Author archives: Patrina Mosley

Why Does the Abortion Industry Hate Women? (Part 2)

by Patrina Mosley

March 10, 2020

Read Part 1

According to a study published in the American Journal of Public Health, black women have the highest abortion rate in the country at 27.1 per 1,000 women compared with 10 per 1,000 for white women.

When faced with this fact, abortion advocates will often deflect it by saying that more should be done to alleviate the high maternal mortality rate (MMR) among African American women. However, they often fail to acknowledge that the same ethnic group of women with the nation’s highest MMR is the same ethnic group of women who are receiving 30 percent of all the nation’s abortions. There is undoubtedly a physiological connection, but abortion advocates and the medical institutions that are in their pockets do not find it advantageous to highlight any negative side effects from abortion. There is the perception among African American women that the high MMR is due to racism in the type of health care they are given. They often feel like they are not heard or cared for as well as their white counterparts.

As an African American woman, I can attest to that experience and can also say that there are many factors involved in the high African American MMR, such as women dying from complications related to abortion as well as a variety of other factors. The solution to MMR is more care, not less. This is also true for women that are seeking an abortion—the answer is more care, not less. Interestingly enough, these same medical institutions in opposition to Louisiana’s abortion law are the same ones who are accused of discrimination in care.

Why is the abortion industry, along with the support of major medical institutions, content on giving these women subpar care?

That’s because abortion was meant for African Americans to begin with, so it’s natural that they would not care about the people they are trying to exterminate. Margaret Sanger, the founder of the nation’s leading abortion supplier, Planned Parenthood, once said: “We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the negro population.” Perhaps not coincidently, nearly 80 percent of Planned Parenthoods are located in black and Hispanic communities today.

In 2016, it was reported that African American women are 3.5 times more likely to have an abortion than white women. In Louisiana, the total number of abortions in 2018 was 8,097. Over half (4,958) were abortions of African American babies.

Today, the slowest growing ethnic group in America are African Americans. Margaret Sanger’s dream is coming true.

The Roe v. Wade decision was also laced with ideals for population control, citing many eugenic references. Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in a New York Times interview: “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” In Elle magazine, Ginsburg also insinuates that poor people should have ready access to abortions because “[i]t makes no sense as a national policy to promote birth only among poor people.” Abortion being used as a tool of eugenics is something we all know is true, “but we only whisper it,” said a co-counsel to Roe and advisor to Bill Clinton. The foot soldiers of the abortion advocacy wing are deceived into thinking that abortion is all about “women’s rights.” However, the elite and powerful understand that abortion is about controlling the population of “those we don’t want too many of.” Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a lengthy opinion citing the eugenic roots of abortion to dispose of minorities, the poor, and the disabled.

For the abortion industry to sue Louisiana for simply requiring that abortionists have hospital admitting privileges speaks volumes of their true feelings towards the women they profit from. It says that prioritizing the health and safety of the people they are trying to extinguish is a waste of time and resources. Some in the abortion industry look at these women as people who shouldn’t be having babies anyway, so why care if they have complications and die in the process?

Women seeking abortions, regardless of color, are no less worthy of competent and quality care as patients involved in other surgical procedures, and Louisiana’s admitting-privileges law protects that right.

The bottom line is that we need to listen to women—not abortion suppliers. Another question in the Russo case is whether June Medical Services has the standing to represent the legal interests of the woman when suing to block this law. June Medical Services has failed women, yet they have the audacity to appeal to the courts on their behalf for lesser standards of care.

These people are the same ones who hired radiologists and ophthalmologists to perform abortions in their clinics, do not report the rape of young girls, and do not monitor vital signs of sedated women. There is a clear callousness that the abortion industry has for women. They devalue human life in the womb and ultimately devalue the woman’s life. But Act 620 restores a bit of dignity and decency when it comes to women’s health care.

Family Research Council, Americans United for Life, Susan B. Anthony List, Alliance Defending Freedom, and Louisiana Right to Life, along with more than 200 members of Congress and the Trump administration, have filed amicus briefs in support of protecting women’s health and safety.

Katrina Jackson, an African American woman, is the Louisiana Democrat legislator who authored Act 620. In exclusive interviews, she explains what Act 620 is all about: “It’s really a pro-women’s health bill because I’m not going to ignore those women… I’m not going to ignore their health care needs.”

Why Does the Abortion Industry Hate Women? (Part 1)

by Patrina Mosley

March 9, 2020

The Supreme Court has heard arguments last week in the June Medical Services vs. Russo case on whether or not to uphold Louisiana’s Unsafe Abortion Protection Act, Act 620, which requires abortion clinics to have admitting privileges with a local hospital.

