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: Regulation of Adoption Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: United Democrats
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: September 2835
Description[?]:
| We need widespread and consistent regulation of the adoption procedure to ensure children only go to appropriate and capable families/households. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning adoption.
Old value:: Adoption policy is to be established by local governments.
Current: Regulation is used to screen out only those with a previous history of child abuse.
Proposed: Adoption is strictly regulated by the government. Only by passing several tests and by following an intensive program applicants can adopt children.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:26:34, October 17, 2009 CET | From | People's Party of Rutania | To | Debating the Regulation of Adoption Act |
| Message | We at the PPR are unsure that the proposed change will result in more children housed with more capable households, as this is suggesting that local government is not capable of making these decisions. However, we do believe that a better national consistency can be achieved by government regulation. We are leaning more towards supporting this bill than not, but would like to hear from other parties on this issue. |
| Date | 21:50:24, October 17, 2009 CET | From | Rutanian Elitist Party | To | Debating the Regulation of Adoption Act |
| Message | We share the dilemma highlighted by the PPR. |
| Date | 06:52:04, October 18, 2009 CET | From | Rutanian Restoration Party | To | Debating the Regulation of Adoption Act |
| Message | The OP feel this is not an issue that needs to be wrestled from the local governments. As we have always said, and as I am sure you are all tired of hearing, we believe government closer to home is more representative, effective government. |
| Date | 11:22:12, October 18, 2009 CET | From | Rutanian Heritage Party | To | Debating the Regulation of Adoption Act |
| Message | We sympathize with the sentiment of this legislation - that is, that adopted children should be guaranteed qualified foster-parents and a safe environment to be brought up in - but there is no reason for adoption regulation to become a federal issue, and local governments are more than capable of responding to the needs of the families and communities they represent. |
| Date | 14:17:51, October 19, 2009 CET | From | United Democrats | To | Debating the Regulation of Adoption Act |
| Message | I cannot see how local governments could oversee these cases thoroughly, there needs to be a national department set up to specifically regulate these proceedings. Potentially, would-be parents could be refused adoption in one region but granted in another. This is yet another example where local authority falls down. |
| Date | 23:20:50, October 19, 2009 CET | From | Rutanian Heritage Party | To | Debating the Regulation of Adoption Act |
| Message | On a larger scale, would-be parents may be refused adoption in one country and granted in another - is this unacceptable also? Should there be some sort of global government that can regulate adoption world-wide? Of course not. The argument for consistency is too often used as a pretext for increasing the size and scope of the federal government. It's inconcievable that individual local governments would allow people to adopt children who are unfit to do so any more than the federal government would. |
| Date | 12:13:26, October 20, 2009 CET | From | United Democrats | To | Debating the Regulation of Adoption Act |
| Message | Let's say, a person convicted of transporting 'illegal' pharmaceutical drugs in one region could go to another region where this crime is unrecognised and adopt a child due to the fact that they have no criminal record in that region. This seems ludicrous to me. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 105 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 200 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Moderation will not accept Cultural Protocol updates which introduce, on a significant scale, cultures which are likely to be insufficiently accessible to players. In particular, for all significant cultures in Particracy, it should be easy for players to access and use online resources to assist with language translation and the generation of character names. Moderation reserves the right to amend Cultural Protocols which are deemed to have introduced significant cultures that are not sufficiently accessible and which are not being actively role-played with. |
| Random quote: "Fascism is capitalism plus murder." - Upton Sinclair |