreign Affairs Minister of Thaecia.
Views not those of Thaecia and her government. Though that should've been obvious.

User avatar
Crowheim
Attaché
 
Posts: 99
Founded: Aug 16, 2019
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Crowheim » Sun Mar 07, 2021 7:41 am

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Hulldom wrote:Health ---> Healthcare (Arguably the one that makes the most sense if you view this as a health issue.)

Allowing people to donate blood doesn't expand healthcare directly. The specific area of effect is about 'governments coughing up funds to improve the health and general wellness of their people'.



As to the content, I'd prefer something which just would require that if you say 'safety', you have to apply such standards equally. I'd have to think about it though.

Interesting thought, I’ve tried to apply that concept in a small re-write now.
-
Chipmunker Kyosson

Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the Rejected Times (NationState's best newspaper!)
Deputy World Assembly Officer for the Rejected Realms

User avatar
Crowheim
Attaché
 
Posts: 99
Founded: Aug 16, 2019
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Crowheim » Wed Mar 10, 2021 8:28 pm

Bumped for more edits, would love to get further feedback.
-
Chipmunker Kyosson

Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the Rejected Times (NationState's best newspaper!)
Deputy World Assembly Officer for the Rejected Realms

User avatar
Maowi
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1165
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Thu Mar 11, 2021 12:46 am

OOC: My only issue that I can see is with the final line, which applies whether the prospective blood donor tested positive last week or twenty years ago - you might want to change that to "tests positive" in the present tense or something like that? Not entirely sure if that's the best option but thought I'd put it out there in case.

Author of GARs 457, 480, 486, 489, 508, and 537
Co-author of GARs 479 and 536, and SCR 341

Factbooks

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15445
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Thu Mar 11, 2021 3:22 am

OOC: Unsafe sex of any kind with multiple partners bans you from blood donation over here. In RL. I always thought that was the gold standard everywhere given the point is to reduce chance of passing on fluid transmitted diseases.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss 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.
Coronavirus related. This too. And this. These are all jokes. This isn't. This is, again, but it's also the last one.
Apologies for absences, RL has been hectic, nothing to do with COVID-19, I'm just busy with other things than NS.

User avatar
Crowheim
Attaché
 
Posts: 99
Founded: Aug 16, 2019
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Crowheim » Thu Mar 11, 2021 4:49 am

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Unsafe sex of any kind with multiple partners bans you from blood donation over here. In RL. I always thought that was the gold standard everywhere given the point is to reduce chance of passing on fluid transmitted diseases.

Unfortunately in other places (like here in America) the standard isn’t applied equally.

The second clause in the mandate should address that though :p
Last edited by Crowheim on Thu Mar 11, 2021 4:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Chipmunker Kyosson

Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the Rejected Times (NationState's best newspaper!)
Deputy World Assembly Officer for the Rejected Realms

User avatar
Crowheim
Attaché
 
Posts: 99
Founded: Aug 16, 2019
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Crowheim » Thu Mar 11, 2021 4:53 am

Also, addressed Maowi’s point.

Aiming to to submit this in a week and a half (the 20th, ideally.)
-
Chipmunker Kyosson

Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the Rejected Times (NationState's best newspaper!)
Deputy World Assembly Officer for the Rejected Realms

User avatar
Graintfjall
Diplomat
 
Posts: 662
Founded: Jun 30, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Graintfjall » Thu Mar 11, 2021 4:53 am

OOC: This is a fictional roleplaying world. If you want to fix politics in some RL country go sign a petition or something.
Solo: IBC30, WCoH42
Co-host: CR36, BoF74
Champions: BoF73
Runners-up: DBC49
The White Winter Queendom of Græntfjall
GS SuperSports+

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: North Supreria

Advertisement

Remove ads