Last week in New
York City, U.S. district court judge Victor Marrero
heard arguments opposing and in favor of the U.S.
government's policy requiring that federally funded
health groups providing HIV prevention services pledge
their opposition to prostitution.
"It's one thing
to say you're opposed to prostitution. It's another
thing to say there's only one approach to prostitution, and
that's what the defendants have said here," said
Rebekah Diller, attorney for the plaintiffs: the
Alliance for Open Society International, Open Society
Institute, and Pathfinder International. The groups, Diller
said, have policies that acknowledge the harms of
prostitution, but they do not want to be told how to
execute their policies.
Arguing for the
government, assistant U.S. attorney Richard E. Rosberger
said the U.S. policy to eradicate prostitution and sex
trafficking was created to reduce HIV risks. He said
the 2003 law requiring the pledge was never meant to
discourage the treatment of AIDS patients, including
sex workers. "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," Rosberger said.
After Congress
passed the bill, the prostitution pledge requirement was
immediately applied to foreign-aid recipients. However, the
Justice Department's questions about constitutionality
prevented it from being applied to domestic groups
until late 2004 when the department cleared it for
domestic application. The current lawsuit was brought last
year.
In addition to
pledging their opposition to prostitution, U.S. groups
applying for funds to run overseas AIDS programs must also
inform clients of condom failure rates. The law
requires the government to give equal consideration to
applicants who have a "religious or moral objection"
to particular AIDS prevention measures, such as condoms or
needle exchange.
Marrero did not
immediately rule on the case. (AP)