This act was passed in 2014 but has not taken effect due to litigation from the opposition, who are claiming that such a safety regulation would cause an “undue burden” to women’s abortion access and would violate precedent set in the Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt case that struck down a similar bill in Texas (HB 2).

Louisiana Act 620 is not like the Texas regulation HB 2, which placed building requirements on surgical abortion clinics for the sake of emergency preparedness and included hospital admitting privileges. Louisiana’s law includes abortion clinics under the same standard as any other ambulatory surgical center in having hospital admitting privileges.

Sadly, Act 620 “was passed in 2014 in response to the extensive health and safety violations found in Louisiana abortion clinics. Louisiana already requires doctors who perform surgery at outpatient surgical centers to have hospital privileges. Act 620 extends that requirement to include abortionists.”

One would think that an industry that has marketed itself as “women’s health care” would not want to be treated differently than any other outpatient surgical health care center, but they do.

Louisiana Right to Life has summarized the documented abortion clinic violations by the Louisiana Department of Health:

As documented in Statements of Deficiencies by the Louisiana Department of Health, abortion clinic violations in the state include but are not limited to: failures to verify the medical history of patients, failure to monitor how long or how much nitrous oxide was given to patients, failure to perform or document a physical exam of each patient, failure to properly store and safeguard medications, failure to have qualified personnel administer anesthesia, failure to properly sterilize equipment, and failure to ensure that single-use IV fluid was used only once.

With such “deficiencies” that have been ongoing for decades, emergency cases in these abortion clinics were inevitable.

As recently as March 15, 2019, Delta Clinic of Baton Rouge botched a woman’s abortion, which caused her to bleed so profusely that she was at the point of hemorrhaging. Because the clinic was not equipped to handle her medical emergency, her situation grew worse by the time she reached a hospital, and she had to have a hysterectomy:

…the facility did not have adequate emergency supplies on hand, such as IV fluids, to stabilize their patient … After the patient was transferred to a Baton Rouge hospital, the complications resulted in the patient requiring a total abdominal hysterectomy and bilateral salpingectomy, removal of both fallopian tubes, for postoperative hemorrhage. Louisiana law requires that Outpatient Abortion Facilities (OAF) have medical equipment and medications for basic life support, including IV fluids, until emergency medical services arrive. The necessary medications were not provided by Delta Clinic, and upon arrival at the hospital, the patient received four units of blood over the course of three days.

Women have died, and many others have experienced life-altering complications as a result of the failure of these clinics to adhere to basic health care standards. To read more about the inability of these clinics to care for women, see Americans United for Life’s amicus brief in the June Medical Services vs. Russo (formerly Gee) case.

Act 620 only requires abortion clinics to have admitting privileges with a local hospital, which, according to the Louisiana Attorney General’s office, three abortion clinics already have (currently there are only four abortion clinics in Louisiana). The fact that these abortion clinics cannot comply with established health and safety standards proves that Act 620 was a necessity.

Act 620 was a bi-partisan effort that passed the Louisiana Legislature by an 88-5 vote in the House of Representatives and a 34-3 vote in the Senate. When challenged by the abortion industry, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of the act. Unhappy with the court’s decision, they appealed, but by a 9-6 vote, the Fifth Circuit denied rehearing the case, ruling in favor of Louisiana.

Yet, the abortion industry is now challenging this common-sense law in front of the highest court in the land, which proves that they are content with providing back-alley abortion “care” for women.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, along with many other American medical institutions who support the abortion industry, have filed an amicus brief in opposition to Louisiana’s law. In their medical opinion, having hospital admitting privileges for abortion clinics are not necessary:

There is no medical benefit to a local admitting privileges requirement for abortion providers. Abortion is an extremely safe procedure, and patients who obtain abortions rarely require hospitalization.

To say that the problem is rare doesn’t mean that it never happens, and the chances of a medical emergency happening are likely higher at clinics that can’t even pass state health inspections.

Ironically, these supporters are the very same “experts” who claim abortions are “extremely” safe. In reality, they are protecting abortion because it’s extremely lucrative. The opposition to Act 620 by the abortion industry and medical professionals shows they don’t really care about women, particularly black women, which make up for the majority of the abortion clientele.

