|Home | Bookmark | Tell||Active petitions in over 75 countries||Follow GoPetition|
Petition Tag - adopt
The generally accepted definition of the word "adopt" as it applies to children is:
"To take into one's family through legal means and raise as one's own child."
Whereas the definition of the word "sponsor" as it might apply to an endangered species is:
"A person or group that provides funds for an activity, esp. a person or group who donates money to a charity when the chairty requesting the donation has performed a specified activity as part of an organized fund-raising effort."
So by this very simple example it would be quite possible to sponsor a child in say China through organisations such as Hope4China or the Goodrock Foundation.
It is also possible, after much soul-searching, bureaucratic process and financial support to actually adopt a child from countries such as China or Thailand (http://www.dcfs.gov.uk).
But, it would be wholly inappropriate, not to say insulting to adopted children around the world, to seek to raise funds for the welfare and protection of say snow leopards, rhinos or pandas by asking people to “adopt” these animals; quite clearly you would not be taking them into your families and raising them as your own children – you would simply be sponsoring them a few pounds/dollars a month. And in doing so helping a worthy cause and hard working charity.
In 2006 our family was blessed with the adoption of a baby girl from China and 4 years later she herself is sponsoring a panda in China.
So please find it in your heart to support this very worthy petition and help children who have already suffered separation, loss and abandonment to regain some self-esteem by not being compared to the feeding and protection of animals.
In 2007, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued Technical Instructions for Tuberculosis (TB) Screening and Treatment for Panel Physicians.
The primary goal of the new protocols is to minimize the number of immigrants entering the U.S. with multi-drug-resistant TB thereby curtailing the spread of this infectious disease among the U.S. citizenry. In May and June of 2009, CDC announced that immigrants over the age of 2 from Ethiopia and China would be subject to new TB protocols.
These new protocols require a series of tests for all immigrants, including children adopted abroad by U.S. citizens. For children adopted abroad by U.S. citizens, the tests will delay the adoption by a minimum of seven days depending on the test results could delay the issuance of visa to twelve (12) months or more.
Children adopted abroad by U.S. citizens are a unique immigrant population. Given the population’s unique situation, the implementation of these instructions is not in the best interest of these vulnerable children and should not be implemented for this population for the following reasons:
1. Adopted children of American citizens, much like children born to American citizens abroad, pose a negligible threat to the public health of the United States.
2. The CDC instructions deny U.S.-based medical treatment for children adopted by U.S. citizens.
3. The most vulnerable of all children are orphans who are older and have special needs. The new protocols will result in further developmental and physical delays for the children of American citizens.
4. The instructions do not apply to American citizens living abroad or their children and should not apply to children adopted by U.S. citizens.
5. The risk of TB transmission, even in active cases, is minimal for infected children under the age of 12 years.
6. After two weeks of treatment, and three negative AFB smears an infected person is no longer contagious. The CDC instructions therefore, are unnecessary when applied to adopted children of American citizens as the children will undoubtedly be treated immediately upon their entrance into the United States.
7. The new TB protocols will result in an increase in travel expenses for U.S.-citizen adoptive parents and unknown delays during adoption processes.
The CDC instructions, therefore, are unnecessary when applied to adopted children of American citizens. The new protocols are a significant and unnecessary roadblock, which may deny these children access to a permanent family. Implementing the protocols for this population is an excessive means of protecting against multi-drug resistant TB.
The intercountry adoption process is a long, tedious process for American citizens seeking to adopt a foreign born child. Paperwork includes home studies, finger printing and criminal checks. The process can take up to three years to complete. At the completion of the adoption, the child must be approved for a U.S. immigrant visa in order to enter the U.S. and gain citizenship. The immigrant visa is required despite the fact that the “immigrant” is the child of a U.S. citizen. The U.S. is one of the few developed countries in the world that requires internationally adopted children of citizens to immigrate in order to join their new families.
