Court: U.S. can't deny anti-AIDS funds over prostitution stance
June 20th, 2013
10:32 AM ET
10 months ago

Court: U.S. can't deny anti-AIDS funds over prostitution stance

(CNN) – The Supreme Court has ruled the federal government may not deny funds from its global anti-AIDS program to organizations that refuse to actively oppose legalizing prostitution.

The 6-2 decision Thursday was a test of the First Amendment rights of the organizations seeking such aid.

FULL STORY

Filed under: Supreme Court
soundoff (28 Responses)
  1. Rudy NYC

    A 2003 congressional law mandated fund recipients adhere to the government's larger message about fighting the disease and its root causes– that the deadly virus is being spread by sex trafficking and prostitution.
    ----------------
    Those are the kind of laws that come out of a right wing controlled Congress and a conservative POTUS to sign it into law. Conservatives seem to have a serious problem understanding the 1st Amendment and freedom of religion. They just cannot get it through their heads that the founders intended for the government to be a secular government, with no theocratic ties whatsoever.

    They just cannot accept the fact that "freedom OF religion" also means "freedom FROM religion".

    June 20, 2013 10:43 am at 10:43 am |
  2. Data Driven

    Well, that's one good ruling today. I worry about the rest on the docket, though.

    Good point, Rudy, about how right-wingism brings about such stupid legislation in the first place.

    June 20, 2013 10:57 am at 10:57 am |
  3. Sniffit

    Oh looky, they finally got one right.

    June 20, 2013 11:16 am at 11:16 am |
  4. Pandamonius

    Funny how conservatives have this automatic knee-jerk reaction to any subject they consider taboo. Withholding funding from AIDS groups isn't going to stop diseases and abuse that are associated with prostitution. There's a simple solution, but the GOP would never go for it.

    If you want to stop the spread of disease and the exploitation of women in sex trafficking, all you need to do is legalize prostitution. Once it is legalized, it can have government oversight and regulation. You can require all prostitution services to have a government license, and then focus on closing down the ones that don't.

    By legalizing and then regulating the industry, you can ensure the workers have routine examinations to ensure their health (physical and mental) and that they are disease free. You'd also be able to ensure that there is no abuse/exploitation of the workers. Sure, there would be a few that would try to operate without the license or oversight, but they'd go out of business before too long because their customers would most likely start going to only gov't sanctioned businesses (since they are certified disease free and there's no risk of being arrested).

    June 20, 2013 11:20 am at 11:20 am |
  5. Rudy NYC

    Pandamonius wrote:.

    If you want to stop the spread of disease and the exploitation of women in sex trafficking, all you need to do is legalize prostitution. Once it is legalized, it can have government oversight and regulation. You can require all prostitution services to have a government license, and then focus on closing down the ones that don't.
    ----------------------
    That's called governing, but conservatives are not interested in governing. They're only interested in ruling.

    June 20, 2013 11:36 am at 11:36 am |
  6. William Polhamus

    He is not worried, because he is in until 2018. So in other words, I quit as governor, had a special election, got in, so now-- I am untouchable. This is typical for Manchin. He left WV in a mess.......another Sarah Palin.

    June 20, 2013 11:37 am at 11:37 am |
  7. EmmanualVeritas

    Get. A. Clue.

    If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

    Guns are easy to smuggle, not hard to make, and outlaws will always be able to get them.

    Ever heard of pot, cocaine, meth, or heroin? Very easy to get, even though they're illegal. And guns, unlike those drugs, are re-usable. Once smuggled, they last many years.

    Your laws will only prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves.

    Scumbag criminals ignore laws and get guns on the black market anyway. It will always be there. You only hinder your own protection.

    A gun control nut is someone who has never been raped or seriously assaulted.

    Wait until you have to protect yourself. Never bring a knife to a gun fight. Criminals already know this. And they are smarter than you.

    June 20, 2013 11:39 am at 11:39 am |
  8. Sniffit

    "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns......[etc.]"

    Dude....your word salad is wilted.

    June 20, 2013 11:44 am at 11:44 am |
  9. lottie

    the GOP has no clue as to the constitution unless it favors them the court got this one right

    June 20, 2013 11:44 am at 11:44 am |
  10. Fair is Fair

    Why did Kagan recuse?

    June 20, 2013 11:52 am at 11:52 am |
  11. Steveo

    Data Driven

    @Steveo,

    Oh YEAH? Well, I think the Republicans are the party of Charles in Charge. No, wait ... Simon & Simon. No, I got it, I got it ... Republicans are the party of How I Met Your Mother. Put THAT in your TiVo and smoke it! I WIN!
    -------------------
    yOU WIN? ok

    June 20, 2013 12:03 pm at 12:03 pm |
  12. TomInRochNY

    @Rudy NYC

    They just cannot accept the fact that "freedom OF religion" also means "freedom FROM religion".

    _______________________________________________

    Amen, brother!

    June 20, 2013 12:05 pm at 12:05 pm |
  13. Steveo

    Data Driven

    @Steveo,

    Oh YEAH? Well, I think the Republicans are the party of Charles in Charge. No, wait ... Simon & Simon. No, I got it, I got it ... Republicans are the party of How I Met Your Mother. Put THAT in your TiVo and smoke it! I WIN!
    -------------------
    No I win! With this... The Dems are the party of "Crazy Like a Fox" or "Bloopers and Practical Jokes"

    June 20, 2013 12:07 pm at 12:07 pm |
  14. Steveo

    @Data Driven,

    The truth is BOTH parties have let us down, BOTH of them!