To be continued…

Ninth Circuit Rules in Favor of the Protect Life Rule, Again

by Patrina Mosley , Connor Semelsberger, MPP

February 25, 2020

After a months-long legal battle, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (9th Circuit) ruled 7-4 that the Protect Life Rule, which separates federal Title X Family Planning funding from abortion facilities, can go into full effect.

In July 2019, an 11-judge panel sitting en banc in the 9th Circuit reinforced a decision that the Protect Life Rule could go into effect temporarily while the merits of the case against the rule filed by Planned Parenthood and several liberal states were argued. Since this July ruling, HHS has enforced this new rule which requires physical and financial separation between clinics that receive Title X funds for family planning services and facilities that perform abortions. It also prohibits physicians at Title X family planning clinics from referring patients for abortions.

Yesterday, the 9th Circuit finally ruled that the Protect Life Rule is constitutional and can go into full effect. This victory in the historically liberal 9th Circuit is a welcome sight and was made possible in part by the great work of President Donald Trump and the U.S. Senate to confirm 51 federal appeals court judges, including two 9th Circuit judges who took part in yesterday’s ruling. However, it would not be a surprise if Planned Parenthood and the other plaintiffs decided to appeal this ruling all the way to the Supreme Court, but even at the highest court in the land there is precedent for the Protect Life Rule to be upheld. In 1991 in Rust v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court upheld similar regulations governing Title X finalized under President Ronald Reagan. The decision in Rust was a crucial part of the opinion issued by the 9th Circuit yesterday, and suggests a similarly favorable outcome should this case reach the Supreme Court.

For far too long, the people’s tax dollars have been entangled with the abortion industry. Trump’s “gag rule” only gags the dishonesty and lack of integrity that has been taking place for decades, so ultimately the court’s decision to uphold the restrictions is a win for life and a win for women.

Under the Protect Life Rule, abortion is no longer considered to be “health care” or “family planning.” Abortion-performing entities like Planned Parenthood, who have decided not to comply with the new Title X restrictions, have by default opened up more opportunities for life-affirming health care centers like federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) and Obria, which provide even more services to women than Planned Parenthood.

To see a list of the Grantees who voluntarily withdrew from Title X grant awards, see our blog here.

As a result of restoring integrity to the Title X regulations, there will be an increased diversity of health care providers available for women to choose from in the federal family planning program, and the taking of innocent life will no longer be accepted as “family planning” in America.

Texas Pardons a Sex Trafficking Survivor, Freeing Her to Help Other Survivors

by Patrina Mosley

January 14, 2020

January is National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month. In light of this observance, Governor Abbott recently pardoned Robbie Ann Hamilton, a survivor of sex trafficking, with a unanimous vote from the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles. By this action, Texas has shown that they believe not only in swift justice but also merciful redemption.

Victims of sex trafficking are accustomed to drugs and violence and are often forced to commit crimes while under the control and manipulation of a trafficker. Hamilton was 15 years old when she was lured into sex trafficking and a life of petty crime.

Pardoning victims of sex trafficking is a big deal because a criminal record makes it challenging to escape a life of exploitation and start a new life. Victims with a criminal record will often stay with their exploiter or be led back into exploitation just so they can have the necessities of life (a roof over their head, clothes, food, etc.).

Hamilton found sobriety. Even better, she found God. She was baptized in jail and spent time getting to know Jesus and the Bible. She was sponsored for pardon by the 12 Step Program. Now, Hamilton speaks on the sex trafficking industry’s dangers and addictions and is a member of a church that helps people who were just like her. Staff from the program she completed, called “New Friends New Life,” have testified that she didn’t just “find religion” in jail but “continues to help guide adolescent girls to make decisions based on Biblical principles and to avoid the pitfalls of drugs and sex.” Natalie Nanasi, Assistant Professor and the Director of the Legal Center for Victims of Crimes Against Women at Southern Methodist University’s Dedman School of Law, states, “Hamilton has been a model member of society and has worked tirelessly to help other women.” Eight letters of support were submitted on Hamilton’s behalf to the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles.

It is good to see our justice system working to view survivors of sexual exploitation as victims and not merely criminals, as it should. We need more Christian-based programs that rescue, advocate for, re-educate, and restore those harmed by sexual exploitation. The story of Robbie Ann Hamilton exemplifies what victims of sexual exploitation need—to become recipients of practical alleviations—so that they can be given the opportunity to help other victims “value human dignity [by] applying a biblical sexual ethic, inspiring women to see themselves as made in the image of God—with strength, worth, and dignity.”

Thank you, Gov. Abbott.

