So you are maintaining that the inability to advocate for decriminalization of prostitution makes HIV/AIDS assistance impossible. The policy does not require NGO’s to inform on, arrest or otherwise aid in the enforcement of existing laws. It says you can’t advocate against them. It doesn’t prevent anyone from working with prostitutes to reduce HIV/Aids. What this article implies, but fails to prove, is that one MUST be able to advocate for decriminalization of prostitution in order to treat HIV/Aids. Why? Well, because thay say so.
I did read the whole piece, and essentially it states that the authors and those they represent think decriminalization of prostitution is a good thing - not from any public health perspective but because it conflicts with a political belief regarding workers rights related to Aids/HIV only tangentially. Though invoking the pledge requirement as detrimental to their efforts, the article does little more than document that NGO’s are in a huff and it’s a distraction that’s caused infighting. It doesn’t say that the pledge prevents them from handing out condoms to prostitutes, it says that they won’t hand out condoms unless they can advocate for decriminalization. BIG difference.
The fact that NGO’s might not like the emphasis on fighting sex trafficking or may be more concerned with “workers rights” in general than HIV/Aids prevention is their prerogative. Conversely, if the government’s priorities are different, it has the right to direct funding where it chooses.
In this case, shouldn’t the current case be thrown out, because it’s obviously not a freedom of speech issue. It may be a bad policy, or a bad implementation, but it’s not a suppression of speech, is it?
One of us is reading this wrong. I don’t read it as a gag order; I read it as an oath requirement. That is, it doesn’t say, “You can’t ask for decriminalization”; it says, “You MUST state your opposition to prostitution.” Am I wrong?
The law says both of those things. It is written very specifically. It explicitly states that no specific kind of assistance target groups are either proscribed or required. No funds can be used for advocating for legalization AND recipients of funds must have a policy opposing sex trafficking and prostitution.
So, the US Government requires only that the recipients oppose sex trafficking and prostitution and not advocate for them. Neither of which is related to delivering assistance or supplies or medicine of any kind to the people who need it.
I believe that if the U.S. Government has a policy against sex trafficking and prostitution (not an entirely fringe position) it is not unreasonable to want to provide funding to organizations that subscribe to that policy and don’t actively advocate against it. Now maybe (apparently) some people believe sex trafficking and prostitution are a solution not a problem. That is an eminently debateable opinion, but they’re entitled to it. And the people who disagree with them have a right not to give them money.
Thanks for posting the actual language–very helpful!
So item (e) seems fine to me. Item (f) seems hinky. Although legalizing prostitution doesn’t seem like a #1 priority or anything (hoping that’s not BeetlejuiceBeetlejuiceBeetlejuice), I don’t like the idea that the government can make you pinky-swear to specific beliefs before paying you to do a job.
But I think it’s (e) that is the focus of litigation because there’s some perceived free speech argument allbeit a weak one. I agree that (f) is the contentious one. But, as has been stated upthread, it’s the government’s money. They do this all the time. I just got through a 501(c)3 approval for a nonprofit and the IRS provided us with explicit language on several policies that our Board of Directors had to adopt verbatim. Nothing to do with prostitution though.
It *does *prevent working with sex workers to reduce HIV/AIDS, if sex workers refuse to take part in the programme or to fully participate in it. And that’s much more likely to happen if the programme has an agenda to take away the livelihood that they depend on. It’s unlikely Brazil would have turned down all that money if it felt it could do so and still work effectively with this population.
Not all the organisations involved advocate for decriminalisation - some of them don’t take a stance on the legal issue at all. But they object to being told they won’t be funded unless they advocate for the eradication of sex work, when their own experience on the ground tells them it would be counterproductive to do so.
Look, nobody is requiring any advocacy. The are precluding any advocacy in favor of decriminalization which is NOT the same as requiring advocacy FOR increased criminalization. So, say nothing either way and you are fine.
And a policy is not an agenda. A policy does not require action. While people in the field are providing check-ups or handing out condoms it is utterly irrelevent that there is, in a file, in a drawer, back at NGO Headquarters, a piece of paper on which is typed “We do not support sex trafficking or prostitution”. It has absolutely no bearing on providing care any more than, say, the Catholic church’s policy on prostitution precludes ministering to them.
However, it sounds to me like the real issue here is that having such a policy would be awkward for some NGO’s for political reasons. But they aren’t saying that because it’s, well, awkward. The problem it creates is that it seems that many NGOs really do want to see prostitution decriminalized, but they really want the American money, too. They are in a quandry.
So are the people who established the American policy. Americans, on the whole, are not four-square in support of legalized prositution at home or abroad. At the same time I don’t think they are even aware that they are, in effect, subsidizing the employee health care costs of sex entrepreneurs and brothel owners around the world but .(We choose tosee it as treating the sick and sufferingwayward prostitutes). But, of course we will continue to until they can be forced to pay their own way or are eradicated. NGO’s, believing the former is more likely than the latter, and they have a point.
Indeed, in November 2012 there was a proposition on the California ballot to crack down on sex trafficking, and it passed with over 80% of the vote. In California.
How about a compromise? I think that if an organization has already had a history of legitimacy like the Red Cross or Doctors without Borders, we should step back and let them do whatever they want with minimal interference. Smaller groups, ones not as well established, need to have more oversight but with the eventual goal of being hands-off.
Doing this, I think, would be the best way to minimize political interference. I don’t like it when Republicans want to defund PP elsewhere for failing to uphold some conservative anti-abortion stance, but neither do I want a crazy group run by the Conservapedia guy getting funding to push stupid agendas.
