Eradicating prostitution around the world is part of the U.S. government's strategy to fight AIDS, according to the Justice Department. Talk about a losing strategy! They might as well seek to make all the water around the world flow uphill. But I guess saving lives isn't their highest priority.
Love & Liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
P.S. - Imagine how it feels to read that the government claiming jurisdiction over you is trying to "eradicate" your peaceful means of earning a living.
Isn't it now well established that female prostitutes infecting their
male customers is not a significant HIV transmission vector?
-Derek
Eradicating prostitution around the world is part of the
U.S.
government's strategy to fight AIDS, according to the Justice
Department. Talk about a losing strategy! They might as well seek
to
make all the water around the world flow uphill. But I guess
saving
lives isn't their highest priority.
Love & Liberty,
<<< starchild >>>P.S. - Imagine how it feels to read that the government claiming
jurisdiction over you is trying to "eradicate" your peaceful means
of
earning a living.
> http://www.nysun.com/article/55636
>
> Anti-Prostitution Pledge Case To Be Heard
>
> By JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN
> Staff Reporter of the Sun
> June 1, 2007
> A federal appeals court will today weigh whether Congress
violated
> the First Amendment by requiring anti-AIDS groups to pledge that
> they oppose the legalization of prostitution in order to receive
> federal funds for work done in other countries.
> Should the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan, which
> hears oral arguments in the case today, decide the requirement
is
> unconstitutional, judges here would be in disagreement with
their
> counterparts on the appellate bench in the District of Columbia
> Circuit. Such a discrepancy would increase the odds that the
U.S.
> Supreme Court would have to clarify the legal circumstances
under
> which Congress can require federal grant recipients to adopt
> prescribed viewpoints.
> The anti-prostitution pledge stems from a 2003 law. Eradicating
> prostitution across the globe is part of the government's
strategy
> to stem AIDS, Justice Department lawyers said in a court brief.
> "To permit the government-funded partners to engage in speech
> inconsistent with the government's established policy of
> eradicating prostitution would inevitably mix the government's
> message and negatively impact its program," the government brief
> states.
> The suit challenging the policy is being brought by two groups,
> including one founded by billionaire George Soros. The Soros
group,
> Alliance for Open Society International, had received a $16.5
> million government grant over five years, a lawyer representing
the
> group, Laura Abel, said.
> Both the Soros group and the second group, Pathfinder
> International, "do not seek to advocate the practice of
> prostitution," their brief said. "Rather they seek the freedom
to
> discuss and use the most effective techniques to fight HIV/AIDS,
> including empowering prostitutes to protect their own health and
> exercise their human rights."
> Forcing the groups, which also receive private funding, to
oppose
> prostitution is " an unwarranted intrusion into First Amendment
> rights," their brief said.
> A lower court judge, Victor Marrero of the U.S. District Court
in
> New York, last year sided with the two groups and ruled that the
> restriction was unconstitutional. In February, a federal
appellate
> court in D.C., ruled differently on a similar case. The D.C.
> Circuit Court found the requirement was constitutional because
the
> "government may use criteria to ensure that its message is
conveyed
Yeah, I know, it makes no sense even on the face of it. Par for the government course... }8-(
<<< starchild >>>
Most of us don't have to imagine. Government shenanigans endangering
our jobs is something most of us non-sex-workers constantly deal with.
At least in your case, they're being honest about their intentions.
For the rest of us, it's always in government doublespeak like "making
sure corporations pay their fair share" or "protecting the children"
or some other nonsense reason to regulate.
In terms of means of earning a living, Starchild, I'd say your
profession is the safest one of all of them. No amount of government
meddling has ever been able to end it. Meanwhile, individual jobs and
entire companies in manufacturing and technology are dropping like
flies, in no small part due to the government's interference.