[PASSED] - Improving infant nutrition

[Simone Republic]

"I know that chemists and the like have attempted artificial substitutes for feeding infants, but all have met with horrific consequences. There are good reasons that distribution of such concoctions as alternatives to milk has been widely prohibited across the southern part of the continent."

(OOC)

It's a compromise to cater to non-traditional parents or say anyone who had a mastectomy.

[Wallenburg]

"I know that chemists and the like have attempted artificial substitutes for feeding infants, but all have met with horrific consequences. There are good reasons that distribution of such concoctions as alternatives to milk has been widely prohibited across the southern part of the continent."

(OOC)

It's a compromise to cater to non-traditional parents or say anyone who had a mastectomy.

"I don't see what parents have to gain from such a 'compromise'," Trevanyika responds to the disembodied voice. "Any parent that responds to their own personal inability to produce milk with a desire to compromise on the health of their infant has no business having custody of that infant. Artificial formulas have led to the deaths of tens of millions of children in just the last two decades, particularly in states whose infrastructure cannot furnish much clean water for every inhabitant. Perhaps such horror is unknown to some member states here, but my preliminary research into the histories of some worlds represented here indicates it is far from a unique occurrence.

"The proposal's standards for 'formula' exclude all artificial substitutes known to modern science. Therefore, it requires Wallenburg and several other member states to extract natural milk from its population and sell it directly or furnish companies with the ability to do the extraction and sales, to the extent that it is 'widely available'. I do not see how this is possible without an exorbitant government subsidy or payout to milk-producing volunteers or egregious violations of the bodily rights of the same. There simply is not sufficient supply to achieve the widespread availability demanded as-is."

[Simone Republic]

(OOC)

It's a compromise to cater to non-traditional parents or say anyone who had a mastectomy.

"I don't see what parents have to gain from such a 'compromise'," Trevanyika responds to the disembodied voice. "Any parent that responds to their own personal inability to produce milk with a desire to compromise on the health of their infant has no business having custody of that infant. Artificial formulas have led to the deaths of tens of millions of children in just the last two decades, particularly in states whose infrastructure cannot furnish much clean water for every inhabitant. Perhaps such horror is unknown to some member states here, but my preliminary research into the histories of some worlds represented here indicates it is far from a unique occurrence.

"The proposal's standards for 'formula' exclude all artificial substitutes known to modern science. Therefore, it requires Wallenburg and several other member states to extract natural milk from its population and sell it directly or furnish companies with the ability to do the extraction and sales, to the extent that it is 'widely available'. I do not see how this is possible without an exorbitant government subsidy or payout to milk-producing volunteers or egregious violations of the bodily rights of the same. There simply is not sufficient supply to achieve the widespread availability demanded as-is."

(OOC)

I am a bit confused (not that I am not usually confused). If access to clean water is an issue, then wouldn't the mother's lives be in danger? Isn't that a really bad environment to bring up children in the first place? Also GA288 already pretty much guarantees access to clean water.

Also I read and re-read the definition of formula, produced below:

"Formula" to mean formula milk or (depending on specific species) other scientifically validated, full nourished, and sanitary nutrition, whether produced naturally or through technological means, required for the survival and full and proper development of infants of specific species;

I deliberately wrote (and re-wrote) that definition to make it accommodating to both LGBTQIA+ parents, anyone who had a mastectomy plus Herby (hence the wording on "specific species"), and I haven't found any errors yet other than missing a hyphen between "full" and "nourished". I mean, I'd pull and resubmit if I can find an error in this definition, but I haven't yet found one. 

As an aside, getting to quorum was a bit more difficult than I thought given I did not mention LGBTQIA+ parents in the forum thread, but I mentioned it in the campaign TG.

(IC)

The milky white bear is still somewhere singing karaoke within WAHQ so the reply is typed up by its assistants.

[Second Sovereignty]

Raxes glances about the dusty chamber, and taps his mic. "If you will forgive me for drawing everyone's attention to a, rather abandoned chamber, it has come to our attention that this proposal is approaching vote. It does so, with one of our primary concerns not merely, not handled, but made actively worse. It now fails to mandate that private organizations provide spaces essential for public health and the nutrition of relevant children, but also requires that Member-States subsidize said organizations' wanton and criminal negligence with 'attractive incentives'."

Raxes chitters darkly. "That said, I am being unkind. 'attractive incentives' is not a defined term; the Sovereignty shall consider such to include criminal penalty for the violation of public labor and health codes. We highly recommend Member-States otherwise follow suit, as the effect of the draft otherwise is unobjectionable, and often quite good, and we are unwilling to sink-the-ship, as it were, wherein such a valuable oversight remains."

