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: Adoption Availability Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: United Blobs
Status[?]: passed
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: March 2076
Description[?]:
| This bill allows all groups to adopt children. This will be in combination with the Adoption Act (http://aiglesrv.no-ip.info:8080/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=8452) meaning that single parents and homosexual couples are allowed as long as they, along with heterosexual couples, can prove themselves capable of bringing up a child to a high quality of life. Adopted children will be visited at least once during the first 6 months to check that they are being well cared for. The adoptee(s) will also be given a regular stipend for low income families to pay for the child's upbringing. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning who can proceed with adoption; in case adoption is legal.
Old value:: Only heterosexual couples and singles may adopt children.
Current: Everyone may adopt children.
Proposed: Everyone may adopt children.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 18:16:21, July 03, 2005 CET | From |  United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the Adoption Availability Act |
| Message | We will absolutely support this Bill. However, the SDLP proposed Bill similar to this needs to be disposed of quickly. |
| Date | 18:26:48, July 03, 2005 CET | From | Social Democratic Liberal Party | To | Debating the Adoption Availability Act |
| Message | @USM: We will not remove our bill, it will be left open to debate, particularly as it was proposed prior to this one. |
| Date | 18:38:00, July 03, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the Adoption Availability Act |
| Message | We're not asking you to do that: instead we're urging other parties to defeat it in the voting stage. |
| Date | 18:41:35, July 03, 2005 CET | From | Social Democratic Liberal Party | To | Debating the Adoption Availability Act |
| Message | Fair enough, I misinterpreted your point. Apologies! |
| Date | 18:44:41, July 03, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the Adoption Availability Act |
| Message | No apology needed, I didn't make this point clear enough! |
| Date | 20:42:35, July 03, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Adoption Availability Act |
| Message | I would recommend adding that after a period of time (can be set however you want) that the adopted children/parents are visited just to make sure everyone is still happy and not having problems that could be harmful to either the child or the adoptive parents (1 visit would probably be enough). |
| Date | 21:42:11, July 03, 2005 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Adoption Availability Act |
| Message | Added that and added a stipend for adoptees to help the SDLP's fears about the inability of single parents to support the child. |
| Date | 22:42:26, July 03, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the Adoption Availability Act |
| Message | "The adoptee(s) will also be given a regular stipend to pay for the child's upbringing." May that be changed slightly, to make it only for those below a certain income? I wouldn't want those benefits going to a millionaire, they would not be as appreciated. |
| Date | 02:15:55, July 04, 2005 CET | From | Right Party | To | Debating the Adoption Availability Act |
| Message | All our support goes to UB, we are glad to see changes made in regard to stipend, however we would back USM on low-income condition.No need to waste taxpayers' money. |
| Date | 10:02:59, July 04, 2005 CET | From |  Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Adoption Availability Act |
| Message | We will support this version of the bill. The stipend is good option. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 364 | ||||||
| no | Total Seats: 27 | ||||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: In cases where a party has no seat, the default presumption should be that the party is able to contribute to debates in the legislature due to one of its members winning a seat at a by-election. However, players may collectively improvise arrangements of their own to provide a satisfying explanation for how parties with no seats in the legislature can speak and vote there. |
| Random quote: "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is." - Bill Clinton |