Federal Courts Require Funding of Supporters of Forced Prostitution

Posted on May 14, 2006

USAID requires that grant recipients of its AIDS humanitarian funds must sign a pledge that they oppose commercial sex work. A federal court recently ruled that this is an unconstitutional restriction on free speech. Despite the fact the US holds that prostitution is illegal (with the exception of Nevada) and that there is a near-universal condemnation for the practice, apparently allowing the government to restrict its humanitarian funds to actually be humane is unconscionable.

Let’s be honest for a moment. Most women (or for that matter, girls) don’t get into prostitution as a career of first choice. When was the last time you asked a girl what she wanted to be when she grows up and that girl answered “I want to be a hooker!”? Most women get into prostitution out of desperation, or worse, because they were forced into it. Further, prostitutes are subject to much higher levels of abuse and maltreatment because of the nature of the work. Nothing epitomizes male domination over women more than the sex trade and sex trafficking industries.

The problem with the sex trade goes far beyond those who simply sign up for it. More often than not, women or girls are forced into it. In fact, many governments and other larger organizations have gone beyond the simple sex trade and gone into organized rape as an industry. On these issues we must tolerate diversity of opinion by the virtue of the First Amendment. That does not require that we capitulate to something that should be universally condemned. The solution to 12 year olds being forced into prostitution is not “unionization”; the solution is preventing it from happening in the first place and prosecuting those responsible.

There came a time when positions could be advocated without asking the government for a handout. Only those positions that can’t stand on their own require outside assistance. Now those positions have an ally in the federal court system.

It seems the current trend in jurisprudence is to normalize more and more outlandish behavior. NAMBLA has a right to state their position; it doesn’t mean the government should or needs to fund it. However, the courts seem to think otherwise. What’s next? Government funds to help cover up child sex abuse?
When the United States wants to fund humanitarian work, it wants to do so in a humane way. It isn’t a matter of simply policy choice, but rather a matter of justice. While there can be opinions that legalized and unregulated prostitution is best for society, nothing the Founding Fathers intended required the government to subsidize those positions.

John Bambenek is an academic professional at the University of Illinois and a columnist for the Daily Illini. He also blogs at Part-Time Pundit.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

» Filed Under 1st Amendment, Child Exploitation, Illegal Activities, News

Trackback URL

Comments

3 Responses to “Federal Courts Require Funding of Supporters of Forced Prostitution”

Miller Smith on May 14th, 2006 9:42 am

I may be required to not engage in criminal behavior as a condition of government funding, but I may not be required to agree with the law. I have the right to oppose the law while I follow it. Otherwise, we could not oppose the overturning of a bad law.

This sounds very much like the “dispositions” requirement of the National Council of Teacher Education that colleges of education must get accreditation from in order to be certified to mint new teachers. If you don’t proclaim that you believe in the liberal agenda, you can’t be a teacher. You can’t even take classes. FIRE has covered just such a case.

Let us have NO thought control or political activity requirements for federal funding.

Thank you for your blog site.

Sincerely, Miller Smith
The one with a bråin on May 14th, 2006 5:27 pm

I agree with Mr. Smith (I think). The courts perceieve a key and non-semantic difference between “oppose” and “avoid engaging in.” I reckon most people would expect anyone receiving humanitarian funds for HIV-related disease to not be pulling tricks, but there’s no way to guarantee how someone actually thinks about something.

To illustrate the same thing in reverse, I fully recognize that monotheistic religions — particularly of the Abrahamic variety — are utter nonsense, but fully support others’ right to observe said nonsense as long as it’s not allowed to influence public policy.
rationalaversion on May 15th, 2006 8:55 pm

The oproblem with all this is that no one challenges judges when they cash their paychecks or draw benefits (get their teeth fixed, etc) after acting against their sworn oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Judges are domestic enemies. Cashing a paycheck for fraudulent performance of duty is…hold your breath…a felony.

Lock ‘em up in a cute little skirt with somebody who’s really, really horny.