[Simone Republic]

Raxes chitters darkly. "That said, I am being unkind. 'attractive incentives' is not a defined term; the Sovereignty shall consider such to include criminal penalty for the violation of public labor and health codes. We highly recommend Member-States otherwise follow suit, as the effect of the draft otherwise is unobjectionable, and often quite good, and we are unwilling to sink-the-ship, as it were, wherein such a valuable oversight remains."

(OOC)

3(c) was deliberately written with "mantatory... incentives" rather than making it mandatory outright, both from a libertarian perspective and from a punishment perspective, if you prefer that interpretation. There's also nothing to prohibit for WA nations in making hygienic spaces mandatory.

[Isabella van der Feltz]

---

General Assembly Vote Recommendation

---

Part of the Information for WA Voters programme

---

Resolution at Vote: Improving Infant Nutrition
Vote Recommendation: For

Resolution Analysis

Overview
This resolution seeks to improve childhood nutrition - primarily breastfeeding for humans, but also making exceptions such as for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex and Asexual parents, or for parents who cannot breastfeed - and also requires a safe, private, and clean environment for feeding, i.e. breastfeeding, milk pumping, or other feeding taking place for different species.

Recommendation
This resolution takes a somewhat awkward compromise over the definition of "specific species" to avoid endless, unproductive General Assembly and National and International Roleplaying debates, which seems somewhat necessary but does make the language of the resolution more cumbersome than a straightforward resolution.

With that being said, we believe improving infant nutrition is a real-life priority for many organisations, such as the United Nations' World Health Organisation and the American Centres for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institutes of Health.

For the above reason, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote For the General Assembly resolution at vote, "Improving Infant Nutrition".

Join our discussion!

---

Sponsored by the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs of The North Pacific.

---

[Chacapoya]

Forgive me if I've misread, but does this actually accomplish anything in regards to ensuring that nursing parents are able to feed their offspring? The rather effete language of this proposal merely ensures nations must expend money in the hopes that private industry will create "hygienic spaces", rather than actually mandating the same, a far more effective solution. This piece legislates all around mandating nursing time, but fails to actually do so; employers are prevented from discriminating against a nursing person, and encouraged to provide a place to feed, but not required to do so.

The resolution is admirable in its intentions, but toothless in execution.

[Nova Universo Headquarters]

Alafia Odusanya, Representative of the Union of Nova Universo to the General Assembly: 'I would like to reply to the statement by the honourable representative of Chacapoya. The recommending tone of this proposal does not negate its power in regards to ensuring that children are nourished by their parents. Yes, it is a 'one could', rather than 'one must' piece of legislation, but by phrasing it in such a way, the authors are trying to maximise its benefit and reach to the most number possible. Also, we do not need a 'thou must nourish thy child with thine own bodily secretions or the vengeance of the Assembly will smite thee' resolution. This is better left to nations' governments and societies, who are able to impose regulations that pays attention to their conditions and peculiarities. That is all, honourable Speaker.'

[Haneidon]

Sharyon Regal, Prime Minister of Haneidon:
I would like to express some concerns regarding the proposed resolution on Improving Infant Nutrition;

Ensure that all facilities owned by governments, as well as all medical facilities (operated by a government or otherwise) in all WA states should provide, as soon as reasonably practicable and where physically possible, "hygienic spaces", as long as the WA state has a significant portion of its legal inhabitants belonging to a "specific species";

The objective of this clause is to prevent illnesses, which by itself is positive. However, it is crucial to recognise that the broad definition of 'hygienic spaces' poses challenges in implementation, particularly in facilities where the provision of such spaces may be impractical, such as landfills and sewage treatment plants.

Prohibit employers established in WA states from discriminating against anyone directly or indirectly on the grounds that time is required during working hours for feeding, and to impose such penalties as the said government proscribes, subject to due process of law;

It should be noted that certain industries and job roles might encounter difficulties in meeting these time requirements during working hours. Numerous nations, including Haneidon, offer parental leave to parents to avoid potential conflicts over the time needed to feed their infants. Nevertheless, this clause may create a loophole which enables parents to avoid work on the pretext of "feeding" their child while still having received parental leave.

