Tag: Anti-Prostitution Loyalty Oath

Gabriela Leite: Era uma mulher! Era uma puta! Era uma puta mulher! Pura vida! Da vida!

Gabriela Leite, the founder of the movement for sex worker rights in Brazil, died yesterday October 10, 2013. She was instrumental in struggles for prostitution to be recognized as a profession in Brazil, she showed us how HIV/AIDS work could be done to defend the rights and citizenship of sex workers, and she challenged US restrictions on global HIV/AIDS funding that discriminate against sex workers. She was a well-known and renowned public figure who did not shy away from having been a sex worker. In fact she ran for federal office on a platform for the rights of prostitutes, gays, and access to abortion.

Tributes to her life are planned for October 12, 2013 in the Catumbi Cemetery Chapel, Rio de Janeiro with the funeral at 8.30 am and burial at 9.30 am. Friends and family organizing these events write that, “Gabriela Leite inaugurated a new way of being and doing politics… Gabriela was magnetic, unforgettable, charismatic, charming, elegant, fragrant, showy, libertarian, fearless, bold, stylish, friendly, generous, combative, cheerful, a warrior, a gift, unique, a partner, an advisor, persistent,  inspiring … a muse!”

Era uma mulher! Era uma puta! Era uma puta mulher! Pura vida! Da vida!



Striking Anti-Prostitution Pledge is an Important, but Only Partial, Victory

Ending a ten year saga, the US Supreme Court today struck down a section of the Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act that restricts government HIV/AIDS funding from groups that do not take an explicit stance in opposition to prostitution. The so-called “anti-prostitution loyalty oath” was challenged by non-governmental organizations based in the United States soon after the passage of the Leadership Act in 2003 – and the Court’s finding that the oath violated those groups’ First Amendment rights is welcome. But it is not enough, because the decision does nothing for groups that are not based in the US, including those best-positioned to fight the epidemic because of their local and grassroots nature. The First Amendment does not extend to them, meaning they are still subject to the oath’s requirements. The Leadership Act – which created the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief or PEPFAR – is up for re-authorization this year and the Obama administration should work with Congress to remove the oath once and for all.

Continue reading »

So, what can we say about the First Amendment and sex worker rights?

Guest bloggers Kat Thomas and Lauren Parnes observed the April 22, 2013 session of the Supreme Court of the United States in Washington D.C. and provided the Best Practices Policy Project with the following post.

This week the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the case, Agency for International Development (USAID) v. Alliance for Open Society International (OSI). The constitutional law at issue is the First Amendment: the government cannot infringe on the peoples’ “freedom of speech.” This case considers whether a so-called “anti-prostitution pledge”—this particular restriction is part of larger federal law relating to HIV/AIDS, the U.S. Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003—violates the freedom of speech of US organizations receiving US global HIV/AIDS funding (known as PEPFAR funding) by telling them to “adopt and espouse” a policy against prostitution and trafficking. Although PEPFAR distributes money to international groups as well as those based in the US for programs abroad, the First Amendment protections would only apply to the US-based organizations.

Why is a policy that has a negative impact globally on sex workers’ health, labor, and sexual rights being challenged in terms of its impact on the “free speech” rights of US organizations? To fully answer why we cannot take most human rights issues to the Supreme Court would require delving too far into constitutional history for one blog posting. It is helpful to understand that the Supreme Court primarily considers cases relating to the US Constitution and federal law. Given our country’s high regard for the First Amendment—which includes the right to free speech—the legal strategy adopted by OSI effectively brought the anti-prostitution pledge to the forefront of the judiciary and the media.

As written, the law requires that in order to receive US global HIV/AIDS funding to work with, for example, people living with HIV in India, an organization must agree in writing to the US government that it will adopt the policy of anti-prostitution and express it as its own. Further, the pledge prohibits the organization from engaging in activities or dialog that is inconsistent with an anti-prostitution stance. If this policy is held to be constitutional the requirement applies to the organization funded through the PEPFAR program – even if the organization is also funded by private donors. OSI’s attorney argued yesterday that this is a violation of a US-based organization’s freedom of speech:  “They want to be able to publish papers, and they want to be able to be a part of the discussion in a marketplace of ideas…unfettered by a policy requirement that demands fealty to the government’s viewpoint” (David W. Bowker, OSI Counsel). 

