[PASSED] Universal STI Counteraction

[Frisbeeteria]

Good day friends, I have another proposal today, this time in the sector of universal STI healthcare!

QUICK NOTE: This is a very rough draft, I am not an expert on STIs as it is, so I'm doing my best here. Major ideas are very welcome, feel free to pretty much throw anything at me! Also, I'm not sold on using the WA General Fund for the WACP part of this, but I don't know enough about the economics of universal healthcare to provide a better solution there. That is a question I'd like to pass on to ya'll.

Universal STI Counteraction
Category: Health | Area of Effect: Healthcare

---

Acknowledging the continued spread of sexually transmitted infections (STI) across a large portion of WA member states; and

Discouraged by the lack of universal testing, treatment, and medication surrounding STIs;

The World Assembly hereby mandates that:

All member states must offer free (or fully insurance-covered), confidential, and universally accessible solutions to sexually transmitted infections, including but not limited to:

1. Accurate STI testing for all STIs; these must be available to any WA resident who fulfills any of these criteria:
   
   1. Exhibits symptoms of any STI.
   2. Requires such testing as part of their profession.
   3. Has been possibly exposed to any STI since their last period of adequate testing.
2. Effective antibiotic or antiviral treatment/medication for all STI; these must be available to any resident who has tested positive for an STI of any form until such treatment or medication is no longer necessary or the patient is no longer a WA resident.

Member residents, upon testing positive for an STI, must, to the best of their ability, provide a list of all persons they may have come in transmissible contact with since the date they last tested negative for that STI. The clinic or organization that tested that individual must:

1. Privately contact, to the best of their ability and only when contact would not directly endanger the lives of any involved parties, each member of the positive individual’s list to inform those individuals of the possibility of contact and to recommend immediate testing.
2. Delete the provided list immediately after completion.
3. Never share any of the provided information with law enforcement of any kind.
4. Not, under any circumstances, share records of an individual's transmissible contacts with any party other than the person receiving the positive test, their transmissible contacts, or the clinic performing the test, excepting circumstances where all of the aforementioned parties consent to the disclosure,

The World Health Authority (WHA) must, using funds allocated from the WA General Fund, ensure that adequately accessible STI testing, treatment, and medication are available across member states that cannot afford such solutions by:

1. Expanding existing general clinics throughout member states to introduce, accommodate, and upkeep STI testing, treatment, and medication.
2. Providing internationally available training programs to ensure that doctors, nurses, and pharmacists are properly trained in the most effective STI-related treatments and countermeasures.
3. Donating supplies, grants, or labor in an effort to upkeep STI treatment faculties.

Member states must, through any previously provided reproductive education courses, provide instruction on avoiding and counteracting the spread of STI, including advocation for regular testing before sexual activity with new partners and the use of contraceptives as a preventative measure.

Universal STI Counteraction
Category: Health | Area of Effect: Healthcare

---

Acknowledging the continued spread of sexually transmitted infections (STI) across a large portion of WA member states; and

Discouraged by the lack of universal testing, treatment, and medication surrounding STIs;

The World Assembly hereby mandates that:

All member states must offer free, confidential, and universally accessible solutions to sexually transmitted infections, including but not limited to:

1. Accurate STI testing for all STIs; these must be available to any WA inhabitant who fulfills any of these criteria:
   
   1. Exhibits symptoms of any STI.
   2. Requires such testing as part of their profession.
   3. Has been possibly exposed to any STI since their last period of adequate testing.
2. Effective antibiotic or antiviral treatment/medication for all STI; these must be available to any inhabitant who has tested positive for an STI of any form until such treatment or medication is no longer necessary or the patient is no longer a WA inhabitant.

Member inhabitants, upon testing positive for an STI, must provide (to the best of their ability) a list of all persons they have shared possible transmissible contact with since the last date of the positive individuals testing; the clinic or organization that tested that individual must then attempt to contact each of such persons to inform them of the possibility of transmission and to recommend immediate testing.

WA Choice Plus (WACP) must, using funds allocated from the WA General Fund, ensure that adequately accessible STI testing, treatment, and medication are available across member states that cannot afford such solutions by:

1. Expanding existing reproductive health clinics (WACP or member-owned) throughout member states to introduce, accommodate, and upkeep STI testing, treatment, and medication.
2. Providing internationally available training programs to ensure that doctors, nurses, and pharmacists are properly trained in STI-related measures.

