SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
People stand in line for free HIV test during an International Condom Day event in Kiev organized by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) on Feb. 13, 2019. Ukraine had the second largest HIV epidemic in Europe last year. (Photo: Pavlo Conchar/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)
Undermining Human Rights and Global Fight Against HIV/AIDS, Supreme Court Affirms Anti-Prostitution Pledge
Critics called the ruling "a step back for human rights and public health."
Jun 29, 2020
Human rights and and public health advocates on Monday denounced a ruling by the right-wing majority of the U.S. Supreme Court that upholds a provision of federal law requiring foreign affiliates of U.S. organizations to have a policy "explicitly opposing prostitution" in order to receive taxpayer funding to combat HIV/AIDS around the world.
"The court ruled the U.S. can use foreign assistance to impose harmful anti-sex-worker ideologies that don't advance health or rights."
--Amanda M. Klasing, HRW
Amanda M. Klasing, a senior researcher at Human Rights Watch (HRW), slammed the provision as "offensive" and called the ruling "a step back for human rights and public health."
"Sex workers around the world face violence and discrimination and need access to safe healthcare. The court ruled the U.S. can use foreign assistance to impose harmful anti-sex-worker ideologies that don't advance health or rights," tweeted Klasing.
"Donor governments should be promoting global health funding by supporting decriminalization of sex work, ensuring sex workers do not face discrimination, and encouraging safe and healthy work environments and social safety nets," she added.
The high court's 5-3 ruling (pdf) in Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International pertains to the Anti-Prostitution Loyalty Oath (APLO) that passed as part of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) in 2003. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, an appointee of President Donald Trump, wrote the majority opinion.
The court had ruled in 2013 that the anti-prostitution pledge couldn't be applied to U.S. groups because it violated their First Amendment rights. However, Kavanaugh, backed by the other four conservatives, concluded that "foreign affiliates are foreign organizations, and foreign organizations operating abroad possess no rights under the U. S. Constitution."
Justice Stephen Breyer's dissenting opinion in the case was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Maria Sotomayor. Justice Elena Kagan was recused from both this case and the previous one in 2013, likely because of her work as U.S. solicitor general before joining the high court.
The Associated Press noted that the federal program in question has spent nearly $80 billion to fight the spread of HIV/AIDS. Preston Mitchum, director of policy at URGE: Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity and an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center, warned on Twitter that the ruling "will bring horrible health implications."
The International Women's Health Coalition (IWHC) echoed that warning in a statement Monday from Shannon Kowalski, the group's director of advocacy and policy.
"The Supreme Court has doubled down on a flawed policy that harms sex workers and makes it harder for them to get the information, services, and support they need to prevent HIV," Kowalski said. "Justice Kavanagh and the majority of justices who joined him, have taken a decision that flies in the face of evidence and will further punish and stigmatize those who work in the sex industry."
As IWHC explained:
The APLO is a problematic policy because it has resulted in cuts to funding for community-based and community-led organizations that are best placed to serve sex workers. It has undermined effective HIV responses by stigmatizing and marginalizing sex workers, whose involvement in designing and implementing HIV programs is essential for their success. And, the policy has also contributed to the proliferation of harmful strategies that are counter to both evidence and human rights: the criminalization of the sex industry is the primary driver of HIV risk and violence against sex workers.
The group urged Congress "to act to repeal this provision and to ensure that PEPFAR and other U.S. global health programs uphold the human rights of sex workers."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Human rights and and public health advocates on Monday denounced a ruling by the right-wing majority of the U.S. Supreme Court that upholds a provision of federal law requiring foreign affiliates of U.S. organizations to have a policy "explicitly opposing prostitution" in order to receive taxpayer funding to combat HIV/AIDS around the world.
"The court ruled the U.S. can use foreign assistance to impose harmful anti-sex-worker ideologies that don't advance health or rights."
--Amanda M. Klasing, HRW
Amanda M. Klasing, a senior researcher at Human Rights Watch (HRW), slammed the provision as "offensive" and called the ruling "a step back for human rights and public health."
"Sex workers around the world face violence and discrimination and need access to safe healthcare. The court ruled the U.S. can use foreign assistance to impose harmful anti-sex-worker ideologies that don't advance health or rights," tweeted Klasing.
"Donor governments should be promoting global health funding by supporting decriminalization of sex work, ensuring sex workers do not face discrimination, and encouraging safe and healthy work environments and social safety nets," she added.
The high court's 5-3 ruling (pdf) in Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International pertains to the Anti-Prostitution Loyalty Oath (APLO) that passed as part of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) in 2003. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, an appointee of President Donald Trump, wrote the majority opinion.