Abortion Pills: The Do-It-Yourself, Back-Alley Method

by Patrina Mosley

December 10, 2019

It’s been no coincidence that the latest mainstream media, women’s magazines, and even Teen Vogue have been advertising abortion pills as the new wonders of women’s healthcare that can be taken in the privacy of their homes.

They even have the audacity to applaud purchasing illegal abortion pills online. A New York Times columnist, a man at that, found that ordering illegal abortion pills online was quite easy during his investigation. Nothing should be scarier than a man ordering abortion pills and then titling his investigation piece “Abortion Pills Should Be Everywhere.” There have been numerous documented incidents (here, here, and here) of women being unknowingly slipped abortion pills by partners who were unwilling to become fathers or by family members who were unsupportive of the pregnancy.

The abortion industry markets the abortion pill as straightforward and safe. In reality, chemical abortions are a multi-day traumatic process that comes with over 4,000 documented life-threatening and health endangering risks.

The rate at which chemical abortion is being used is currently at an all-time high. The latest statistics on abortion from the Guttmacher Institute show that 39 percent of abortions in 2017 were chemical (reported as “medical” or “medication abortion”), a 25 percent increase since 2014. This rapid increase in chemical abortions is part of the abortion industry’s long-term strategy to make abortions “self-managed” and unrestricted—despite the profound dangers such poorly-supervised medical care poses to women’s health.

Abortion lobbyists regard drug-based, do-it-yourself abortions as the best way to get around the many state-level pro-life laws being enacted around our country. Such abortions are accomplished through the abortion pill regimen, distributed under the brand name Mifeprex, which is subject to the FDA’s drug safety program—Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS)—because it carries such life-threatening risks.

The abortion industry wants to remove the FDA’s REMS in order to have abortion pills available through the pharmacy, the mail, and even on college campuses (also currently being proposed in New York), making do-it-yourself abortions the future of the abortion industry. They have strategically discussed how the absence of the REMS would significantly expand abortion locations and providers, broaden remote prescription (in which a woman is never even examined by the prescriber), and eventually achieve over-the-counter (OTC) status for Mifeprex.

Abortion advocates once claimed that legal abortion would alleviate the danger of “back-alley” abortions for women, but now they want to place the burden of inducing abortions completely on women—despite the fact that the health complications that often result from an induced chemical abortion are eerily similar to those of “back-alley” abortions.

They include severe bleeding, infection, retained fetal parts, the need for emergency surgery, and even death. In addition, the woman, who may or may not have health insurance coverage, is expected to bear the additional cost of these “chemical coat hanger” abortion complications.

Yet, abortion activists continue to market the abortion pill as “safe,” “effective,” and “simple” for women with visions of “privacy” and “simplicity.” This is demonstrably false, but it’s the lie they have to sell women so that the abortion industry can cut costs, expand their reach, and remove themselves from the pain and hurt they cause women.

With all the documented dangers, it is increasingly evident that the advancement of the abortion industry’s agenda for the Mifeprex regimen is about political, ideological, and financial goals—not care for women.

To read more about the radical implications that OTC abortion drugs could have for women’s health and safety, especially as it pertains to intimate partner violence, sexual abuse and sex trafficking, and accurate patient assessment, see our new publication: The Next Abortion Battleground: Chemical Abortion. If you or a woman you know needs to know the facts about abortion drugs or wants to share their experience of a chemical abortion, please visit Abortiondrugfacts.com.

Do You Know Which 2020 Obamacare Plans Cover Abortion on Demand?

by Patrina Mosley

December 9, 2019

The 2020 Obamacare Open Enrollment Period spans November 1 through December 15, 2019 for most states. During this time, Americans will be able to sign up for Obamacare plans and many will receive taxpayer-funded subsidies to help pay for these plans.

FRC and the Charlotte Lozier Institute (CLI) have completed the sixth annual review of elective abortion coverage in individual health insurance plans offered on state exchanges under Obamacare at Obamacareabortion.com.

Our investigation found that more locales than ever before are providing abortion-only plans. This means that Americans have much less choice over whether their healthcare plan covers abortion or not. Since last year’s open enrollment, the total number of plans increased modestly from 1,000 to 1,120. The percentage of total plans covering elective abortion rose 4 percent over this period from 65 percent of plans (650) in 2019 to 69 percent of plans (777) in 2020. While 26 states have opted out of abortion coverage by prohibiting plans that cover elective abortion on their Obamacare exchanges, 24 states and the District of Columbia continue to allow abortion-funding insurance plans. An estimated 777 plans cover elective abortion for the 2020 enrollment period.