    June 20, 2013 12:08 pm at 12:08 pm |
  15. RichardinMD

    Millions of gun owners in the USA.
    They are not happy.
    You will see this in 2014.
    Bloomberg has paid for your brainwashing, are you to simple to realize !!

    June 20, 2013 12:16 pm at 12:16 pm |
  16. Steveo

    @Sniffit

    "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns......[etc.]"

    Dude....your word salad is wilted.
    ----------–
    You may want to rethink that. After Katriina, NOLA officials when door to door and pulled weapons from Legal and registered owner. Bad guys still had their weapons! Look it up!

    June 20, 2013 12:17 pm at 12:17 pm |
  17. Ron L

    In the big scheme of things, this is like dropping a small stone in a VERY LARGE LAKE, here are "some" of the things we need to be focused on... the BUDGET and why so little work is being done on it AFTER complaining for 4 years the Senate had not proposed one, or the passing of the FARM BILL subsidizing wealthy farm owners (that INCLUDE members of Congress), large successful companies, while it reduces food stamps for the poor, or creating NEW JOBS by REBUILDING AMERICA, what about the HIGH INTEREST on STUDENT LOANS while the BIG banks and get rock bottom rates, or the need to raise the minimum wage by at least $1.00 an hour so full time American’s don’t require assistance from the Government, or the RIDICULOUSLY high costs of healthcare in which hospitals 200 miles apart can have a 60% difference in what the charge for the same procedure but there is no way the consumer can find out until after the work is done!!, THESE are the IMPORTANT issues that require immediate action to improve the LONG TERM health and wealth of America.

    June 20, 2013 12:24 pm at 12:24 pm |
  18. Rudy NYC

    EmmanualVeritas

    Get. A. Clue.

    If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

    Guns are easy to smuggle, not hard to make, and outlaws will always be able to get them.

    Ever heard of pot, cocaine, meth, or heroin? Very easy to get, even though they're illegal. And guns, unlike those drugs, are re-usable. Once smuggled, they last many years.

    Your laws will only prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves.

    Scumbag criminals ignore laws and get guns on the black market anyway. It will always be there. You only hinder your own protection.
    -------------------–
    Do you realize that this "black market", which you speak of, is currently not prohibited by any federal law? Has it ever occurred to you that these guns on your "black market" had to originate from somewhere? And that most of the time the guns originate from purchases by "law abiding citizens".....because you yourself admit that criminals can't pass a check.

    If the "law abiding citizen" has a history of DUI, domestic violence, or other stuff, then they should be prohibited. No one seems to have a problem with taking away someone's right to vote when they break the law. Do they?

    June 20, 2013 12:28 pm at 12:28 pm |
  19. Data Driven

    @Steveo,

    I would agree both parties have let us down. One more than the other though. Now I just have to convince you that socially liberal policies lead to better outcomes. For instance, the ruling described on this thread. Surely you would agree that denying anti-AIDS funding to countries that don't have a high-handed stance about prostitution laws does nothing to actually stop the spread of the disease. The trick is to set aside moral judgments and focus on, well, data-driven hypotheses. Since prostitution has a venerable past and a promising future, maybe it's more practical to mitigate the spread of disease by education, prophylactics, and funds for medical assistance.

    June 20, 2013 12:33 pm at 12:33 pm |
  20. Al-NY,NY

    tightie righties think their opinions and beliefs are the sole beliefs to go by so everyone must obey. this idea, plus the same ones they shove around (no funding for foreign medical supplies that have anything to do with abortion) is so outdated yet they cling to them like grim death

    June 20, 2013 12:35 pm at 12:35 pm |
  21. J Russ

    AIDS could be eliminated if thise infected had enough personal respondsibility to keep it to themselves.........but a little restraint is too much to ask isn't it.

    June 20, 2013 12:49 pm at 12:49 pm |
  22. Sniffit

    "You may want to rethink that. After Katriina, NOLA officials when door to door and pulled weapons from Legal and registered owner. Bad guys still had their weapons! Look it up!"

    Yawn. Nobody is trying to outlaw all guns. Grow up.

    June 20, 2013 01:08 pm at 1:08 pm |
  23. Rudy NYC

    Steveo wrote:

    You may want to rethink that. After Katriina, NOLA officials when door to door and pulled weapons from Legal and registered owner. Bad guys still had their weapons! Look it up!
    -------------------
    It's called martial law, dude. Look it up!

    June 20, 2013 01:10 pm at 1:10 pm |
  24. Sniffit

    "Why did Kagan recuse?"

    No doubt she had participated in the case while Solicitor General.

    June 20, 2013 01:13 pm at 1:13 pm |
  25. ST

    The right wing are getting it wrong. AIDS or HIV rather, is not transmitted through prostitution only. They are those who get it through needles or from those who get blood donated by infected people or kids who their parents were infected before they were born. Is it not right to help these kind of people?

    June 20, 2013 01:17 pm at 1:17 pm |
1 2