Most countries recognize internationally adopted children as citizens upon the finalization of their adoption. The Foreign Adopted Children Equality Act (FACE Act) would recognize that internationally adopted children deserve to be treated as children of American citizens and accorded the same citizenship process as children born abroad to American citizens.
Under the FACE Act, Adoptive parents would apply for a U.S. passport and Consular Report of Birth instead of a visa. These documents provide adoptive parents with immediate proof of citizenship for their adopted child and provide immediate proof of U.S. citizenship.
Whereas, the public health concerns of existing outdoor wood boilers are well documented and recognized by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, the Environmental Protection Agency, the American Lung Association, and countless other local boards of health across the United States, we are hereby signing this petition in support for Rutland residents who wish for the institution of a summer ban for existing outdoor wood boilers in the Town of Rutland, Massachusetts.
Whereas, the public health concerns of existing outdoor wood boilers are well documented and recognized by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, the Environmental Protection Agency, the American Lung Association, and countless other local boards of health across the United States, we are hereby creating this petition for the institution of a summer ban for existing outdoor wood boilers in the town of Rutland, Massachusetts.
This petition was created to try and persuade our landlord into allowing us to adopt a dog. (Yes, I know... I continue to try). He's concerned about the old, parquet floors in our living room. We are responsible tenants, have a fenced in yard and much love to provide a dog.
SUPRA conducted a survey during the later part of 2006 to get a sense of the issues facing research and coursework postgraduates at The University of Sydney. We are pleased to announce that we have completed SUPRA’s Policy on Entitlements for Postgraduate Students.
This policy sets out the resources and conditions that should be provided to postgrad students. The policy can be found at the following link: SUPRA Postgrad Entitlements Policy
SUPRA is asking all postgraduate students to sign on to the petition. SUPRA will then present it to the Senate asking them to immediately adopt the Policy with a view to establishing an implementation plan by the end of 2007 and university-wide compliance by 2010.
Humans are designed to be heterosexual not gay/lesbian. They can do want they want in their own homes but not in public because it is wrong.
Gay/lesbian couples should not be able to adopt etc because imagine what the child's friends would say if they found out his/her parents were gay/lesbian. Children should also be brought up by a mother and a father, not two mothers or two fathers. They need an influence from both types of parents.
Gay/lesbian marriages should definetely never become legal. The dictionary definition of marriage says that marriage is between a man and a woman.
It should also be illegal to practice homosexuality in public as it is disgusting and the majority of people don't want to see it.
There is nothing wrong with being homosexual as long as they don't do any of the above. They can still be homosexual in their own homes.
For centuries, the UK has used the first-past-the-post system to elect its MPs. This system is out-dated and promotes inequality.
The two main parties (Labour and Conservative) are over-represented and the rest are under-represented. Most importantly, there is no proportionality.
The Labour government is currently running our country with the support of a mere 35.2% of the voters. The Green party can get 15% and not win a single seat.Is this fair?
I propose a system where, if a party gets 10% of the votes it will also get 10% of the seats in Parliament. ie, a FAIR system.
PETITION FOR A "CODE OF ETHICS" POLICY FOR TWRA WILD LIFE OFFICERS
Whereas: We, the Undersigned , do hereby agree in principle to the context of the need for a "Code of Ethics" policy in Tenn. Regarding TWRA's Wild Life Officers. The intent of this petition is to help restore credibility to the Wild Life agency's Officers and to help eliminate what we the undersigned have witnessed or believe to be wide spread "questionable activities" or "UnEthical Practices" on the part of some TWRA Wild Life officers in Tennessee, especially in Western Counties.
We, the undersigned, present this Petition to you, our State's Legislatures, in a effort to bring the issue of this on-going problem to your attention. We also are providing some specific examples of what those problems and issues are which hopefully will persuade and encourage you to support this need for creation and passage of legislation requiring the TWRA to adopt and enforce a clear and simple "Code of Ethics Policy" for the Agency's Wild Life Officers.
