The Child Protection Act

Liberty
1

The focus is on ensuring that definitions of human beings and biological sexes are clear for the purpose of protecting children’s rights (inclusing the unborn), welfare, and identity, here’s how the bill could be titled and structured:

Title: Child Protection Act

Section 1. Short Title

This Act may be cited as the “Child Protection Act.”

Section 2. Purpose

The purpose of this Act is to establish clear legal definitions of “human being” and biological sexes to ensure the protection, equal rights, and well-being of all children under the law.

Section 3. Definitions

(a) “Human Being” - For the purposes of this Act and any reference within the law concerning children, “human being” shall be defined as:

- Any individual organism of the species Homo sapiens, characterized by bipedalism, large brain size, advanced cognitive capabilities, and the capacity for language and culture.

(b) Biological Sexes for Children:

- **"Male Child"** - A child whose biological make-up, as typically determined by genetic and anatomical features at birth, includes the presence of a Y chromosome, generally leading to the development of testes and secondary sex characteristics as they grow.

- **"Female Child"** - A child whose biological make-up, as typically determined by genetic and anatomical features at birth, includes two X chromosomes, generally leading to the development of ovaries and secondary sex characteristics as they grow.

(c) “Child” - Any individual below the age of majority as defined by state law, but not older than 18 years unless otherwise specified.

(d) “Rights and Protections” - All references to rights, privileges, duties, or protections under any law concerning children shall apply equally to every “human being” child, ensuring protection from discrimination, neglect, abuse, and ensuring access to education, healthcare, and other necessities.

Section 4. Application

(a) These definitions shall be applied to all legislation, policies, and judicial decisions relating to child protection, welfare, education, and healthcare.

(b) Educational materials, child welfare guidelines, and public health documents should reflect these definitions to ensure clarity and equal application of the law in matters concerning children.

Section 5. Provisions for Protection

(a) Establish clear guidelines for schools, healthcare providers, and child welfare agencies to recognize and respect the biological sex of children in all administrative, medical, educational, and social activities.

(b) Ensure that any intervention or decision made on behalf of a child concerning their biological sex or gender identity must prioritize the child’s best interest, health, and long-term well-being, with full informed consent from guardians or courts when necessary.

Section 6. Enforcement

(a) The Department of Health and Human Services, in conjunction with the Department of Education, shall oversee the adherence to this Act.

(b) Legal actions concerning children’s rights shall consider these definitions as a fundamental basis.

Section 7. Effective Date

This Act shall take effect upon its passage into law.

Notes on Drafting:

  • Focus on Children: By naming it the Child Protection Act, it emphasizes the intent to protect and clarify rights specifically for minors, which might influence educational, medical, and legal practices more directly.

  • Inclusivity and Clarity: The definitions aim to be inclusive while providing clear biological distinctions, which could be crucial for discussions around child development, sports participation, and medical treatment.

  • Potential Impacts: This act could affect policies on education, particularly around sex education, sports, and aspects of child welfare concerning gender identity or biological sex.

This draft focuses on safeguarding children’s rights and welfare by providing a clear, biologically-based framework for understanding sex and gender in law, with a primary focus on protection and well-being.

3 Likes
2

It’s important to remember that this issue is purposely picked by politicians for being a wedge issue:

Much like Roe v Wade, it sows division & is not something you can ever get people to agree on - they’ll always be split 50/50

Forcing legislation through doesn’t make it a fact - take, for instance, what you’ve suggested here; you’ve used the word organism

If we lookup the definition of that word:

any living thing that functions on its own

We’re right back to the divisive & wedge issue

The entire problem is that we cannot agree on the meaning of words - it’s subjective, to an extent, and there are gray areas

3

This Act also doesn’t address the big 3 exceptions that most with common sense recognize: conception via rape/incest and the health of the mother. Because of the inherent gray areas of this wedge issue, it’s impossible to find a perfect middle ground for the two extreme views on the topic of abortion (pro-life from conception with no exceptions vs full-term partial live birth abortion). I personally don’t think it’s morally right to use abortion as a means of birth control. That doesn’t mean I get to tell someone across the country, whom I have no clue about their life situation, what they should be allowed to do with THEIR child. However, I do think placing limits on what stage of development a pregnancy can be terminated should be a part of this conversation, and become how we find common sense middle ground on this topic in order to shift focus to much bigger problems that Americans face daily economically.

4

We can’t agree on the meaning of words because we’ve allowed the vocal minority to drive the conversation.

Right-thinking adults need to re-take the conversation. Unfortunately, we DO need legislation that formally defines terms so that they can no longer be hijacked and used to duplicitous purposes.

3 Likes
5

This policy doesn’t have exceptions because there should never be exceptions.