There are many complicated layers to the arguments in this case, but one of the main ones dealt with requiring organizations to profess the government’s viewpoint. Courts have found it constitutional for Congress to stipulate that the government will not fund organizations that speak in support of policies to which the government is opposed. For instance, the US government may deny funding to US family planning programs if they promote “abortion as a method of family planning” or disperse information on seeking abortions (as per, Title X of the Health and Services Act, Section 1008).

What is different about this case, as Justice Ginsberg pointed to in her questioning, is that the government cannot now compel such organizations to tell their patients, “I agree with the government, you shouldn’t be getting an abortion.”  And as Justice Alito noted, it seems unprecedented and “quite a dangerous proposition” to not only gag organizations, but require the organization to take the government’s viewpoint with which it doesn’t agree. Courts have held that the government has the right to fund certain organizations to the exclusion of others, but a funding requirement cannot compel the organization’s expression of a position consistent with the government’s.

Even though in theory everyone has a right to free speech, because of the government’s current stance on sex work, the US may seem less inclined to consider the First Amendment rights of organizations working with sex workers and sex worker groups. This was exactly OSI’s point yesterday:

“… on the government’s theory, the government can give you — can give anyone in the country a dollar in Medicare funds and say, okay,  now that you’ve taken a dollar of our money, we want you to profess your agreement with the Affordable Care Act, and we want you to never say anything inconsistent with that in your private speech. That is — that is wildly inconsistent with the First Amendment. That’s exactly what’s happening here. The only difference is the subject of prostitution. That’s what makes it less palatable.”  (David W. Bowker, OSI Counsel)

This on-point analogy had several of the Justices nodding (even Chief Justice Roberts).

What was unfortunate was that OSI’s attorney followed up by saying that he needed “to be clear” that OSI does not “approve” of prostitution. We do not know whether OSI would have endorsed their counsel’s use of the word “approve,” which is not interchangeable with the word “promote,” and was not used in the OSI briefs. Unfortunately the press echoed this comment that was perhaps misspoken, further deepening stigmatizing attitudes towards sex workers. For example, National Public Radio reported that, “Bowker said his clients are opposed to prostitution”.

Challenging the anti-prostitution pledge before judges who may not want to hear about sex worker rights in the courtroom took strategic and careful planning and it is a victory that this case was heard by the highest court in the land. But are we still at a point where the only way to advocate for sex workers’ rights through the judicial system is to first assure the public that we do not approve of sex work? For this reason, yesterday’s discussion at the Supreme Court was disquieting. It revealed the problematic nature of a strategy that required OSI’s attorney to deny the human rights of sex workers in order to access First Amendment protections.

Bowker’s comment and the silence about what constitutes a health and rights approach to working with sex workers in the media, left many in sex worker communities feeling confused. OSI has engaged with and supported these communities in the past. Perhaps it is again time to sit at the table with sex workers rights groups and help sex workers and advocates understand what happened in the courtroom yesterday. The more we can engage, discuss and clear up misunderstandings, the more we can support one another and protect the dignity of sex workers. After all, isn’t the freedom of “unfettered” discussion what OSI was fighting for and what the First Amendment is supposed to protect?


The full transcript of the oral arguments at the Supreme Court is available online, as are many other documents relating to the case of USAID v OSI.

Coverage of Anti-Prostitution Loyalty Oath Court Case

BPPP will be at the Supreme Court on Monday to observe USAID v Open Society International (a legal challenge that could free some US-based organizations from the Anti-Prostitution Loyalty Oath also known as the “anti-prostitution pledge” restriction on global HIV/AIDS funding). Look for up to the minute  information via twitter and Facebook, in addition to checking in here.

BPPP will also be making connections with  friends at A Kiss for Gabriela, a film and social media project featuring Gabriela Leite a prominent sex worker leader from Brazil, throughout the day to deepen our understanding of the issues from a global perspective. Filmmaker Laura Murray will be posting an inspirational video from Gabriela Leite about the importance of fighting the funding restriction along with background information about what happened when the Brazilian government did not sign the pledge and thereby rejected more than $40 million of US funding.

More background information about about the USAID v OSI case is now available online.