Member states must, through any previously provided reproductive education courses, provide additional instruction on avoiding and counteracting the spread of STI, including advocation for regular testing before sexual activity with new partners and the use of contraceptives as a preventative measure.

Universal STI Counteraction
Category: Health | Area of Effect: Healthcare

---

Acknowledging the continued spread of sexually transmitted infections (STI) across a large portion of WA member states; and

Discouraged by the lack of universal testing, treatment, and medication surrounding STIs;

The World Assembly hereby mandates that:

All member states must offer free, confidential, and universally accessible solutions to sexually transmitted infections, including but not limited to:

1. Accurate STI testing for all STIs; these must be available to any WA citizen who fulfills any of these criteria:
   
   1. Exhibits symptoms of any STI.
   2. Requires such testing as part of their profession.
   3. Has participated in an activity that involves the risk of STI transfer since the time of their last testing, provided that last testing was not identically received within the last two weeks.
   4. Has, within the last two months, had sexual or sanguineous contact with an individual that tests positive for an STI.
2. Effective antibiotic treatment for curable STI; these must be available to any citizen who has tested positive for a curable STI of any form until that STI has been verifiably cured.
3. Effective antiviral medication for viral/incurable STIs; these must be available to any citizen who has tested positive for a viral/incurable STI, from the time of their diagnosis until their passing or loss of status as a WA citizen.

Member citizens, upon testing positive for an STI, must provide, to the best of their ability, a list of all persons they have shared sexual or sanguineous contact with since the last date of the positive individuals testing, or during the last 2 months; the clinic or organization that tested the individual must attempt to contact each person on their list to inform them of the possibility of transmission and to recommend immediate testing.

WA Choice Plus (WACP) must, using funds allocated from the WA General Fund, ensure that adequately accessible STI testing, treatment, and medication are available across member states that cannot afford such solutions by:

1. Expanding existing reproductive health clinics (WACP or member-owned) throughout member states to include, accommodate, and upkeep STI testing, treatment, and medication.
2. Providing internationally available training programs to ensure that doctors, nurses, and pharmacists are properly trained in STI-related measures.

Member states must, through any previously provided reproductive education courses, provide an additional lesson on avoiding and counteracting the spread of STI, including advocation for regular testing before sexual activity with new partners and the use of contraceptives as a preventative measure.

[Apatosaurus]

Support in principle, but:
1) What is a "major" STI?
2) What if an individual is unable to provide a full list of individuals they have "shared sexual or sanguineous contact with since the last date of the positive individuals testing", such as if they forget? For example, if they had a stroke and thus do not remember.
3) Why does STI stuff fit into WA Choice Plus, particularly as I hate the deceptive name of the committee? You'd be better off fitting this into its own committee.

[Thousand Branches]

Support in principle, but:
1) What is a "major" STI?
2) What if an individual is unable to provide a full list of individuals they have "shared sexual or sanguineous contact with since the last date of the positive individuals testing", such as if they forget? For example, if they had a stroke and thus do not remember.
3) Why does STI stuff fit into WA Choice Plus, particularly as I hate the deceptive name of the committee? You'd be better off fitting this into its own committee.

1) Fair point, I mostly included the word “major” because depending on the member states, they could suffer from very different STIs and STI transmission in one area doesn’t equate STI transmission anywhere, therefore “major” was meant to denote STIs common in one place. I sort of realize the issue with this though and would be open to removing it altogether.
2) Added “to the best of their ability”.
3) I included this as WACP because a large portion of reproductive health clinics across member states are ones constructed by WACP as per GA#499. The re-use of those clinics and other reproductive clinics leads me to the assumption that another resolution that uses those same clinics would fall under the same category of reproductive health, and therefore would best be fit into the same committee. In other words, this plans to expand the WACP as more of a catch-all for reproductive health clinics rather than specifically abortion.

[Apatosaurus]

Support in principle, but:
1) What is a "major" STI?
2) What if an individual is unable to provide a full list of individuals they have "shared sexual or sanguineous contact with since the last date of the positive individuals testing", such as if they forget? For example, if they had a stroke and thus do not remember.
3) Why does STI stuff fit into WA Choice Plus, particularly as I hate the deceptive name of the committee? You'd be better off fitting this into its own committee.

