AIDS is a growing epidemic in the world. There was a time when it was considered a “gay-only disease” but those days are gone. International agencies and world governments are working to solve this problem before a demographic nightmare takes place. However, the ACLU is on the case to push their usual agenda.
The ACLU is arguing before a federal appeals court that the United States is funding AIDS prevention unconstitutionally. Specifically, they argue that having a ban on funds to organizations that promote commercial sex work inhibits free speech. It should be no surprise that the ACLU is in bed with those who want to legalize prostitution.
It is true that advocating the legalization of prostitution is free speech. That doesn’t mean that such speech needs to be funded by the government. As much as some like to think otherwise, Uncle Sam isn’t an ATM machine for every special interest. The old saying goes, “He who pays the piper calls the tune.” If one doesn’t like the government’s rules, don’t take the government’s money.
More importantly though is that the advocacy for legalized prostitution and AIDS prevention are mutually exclusive. One cannot support the reduction of AIDS infections and support legal prostitution at the same time. Prostitution remains one of the leading vectors for AIDS infection. This is true in the case of both legal and illegal prostitution.
Prostitutes, because of their many partners, have a greatly increased risk of exposure to HIV. They are likewise able to spread HIV to many other partners. While a promiscuous society can approach a similar infection rate, prostitution is a leading avenue of spreading HIV. While on its face condoms seem like they could prevent the spread of AIDS, the trust is that they don’t. HIV infection rates increase in countries that have condom distribution programs. Abstinence programs, on the other hand, has been shown in Uganda to reduce AIDS infections. The simple truth is that when one only has sex with one’s spouse, the risk of AIDS exposure approaches zero.
The redefinition of prostitution as “commercial sex work” is just an attempt to legitimize sex trafficking. It should come as no surprise the ACLU and Planned Parenthood have signed on. While both groups are considered “pro-woman”, it is odd that they support an industry of flagrant abuse of women. Planned Parenthood in the United States has even been shown to enable to abuse of little girls.
There are a multitude of studies to show the high level of abuse that prostitutes suffer (see a few here). Women are literally bought and sold as property. The incidence of drug addiction is high among women, partially explaining why they became prostitutes to begin with.
The argument for legalization goes something like this. Prostitution will happen anyway but legalization and regulation will help stem the abuses. The argument has 50,000 foot appeal. Using the same logic, slavery (which still exists in many places) should be legalized so underground slaves can be given some measure of human rights. The fact that the ACLU and the bevy of left-wing international groups don’t argue for the legalization of slavery shows the logical inconsistency of their position.
Further, the legalization of abortion has shown that it lead to a radical increase in abortion. The legalization will lead to an untold number of women being forced into sex slavery. Make no mistake, women will be forced into commercial sex work in greater numbers if it were legalized.
The government need not be forced into funding programs that have no hope in every helping fix the problem. It certainly should not fund programs that will make the problem worse. Lastly, nothing in the constitution requires the government be forced to fund groups who support the most unthinkable human rights abuses known to man. AIDS prevention dollars should be used for AIDS prevention, not for the promotion of sex slaves.
John Bambenek is the Assistant Politics Editor for Blogcritics and is an academic professional for the University of Illinois. He is a syndicated columnist who blogs at Part-Time Pundit and the executive director of The Tumaini Foundation which helps AIDS orphans and other children in Tanzania to get an education.
He is the current owner of BlogSoldiers, a blog-only traffic exchange.
Rate this post:
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Stumble It!
snootfish said,
Some prostitutes are misteated. The same can be said for other types of “workers.” Some do very well. Grown up women should be allowed to make their choices. Women prostitute themselves every day — they do it in subtle ways. I cannot tell you how often I have heard things like “my boyfriend bought me new tires” or whatever. Does she every buy her boyfriend new tires? No.
Some women have a select group of clients (or boyfriends). It is still the same thing. There may be a huge difference between a woman with half a dozen boyfriends all of whom give her “gifts” and a street walker but it is only a matter of degree and line drawing.
Street walkers are sometimes desparate pitiful creatures. Possibly, they should be educated on how to improve their condition, but criminaliing them is not helping them. It hurts them.
Drugs are a problem and that is a different issue I think. Drug use among any group is a problem.
We are way to eager to criminalize things. The term “criminal” is becoming less and less meaningful. It can be everything from a cold blooded murderer to someone who didn’t complete Attachment M properly to their application for a license to play bingo at the VFW.
Let’s stop criminalizing so many people. Let’s say 1) don’t drink, 2)don’t smoke, 3) don’t prostitute yourself or whatever because it is bad for you. We shouldn’t be calling all these less than perfect people criminals and jailing them.
January 2, 2007 at 7:32 am
chas said,
January 2, 2007 at 8:03 am
jaustin9698 said,
January 2, 2007 at 9:58 am
conservativation said,
A healthy sex life at home would dramatically reduce prostitution, porn, and affairs, and those few men who “run away w/ the secretary”.
Why, when the solution is so simple, do women drag their feet and kick and scream and do everything in their power when the ability to have and keep a content mate is right there within their grasp.
January 2, 2007 at 12:13 pm
mirwalk said,
Or even to drive the husband to filing for divorce or having an affair. That way she can use that for leverage later. It is a weapon plain and simple.
Now if a woman instead used it as a positive reinforcement technique, like having sex when he helps out and stuff like that there may be more happy marriages. Alot of women do this now but just for big stuff like diamonds and cash, ect.
I am a bit jaded, does it come through in my posting?
January 2, 2007 at 1:04 pm
chas said,
January 2, 2007 at 9:05 pm
jerseyguy said,
The Regulation specifically states that organizations must make a pledge against the commercial sex trade in order to receive funds. From this, the author deduces
“The ACLU is Fighting for the Trafficking of Women Worldwide”
“These organizations promote commercial sex work”.
“It should be no surprise that the ACLU is in bed with those who want to legalize prostitution”.
This is a gross misrepresentation of the ACLU’s position and the 25 organizations it represents. This does not mean these organizations or the ACLU support the commercial the sex trade or prostitution. The issue is the constitutionality of signing the pledge, which was struck down by two previous courts.
The author’s other argument is valid, the government can direct how the money is spent. Putting strings on the money not to be used for sex trafficing is fair. Forcing oprganizations to make a pledge against sex trafficking in order to recieve the funds is the violation of free speech being argued. An important distinction. How anyone can deduce the ACLU is supporting the sex trade or prostitution is beyond me.
Defending one’s right to free speech is not the same as endorsing their position or the issue being argued.
The ACLU is a popular target for social conservatives to show the ills of liberal immorality. But time and time again I read gross misreprenstations of the ACLU’s positions. This is just twisting and spinning to make the ACLU out to be the villian you believe it to be.
January 3, 2007 at 3:20 pm
chas said,
January 3, 2007 at 4:01 pm
» ACLU fighting for trafficking of women worldwide + Home Gyms BLOG said,
January 3, 2007 at 9:16 pm
chas said,
January 3, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Ah, the ACLU, what a group - Mustang Evolution said,
January 3, 2007 at 11:39 pm
The ACLU is Fighting for the Trafficking of Women Worldwide - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum said,
January 4, 2007 at 4:37 pm
chas said,
January 4, 2007 at 7:54 pm
chas said,
January 5, 2007 at 7:53 am