[PASSED] Repeal GA#179 "Clean Prostitute Act"

[Tinhampton]

On the 30th of December 2021, Repeal "Clean Prostitute Act" became GA#589!

---

This proposal has been filed to the General Assembly Repeals Board.
NOTE: at 0438 GMT on the 21st of December 2021, this proposal reached quorum with Battadia's approval, the 58th all told.

---

Character count: 1,964
Word count: 318

Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: It came to my attention about two days into voting on Allie Vazz and Aramantha Calendula's ill-fated repeal that they did not spend any time talking about, for example, how the Clean Prostitute Act prevents prostitutes from engaging in sex work because they have been infected with uncured - even uncurable - STIs which they cannot even transmit to others. AIDS, and the antiretrovirals available for the HIV virus that causes it, is perhaps the most prominent example known to Tinhamptonians; forgive me if I'm mistaken.
We support Regulating the Sex Industry by the same ambassadors as our replacement - although they no longer claim that it has anything to do with a repeal of the CPA. No clue if that'll change with this repeal being a possibility again. This is our own repeal draft, however, and we once again similarly disclaim any affiliation with its predecessor.

Repeal "Clean Prostitute Act"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal

Target: GA#179

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

General Assembly Resolution #179 “Clean Prostitute Act” (Category: Free Trade; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Agreeing with GA#179 that the decision of legalising prostitution should be reserved to each member state, and that all prostitutes working in members where it has been legalised should "be regularly screened for sexually transmitted infections" (STIs),

Unnerved that GA#179 almost exclusively focuses on the screening of prostitutes for STIs as a means of preventing the spread of STIs, while not even stopping to consider (for example) the use of contraception by prostitutes and clients, never mind the contact-tracing of those who have contracted STIs through prostitution,

Further concerned that GA#179 also requires that "prostitutes diagnosed with a [STI] abstain from their work until their infection has been cured,"

Recognising that, while there still exist some STIs (especially viruses) that cannot be "cured" as such, antiretroviral drugs exist for many of those STIs; such drugs, if taken properly, reduce those viral load of those STIs by so much that they can no longer be transmitted by the people who take those drugs,

Dismayed that prostitutes who have been infected with uncurable STIs and who take antiretrovirals that nevertheless prevent them from transmitting those STIs to others cannot carry on their work under GA#179 because "their infection has [not] been cured,"

Horrified that GA#179 does not specify at all whose responsibility it is to fund any of the STI screening it describes (however curable or treatable those STIs may be), thus allowing member states to run unsuspecting prostitutes into financial ruin by passing on the entire cost of such screening to them, and

Expressing its hope that a future replacement for GA#179 will not only protect and advance the rights and dignity of all sex workers, but also that it will not arbitrarily prevent them from engaging in sex work simply because they have STIs that they cannot transmit to clients...

The General Assembly hereby repeals GA#179 "Clean Prostitute Act."

[Tinhampton]

Reserved post... which would imply that this post has already been served. But served with what? Supplementary arguments? Old drafts? Me banging on about how to wrongly interpret the word "reserved?"

December 19th 2021.

[Apatosaurus]

While I'd be for once this gets fleshed out more, given the timing this might seem like opportunism? Not that the argument is strong enough for me to flip my vote, but others might vote against because of that perception of opportunism.

(Image)

(Image)

(Image)
Repeal "Clean Prostitute Act"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal

Target: GA#179

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

General Assembly Resolution #179 “Clean Prostitute Act” (Category: Free Trade; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Agreeing with GA#179 that the decision of legalising prostitution should be reserved to each member state, and that all prostitutes working in members where it has been legalised should "be regularly screened for sexually transmitted infections" (STIs), No.

// Also mention the fact that 1) the scope of the resolution is very narrow (excluding things like sex trafficking and other kinds of sex workers besides prostitutes) and 2) it lacks necessary protection against violence.
Concerned, however, that GA#179 also requires that "prostitutes diagnosed with a [STI] abstain from their work until their infection has been cured," Add also that this requires that prostitutes abstain themselves from work, rather than their employers or others preventing them from working.