A majority of Americans still strongly oppose the use of their tax dollars to fund abortion. Unfortunately, several states have acted against American attitudes towards abortion funding. This year alone, Illinois and Maine passed state abortion mandates that force every insurance carrier in the state to cover elective abortions. Now, residents in these states join the residents of California and New York who are also forced to pay for abortion in their healthcare plans.

Consumers have a right to know where exactly their money is going to make truly informed healthcare decisions that do not conflict with their conscience. Obamacareabortion.com was designed to help you determine if a health insurance plan covers elective abortion before you decide which plan to select. To find out if a health insurance plan covers elective abortion, click on your state on the interactive map. After clicking on your state, a summary of all the insurance carriers offering individual and family plans in your state (or federally-facilitated) exchange will appear. The page identifies each of the offered exchange plans in your state, and whether or not those plans cover elective abortion.

By law, insurance companies on the Obamacare exchanges must disclose whether their plans cover elective abortion. The disclosures should be appearing in each plan’s Summary of Benefits and Coverage. Unfortunately, there were a few carriers whose number of plans and whether they covered elective abortion were inconclusive. If you find an insurance carrier marked “Unknown,” this means that we have searched their publicly available online documents and contacted them, but still have no clear information about their coverage. We encourage you to contact us at info@obamacareabortion.com if you find any additional or conflicting information regarding the abortion coverage policy of your plan.

Women Deserve Better (Part 5): A Smarter Way to Fight Prostitution

by Patrina Mosley

November 1, 2019

This is the final part of a series on prostitution. Read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4.

Some advocates who recognize persons in prostitution for who they really are—victims of sexual exploitation—support a position between legalization and decriminalization, called “partial decriminalization.” Under this legal model, the act of selling sex is no longer criminalized, but the buying of sex still carries heavy penalties in an effort to disincentivize demand.

This approach of criminalizing only the buying of sex is based on the Nordic model, which correctly understands prostitution to be sexual exploitation and asserts that criminalizing sex buying reduces the demand that drives sex trafficking. The name Nordic model refers to Sweden’s 1999 legislative change. Countries such as Norway, Iceland, Northern Ireland, Canada, France, Ireland, and Israel have followed in Sweden’s footsteps.

Just recently, Rep. Ann Wagner (R-Mo.) introduced the bipartisan Sex Trafficking Demand Reduction Act, which contains a proposal—based on the Nordic model—that would amend the minimum standards of combatting sex trafficking (contained in the current Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000) to include language prohibiting the purchase of sex.

For a long time, our legal system penalized persons in prostitution, while mostly letting the purchaser (“Johns” ) go free. This imbalance has begun to change as our country becomes more aware of the issue of sex trafficking and how various forms of sexual exploitation are interconnected.  

Persons in prostitution are often not consenting, as the evidence shows. They are frequently the victims of abuse and manipulation. Many are minors (which is legally considered child sex trafficking) or persons who believe they have no other financial options.

The partial-decriminalization model treats both consenting and non-consenting persons as victims and only penalizes the buyers who are exploiting them. However, this approach still does not satisfy the “sex work” activists who believe that treating all persons in prostitution as victims stigmatizes consenting women. The “sex work” lobby (supported by liberal billionaire George Soros) demands society accept the buying and selling of sex as a legitimate profession for consenting adults.

Yes, some persons willingly sell sex for money and are not forced by a pimp to do so. Some treat it like a normal job, even asking for references from sex buyers before agreeing to engage! But the Chair of Demand Abolition, Swanee Hunt, says it best: “establishing exactly who at any given time is in the minority of adults ‘willingly’ selling their bodies is not a pragmatic or reliable exercise, and it is an insidious distraction from stopping the abuse of the great majority.”

Full or partial decriminalization of the sex trade would only further complicate the distinction between those who are “voluntary” versus the vast majority who are forced, coerced, manipulated, groomed, abused, and controlled with drugs to perform.

New Laws Will Not Solve the Problem of Sin

Although there is much is to be explored with partial decriminalization, neither it, full decriminalization, or legalization preserves the sacredness of sex nor acknowledges the inherent sinfulness of humanity as a barrier to eliminating sexual exploitation. Partial decriminalization may reduce the demand, but it will not eliminate sex buying. Partial decriminalization says sex is a commodity to be sold, and it is not. We must not take the elitist position of thinking that prostitution is “okay” for “some” people.

We agree with Nordic Model Now on this point: “We do not accept prostitution as the answer for the poor and disadvantaged, for recent migrants, for single mothers, for women and children. Or indeed for anyone.”

