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: Sexual Health Bill
Details
Submitted by[?]: New Conservatives
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: April 2520
Description[?]:
| A Bill to ensure that ALL of our youth receive sexual education in schools in their first year of secondary school, as well as providing easier access to contraception. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy on subsidising contraception.
Old value:: The government does not supply free or discounted contraceptives.
Current: The government offers free contraceptives in pharmacies and public toilets.
Proposed: The government subsidises a considerable discount for contraceptives.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Sexual education in schools.
Old value:: Schools have an obligation to give sexual education at some point in puberty, but individual students have an opt-out option.
Current: Schools have an obligation to give sexual education at some point in puberty, but individual students have an opt-out option.
Proposed: Schools have an obligation to give sexual education at some point in puberty.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 18:14:03, January 19, 2008 CET | From | Classical Reform Party | To | Debating the Sexual Health Bill |
| Message | No—families and students can choose whether they want to receive sexual education. As for free contraceptives, that is an issue for a charitable organization, not the government. |
| Date | 18:16:46, January 19, 2008 CET | From | New Conservatives | To | Debating the Sexual Health Bill |
| Message | But surely it is the Governments duty to protect people from disease if possible? Subsidising contraception deals with the problem in the short term, and compulsory education provides a long term solution to the issue. If pupils object on religious grounds, why not ensure that schools make provisions for those students to be taught in an appropriate manner? |
| Date | 18:22:18, January 19, 2008 CET | From | Classical Reform Party | To | Debating the Sexual Health Bill |
| Message | No, it is the government's job to protect people's personal and proprietary rights. Being free from disease is not a right. If a charitable organization believes that society needs free condoms, that is their prerogative, but this is not a governmental issue. It is not the government's business why a student objects whether that reason be for religious or personal reasons. Further, attempting to account for all religions would be both impossible and a waste of time. Students have the right to opt out of sex ed if they so desire because the government has no right to force it upon them. |
| Date | 19:47:32, January 19, 2008 CET | From | New Conservatives | To | Debating the Sexual Health Bill |
| Message | So you are saying that we are here to do virtually nothing, save occasionally amending rights? You are saying that this Government should leave every other aspect of life in this country to the people? This sounds absurd to me. |
| Date | 22:00:20, January 19, 2008 CET | From | Classical Reform Party | To | Debating the Sexual Health Bill |
| Message | Not amending rights; government cannot amend rights because government does not bestow rights, they are natural and inborn. Protecting them, via the courts, the police, and the military. That is the sole purpose of government. |
| Date | 17:18:36, January 20, 2008 CET | From | New Conservatives | To | Debating the Sexual Health Bill |
| Message | So, essentially, Government has to do very little, according to you. We don't have to stop the spread of STD's, because after all, that isn't the responsibility of the courts, the police or the military is it? We don't have to give education about those diseases to our youth, because that doesn't come under our responsibility. |
| Date | 20:35:34, January 20, 2008 CET | From | Classical Reform Party | To | Debating the Sexual Health Bill |
| Message | Yes, you've pretty much got it. Regardless of how you feel about things ideologically, there's plenty of evidence for the private sector's greater efficiency in these kinds of issues anyway. |
| Date | 00:29:42, January 21, 2008 CET | From | New Conservatives | To | Debating the Sexual Health Bill |
| Message | But why on earth would the private sector bother to give sex-ed? The Private Industry is naturally one of the most important things in this country, and it sure beats nationalisation, but it can only be so useful. Government must therefore look after the things private industry does not. Like the future generation. Let education go down, and our country sinks. |
| Date | 19:09:39, January 21, 2008 CET | From |  Freedom Party | To | Debating the Sexual Health Bill |
| Message | This is not about education, this is about the new conservatives forcing students to get sexual education, some students may be uncomfortable with that. The second option is mere subsidisation of sex, which is a private activity, and we will have no part of it. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 68 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 481 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 50 |
| Random fact: In Culturally Protected nations, it is the responsibility of players to ensure the candidate boxes on their Party Overview screens are filled in with appropriate names. If a player is allotted seats in a Cabinet bill and has not filled in names for the relevant candidate position, then the program will automatically fill in the positions with names which might not necessarily be appropriate for the Cultural Protocols. |
| Random quote: "The word 'politics' is derived from the word 'poly', meaning 'many', and the word 'ticks', meaning 'blood sucking parasites.'" - Larry Hardiman |