Prostitution, AIDS and grants

Excerpted from "Prostitution policy splits NGOs in top court AIDS case," Reuters, April 10, 2013--A Supreme Court case that challenges a law requiring anti-prostitution policies for HIV/AIDS programs seeking federal money has generated a split among non-profit groups that counsel sex workers overseas. The case involves a 2003 law that bars funding for groups that work on HIV/AIDS prevention but do not have a policy opposing prostitution and sex trafficking.
It has pitted two non-governmental organizations that operate programs overseas, backed by umbrella organizations representing others like them, against 46 organizations that have sided with the federal government in defending the law.

"The split is about whether you support the sex industry," Norma Ramos, executive director of the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, one of the groups siding with the government. "Prostitution is the end point of sex trafficking" and cannot be separated out from efforts to fight public health problems, including the spread of HIV/AIDS, she said.

The organizations challenging the provision on First Amendment grounds do not want to take a stand on prostitution. They say the law interferes with their work providing advice and counseling to prostitutes about the risks of HIV infection. The court on April 22 will consider whether the requirement, which has not been enforced since a 2006 injunction, is valid under the U.S. Constitution.

The Alliance for Open Society International and Pathfinder International - NGOs that receive funding for overseas HIV/AIDS prevention - sued in 2005, citing the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. The two groups have since been joined in the litigation by the Global Health Council and InterAction, two sizable alliances of NGOs that work in developing countries.

In response to their criticism, Punima Mane, the president and CEO of Pathfinder, said, "We would not want to condemn the groups we work with and for." Such a move would threaten her organization's ability to provide "life-saving health services" to a vulnerable population, she added.

Outside the courtroom, a group representing sex workers started a petition to reverse the policy, saying it has "resulted in the reduction or complete elimination of HIV prevention and treatment services for sex workers in numerous countries." The case is U.S. AID v. Alliance for Open Society International, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-10. Full story can be found here.

Commentary

Vice President for Government Relations Jonathan Imbody: "Prostitution harms, degrades and kills women; it provides sex traffickers and terrorist groups with a lucrative income rivaling that of the drug trade; and it helps fuel the spread of AIDS and other diseases. President Bush noted in his National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD-22), that prostitution and related activities 'are inherently harmful and dehumanizing. The United States Government position is that these activities should not be regulated as a legitimate form of work for any human being.'

"In 2003 Congress passed a law (U.S. Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act) aimed at 'eradicating prostitution, the sex trade, rape, sexual assault and sexual exploitation of women and children' and provided that 'No funds made available to carry out this Act … may be used to promote or advocate the legalization or practice of prostitution or sex trafficking.' The law required 'a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking' and made clear that nothing in the law could 'be construed to preclude the provision to individuals of palliative care, treatment' and other help. So the talking point stated above by opponents that the policy somehow precludes providing 'life-saving health services' is completely spurious.

"When some groups opposed the anti-prostitution policy as 'unsophisticated,' CMA prepared, circulated and delivered to the Bush administration a letter, signed by more than 100 organizations and leaders, supporting the government's requirement that grantees document their opposition to prostitution. Years later, CMA wrote a letter strongly opposing the '[Obama] administration’s proposed rule that would relax the requirement of explicit guarantees that U.S.-funded grantees and sub-grantees oppose prostitution and trafficking in persons.'"

"The anti-prostitution policy regarding grants simply ensures that our tax dollars will not be used to promote an activity (prostitution) that spreads the very diseases and injustices the grants are designed to prevent."

Action
Take time to learn more through the CMDA Human Trafficking Continuing Education Course

Letter Opposing President Obama's Change to Prostitution Pledge
Modern-Day Slavery Victims
CMDA Ethics Statement: Abuse of Human Life