3) I included this as WACP because a large portion of reproductive health clinics across member states are ones constructed by WACP as per GA#499. The re-use of those clinics and other reproductive clinics leads me to the assumption that another resolution that uses those same clinics would fall under the same category of reproductive health, and therefore would best be fit into the same committee. In other words, this plans to expand the WACP as more of a catch-all for reproductive health clinics rather than specifically abortion.

Hmm, okay, I just don't really see how STI stuff fits into the category of abortion/contraception/related things, since it's not really preventing or ending a pregnancy.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Planned parenthood.

[Thousand Branches]

3) I included this as WACP because a large portion of reproductive health clinics across member states are ones constructed by WACP as per GA#499. The re-use of those clinics and other reproductive clinics leads me to the assumption that another resolution that uses those same clinics would fall under the same category of reproductive health, and therefore would best be fit into the same committee. In other words, this plans to expand the WACP as more of a catch-all for reproductive health clinics rather than specifically abortion.

Hmm, okay, I just don't really see how STI stuff fits into the category of abortion/contraception/related things, since it's not really preventing or ending a pregnancy.

Well for one, it’s directly related to contraception in that contraception is a preventative measure for both pregnancy and STI contraction. And beyond that, it is, at least in most cases, a part of reproductive health. It is part of “all matters relating to the reproductive system and to its functions and processes.” in that it spreads through sexual contact, and therefore I would classify it in that way over any other ways

[Astrobolt]

3) I included this as WACP because a large portion of reproductive health clinics across member states are ones constructed by WACP as per GA#499. The re-use of those clinics and other reproductive clinics leads me to the assumption that another resolution that uses those same clinics would fall under the same category of reproductive health, and therefore would best be fit into the same committee. In other words, this plans to expand the WACP as more of a catch-all for reproductive health clinics rather than specifically abortion.

Hmm, okay, I just don't really see how STI stuff fits into the category of abortion/contraception/related things, since it's not really preventing or ending a pregnancy.

OOC: To add on to Ara’s point, WA Choice Plus clinics already provide contraceptives, and are fairly abundant throughout member states. It makes sense to empower WACP to deal with STI testing and treatment instead of adding another committee.

[Minskiev]

For formatting purposes, you needn't put spaces between list subclauses and the next clause.

[Thousand Branches]

For formatting purposes, you needn't put spaces between list subclauses and the next clause.

Thx!

[WayNeacTia]

There is no fucking way this is an international issue. Opposed.

[Thousand Branches]

There is no fucking way this is an international issue. Opposed.

It certainly is irl. There are few countries in the world that *don’t* have problems with STIs in some fashion.

[WayNeacTia]

There is no fucking way this is an international issue. Opposed.

It certainly is irl. There are few countries in the world that *don’t* have problems with STIs in some fashion.

No.... It's not. You are mandating that nations provide additional "lessons" to WA citizens on how to fuck. Further to this you are creating a WA funded public healthcare system. Who is paying for this?

[Untecna]

It certainly is irl. There are few countries in the world that *don’t* have problems with STIs in some fashion.

No.... It's not. You are mandating that nations provide additional "lessons" to WA citizens on how to fuck. Further to this you are creating a WA funded public healthcare system. Who is paying for this?

The World Assembly, if it is "WA funded".

[Thousand Branches]

It certainly is irl. There are few countries in the world that *don’t* have problems with STIs in some fashion.

No.... It's not. You are mandating that nations provide additional "lessons" to WA citizens on how to fuck. Further to this you are creating a WA funded public healthcare system. Who is paying for this?

Chill out dude. The last clause is not on “how to fuck”, it is on counteracting the spread of STI. That’s something that’s been common in sexual education for a long time. And yes, I am creating a WA funded public healthcare system for one particular part of healthcare, something that is not unheard of at all in the WA. As for payment, that has, at the moment, been provided by the general fund in what cases that member nations themselves cannot provide treatment, but as I said in my opener, I am not an expert on the economic side of public healthcare and have asked the general GA crowd on that point.

Also yes… it is.

[WayNeacTia]

No.... It's not. You are mandating that nations provide additional "lessons" to WA citizens on how to fuck. Further to this you are creating a WA funded public healthcare system. Who is paying for this?

Chill out dude. The last clause is not on “how to fuck”, it is on counteracting the spread of STI.

Fair enough. I may not have been entirely fair on that last clause. Lets try this again?

Member states must, through any previously provided reproductive education courses, provide an additional lesson on avoiding and counteracting the spread of STI, including advocation for regular testing before sexual activity with new partners and the use of contraceptives as a preventative measure.