Prohibit discrimination against any inhabitants on their choice of feeding methods, and to impose such penalties as the said government proscribes, subject to due process of law,

This clause has significant issues, representing the primary reason for my strong opposition to this legislation. There is a loophole that could potentially provide cover for those who engage in harmful acts against infants, under the guise of "feeding methods". If this legislation is passed, abhorrent actions such as rape against infants may be protected by this clause. Haneidon will be steadfast in their efforts to oppose this legislation at any expense, in order to safeguard the safety of our children.

Final Recommendation: Vote AGAINST.

[Athnia]

Prohibit employers established in WA states from discriminating against anyone directly or indirectly on the grounds that time is required during working hours for feeding, and to impose such penalties as the said government proscribes, subject to due process of law;

Athnia does not stand against breastfeeding or any other feeding methods, nor do we stand against motors or infants in any way. However, the above line is ridiculous. The enabling of breastfeeding in the workplace on a wide scale rather than at employer's discretion will create distracting work environments for other employees, lowering overall productivity and harming the economy as hundreds, if not thousands of workers stop focusing on their work and start focusing on the topless lady in the next cubicle over. While there are plenty of situations where it is necessary for such a decision, I believe that is up to my government to decide, not the WA. Additionally, imagine the noise! Every mother in the country will bring their child to work in order to better take care of them, and the workplace will become the single least productive place in the world. You'd be more productive trading bitcoin than working in an environment like that.

Beyond that, laws against employee discrimination are ridiculous in general. From a purely financial standpoint, what does a company have to gain from hiring someone to increase their diversity if they are worse than someone who happens to be more qualified, but of a more common opinion?

I see nothing to gain from a bill which interferes in the workplace, and therfore, Athnia stands against this bill, at least until such a time as the above line(s) are removed. We simply cannot willingly agree to such an outrageous reform to a longstanding effective system.

[Elyreia]

Prohibit employers established in WA states from discriminating against anyone directly or indirectly on the grounds that time is required during working hours for feeding, and to impose such penalties as the said government proscribes, subject to due process of law;

Athnia does not stand against breastfeeding or any other feeding methods, nor do we stand against motors or infants in any way. However, the above line is ridiculous. The enabling of breastfeeding in the workplace on a wide scale rather than at employer's discretion will create distracting work environments for other employees, lowering overall productivity and harming the economy as hundreds, if not thousands of workers stop focusing on their work and start focusing on the topless lady in the next cubicle over. While there are plenty of situations where it is necessary for such a decision, I believe that is up to my government to decide, not the WA. Additionally, imagine the noise! Every mother in the country will bring their child to work in order to better take care of them, and the workplace will become the single least productive place in the world. You'd be more productive trading bitcoin than working in an environment like that.

Beyond that, laws against employee discrimination are ridiculous in general. From a purely financial standpoint, what does a company have to gain from hiring someone to increase their diversity if they are worse than someone who happens to be more qualified, but of a more common opinion?

I see nothing to gain from a bill which interferes in the workplace, and therfore, Athnia stands against this bill, at least until such a time as the above line(s) are removed. We simply cannot willingly agree to such an outrageous reform to a longstanding effective system.

"In the same vein as the prior complaint about such actions causing an increase in crime against women, the idea that breastfeeding (or species-specific analogues) 'causes problems for others' is ridiculous. The legislation at present does not force employers to allow their employees and their children in the work place. It merely provides that, in those situations where it does happen or is required on a species-to-species basis, the workplace may not discriminate. This does not mean that the women will be breast feeding in cubicles; it means they cannot be punished for taking breaks from work to breastfeed. The onus for employers then would be to create spaces for those who must breastfeed to do so if they want to 'not cause a distraction'.

"And, again, as I previously mentioned in my last comment for this draft, the only ones responsible for workers who are 'distracted' and craning their necks like horny teenagers at women breastfeeding are the distracted workers themselves. This constant vilification of the breastfeeding parties for being victims of harassment yet 'they bring it on themselves/they cause such a distraction' rings awfully empty when you realize it's just an attempt to victim-shame.

"And to top it off, if the truly capitalist societies are so keen on profit margins and cutting edge innovative solutions, would they not be able to find an innovative solution that solves this conjured-from-the-aether problem? To not only increase the productivity of the 'distracted employees' but also the breastfeeding ones with some grandiose process?

"We find no merit in your argument against the resolution."

_{Editted for grammar}

[Kenosha]

The Kenoshan Ambassador to the WA gives a press conference, where he sets fire to the resolution and calls it "An act of terrorism"

[Kenmoria]

Improving Infant Nutrition was passed 10,355 votes to 1,949.

(OOC: Congratulations, Simone.)