Killing innocent babies because of how they were conceived doesn’t fix anything, it only makes the situation worse.

6

I’m not pro-abortion for myself, but who am I to decide someone else’s moral compass and what they can or can’t do? At the same time, I think it should be more tightly regulated so it cannot be abused over and over. There is no middle ground that either extreme stance will truly agree upon.

7

This is a really stupid argument, but very common.

Our nation is built on Judeo-Christian values.

In our founding documents, it says - baldly and clearly - that all men are created equal with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

That principle is the bedrock of our nation’s philosophy about mankind and our inherent worth as human beings.

There is no dispute when human life begins. It begins at conception.

Therefore, we either believe human life has inherent value (and all abortions are wrong), or we don’t, which means our founders were wrong, and you reject the principles this nation was founded on.

Which is it?

8

The founding fathers coined the phrases “all men created equal”, and that we have the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, while actively owning slaves. You and I clearly agree that abortion is not right in general personally, but many others disagree. They have strayed from God and the Christian values this country was founded upon, but how do you force your religious-based beliefs upon atheists and members of other religious factions into law? Not to mention there are plenty of medically necessary exceptions to your zero tolerance proposal

9

Every legal, law-based system is built on certain moral axioms. Every law comes from some moral assumption.

In America, our founding documents outline our moral assumptions as a country. Every man is created equal. This is not a “religious-based belief”, but a VALUE which came from the Judeo-Christian beliefs our founders recognized.

You and I as Christians hold to these beliefs because of our faith.
In the US, our laws are based on those values because we need a foundation to base morality and laws off of. While our laws forbid a state-recgonized RELIGIONG, they do not forbid a state-recognized MORALITY, and that morality stems from Judeo-Christian values.

As for “medically necessary exceptions” - that’s false. Abortion is literally NEVER required or needed. Not once, not ever.

10

Marcos B is right with this easily becoming a wedge issue and would probably be used by politicians to grind the momentum of clear sexual identification to a halt. As you have seen openly with numerous politicians, when asked how a man or a woman is defined, they squirm in their chairs, change the subject, stutter and stammer around with word salad replies, etc.

It is very clear that many of our congressional representatives (nearly all of them on the left) are taking these marching orders from some central and unseen source (which means that they are already compromised on the issue). For two hundred years, it was not a problem identifying a human’s sex – all of a sudden in the last 5 years, it is seemingly impossible. This a game being played for a greater unseen purpose (probably to generate confusion and division within society in order to further weaken it, which is perhaps merely a single attack vector of thousands, in the part of the much larger plan to “take down America”). Creating confusion with sex identification is simply a tiny part of the big picture.

That said, you might wish to look at congress persons already compromised and approach them as a combatant instead of a representative, forcing their hands to take small steps toward your end goal of childhood protections. The best way to do this is to break up the objective into smaller objectives that give them even less wiggle room on each step. In this case, perhaps you might approach them in a two-step solution. In other words, get them first to commit to the fact that human sexual identification is not complex or mysterious – have them first be forced to go AGAINST this unseen mandate, which many congress persons are indrectly admitting to following, simply by evidence of their not being able to openly define a male or a female to the American People. In other words FORCE them to opening agree (via their votes) to the following: That a biological male can be positively defined as having a Y chromosome; and a biological female can be positively defined as having two X chromosomes. Once that is done, you have now gone after and weakened the mandates of the puppeteer BEHIND the congress people, who is trying to sow this fake confusion of sexual identification.

If both the human identification effort and the protection of children effort remain under a single bill, you leave too much wiggle room for congress persons to argue and disagree over textual meaning and word placements, allowing them cover to shoot down the entire bill on some ridiculous complaints, just so that they can avoid openly having to go against their mandate of “sowing confusion over sex identification”.

In summary, perhaps break your approach up into two distinct bill proposals where the first Act identifies human sexes, and the second Act protects children based on the first Act. For example:

1. Human Biological Sex Identification Act
2. Child Protection Act (Based on already-passed Law: Human Biological Sex Identification Act)

I know it seems like a lot of text for such a small suggestion, but it was meant to reveal how these representatives operate, how they are bound to a collective mandate to keep confusion going, and how they might take advantage of excessive wording in order to vote down the proposal. You are dealing with snakes – you cannot allow for wiggle room via large blocks of text. And in the end, with so little wiggle room on a very tiny 1 page bill (Act 1), if they still vote it down, then the entire world will be able to see that they are trying to go against the Will (and Common Scientific Sense) of the American People, and will have to face that music when they go home to their constituents, who will be ready to ‘primary’ them.

I hope this helps to convey my thoughts on the proposal. Thanks.