In the Vita Nostra in Ecclesia blog post, “Trading in Human Bodies and Lives,” the author articulates a biblical sexual ethic that should be at the foundation of combating sexual exploitation:

The trading in sex is objectively and inherently contrary to the dignity and truth of the nature of the human person, as well as the truth of the sex act itself.  It advances the lie that sex is for personal satisfaction alone, and instead of a positive sexuality that is authentically human, it fosters a negative sexuality that is utilitarian and mechanistic.”

Laws encouraging wrong behavior never lead to the right outcomes. No country that legalized, decriminalized, or partially decriminalized sex buying has seen sex buying eliminated. Neither have the persons in prostitution enjoyed the protections and order such policies were allegedly supposed to bring them. No matter how you slice it, the sex industry is a business that thrives off the sinfulness of humanity, and there is no cure for that sinfulness except the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which has the power to change people from the inside out. As humanity exercises free will, it is inevitable that evil things will continue to happen in this world. Until Christ returns, we are called to act with justice, love, mercy, and to walk humbly with God (Micah 6:8). In applying that principle to our justice system, an attainable goal is to create a system that can benefit as many victims as possible and prosecute as many perpetrators as possible.

Working Toward Restorative Justice

As we pursue mercy and justice, a legal model that will benefit women and society is a model that not only supports the non-commodity of sex but also emphasizes restorative justice.

Our laws should recognize the procuring or pimping of any individual as the facilitation of sex trafficking. Penalties for such actions should reflect the gravity of the injustice. Family Research Council supports the bipartisan Sex Trafficking Demand Reduction Act. We affirm that prostitution and sex trafficking are inseparably linked, and one cannot be serious about combating sex trafficking if one is unwilling to go after the buyers that drive the commercial sex industry. (Learn more by reading Reduce the Demand for Sex Trafficking by Going After the Buyers and Sting Sex Trafficking at the Source… Its Buyers.)

Persons in prostitution are often accustomed to a lifestyle of addiction, acts of crime, violence, and homelessness. They often do not see themselves as victims due to the successful grooming and manipulation of their pimps/traffickers. Such individuals would benefit from restorative justice efforts like Ohio’s “CATCH (Changing Actions to Change Habits) Court” in Franklin County. Adults charged with prostitution have the option of entering this two-year restorative program. If participants complete the program, the charges against them are dropped—an essential component for starting one’s life over again. Persons with a criminal record face many obstacles that prevent them from re-establishing themselves into society. A paper published by the Institute to Address Commercial Sexual Exploitation at Villanova University, titled “Relief from Collateral Consequences of Prostitution-related Convictions: A Blueprint,” explores this in greater depth.

CATCH Court is changing lives by helping women who have been arrested for prostitution rather than condemning them. “The court views them as victims, not as criminals.” These women are getting clean, finding sobriety, escaping their exploiters, and starting over. More practical alleviations should be introduced to restore those in prostitution back into normal society, thereby lowering the recidivism rate and their risk for being exploited all over again. We need more programs like CATCH Court.

Restorative programs for convicted sex buyers, called “John” schools, have also been instituted across multiple cities. These programs are designed to teach offenders how their behavior is both dangerous and exploitative. According to Demand Abolition, “There are now over 60 separate john school programs in the U.S. that serve well over 100 cities and counties.” You can see a full list here.

A Better Way Forward

In conclusion, we should not enable the sexual exploitation industry in any way. Instead, Christians should bear witness that the buying and selling of human bodies for sex is outside God’s design and carries destructive consequences, seen and unseen. We need more Christian-based programs that rescue, advocate, re-educate, and restore those harmed by sexual exploitation.

Legalizing, decriminalizing, or partially decriminalizing the selling of sex is not a good way forward, nor a way forward at all. The better way forward is teaching the culture to value human dignity, applying a biblical sexual ethic, inspiring women to see themselves as made in the image of God—with strength, worth, and dignity—and for our laws to apply practical alleviations to victims of sexual exploitation.

Women Deserve Better (Part 4): Legitimizing Prostitution Will Not Make It Safer

by Patrina Mosley

October 17, 2019

This is Part 4 of a series on prostitution. Read Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

Sex work” advocates say that legalization would make prostitution safer and healthier because states could require sex workers and buyers to use condoms and get tested for sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). They believe that criminalizing the act of selling sex only increases stigma and causes sex workers to avoid sexual health services.