We, the undersigned believe Tennessee needs a basic "Code of Ethics Policy", one that will help restore credibility and respect to the Wild Life Officer Positions in our Counties and across the Great State of Tennessee. We believe before that goal can be accomplished, Tennessee must adopt legislation that will govern and control these TWRA officers similarly to those policy's we find on the Books of most other States across America. We are including the State of Texas Code of Ethics Policy which we believe is the best example Tennessee should model it's policy after.
1.Statement of Fact: Due to the apparent absence of any "Code of Ethics" Policy for TWRA Wild Life Officers in Tennessee, We, the Undersigned, have either experienced first hand impacts or have direct or indirect knowledge of facts that suggest such unethical behavior and activities as listed in this petition exist today within the TWR Agency and are routinely practiced by some TWRA Officers across the State of Tennessee. We agree with the principle and intent contained within this Petition.
By signing on to this petition, we encourage you to introduce or support passage of legislation which will adopt a "Code of Ethics" Policy in Tennessee similar to those found in most other States. We believe this legislation will go a long way toward restoring some of the credibility and respect to the Position of Wild Life Officer in the State of Tennessee.
"Code of Ethics Policy"
PART I. STANDARDS OF CONDUCT AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST
We believe the Tenn. Legislature should adopt or insist the TWRC adopt the following type Ethics standards.
Wild Life Officers and Other Similar State employees In Tennessee should not be permitted to:
1. Accept or solicit: Gift's, favor's, special prevelidges not available to the private citizens or any other services or benifits that might reasonably tend to influence or buy favor with the officer or employee, including the possible discharge of certain official duties, regardless if the officer or employee knows it's being offered with the intent to influence his or her official conduct or duties;
2. Accept other employment, special previdledges, part time work or engage in a business or professional activity that the officer or employee might reasonably expect would require or induce the officer or employee to disclose confidential information acquired by reason of the official position they hold;
3. Accept other employment, special previdledges, part time work or compensation that could reasonably be expected to impair or compromise the officer's or employee's independence of judgment in the performance of the officer's or employee's official or normal duties;
4. Make personal investments, conduct business or provide services that could reasonably be expected to create a "Conflict of interest" between the officer's or employee's personal or private interest and the public's interest.
5. To intentionally or knowingly solicit, accept, or agree to accept any benefit or any special prevlidges for exercising or providing any service in favor of one individual over another.
PART II. ACCEPTANCE OF GRATUITIES
The States "Code of Ethics" Policy should prohibit all public servants from accepting certain gifts or benefits that could be considered as Bribery, Honoraria ,gratuity or Special favors and violations of which should carry some form of criminal penalty or disciplinary action, up to separation of employment.
Bribery: As public servants they shall be considered committing the offense of bribery if they shall solicit, offer, or accept a "benefit" in exchange for their decision, opinion, recommendation, vote, or other exercises of official discretion that normally would be considered
"unethical" or inappropriate.
Common sense should tell them if something is a bribe or of such nature as those described and If they are not sure one way or the other, the basic policy shall be, If it's not equally available to the general Public, "don't take it or don't do it".
Honoraria: You may not solicit, agree to accept, or accept an honorarium in consideration for services you would not have been asked to provide the general public as part of your official position. Thus, for example, you shall not patrol (unless Property is marked and posted in accordance with Tenn. State Standards for written permission requirements or manage properties (Hunting or fishing rights)for anyone. another example is; you may not take a speaker's fee for speaking if your position with the state is one of the reasons you were asked to speak. If a state officer or the executive head of an agency accepts food, transportation, or lodging under these circumstances, the officer must report it as Part of the annual personal financial statement. (A travel regulation provides that a state employee may not accept money for a travel expense reimbursement from a person that the
employee's employing state agency intends to audit, examine, or investigate or is auditing, examining, or investigating.
*If it's anything that normally would be considered "unethical" or "inappropriate", Common sense should tell the officers not to do it or accept it when they are not sure one way or the other, the policy is: "don't take it or don't do it".
