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: Reduction of Government Waste
Details
Submitted by[?]: Protectorate Party
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 2067
Description[?]:
| We propose to reduce the cost on the government to no longer subsidize or give away on every street corner birth control. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy on subsidising contraception.
Old value:: The government offers free contraceptives in pharmacies and public toilets.
Current: The government subsidises a considerable discount for contraceptives.
Proposed: The government does not supply free or discounted contraceptives.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 11:09:53, June 08, 2005 CET | From |  Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Reduction of Government Waste |
| Message | we supported something similar to this, but unfortunately, it is the poorest people who need the contraception the most and are the most unlikely to pay for it at the same time. (US stats) this may also potentially raise the number of abortions that happen in malivia. we would prefer to fix that problem than this one. |
| Date | 14:43:54, June 09, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Reduction of Government Waste |
| Message | OOC: where did you get that because according to reports I have read providing free contraception does not increase use. |
| Date | 12:40:28, June 10, 2005 CET | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Reduction of Government Waste |
| Message | OOC: the most unlikely to pay for it stat, i think i read it in New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. that is an interesting stat about free contraception not increasing use. here's another interesting one too preaching abstinence in the states is actually having a bigger effect than contraception, i can't remember where that stat comes from, i think you can google it . that one suprised me though |
| Date | 22:25:52, June 11, 2005 CET | From | Social Republican Party | To | Debating the Reduction of Government Waste |
| Message | OOC I thought it was fewer partners, but more STDs... |
| Date | 10:57:14, June 13, 2005 CET | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Reduction of Government Waste |
| Message | ooc to which one? |
| Date | 07:26:29, June 15, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Reduction of Government Waste |
| Message | More penny pinching at the expense of the poor. We wish we were shocked. |
| Date | 17:16:12, June 15, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Reduction of Government Waste |
| Message | As previously stated according to studies we have read there is no increase in use when they are freely given away. Thus this program is being cut at the expense of no one. |
| Date | 19:35:51, June 15, 2005 CET | From | LibCom Party | To | Debating the Reduction of Government Waste |
| Message | Nonsense. It's being cut at the expense of everyone who uses contraception, since they'll now have to pay full price. (Or rather they won't, since this won't pass.) |
| Date | 02:51:27, June 16, 2005 CET | From | Social Republican Party | To | Debating the Reduction of Government Waste |
| Message | abstenance class results in less partners, but more STDs. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 20 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 57 | ||||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 23 |
| Random fact: After 3 days (72 hours) your account will be inactivated by Moderation. If you want to be reactivated you can request reactivation located here: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4360 |
| Random quote: "The basis of a democratic state is liberty." - Aristotle |