We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Impartial Government Morality Concerning Contraceptives
Details
Submitted by[?]: Tuesday Is Coming
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: May 2086
Description[?]:
| Given that contraceptives are a controversial subject to some people, and that some consider the artificial prevention of a pregnancy to be immoral or even murder... Also given that all citizens are forced to support the Lodamun contraceptives industry, through their taxes spent toward subsidies... We feel that it is wrong to force anyone to subsidize the production of such products, especially if they concientiously object to doing so for religious or otherwise moral reasons. We propose that the government cease all forms of subsidy, and adopt a policy of economic impartiality, towards the production of contraceptives. All funds saved through this reduction in subsidy spending shall be returned to those from whom it was collected, in the form of a "no strings attached" tax cut. They shall be free to choose to spend this on contraceptives themselves, of course. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy on subsidising contraception.
Old value:: The government subsidises a considerable discount for contraceptives.
Current: The government offers free contraceptives in pharmacies and public toilets.
Proposed: The government does not supply free or discounted contraceptives.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 06:08:47, July 24, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Impartial Government Morality Concerning Contraceptives |
| Message | Opposed, providing discounted contraceptives to low income people who cannot afford them otherwise prevents major problems. |
| Date | 08:28:20, July 24, 2005 CET | From | Lodamun Centre-Left Coalition | To | Debating the Impartial Government Morality Concerning Contraceptives |
| Message | Seconded on the CNT/AFL position. |
| Date | 17:17:40, July 24, 2005 CET | From |  Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Impartial Government Morality Concerning Contraceptives |
| Message | "Opposed, providing discounted contraceptives to low income people who cannot afford them otherwise prevents major problems." But forcing others to pay for them, especially considering that contraceptives are morally opposed by some, creates other problems. Low income people who wish to avoid pregnancy are far from completely reliant on subsidized contraception. What does a (unsubsidized) condom cost?((75 cents USD where I live. Less per unit if more are bought.)) There is no need to cater to the contraceptives industry like this. Consumers of contraceptives are saved some cents, the companies that produce contraceptives gain the most from legislation like this. |
| Date | 18:04:46, July 24, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Impartial Government Morality Concerning Contraceptives |
| Message | Let's establish a state monopoly on all contraceptives then!. |
| Date | 18:56:10, July 24, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Impartial Government Morality Concerning Contraceptives |
| Message | Explain how that would be somehow better than allowing free competition on the private contraceptive market. As contraceptives are already cheap and relatively plentiful((in RL)), and this has failed to solve the above-mentioned "major problems" we can conclude that the cost or availability of contraceptives is not the reason for this. Therefore any subsidy will not "prevent major problems". Irresponsible decisions tend to create the most pregnancy-related problems, and using contraceptives tends to be a more responsible decision. The decision to use contraceptives has little to do with cost, as the cost is not high enough to provide a detterent. We see no reason to force people who choose abstinence, etc. to pay for contraceptive production. |
| Date | 19:08:26, July 24, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Impartial Government Morality Concerning Contraceptives |
| Message | I have to say that while we have stste funded health care and a welfare system that supports single parents etc. it is cheaper to subsidise contraceptives and promote their use, than to use tax payers money to deal with the STDs and unwanted pregnancies that would occur if they were not widely and cheaply available. Yes, the favouritism toward the contraceptive manufacturers is an annoying consequence, but it is not a market distorting factor as all suppliers receive the same treatment (national manufacturers or importers). For purely economic reasons we oppose this bill. |
| Date | 19:15:51, July 24, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Impartial Government Morality Concerning Contraceptives |
| Message | Unsubsidized condoms are hardly a financial burden. They cost less than a hamburger at a fast food restaurant. Significantly subsidized, or even free, condoms does not cause people to want to use them. ((Most of my friends who do not use any form of protection do not care about the cost of it. Also, my college subsidizes condoms with part of our health fees.)) |
| Date | 19:27:38, July 24, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Impartial Government Morality Concerning Contraceptives |
| Message | If contraception is subsidized (this is more than condoms) then there is a legal grounding for charging for treatment of STDs and charging for abortions. The government had made available the means to avoid these problems, regardless of the economic status of the person concerned. ((Equally for you, condoms may not be a burden, for a person living on a dollar a day, a condom is a luxury item if not subsidised. As to your friends who don't use contraception, they should not be your friends if that is their selfish and stupid attitude.)) |
| Date | 22:02:57, July 24, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Impartial Government Morality Concerning Contraceptives |
| Message | I am using condoms as the main example, simply because they are very cheap and have a high rate of effectiveness. ((A person living on a dollar a day can obtain funds for condoms or other birth control from a number of charitable institutions. While I disapprove of irresponsible and stupid behaviour, the sex lives of others are not my concern)) |
| Date | 22:55:01, July 24, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Impartial Government Morality Concerning Contraceptives |
| Message | The argument still stands that there are those that would uuse contraception if it were within their financial reach, that if we remove this no distorting subsidy, will no longer have that option. What this law will do is force them to choose between abstinence (which we would not wish to force on anyone) or risking unwanted pregnancies and STDs. As such we oppose the motion. The initial cost to the taxpayer is minimal and the potential savings to the taxpayer are very large. |
| Date | 01:15:22, July 25, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Impartial Government Morality Concerning Contraceptives |
| Message | Many charities provide free or discounted contraceptives, those who wish to make responsible sexual decisions, but cannot afford even the cheapest contraceptives, have other options available besides government subsidy. |
| Date | 00:56:33, July 26, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Impartial Government Morality Concerning Contraceptives |
| Message | Weighing the pros and cons we will still oppose. We recognise and understand the intent of the bill, but we do not agree that the consequences will be as TiC predicts. |
| Date | 01:01:52, July 26, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Impartial Government Morality Concerning Contraceptives |
| Message | hm...well what the heck... |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 42 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 294 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 101 |
| Random fact: Any RP law granting extraordinary "emergency powers" or dictator-like powers to a government must be passed by at least a 2/3rds majority, but (like all RP laws) may always be overturned by a simple majority vote of the legislature. |
| Random quote: "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to defend minorities." - Ayn Rand |