These “sex work” advocates misplace the application of justice—they are more preoccupied with overcoming stigma than with alleviating exploitation. The evidence clearly demonstrates that, contrary to what they argue, legalizing prostitution would not make those caught up in prostitution healthier or safer. The only parties who would stand to benefit are the exploiters who buy and sell human beings.

There is no reason to believe that decriminalizing prostitution would result in better sexual health. Having multiple sexual partners is not criminalized, yet STD cases are at an all-time high, according to the latest Center For Disease Control report. Undoing criminal penalties for selling sex will not reduce STDs or make persons in prostitution any healthier than those within the 2.4 million cases of syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia recently—only abstinence and keeping sex within the confines of a committed marriage will do this. Imagine what the STD rate would be if the sex trade is legalized and new clients enter a market in which bans are lifted? A 2018 study surveyed 8,000 American men and found that over 20 percent of respondents who had never bought sex before said that they would if it was decriminalized or legalized.

Legalizing prostitution with the requirement of wearing condoms has not proven to increase the safety of persons caught up in prostitution. One study of Australian communities with legalized or fully-decriminalized brothel-based prostitution reveals that sex buyers still encourage one another, and pressure prostituted persons, to not use condoms. The study notes:

Sex buyers frame unsafe sex practices as both an expected part of the sexual encounter and as a feature of the brothel experience that women are expected to be comfortable with and acquiesce to [emphasis added]. When women are reported as showing signs that they are uncomfortable about unprotected sex, or require more payment to perform it, punters construct the experience in negative terms.

Requirements placed on exploiters (brothel owners, pimps, and traffickers) and persons caught up in prostitution would only protect the consumers, not the victims who will encounter buyers with pre-existing STDs and/or other health hazards. To think that exploiters would be transformed into law-abiding entrepreneurs complying with inspections and regulations—especially when it impedes the ability to increase profit—is dangerously naive.

An extensive evaluation of the legalization of prostitution in the Netherlands was coordinated by the Dutch Ministry of Justice. They found that licensed brothels did not welcome frequent regulatory inspections. And the Netherlands, which has some of the most liberal prostitution laws in the world, is viewed as the country “where anything goes with regard to prostitution” (pg.12)! The Netherlands is also well known for the facilitation of human trafficking. Because of the general unwillingness to comply with even liberal restrictions, the Dutch police has had to dedicate an entire unit just for inspection enforcements. “The feeling in the prostitution sector is that licensed businesses are inspected more often than non-licensed businesses. This situation undermines the willingness of owners of licensed businesses to adhere to the rules and complicates the combat against trafficking in human beings” (pg. 11).

Even countries like New Zealand must acknowledge that their decision to decriminalize prostitution did not improve “working conditions” for prostituted persons: “New Zealand’s Prostitution Law Review Committee found that a majority of prostituted persons felt that the decriminalization act “could do little about violence that occurred” (pg. 14). The Committee further reported that abusive brothels did not improve conditions for prostituted individuals; the brothels that ‘had unfair management practices continued with them’ even after the decriminalization.”

Decriminalizing or legalizing prostitution would not make those caught up in prostitution healthier or safer. It would only benefit the exploiters and make the state a collaborator in the exploitation of women and children. Such policies say to pimps and traffickers, “We’ve got your back” and to victims, “Good luck out there!” Laws are inherently meant to discourage certain types of behavior, and good laws promote the right types of behavior. Enabling organized sexual exploitation only succeeds in inviting more crime and exploitation in other forms, devaluing women and children, and legitimizing the buying and selling of human beings for pleasure.

Stay tuned for Part 5, which will take a more in-depth look at the path forward for going after the perpetrators of sexual exploitation.

Women Deserve Better (Part 3): How Legitimizing Prostitution Empowers Exploitation

by Patrina Mosley

October 16, 2019

This is Part 3 of a series on prostitution. Read Part 1Part 2Part 4, and Part 5.

Prostitution. It is a profession allegedly as old as time. Since it will always exist, why not make it better? Or so say the “sex work” advocates and progressive politicians who push for either the decriminalization or legalization of prostitution. But both approaches are misguided.

To most of us, decriminalization and legalization might sound like the same thing. But in this context, decriminalization refers to removing government penalties for prostitution, while legalization refers to removing government penalties and imposing a regulatory structure on sex work (while something can be legalized and unregulated and also remain illegal, and civil penalties—as opposed to criminal penalties—can apply, that’s not what we are talking about here). While decriminalization and legalization are not the same thing, they are alike in that they hurt the very people they claim to protect.