Recognising that, while there still exist some STIs (especially viruses) that cannot be "cured" as such, antiretroviral drugs exist for many of those STIs; such drugs, if taken properly, reduce those viral load of those STIs by so much that they can no longer be transmitted by the people who take those drugs,

Dismayed that prostitutes who have been infected with uncurable STIs and who take antiretrovirals that nevertheless prevent them from transmitting those STIs to others cannot carry on their work under GA#179 because "their infection has [not] been cured," and

Expressing its hope that a future replacement for GA#179 will not only protect and advance the rights of all sex workers, but also that it will not arbitrarily prevent them from engaging in sex work simply because they have STIs that they cannot transmit to clients...

The General Assembly hereby repeals GA#179 "Clean Prostitute Act."

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

I can't support this proposal. You break it into several clauses but, really, the only argument you make is that CPA should be repealed because it prevents prostitutes with incurable STIs from performing sex work. There's a woefully inadequate understanding of medical science being sold here: no doctor would ever say that a viral load can be reduced to a point where it "can no longer be transmitted." It's all a question of probability and acceptable levels or risk. How much risk are you willing to take on transmitting the disease? There's no magical line where a person's incurable STI suddenly becomes 100% non-transmissible like you are promising. When I read those clauses the words "misleading" and "snake oil" come to mind.

There is reason to view most prostitutes as victims in their own right; sometimes literally at the hands of someone else and sometimes of sad circumstances. It can be fairly assumed that most prostitutes are not "living the dream." It can be fairly assumed that most prostitutes, given a real choice, would prefer to do something else. Of those who freely pursue it, all must look forward to a future time in their lives when they move on to a new pursuit.

Your pitch here disregards the plight of the many prostitutes who do not wish to be so. That's fine; you're not required to consider them in your proposal if you don't want to. Society mostly ignores them anyway.

You focus on depicting prostitutes as professionals, like being a teacher, firefighter, or a baker. Even if I accept that premise, of course there are conditions which reasonably disqualify some people from pursuing a profession.

Call me crazy, but if a sex worker picks up an incurable disease I think that's a pretty good time for them to retire and follow a different light.

[Tinhampton]

I can't support this proposal. You break it into several clauses but, really, the only argument you make is that CPA should be repealed because it prevents prostitutes with incurable STIs from performing sex work. There's a woefully inadequate understanding of medical science being sold here: no doctor would ever say that a viral load can be reduced to a point where it "can no longer be transmitted." It's all a question of probability and acceptable levels or risk. How much risk are you willing to take on transmitting the disease? There's no magical line where a person's incurable STI suddenly becomes 100% non-transmissible like you are promising. When I read those clauses the words "misleading" and "snake oil" come to mind.

Please do click on the word "antiretrovirals" in my OP when you can - even if it is a summary for laydudes mixed in with a bunch of other things.

[snip last four paragraphs]

If you want Aramantha to talk about exit programs for sex workers in Regulating the Sex Industry, you're more than welcome to bring it up with her on that thread. I have exactly zero control over what goes in that proposal.

[snip all paragraphs =P]

I'd rather not commit a potentially Honest Mistake, give off real feelings of "opportunism," or mislead as to RSI's contents - sorry

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

*snip*

I've reviewed your article from the BBC's health and disinformation reporter. I also did some cursory research on relevant materials made available to the public by the National Institutes of Health. I remain opposed to repeal on these grounds. While I am very happy for the HIV-positive individuals and their partners who have obtained this level of confidence (the studies at issue only examined individuals in a committed relationship with a known partner), it's not hard to see that prostitution is a very different context. A prostitute with a transmissible and incurable disease should not continue engaging in sex work. Even if rigorous treatment, properly observed, can result in "effectively no risk" of sexually transmitting the virus.

My opinion. Maybe you can convince the Assembly that it is a good thing for the public to bear the risk of a prostitute with an incurable infectious disease missing their ART treatment.

[Greater Cesnica]

There's a woefully inadequate understanding of medical science being sold here: no doctor would ever say that a viral load can be reduced to a point where it "can no longer be transmitted." It's all a question of probability and acceptable levels or risk. How much risk are you willing to take on transmitting the disease? There's no magical line where a person's incurable STI suddenly becomes 100% non-transmissible like you are promising. When I read those clauses the words "misleading" and "snake oil" come to mind.

I concur. Strongly opposed on these grounds.