Who is claiming trafficking is a solution and not a problem? Most people agree that trafficking is a problem, the issues surrounding sex work are a lot more complex, particularly in areas of the developing world where gender inequity and poverty are rampant. Again, to reiterate, sex work is NOT trafficking, conflating the two is problematic.
And no, the law is not very specific. The * guidelines* defining “advocacy” and “promotion” of prostitution are vague and the interpretation of these guidelines have varied widely since 2003, despite your personal interpretation of ‘advocacy’.
You realize that process of obtaining 501(c)3 status is not at all the same thing as the process of applying for public funding, right? You know that 501(c)3’s are generally restricted from lobbying politically, right? NGOs that receive PEPFAR funding are required to have 501(c)3 status, and thus, are generally not allowed to engage in politically lobbying at home or abroad So, your claim that NGOs opposing the anti-prostitution pledge are doing so in attempt to lobby politically for decriminalization or legalization of sex work is rather specious.
Your personal interpretation of the anti-prostitution pledge is not how it plays out on the ground. US funded NGOs working in areas where HIV/AIDS prevalence is concentrated among high risk populations, like sex workers, are kept from partnering with local sex worker organizations because of fear of losing funding due to the anti-prostitution pledge. Yes, the anti-prostitution pledge has led to sex workers being denied services and clinics that serve them have been shut down. Many of these areas have no policy on prostitution and have stated they are no interested in adopting one. That does not mean they are advocating for decriminalization or legalization – it means they don’t want to condemn sex workers by having to take an oath.
I wouldn’t say the free speech argument is a weak, it has wound it’s way through Federal court and all the way to SCOTUS after all.
Yes, sex trafficking is largely condemned by liberals and conservatives. The problem is some people deliberately conflate sex work with sex trafficking – which is typically a guise to crack down on sex work.
If you want to provide condoms to sex workers, where do you think you will find said sex workers? Pre-schools? Shoe factories? Banks?
Sex workers go to organizations that provide services to sex workers. The organizations-- clinics, centers, etc.-- have often worked for decades to the trust they need to work with that community. And one of the keys to this trust is the understanding they they will not, you know, turn you in to the police.
So if you want to work effectively with sex workers (and, in some areas, that’s among the most effective ways to prevent HIV transmission), you are going to be most effective when you work through those organizations. Otherwise, you are going to have to build the community from the ground up- a needlessly expensive and time consuming way to go about things, when there are effective organizations to work with already.
Again, no organization is getting a blank check. Grants (relatively no-string funding) from the US government for these kinds of activities are very rare and used only in special circumstances. What is MUCH more common is contracts, which function similar to any private sector contact. All development contracts have oversight- the contractors are required to demonstrate their ability to carry out the project, and to document the results of the project.
The US government generally doesn’t hand out money to, say, the Red Cross, and tell them to run with it. Rather, the US government will put out a request for proposals saying “We are looking for a project designed to use condom distribution to decrease HIV transmission in North Province Cameroon.” Organizations will make detailed, well-supported, fully documented proposals. The selected organization will carry out the project, and the effectiveness of the project will be measured and reported on.
In other words. organizations are usually paid to to do a specific job, not “funded” in a general way.
Well, thank you for clearly illuminating why sex workers may be reluctant to seek services from individuals or organizations that have taken the anti-prostitution pledge. Sex workers obviously face no stigma or discrimination when seeking services. I wonder why no one has ever tried the “forcing them to pay their own way” or “eradicating prostitution” strategy in Africa before? :rolleyes:
The funding isn’t just for handing out condoms and giving health checks! That wouldn’t be enough for an effective HIV-prevention strategy. Sex workers need to work in an environment in which they can insist that condoms are actually used, and that involves things like addressing the violence they are exposed to; reducing the power imbalance between themselves and their clients, partners and bosses (if they have bosses, which not all of them do); and increasing their own sense of self-worth and concern for their health. These things are all inter-related - and NGOs’ success in achieving them requires actually working with sex workers. Sex workers have to actively engage in this process with the NGO, and people are less likely to actively engage with an NGO whose motivations they don’t trust. And an NGO that takes a pledge condemning sex work *will *be viewed with mistrust by people who see sex work as the best option available to them.
As well as that, some NGOs have been told they have to cease certain elements of their programme if they want to receive the funding - including work that is organisational in nature and involves no advocacy. The requirement has had a real impact on the ground; it’s bizarre that you refuse to acknowledge this.
Are you interested in understanding ‘best practices’ developed by public health researchers, epidemiologists and NGO workers on the ground or just applying your uninformed ‘black and white’ interpretation to HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment and care in the developing world? Access to basic healthcare among the general population in many of these areas is scarce, for marginalized populations it is virtually non-existent. “Forcing owners to pay for healthcare services of sex workers” implies an entity that would be enforcing this position. What entity has that power? Government? I wonder why sex workers haven’t thought to demand healthcare in their employment contracts before? Perhaps, it’s because sex workers and owners don’t have an employment contract or even an employee-employer relationship in many cases. I’m confused, are you arguing for legalization now? Or you just don’t like PEPAFR funding, which is fine, but be upfront and argue that, rather than insist in willful ignorance how NGOs can best combat HIV/AIDS - contrary to evidence.
Back to the OP, after reviewing the legal battle timeline and resulting court opinions, the plaintiffs claims are quite compelling, IMO. It’s pretty damning that some organizations are exempt from the anti-prostitution oath (the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, the World Health Organization, the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative and any United Nations agency), while others are not. The pledge was originally meant to only apply to foreign based NGOs because the Justice Department believed the pledge requirement violated US based NGO’s first amendment rights, but reversed in June 2005.