General Assembly voting recommendation - Vote AGAINST Water Fluoridation Act
Water Fluoridation Act (Health, Research) by Scalizagasti - VOTE AGAINST - voting finishes on December 17th 2020
This Act, if enacted, would require each member state to fluoridate almost all drinking water intended for consumption by sapients to a level recommended for that member by the International Bureau of Water Safety. However, there is no apparent requirement for the data submitted to the Bureau to be truthful, nor for member states to confirm to any entity that they actually require an exemption from the fluoridation mandate as provided for in the final article. Combined with this and the author's preference to defend the prevention of tooth decay in animals over fluoride toxicity in plants, Auctorian opposition is warranted.
This proposal was submitted by Cretox State for various reasons; one of the most widely-cited ones, including in its text, pertain to the argument that Cretox had passed two other proposals touching on similar subject matter which - despite never having been labelled as replacements beforehand - are now being treated as such. There are various other causes for concern - if not mere scepticism - within the proposal's arguments which can only lead Auctor to recommend a vote against this proposal:
The requirement for businesses to provide a breastfeeding room to those who sincerely cannot avoid breastfeeding at the workplace - a figure that is rapidly decreasing in light of increased availability of formula milk and daycare centres - is purported to incentivise "firms to avoid hiring female labor in direct contravention of the intentions of this resolution[...]". However, the "intentions" of GA#491 clearly point towards facilitating, not preventing, governments from subsidising or supporting the construction of such rooms. Sandaoguo has also eloquently clarified that a "room that has a dedicated time period for lactating mothers, or is reserved when they are using it, is perfectly acceptable under [GA#491]."
The argument that GA#491 contains no "non-discrimination hiring protections applying to breastfeeding" is questionable at best. Article D4 of GA#491 in fact forbids unfair retaliation against workers due to their facing any "discriminatory employment practices," whether or not they relate to "the hiring of breastfeed[ers]."
GA#491 said to mandate "at least eight weeks of leave for adoption;" however, workers are not required to claim any part of parental and adoption leave - let alone all of it. If a worker does not believe that they need to take any time off after adopting an older child, they are more than welcome not to do so.
If GA#491 is repealed, it would furthermore replace a guaranteed offer of eight weeks of parental leave with a less certainly-defined "reasonable duration of paid leave." The target resolution can co-exist with Protected Working Leave - and should not be replaced by it outright.