I retract this

[Imperium Anglorum]

At least with HIV, "an overwhelming body of clinical evidence has firmly established the HIV Undetectable = Untransmittable (U=U) concept as scientifically sound... [that] means that people living with HIV who achieve and maintain an undetectable viral load—the amount of HIV in the blood—by taking and adhering to antiretroviral therapy (ART) as prescribed cannot sexually transmit the virus to others". National Institutes of Health, "The science is clear: with HIV, undetectable equals untransmittable", News release (10 Jan 2019) https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-re ... nsmittable (citing RW Eisinger, CW Dieffenbach, and AS Fauci, "HIV viral load and transmissibility of HIV infection: undetectable equals untransmittable" (2019) J Am Med Ass'n https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.21167.)

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

*snip*

Look, we're losing sight of the forest for the trees here. And I can see now this is my fault, for allowing myself to be baited into responding the way I did. So let me try a different approach:

Let's assume - in accordance with the conclusions of the U=U campaign - that there is a strict treatment and testing regime that would allow a prostitute who is infected with a transmissible sexual disease to have effectively zero risk of transmitting the disease. Okay. The safest course of action is still to prohibit that prostitute from working.

Why? Because even with the above assumption, you're still baking a lot of risk into the proposition. Within the study of suppressive antiretroviral treatment, viral rebound has been observed for a variety of reasons. There is a growing body of literature on that phenomenon, investigating it's causes and risk factors. More to the point, people are fallible and you're putting the risk of error on the health of others.

So my point sort of remains as before: the argument for repeal is that because there are (or may be) effective treatments for incurable sexually transmitted diseases, we should not prohibit infected prostitutes from selling sex. Even in a world where (some) incurable diseases could theoretically be rendered untransmissible through strict treatment measures, you are still creating a lot of unjustifiable risk by permitting prostitution by individuals with STIs.

[Unibot III]

There are several problems with CPA:

1. That is never specified that sex workers aren't on the hook for paying for all the testing.
2. It is never specified how or if sex workers are to be compensated in some form for their displacement from work. Would they qualify for Employment Insurance?
3. No definition for sex work or sex worker.
4. Treats all STIs the same, and all sex work the same.
5. The title is literally a pun at the expense of sex workers. Hah, hah, AIDS, really funny.
7. The explicit purpose in the preamble of the resolution is to "end discussion on prostitution" in the WA, but the resolution establishes almost nothing in terms of sex work regulation and its sloppy phrasing in Clause 1 leaves the door open to a WA-wide decriminalization of prostitution - more unintended opportunities for discussion.
8. The resolution muses that prostitution is a waste of the WA's time as a point of discussion. It's almost unheard of in any WA resolution for a resolution to verbalize an issue as a waste of the WA's time. The WA has time for stamps and coin-collectors and bee-keeping or whatever, but it doesn't have time for women in precarious work - that's what that clause is saying. People in the sex industry - an oftentimes exploitive field of work - filled with international sex trafficking is just a cutesy niche political issue that the WA can't be arsed to write more than six sentences about.

You've mentioned one of the eight reasons above in your repeal. But I've actually got a few additional ones than those eight (which people have talked about over the years.) Just came to mind...

10. There's no contact tracing specified in the resolution, so if a WA nation finds out a sex worker has an STI, there's no obligation spelled out on the part of anyone to actually inform anyone else about the STI even if they just had intercourse with the sex worker yesterday. So it kind of defeats the purpose of the testing... yeah, you're stopping the problem from happening further, but no one is necessarily obligated to act on the diagnosis further in a proactive way.

11. The resolution says "abstain from their work" - it assumes prostitutes only have one form of work. Are they expected to abstain from their other work just because they have an STI? The resolution gliby says "from their work" because it never occured to the WA that a prostitute might only be doing sex work as a casual, side job, and that by requiring they abstain from their work, they're preventing them from any other kind of work they maintain.

12. A sex worker could get trapped in a bind where they unable to prove their STI (which is asymptomatic) constitutes a "compelling practical reason," since they have no symptoms, but they can't work until they can pay for their anti-biotics.