The court had ruled in 2013 that the anti-prostitution pledge couldn't be applied to U.S. groups because it violated their First Amendment rights. However, Kavanaugh, backed by the other four conservatives, concluded that "foreign affiliates are foreign organizations, and foreign organizations operating abroad possess no rights under the U. S. Constitution."
Justice Stephen Breyer's dissenting opinion in the case was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Maria Sotomayor. Justice Elena Kagan was recused from both this case and the previous one in 2013, likely because of her work as U.S. solicitor general before joining the high court.
The Associated Press noted that the federal program in question has spent nearly $80 billion to fight the spread of HIV/AIDS. Preston Mitchum, director of policy at URGE: Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity and an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center, warned on Twitter that the ruling "will bring horrible health implications."
The International Women's Health Coalition (IWHC) echoed that warning in a statement Monday from Shannon Kowalski, the group's director of advocacy and policy.
"The Supreme Court has doubled down on a flawed policy that harms sex workers and makes it harder for them to get the information, services, and support they need to prevent HIV," Kowalski said. "Justice Kavanagh and the majority of justices who joined him, have taken a decision that flies in the face of evidence and will further punish and stigmatize those who work in the sex industry."
As IWHC explained:
The APLO is a problematic policy because it has resulted in cuts to funding for community-based and community-led organizations that are best placed to serve sex workers. It has undermined effective HIV responses by stigmatizing and marginalizing sex workers, whose involvement in designing and implementing HIV programs is essential for their success. And, the policy has also contributed to the proliferation of harmful strategies that are counter to both evidence and human rights: the criminalization of the sex industry is the primary driver of HIV risk and violence against sex workers.
The group urged Congress "to act to repeal this provision and to ensure that PEPFAR and other U.S. global health programs uphold the human rights of sex workers."
Human rights and and public health advocates on Monday denounced a ruling by the right-wing majority of the U.S. Supreme Court that upholds a provision of federal law requiring foreign affiliates of U.S. organizations to have a policy "explicitly opposing prostitution" in order to receive taxpayer funding to combat HIV/AIDS around the world.
"The court ruled the U.S. can use foreign assistance to impose harmful anti-sex-worker ideologies that don't advance health or rights."
--Amanda M. Klasing, HRW
Amanda M. Klasing, a senior researcher at Human Rights Watch (HRW), slammed the provision as "offensive" and called the ruling "a step back for human rights and public health."
"Sex workers around the world face violence and discrimination and need access to safe healthcare. The court ruled the U.S. can use foreign assistance to impose harmful anti-sex-worker ideologies that don't advance health or rights," tweeted Klasing.
"Donor governments should be promoting global health funding by supporting decriminalization of sex work, ensuring sex workers do not face discrimination, and encouraging safe and healthy work environments and social safety nets," she added.
The high court's 5-3 ruling (pdf) in Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International pertains to the Anti-Prostitution Loyalty Oath (APLO) that passed as part of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) in 2003. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, an appointee of President Donald Trump, wrote the majority opinion.
The court had ruled in 2013 that the anti-prostitution pledge couldn't be applied to U.S. groups because it violated their First Amendment rights. However, Kavanaugh, backed by the other four conservatives, concluded that "foreign affiliates are foreign organizations, and foreign organizations operating abroad possess no rights under the U. S. Constitution."
Justice Stephen Breyer's dissenting opinion in the case was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Maria Sotomayor. Justice Elena Kagan was recused from both this case and the previous one in 2013, likely because of her work as U.S. solicitor general before joining the high court.
The Associated Press noted that the federal program in question has spent nearly $80 billion to fight the spread of HIV/AIDS. Preston Mitchum, director of policy at URGE: Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity and an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center, warned on Twitter that the ruling "will bring horrible health implications."
The International Women's Health Coalition (IWHC) echoed that warning in a statement Monday from Shannon Kowalski, the group's director of advocacy and policy.
"The Supreme Court has doubled down on a flawed policy that harms sex workers and makes it harder for them to get the information, services, and support they need to prevent HIV," Kowalski said. "Justice Kavanagh and the majority of justices who joined him, have taken a decision that flies in the face of evidence and will further punish and stigmatize those who work in the sex industry."
As IWHC explained:
The APLO is a problematic policy because it has resulted in cuts to funding for community-based and community-led organizations that are best placed to serve sex workers. It has undermined effective HIV responses by stigmatizing and marginalizing sex workers, whose involvement in designing and implementing HIV programs is essential for their success. And, the policy has also contributed to the proliferation of harmful strategies that are counter to both evidence and human rights: the criminalization of the sex industry is the primary driver of HIV risk and violence against sex workers.
The group urged Congress "to act to repeal this provision and to ensure that PEPFAR and other U.S. global health programs uphold the human rights of sex workers."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.