So let's take Jim Bob from Alabama as an example. I think we can all agree on just exactly what level of sexual education Jim Bob received in school? So now, that nation is being mandated, and thus Jim Bob himself is being mandated to attend a lesson in which a sexual educator teaches Jim Bob how to roll the condom over the banana?

[Xanthorrhoea]

Couple of brief things:

All member states must offer free, confidential, and universally accessible solutions to sexually transmitted infections, including but not limited to:

1. Accurate STI testing for all major STIs; these must be available to any WA citizen who:
   
   1. Exhibits symptoms of any major STI.
   2. Requires such testing as part of their profession.
   3. Has participated in an activity that involves the risk of STI transfer since the time of their last testing, provided that last testing was not identically received within the last two weeks.
   4. Has, within the last two months, had sexual or sanguineous contact with an individual that tests positive for an STI.
2. Effective antibiotic treatment for curable STI; these must be available to any citizen who has tested positive for a curable STI of any form until that STI has been verifiably cured.
3. Effective antiviral medication for viral/incurable STIs; these must be available to any citizen who has tested positive for a viral/incurable STI, from the time of their diagnosis until their passing or loss of status as a WA citizen.

Drop “major.” An STI is an STI, and it’s simpler to just offer treatment for all of them. Off the top of my head I can’t think of any that don’t deserve to be included on this list. Additionally, having one STI often increases your odds of contracting/transmitting another, so even “milder” ones such as chlamydia or herpes deserve treatment, if only as a preventative measure for more “major” ones such as HIV and the various hepatitis viruses.

For clauses aiii and aiv, I’d recommend combining them together, and dropping the “2 month” window altogether. STIs can go unnoticed for a hell of a lot longer than 2 months, so this will lead to missed diagnoses and harm to patients. Testing timeframes also vary, for example you’re unlikely to test positive for HIV 2 days after exposure, it takes a few weeks/months for things to develop. I’m also not a fan of sexual/sanginous contact as a threshold. Not all STIs are transmitted the same way, for example you’re not very likely to get herpes from sharing needles, but hep C is easily transmitted through such means. Instead of trying to categorise different exposure types, go more abstract. I’d recommend combining the two clauses into one that reads something like “has had a possible exposure to an STI since their last period of adequate testing.” The “adequate” would also help avoid testing every 3 days for people with frequent exposures.

Clauses B and C also confuse bacterial and viral with curable and incurable. Hepatitis C is an entirely curable viral STI/BBV, and the proposal as written currently mandates that people with the infection be given useless antibiotics. Again, I’d go more abstract, and simply mandate that people diagnosed with an STI be given effective curative or suppressive treatment as appropriate for the relevant disease/s. If they require ongoing or repeated treatments (some ‘curative’ regimes require repeat dosing too), then those treatments must be provided until such a time as either they are no longer necessary (e.g. in the event a new treatment/cure is found and administered), or the patient is no longer a citizen of the WA. This avoids the whole bacterial/viral thing (and also accounts for RP stuff like a weird space amoeba STI).

Member citizens, upon testing positive for an STI, must provide, to the best of their ability, a list of all persons they have shared sexual or sanguineous contact with since the last date of the positive individuals testing, or during the last 2 months; the clinic or organization that tested the individual must attempt to contact each person on their list to inform them of the possibility of transmission and to recommend immediate testing.

Again, I’m not a fan of “2 months” or “sexual or sangiunous contact”. Drop “2 months” and change “sexual/sanguinous” to contact that may have lead to transmission of the relevant disease/s”. Abstraction is useful when dealing with really heterogeneous groups like STIs, use it as much as you can.

WA Choice Plus (WACP) must, using funds allocated from the WA General Fund, ensure that adequately accessible STI testing, treatment, and medication are available across member states that cannot afford such solutions by:

1. Expanding existing reproductive health clinics (WACP or member-owned) throughout member states to include, accommodate, and upkeep STI testing, treatment, and medication.
2. Providing internationally available training programs to ensure that doctors, nurses, and pharmacists are properly trained in STI-related measures.

I don’t have too much a problem with this, other than a general distaste for using the general fund as an infinite money pool to fund nations’ compliance with the WA.

Member states must, through any previously provided reproductive education courses, provide an additional lesson on avoiding and counteracting the spread of STI, including advocation for regular testing before sexual activity with new partners and the use of contraceptives as a preventative measure.