13. The resolution says "prostitutes working in nations choosing to allow prostitution be regularly screened for sexually transmitted infections..." -- what is the issue with this line, you might ask? It doesn't specify that the prostitutes live and work in the same WA nation choosing to allow prostitution. So if a prostitute works in Bigtopia, a non-WA nation that legally allows prostitution, but lives in Smalltopia, a WA nation that has banned prostitution, they're expected to be regularly screened by Smalltopia anyways and "abstain from their work" ... but if the work isn't actually being conducted in Smalltopia, how is Smalltopia supposed to follow who is working abroad in sex work, and when? It'd all be based on self-disclosure?

14. Because the resolution never defines a prostitute, it's unclear when the necessity of regular screening falls into desuetude. For instance, if you have actually conducted any paid sex work in six months, are you still a prostitute? What about eighteen months? When do you stop being a prostitute? You could have a state levying testing on people who may not have done sex work for two years as a bureaucratic practice. Is it based off whether they intend to return to sex work? And when do they intend to return to sex work? They don't necessarily even have to be screened before they start working as a prostitute, so they might be entering the field with an STI, and it'd only be caught during "regular screening" later. We'll ignore incubation periods.

15. STI testing can be quite sensitive and there is no protocols in the resolution regarding for instance whether sex workers are allowed to request a woman be the one who performs the examination, and swabs their private parts.

16. No definition of "regular screening." What does the screening encompass? Does it have to be a fulsome check? Good testing is pretty thorough, you're getting your blood done, your parts swabbed, your urine tested. But the resolution just says screening. Can a WA nation just hold up a clipboard and say "Do you have gonorrhea?" And the sex worker says "no," and the WA nation says "great, good to go back to work then." Bear in mind, this isn't purely academic ... it could be expensive to do all of this screening. It's a lot cheaper for everyone to just stick an intern with a clipboard in front of a line waving people along.

These last three reasons are valid, I would argue, but less persuasive to me:

17. There are no protocols in place regarding the use of the samples collected, without the consent of the people tested, for purposes not anticipated by CPA. For instance, if a WA nation is using blood and urine samples to nab sex workers for petty drug offences, there are no explicit controls in place regarding the use of those samples. So you have a system where the WA is compelling people that they HAVE to take this examination to continue to work, but the examination may be exploitive in some form. (Note: WA decriminalized possession, didn't decriminalize the use of recreational drugs ... so WA nations that want to criminalize drug use will focus on proving drug use through blood/urine/saliva samples rather than policing possession. This would be a perverse maladaption to GA#577. Real life nations focus on possession because it's simpler to prove.)

18. The resolution assumes that a sex worker will be diagnosed if the screening finds the sex worker positive for an STI, and will return to work only when the screening finds them negative. But that's only an assumption... the sentences are strung together, but they're not necessarily logically connected. You could in theory, screen a sex worker, then have a peace officer (doesn't need to be health professional making the diagonsis) diagnose them with syphilis that they never were found to actually test positive for, and then continue to assert they cannot return to work because they aren't cured. You might say this violates the reasonable nation theory, but I think it's quite reasonable for minorities within a reasonable nation to want to obstruct the legal practice of prostitution because of strong social, religious, or political convictions and this clause gives them the kind of legal room to obstruct prostitution in a cladestine way, the diagnosis isn't required to be a sound or evidence-based diagnosis. There is no system for appeal spelled out if a sex worker wants to challenge the diagnosis. So you test them, label them with a false diagnosis, then catch them when they try to work illegally during their probationary period .. you've effectively found a way to criminalize prostitution which provinces/states within a WA nation may exploit.

19. There is literally nothing proactive about CPA. It's all just testing... testing... testing. Why not have some regulation about vaccinating sex workers for STIs? You can vaccinate for Hep B. You can wear a condom to limit the spread of STIs. Like there are lots of ways to pro-actively prevent the spread of STIs in sex work, but CPA just focuses on screening. It's basically how we handled diseases back in the days of miasma theory. I understand the WA has since mandated vaccinations, though.

CPA acts as a pure blocker, then casually throws in a ill-advised paragraph about testing requirements to secure the resolution's legality. In the same way that NAPA acts as a pure blocker, then glibly glosses over the subject of nuclear proliferation in a single line. It's these throwaway lines that Flibb used to preserve the legality of the resolutions which contribute the most problems to CPA and NAPA because they're not thought through.

[Tinhampton]

Still looking to submit around this time next week.

[WayNeacTia]

No.

[Apatosaurus]

Still looking to submit around this time next week.