Special favors and Gifts:
Most public servants are subject to one or more prohibitions on the acceptance of "Gifts or Benefits" from persons subject to them in their jurisdiction. For example, a Wild Life Officer in the TWR Agency who performs regulatory functions or conducts inspections or investigations should not be permitted to accept gifts or special benefits and favors from any person whom that Wild Life Officer "knows to be subject to regulations, inspections or investigations by him or his agency.
(a). Similarly, a TWRA Officer who "exercises discretion in connection with contracts, purchases, payments, claims, or other pecuniary transactions" of the agency may not accept a gift, benefit or special favor from a person the Officer knows is interested in or likely to become interested in such a
d) These prohibitions should apply regardless of whether the donor or provider is asking for something in return or not..
The statutory definition of "benefits and special favors" are anything reasonably regarded as pecuniary gains or pecuniary advantages. The Code of Ethics Policy should contain, but not be limited to , the following gifts as being considered to be "benefits" or "special favors" and they should be required disclosures as Part of the officers or employee's annual personal financial statements:
* Gifts or Gift Certificates with a value of $ 25. Or greater, to include but not be limited to, hotel rooms/lodging expenses, hunting or fishing trips, Leasing of Hunting or Fishing rights for personal use, monetary gain or to be used in a way that circumvents state law requiring Property owners involvement in the legal process, acceptance of sporting event tickets, rifles, shotguns or handguns for personal use or for possible monetary gain, all of which shall be considered "benefits" or
"Special Favors" when they involve the possibility of an exchange for services or special privileges
where Wild Life Officers are involved.
Due to the lack of law for animal protection in Romania anyone can kill an animal without being punished.
Protected by this lack, people without conscience, without pity, more without respect, with cruelty hard to be imagined, are killing animals of any kind, without a particular reason.
For many months, the slaughter of homeless dogs from Romania has brought many tears to animals lovers.
Poachers without pity killed a hundred dolphins in few days in the Black Sea.
The abuses against animals of anykind, the exploitation of wild animals at Black sea are a few exemples of atrocities from Romania, due to the lack of one law for animal protection in our country.
Who will punish the sick minds that are killing hundred of thousands street dogs, when didn't break "any law"?
With your help, we hope to convince the Romanian Parliament to adopt new protective law NOW. This petition, along with your comments, will be sent to Romanian Government, Romanian Parliament, the Presidency of Romania.
Petition submitted to the Quebec National Assembly for the adoption of an anti-dolphinarium law.
For the attention of the Quebec National Assembly and, especially for the attention of the Prime Minister of Quebec and the Ministry of Tourism.
This said petition is for the adoption of an anti-dolphinarium law in the province of Quebec. Strongly convinced that the Government is in a position to accomplish tremendously for the protection of species, by creating this law;
WHEREAS zoological parks and other similar associations or establishments cannot offer adequate conditions to maintain dolphins alive;
WHEREAS captivity conditions lead to distressing behaviours and even to death on the part of dolphins;
WHEREAS the risks of injuries are very real for the dolphins as well as for the humans within the scope of swimming programs with the dolphins;
WHEREAS numerous deaths have been recorded as a result of dolphins being kept in such captivity;
For all these reasons and many more. We, the undersigned, request that the Quebec National Assembly take the necessary steps to adopt a law against dolphinarium projects of any type in the Province of Quebec.
Canada has experienced a serious shoortage of affordable housing over the past few years. As a result many peole have died on our streets and it is a shameful situation for our country. If you wish to sign this petition you must be a Canadian citizen.
The USA is a country that prides itself on diversity and the melding of cultures. The first dog of our country should reflect that. Unfortunately, this has not been the case. The Clintons received (as a gift) a pure bred Lab named Buddy. Now, the Bush Family has been gifted a pure bred Scottie from Gov. Christie Whitman.
When is a President going to adopt a dog from a shelter? When is a president going to set an example for the rest of the country to follow? Why are the bloodlines of the first dog so important in this country of Mutts?