No-one who goes to a clinic is going to want to sit down for a 45 minute lecture on STIs. I’d restructure this to be more about funding freely available educational resources on reproductive health that can be opportunistically provided to patients. Such resources can include things like barrier and non-barrier contraception, symptoms to watch out for, general safe sex advice etc.
__________

I’ll be interested to see where this goes. It seems like a step in the direction of international universal healthcare, which would be a monumental achievement for this assembly.

[Tinhampton]

This does not deliver "Universal STI Counteraction;" it requires only that member states provide free STI tests, antivirals and antibiotics to "[WA] citizens" (not even necessarily their own inhabitants) who meet certain criteria.

The Article 1a list is probably a "one out of four" list rather than a "meet all of these criteria" list; this should be made clearer.

I hate WACP with a vengeance but I've always felt should be in the business of providing healthcare, not training - not that that's too much of a dealbreaker anyway.

The requirement that general education services deliver "an additional lesson" on STI prevention is disappointingly inflexible. Perhaps "additional instruction" instead, if you do choose to keep this in principle?

[Thousand Branches]

Chill out dude. The last clause is not on “how to fuck”, it is on counteracting the spread of STI.

Fair enough. I may not have been entirely fair on that last clause. Lets try this again?

Member states must, through any previously provided reproductive education courses, provide an additional lesson on avoiding and counteracting the spread of STI, including advocation for regular testing before sexual activity with new partners and the use of contraceptives as a preventative measure.

So let's take Jim Bob from Alabama as an example. I think we can all agree on just exactly what level of sexual education Jim Bob received in school? So now, that nation is being mandated, and thus Jim Bob himself is being mandated to attend a lesson in which a sexual educator teaches Jim Bob how to roll the condom over the banana?

We can agree, as that has already been mandated in a previous resolution. This is simply an add-on to that in the form of STI education.

Xanth and Tin, I will respond to your comments when I have a bit more time xD

[Thousand Branches]

Xanth:

Drop “major.” An STI is an STI, and it’s simpler to just offer treatment for all of them. Off the top of my head I can’t think of any that don’t deserve to be included on this list. Additionally, having one STI often increases your odds of contracting/transmitting another, so even “milder” ones such as chlamydia or herpes deserve treatment, if only as a preventative measure for more “major” ones such as HIV and the various hepatitis viruses.

A fair point and the second time I’ve received it. Consider it done.

For clauses aiii and aiv, I’d recommend combining them together, and dropping the “2 month” window altogether. STIs can go unnoticed for a hell of a lot longer than 2 months, so this will lead to missed diagnoses and harm to patients. Testing timeframes also vary, for example you’re unlikely to test positive for HIV 2 days after exposure, it takes a few weeks/months for things to develop. I’m also not a fan of sexual/sanginous contact as a threshold. Not all STIs are transmitted the same way, for example you’re not very likely to get herpes from sharing needles, but hep C is easily transmitted through such means. Instead of trying to categorise different exposure types, go more abstract. I’d recommend combining the two clauses into one that reads something like “has had a possible exposure to an STI since their last period of adequate testing.” The “adequate” would also help avoid testing every 3 days for people with frequent exposures.

These are fair points but will take a bit longer to implement. Consider it done within the next few days

Clauses B and C also confuse bacterial and viral with curable and incurable. Hepatitis C is an entirely curable viral STI/BBV, and the proposal as written currently mandates that people with the infection be given useless antibiotics. Again, I’d go more abstract, and simply mandate that people diagnosed with an STI be given effective curative or suppressive treatment as appropriate for the relevant disease/s. If they require ongoing or repeated treatments (some ‘curative’ regimes require repeat dosing too), then those treatments must be provided until such a time as either they are no longer necessary (e.g. in the event a new treatment/cure is found and administered), or the patient is no longer a citizen of the WA. This avoids the whole bacterial/viral thing (and also accounts for RP stuff like a weird space amoeba STI).

Also a fair point, same thing as the last bit, might take me slightly longer to implement

Again, I’m not a fan of “2 months” or “sexual or sangiunous contact”. Drop “2 months” and change “sexual/sanguinous” to contact that may have lead to transmission of the relevant disease/s”. Abstraction is useful when dealing with really heterogeneous groups like STIs, use it as much as you can.

Also fair, also will take a bit longer to implement.