Sure, full support.

[Tinhampton]

Thanks for the constructive feedback, both of you

[Xanthorrhoea]

I don't agree with the reasoning of this proposal. I mostly agree with Sparkles.

Specifically for HIV, as this is what we are talking about here, allowing someone on antiretroviral therapy to practice sex work (at least that involving exposure i.e. sexual contact) with no other requirements is an unreasonably high risk.

It is true that those with a negligable viral load (<150-200 copies/mL) are effectively unable to transmit the virus to others. However, maintaining this viral load is contingent on multiple factors which can rapidly change. The most widely available, cost-effective, and effective antiretriviral regimes require consistent once or twice daily dosing. The half-lives of the majority of antiretrovirals are less than 24 hours, meaning that missed doses can rapidly lead to an increase in viral load. Similar effects can occur with certain foods/medications that reduce the concentration of antiretrovirals in the blood. Lastly, even with near-perfect adherance, you can simply get unlucky, and evolve a resistant strain (although this is more likely to occur with poor adherance). All of these factors mean that remaining seronegative is not guaranteed. This is fine for someone with very few, regular, consenting partners, who are aware of the risks, and can take their own precautions. This is not fine for a sex worker who will have many more partners, who will not always be contactable and able to be informed of their exposure should something go wrong.

Practically speaking, this leads to 2 main issues with relying purely on treatment as prevention:
1. Mistakes happen. A medication is missed, strains develop resistance, someone is prescribed the wrong medication that reduces the efficacy of their therapy. When these mistakes occur (when being the operative word), contact tracing is a nightmare. There will be many people to contact, many of whom may have given fake details or no details at all. This will lead to people being missed, who will continue on without a diagnosis or treatment for an indeterminate amount of time. This is unnacceptable.

2. While the risk from someone reliably treated is small, clients have no way of knowing how adherant the person they are working with is. The risk of exposure from someone who is poorly adherant is twofold, as not only are you more likely to be infected, but you are more likely to be infected with a treatment-resistant strain. This is also unacceptable.

The only way I can feasably see this sort of thing being allowed is with a robust disclosure process and rigorous adherance to additional prophylactic measures - i.e. not relying purely on treatment as prevention. Theoretically, you could allow this, however from a public safety perspective, you would need to mandate some kind of robust contact register of clients, compulsory PrEP/barrier contraceptives etc. This would require complex, nuancecd legislation. Practically speaking, the number of clients who would go through this instead of simply seeking someone else's services is slim. While not technically a ban on HIV-positive people doing sex-work, it essentially would be in all meaningful terms.

The argument as presented is an oversimplification of a highly complex and nuanced issue, and is not appropriate as written. Ideally, the risk of transmission from someone on antiretrovirals is zero. In reality, it is much higher, due to poor adherence, medication interactions, and evolution of resistanec. Relying solely on antiretrovirals is fine in a long-term, consenting relationship, but it is insufficient to manage the public health risk of a person with numerous clients of dubious contactability.

If you really want to make this argument (and I'm pretty sure it won't be enough to convince most of the GA - it's a very emotive issue), I'd rather see this re-written to focus more on strategies like PrEP, condoms, and contact tracing. That's where the more convincing argument lies.

[Morover]

I'm conflicted - on the one hand, the reasoning seems to make sense to me, as a person with little knowledge on the subject. However, reading some of the reasoning here (specifically Xanthorrhoea's), it does seem to have a bit of flawed logic. What I can say is that I don't think it makes that much sense to base opposition on this wholly around HIV practices real-world, because logistically speaking there are likely other forms of STIs that aren't present in real-world Earth but are present in member-nations; the same goes for medications and treatments for STIs. Thus, there is not an unreasonable circumstance in which member-nations can eliminate the transmission of specific diseases of which there are no real-world equivalents, but the symptoms remain (and thus the sex worker is not "cured", per se), in which case depriving the prostitute of their livelihood is an unreasonable course of action given the lack of risk. However, because there is no real-world equivalent, is it worthwhile to base an argument around this? I don't know.

Either way, IC-ly I'll probably oppose due to the first clause agreeing with the blocker, but OOC-ly I am more up-in-the-air.

[Tinhampton]

Two new clauses, UNNERVED and HORRIFIED, have been added.

