Last week, a U.S. District judge heard arguments in a lawsuit challenging a U.S. policy that requires recipients of federal HIV/AIDS service grants to pledge their opposition to sex work or else be denied federal funding.

The Open Society Institute (OSI), the Alliance for Open Society International and Pathfinder International filed a lawsuit against the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in New York City following the release of the latest policy directive. OSI, which is funded by billionaire liberal activist George Soros, has stated that the policy to grant funding only to those organizations that explicitly pledge to oppose commercial sex work and prostitution "weakens efforts to provide lifesaving services and information to sex workers". OSI has also asserted that the policy is unconstitutional as it requires private organizations to adopt the government's position.

In May 2003, Congress passed the United States Leadership against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act (Global AIDS Act) and in December 2003, it passed the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA). The Global AIDS Act bars the use of federal funds to "promote, support, or advocate the legalization or practice of prostitution or sex trafficking." TVPRA also requires that recipient organizations of anti-trafficking funds state that they do "not promote, support, or advocate the legalization or practice of prostitution."

Initially, the restrictions only applied to foreign nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). However, in June 2005, USAID released its most recent policy directive on the "Anti-Prostitution Loyalty Oath" requiring all foreign and U.S.-based NGOs to have anti-prostitution and anti-sex trafficking policies before they are eligible to receive U.S. global AIDS funding.

In addition to the pledge, the policy requires AIDS groups to inform clients of condom failure rates. They also require the government to give equal opportunity to funding applicants that have "a religious or moral objection" to a particular AIDS prevention method or treatment program, such as condoms or needle exchanges.

Rebekah Diller, attorney for the plaintiffs said, "It's one thing to say you're opposed to prostitution. It's another thing to say there's only one approach to commercial sex work, and that's what the defendants have said here." Diller said the plaintiffs have adopted policies acknowledging the harms of prostitution but object to being told how to execute them.

The plaintiffs have also raised objections on the grounds that the policy would restrict anyone from advocating for the legalization of sex work or for the unionization of sex workers.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard E. Rosberger, arguing for the government, said that no provision of the 2003 law containing the pledge requirement was meant to discourage the treatment of AIDS victims, including commercial sex workers. He argued that the United States had formed its policy to eradicate prostitution and sex trafficking in order to reduce the behavioral risks associated with HIV and AIDS. "Beyond Congress, the president himself stated that prostitution contributes to trafficking and exposure to HIV and committed the United States itself to eradicating such practices," he said.

Janice Crouse, Senior Fellow at the Beverly LaHaye Institute in Washington, DC says the U.S. policy is a good one. "Prostitution is the driving force behind sex trafficking. The demand fuels the industry. The U.S. must address the demand side of the equation if there is going to be success in combating the problem," she said. Copyright 2006 - C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute). Permission granted for unlimited use. Credit required.

Copyright by Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute
Website: www.c-fam.org