I don’t have too much a problem with this, other than a general distaste for using the general fund as an infinite money pool to fund nations’ compliance with the WA.

Fair, and if you have any ideas for alternative payment methods, I’m happy to hear them

No-one who goes to a clinic is going to want to sit down for a 45 minute lecture on STIs. I’d restructure this to be more about funding freely available educational resources on reproductive health that can be opportunistically provided to patients. Such resources can include things like barrier and non-barrier contraception, symptoms to watch out for, general safe sex advice etc.

I think this is a small misunderstanding. This is meant to be a supplement to already existing reproductive education, aka GAR#369.

Tin:

This does not deliver "Universal STI Counteraction;" it requires only that member states provide free STI tests, antivirals and antibiotics to "[WA] citizens" (not even necessarily their own inhabitants) who meet certain criteria.

Is there a difference? I thought “WA citizens” referred to citizens of WA member states, therefore the inhabitants thereof. Correct me if I’m wrong

The Article 1a list is probably a "one out of four" list rather than a "meet all of these criteria" list; this should be made clearer.

Fixed.

I hate WACP with a vengeance but I've always felt should be in the business of providing healthcare, not training - not that that's too much of a dealbreaker anyway.

I can probably move the training bit to somewhere else but I don’t see what’s wrong with including it in the reproductive health organization.

The requirement that general education services deliver "an additional lesson" on STI prevention is disappointingly inflexible. Perhaps "additional instruction" instead, if you do choose to keep this in principle?

Fair enough, I’ll implement this when I update the rest of this stuff

[Tinhampton]

This does not deliver "Universal STI Counteraction;" it requires only that member states provide free STI tests, antivirals and antibiotics to "[WA] citizens" (not even necessarily their own inhabitants) who meet certain criteria.

Is there a difference? I thought “WA citizens” referred to citizens of WA member states, therefore the inhabitants thereof. Correct me if I’m wrong

Not everybody who lives in a country is a citizen of that country.

(RE the rest: Sure.)

[Thousand Branches]

Draft has been updated to accommodate all previously accepted edits!

[WayNeacTia]

Fair enough. I may not have been entirely fair on that last clause. Lets try this again?

Member states must, through any previously provided reproductive education courses, provide an additional lesson on avoiding and counteracting the spread of STI, including advocation for regular testing before sexual activity with new partners and the use of contraceptives as a preventative measure.

So let's take Jim Bob from Alabama as an example. I think we can all agree on just exactly what level of sexual education Jim Bob received in school? So now, that nation is being mandated, and thus Jim Bob himself is being mandated to attend a lesson in which a sexual educator teaches Jim Bob how to roll the condom over the banana?

We can agree, as that has already been mandated in a previous resolution. This is simply an add-on to that in the form of STI education.

Xanth and Tin, I will respond to your comments when I have a bit more time xD

Speaking of which.

5. Expands the mission of the World Health Authority to include assisting member states in the adequate education of sapient beings on reproduction, in order to minimize the risk of international epidemics caused by pathogens communicated through reproduction;

6. Directs the World Health Authority to allocate sufficient funds toward reproductive education in those member states that are unable to meet the mandates of this resolution, even in a good faith effort, without supranational aid;

These two clauses of #369, seem to take care of everything you want to do.

[Thousand Branches]

We can agree, as that has already been mandated in a previous resolution. This is simply an add-on to that in the form of STI education.

Xanth and Tin, I will respond to your comments when I have a bit more time xD

Speaking of which.

5. Expands the mission of the World Health Authority to include assisting member states in the adequate education of sapient beings on reproduction, in order to minimize the risk of international epidemics caused by pathogens communicated through reproduction;

6. Directs the World Health Authority to allocate sufficient funds toward reproductive education in those member states that are unable to meet the mandates of this resolution, even in a good faith effort, without supranational aid;

These two clauses of #369, seem to take care of everything you want to do.

Definitely not everything, but possibly the education clause. The only reason I don’t immediately say so is because 5 there is a super weird way to word that. It kind of suggests that STIs are taught only in relation to international epidemic, and not on a level of personal protection. It’s certainly a weird way to approach STI education. I’m actually not super sure why 6 was included since it’s not all that relevant afaik, it simply provides funds for reproductive education as a whole, and this isn’t a resolution on sex ed.

[Thousand Branches]

Bump

[Thousand Branches]

Bump again