---

Max Versnippen

Article 6 of Aramantha's replacement(???) proposal already requires in relevant part that:

1. Any participants in sex work must receive complete STI testing... prior to skin on skin sexual contact or the exchange of bodily fluids...
2. Any... sex worker who has contracted an STI may not participate in skin on skin sexual contact or the exchange of bodily fluids as a part of any kind of sex work until the time in which that STI is... treated to the point where it is no longer sexually transmittable.

which I believe will provide adequate protection for clients against any transmissible HIV/AIDS that sex workers may have; given that they will have to be tested for it prior to physical sex work, and any positive tests for any reason (including poor or nonexistent antiretroviral regimes) will require them to sit out until their next negative test.

If you have any problems with the STI testing and abstinence regime Ara proposes, I encourage you to take it up on her thread.

[Xanthorrhoea]

Fine enough I suppose, the changes are welcome. I didn’t actually say it before, but I do agree this should be repealed. I still disagree with the implication that antiretrovirals are sufficient prevention on their own, but I’m satisfied enough with the ‘unnerved’ clause re: preventative measures that I’ll let it slide. The issue is better discussed on the replacement thread.

[Apatosaurus]

Character count: 1,938
Word count: 314

Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: It came to my attention about two days into voting on Allie Vazz and Aramantha Calendula's ill-fated repeal that they did not spend any time talking about, for example, how the Clean Prostitute Act prevents prostitutes from engaging in sex work because they have been infected with uncured - even uncurable - STIs which they cannot even transmit to others. AIDS, and the antiretrovirals available for the HIV virus that causes it, is perhaps the most prominent example known to Tinhamptonians; forgive me if I'm mistaken.
We support Regulating the Sex Industry by the same ambassadors as our replacement - although they no longer claim that it has anything to do with a repeal of the CPA. No clue if that'll change with this repeal being a possibility again. This is our own repeal draft, however, and we once again similarly disclaim any affiliation with its predecessor.

(Image)

(Image)

(Image)
Repeal "Clean Prostitute Act"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal

Target: GA#179

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

General Assembly Resolution #179 “Clean Prostitute Act” (Category: Free Trade; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Agreeing with GA#179 that the decision of legalising prostitution should be reserved to each member state, and that all prostitutes working in members where it has been legalised should "be regularly screened for sexually transmitted infections" (STIs), No. This is unnecessarily controversial and will hurt the chances of this passing, as the focus is on loopholes, not whether prostitution should be legalised by the WA.

Unnerved that the only means of preventing the spread of STIs that GA#179 explicitly focuses is the screening of prostitutes for STIs, rather than (for example) the use of contraception or condoms (also I typo'ed "condoms" as "condemns" when writing that :P) by prostitutes and clients, or even the contact-tracing of those who have contracted STIs through prostitution,

Further concerned that GA#179 also requires that "prostitutes diagnosed with a [STI] abstain from their work until their infection has been cured," Why is this bad? While I know, don't leave it up to voters to figure out why it's bad since it's not obvious in this case.

Recognising that, while there still exist some STIs (especially viruses) that cannot be "cured" as such, antiretroviral drugs exist for many of those STIs; such drugs,which if taken properly, reduce those viral load of those STIs by so much that they can no longer be transmitted by the people who take those drugs,

Dismayed that prostitutes who have been infected with uncurable STIs and who take antiretrovirals that nevertheless prevent them from transmitting those STIs to others cannot carry on their work under GA#179 because "their infection has [not] been cured,"

Horrified that GA#179 does not specify at all whose responsibility it is to fund any of the STI screening it describes (however curable or treatable those STIs may be), thus allowing member states to run unsuspecting prostitutes into financial ruin by passing on the entire cost of such screening to them, and

Expressing its hope that a future replacement for GA#179 will not only protect and advance the rights and dignity of all sex workers, but also that it will not arbitrarily prevent them from engaging in sex work simply because they have STIs that they cannot transmit to clients...,

The General Assembly hereby repeals GA#179 "Clean Prostitute Act."

[Tinhampton]

Agreeing with GA#179 that the decision of legalising prostitution should be reserved to each member state, and that all prostitutes working in members where it has been legalised should "be regularly screened for sexually transmitted infections" (STIs), No. This is unnecessarily controversial and will hurt the chances of this passing, as the focus is on loopholes, not whether prostitution should be legalised by the WA.

