Anti-Sex League Favors “Purity” Over Women’s Health

Amanda Marcotte

Should anti-trafficking organizations be allowed to receive US funds to serve trafficking victims, while refusing to use that money to provide contraceptive services or information? A new ACLU lawsuit says no.

As the Obama administration takes power and begins a series of ambitious reforms, it’s time to start
assessing the damage done by the Bush administration and plotting ways to reverse it. In the field
of sexual health, one of the most aggravating problems the Bush administration
left for others to clean up is the insertion of right wing radicals
into foreign aid programs, radicals who happily use the cover of doing
good to unleash grievous harm, shoving their radical anti-sex and
anti-contraception program onto a worldwide stage.  The real life Anti-Sex League has exploited the public’s concerns over the spread
of HIV to push a radical anti-contraception agenda dressed up as an HIV prevention program, even
though the GAO indicates that anti-contraception attitudes
cripple genuine efforts to stall the
spread of the disease.

Denying people access to condoms in order
to make sure they don’t spread HIV works as well as denying people
sneakers in order to encourage them to take up jogging.  

A recent lawsuit filed by the ACLU demonstrates that
anti-contraception radicals
are using government money to push outlandish
views in more areas than just HIV relief. In the year 2000, Congress passed
the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, a way to help anyone who’s been
trafficked — which includes men, women, and children — to regain their health and their lives. Naturally,
the Anti-Sex League decided that since this issue involves sex and women (even
though it’s sexual behavior related to coercion, by virtue of the "trafficking"
language) it presented a great opportunity to jump in and provide services that adhered only to its anti-contraception agenda.

According to the Boston Globe, the ACLU is taking the federal government to court over the funding
given to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB),money the USCCB then sub-grants to organizations which help
trafficking victims with health care, housing, and job training. USCCB won’t allow its sub-grantees to offer complete health care though, especially the
kind likely to be most important to vulnerable young women who have been
to sexual abuse – proper reproductive health care, including
access to
contraception and abortion. They won’t even allow sub-grantees to provide information about the availability of comprehensive reproductive health care. Considering the hell these women have
already suffered,
adding more hell seems to be a perverse way of "helping" them.

Appreciate our work?

Rewire is a non-profit independent media publication. Your tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.


Refusing to help trafficking victims regain control
over their bodies through access to contraception should they want it also
contradicts the anti-trafficking message. The legislation was passed,
ostensibly, because as a society we decry the exploitation of women. Depriving women of contraception in hopes of forcing them to bear children
against their will is just another flavor of exploitation of women. In the Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, ACLU staff
attorney Brigitte Amiri points out that traffickers manipulate trafficking victims into getting pregnant as a tool to dominate and control their victims. Forced abortions in unsafe settings are also common. So what kind
of help could the US Conference of Catholic Bishops really offer if their
solution to the horror of rape and forced pregnancy is more forced

Indeed, the entire operation leaves one with the uneasy impression that for many right
wingers getting involved in anti-trafficking activism, the sexual aspects of
rape bother them as much or more than the human rights violations. For those
truly concerned about saving women who’ve been hurt by trafficking and other
forms of rape, adding more coercion to the pile by trying to force a pregnancy is simply kicking people while they’re down. Your ability to help
victims of patriarchal violence is severely limited if you agree with certain
forms of patriarchal violence like forced pregnancy and using the threat of
STDs to control women’s sexual choices.

The anti-prostitution pledges tied to HIV relief and anti-trafficking funding only
reinforce the sense that hostility to women perceived as "sexually loose" has
taken priority over actually helping these women.  Functionally, anti-prostitution
pledges set aside non-trafficked prostitutes as a class of women who don’t
deserve real health services. Service organizations are required to denounce the work these women do. Sex worker activists have (with good reason) repeatedly
accused legislators of the deliberate conflation of
trafficked persons with consenting sex workers.  All of this serves to place
negative attitudes about women’s sexuality and fantasies about sexual purity in
the center of the debate when, really, its women’s health and freedom that should be at the

If we put the health of women’s
bodies and minds at the center of these discussions instead of an obsession
with the state of women’s sexual "purity," funding decisions
would look very different indeed.  And it’s not just because
we’d have compassion for women who’ve already suffered from coercion,
and therefore a desire to avoid adding more coercion to her life. The actual health results would improve.  Trying to push unwanted
pregnancy on women who are already under the stress of attempting to recover from abuse cannot result in the same healthier pregnancy outcomes
for both mother and baby as when the pregnancy is a free choice
made at a time right for the mother.  More obviously, taking measures
to reduce the spread of STDs means less STDs.  Our national discourse on this subject is so thwarted with sexual
shame, just stating that taking effective steps to reduce the spread of STDs will result in less STDs is seen as a controversial statement. 

Load More