Aramantha's repeal, which literally "Respect[ed] the resolution’s neutral stance on the legality of prostitution in any given member nation," was clocking 59% at the moment she asked people to vote against it about eighteen hours into voting. I am confident that this repeal will attract at least a similar degree of support.

Unnerved that the only means of preventing the spread of STIs that GA#179 explicitly focuses is the screening of prostitutes for STIs, rather than (for example) the use of contraception or condoms (also I typo'ed "condoms" as "condemns" when writing that ) by prostitutes and clients...

Condoms are a form of contraception.

Further concerned that GA#179 also requires that "prostitutes diagnosed with a [STI] abstain from their work until their infection has been cured," Why is this bad? While I know, don't leave it up to voters to figure out why it's bad since it's not obvious in this case.

I explain this in RECOGNISING and DISMAYED.

[Tinhampton]

Proposal-A-Go-Go

[ShrewLlamaLand]

What an utterly stupid campaign telegram, basically boiling your argument down to: "we should allow prostitutes to knowingly and deliberately infect their clients, because they might go bankrupt".

Bad proposal, poor rationale for repeal, against.

[Tinhampton]

What an utterly stupid campaign telegram, basically boiling your argument down to: "we should allow prostitutes to knowingly and deliberately infect their clients, because they might go bankrupt".

Bad proposal, poor rationale for repeal, against.

For the record:

Greetings, Delegate. Please could you approve Repeal GA#179 "Clean Prostitute Act?"

GA#179 bans all prostitutes with all uncured sexually transmitted infections (STIs) from sex work.

This applies even to prostitutes who are taking other precautions to prevent them from giving their STIs to anybody else.

It also allows member states to force prostitutes into bankruptcy. This is because it does not say who is responsible for paying for STI tests.

GA#179 is a bad law. It should be repealed. If you want to protect the rights and dignity of sex workers, then you should approve my repeal of GA#179.

Thank you,
The Self-Administrative City of Tinhampton

[Gueeweeuelooue]

What an utterly stupid campaign telegram, basically boiling your argument down to: "we should allow prostitutes to knowingly and deliberately infect their clients, because they might go bankrupt".

Bad proposal, poor rationale for repeal, against.

For the record:

Greetings, Delegate. Please could you approve Repeal GA#179 "Clean Prostitute Act?"

GA#179 bans all prostitutes with all uncured sexually transmitted infections (STIs) from sex work.

This applies even to prostitutes who are taking other precautions to prevent them from giving their STIs to anybody else.

It also allows member states to force prostitutes into bankruptcy. This is because it does not say who is responsible for paying for STI tests.

GA#179 is a bad law. It should be repealed. If you want to protect the rights and dignity of sex workers, then you should approve my repeal of GA#179.

Thank you,
The Self-Administrative City of Tinhampton

lmao

[Tinhampton]

This has reached queue and will probably be voted on between the major updates of Boxing Day and Thursday 30th December.

AS OF 0445 GMT ON TUESDAY: Approvals: 58 out of 58 needed (Tinhampton, Enlais, Johanneslanden, Tevaris, South Doge Land, Trovons, Albrook, Treadwellia, Duby, The Finntopian Empire, The Greastest Nation, Kingdom of Englands, The Free Northern Isles, Siochania, Orca and Narwhal, Melonsistan, The Scottish Republic, Herya, TESDAI, Wadelhelpia, Meretica, Viktorovitch, Telgan Alpha, Exzilian State, Kikittaukak, Brocklandia, Sedgistan, Arryia, Gafton Twofrex, Yaxopsville, Fachumonn, Noble Titans, Arab Darussalam, Budgie Snugglers, The Unified Pumaxi, Calnodia, Dow Salold Islands, Dokdo and Ulleung, Kinben-ism, Aftenheim, Kyuxcy, Novum Orientis, Free Woritanarbio Islands, Guliveria, The Communists of the Multiversal Empire, ARSTOTZRA, Galaxiak, Oxfordheim, Lal Bharat, Foreignaid, The Polish Rezim, KurentSlavija, Zombiedolphins, Karteria, Josephtan, TheRuhr, Swiftlandian Peoples Republic, Battadia)