According to Villanova’s Institute to Address Commercial Sexual Exploitation, the decriminalization of prostitution “decriminalizes the sale of sex, decriminalizes the purchase of sex, and does not impose a legal scheme to regulate the commercial sex industry.” To decriminalize something means that it is no longer a crime to do that thing. Simply put, the decriminalization of prostitution means it would no longer be a crime to participate in the buying and selling of human beings for sex.

The District of Columbia is currently considering legislation that would fully decriminalize the sex trade in D.C. This means pimping, purchasing sex, and operating brothels would no longer be crimes in the nation’s capital.

Yes, you read that correctly. The Community Safety and Health Amendment Act of 2019 would decriminalize the sex trade, thereby enabling exploiters of women and youth and exacerbating sex trafficking within the D.C., Maryland, and Virginia metro area (locally referred to as the DMV area). Law enforcement would have no right to interfere with acts such as pimping, purchasing sex, and operating brothels, further isolating victims who are under pimp or trafficker control.

Rhode Island experimented with decriminalization in 1980 but eventually reversed course in 2009. Why? Because the state had transformed into a sex tourism destination and a hub for trafficking, violence, and crime. “The lack of law criminalizing or regulating commercial sex acts allowed for the growth of sex businesses in Rhode Island. By 2002, Providence was known as ‘New England’s red-light district.’ The lack of laws controlling prostitution impeded police from investigating and stopping serious crimes and prevented officials from arresting pimps, traffickers, and sex buyers.”

As our friends at the National Center on Sexual Exploitation encapsulate it:

Full decriminalization of prostitution, in which the laws regulating the activities of pimps, sex buyers and sellers are eliminated, represents the most egregious response to the commercial sex trade. Such an approach transforms pimps into entrepreneurs and sex buyers into mere customers. While decriminalization may redefine deviant and criminal behavior, it is incapable of transforming pimps into caring individuals who have the best interests of prostituting persons at heart, or metamorphosing sex buyers into sensitive, thoughtful, and giving sexual partners. Decriminalization of prostitution is powerless to change the essential, exploitive nature of commercial sex, and tragically grants it free rein.

The legalization of prostitution, on the other hand, “legalizes the sale of sex, legalizes the purchase of sex, and creates a legal scheme to regulate the commercial sex industry.” Like decriminalization, legalizing something means it is no longer a crime to do that thing. Unlike decriminalization, such acts would be regulated under the law. Several counties in Nevada have made prostitution legal and have laws that regulate the trade. These regulations cover brothel inspections and STD testing, among other things. New York recently considered decriminalizing certain statues related to the sex trade and legalizing other parts of the sex trade to, as they saw it, “bring [persons in prostitution] out of the shadows and ensure that they are protected.”

How does empowering the business of exploitation “protect” anyone? With everything we know about the abuse and violence that characterizes the commercial sex trade, equating unobstructed exploitation with victim protection is just as absurd as saying, “since many of those who endure rape feel the stigma of shame, let’s remove all penalties for rape and legitimize it so they won’t feel shame.”

No sensible person would say such a thing. “Protecting” victims by removing the stigma of exploiting them makes no sense whatsoever. Not seeing persons caught up in prostitution as what they are—victims of sexual exploitation—will misplace the application of justice. Legitimizing the buying and selling of human beings only makes it easier for pimps and traffickers to groom vulnerable women, boys, and girls into thinking that sexual violence is normal and acceptable.

Prostitution in the Netherlands is legal and regulated. The Dutch government legalized prostitution in 2000, and the entire community has felt the negative impact ever since. You can read numerous articles about the objectification and crowding prevalent in Amsterdam’s red-light district, known as “the capital of prostitution.” Prostitution has become so mainstream there that women stand in brothel windows like products to be bought. Yes, they are attracting customers, but now the district has become “the biggest free attraction park in the whole of Amsterdam,” as tourists come to gawk and snap pictures of the women for sale. Amsterdam is continually breaking up the organized crime that the business of the sex trade often attracts. The dehumanization of women, paired with the lack of effort to provide women with better options, has created problems on top of problems.

[ Watch: The Failure of Legalizing Prostitution in The Netherlands ]

One article put it bluntly: “The Dutch approach to prostitution is largely practical: sex work will always exist, so better for everyone to legalise, control and tax it.”

Persons caught up in prostitution will admit, “I don’t like it (selling my body), but I have to.” Kristina has been working in the red-light district for a decade. She was persuaded to come by a Hungarian friend who had found her fortune in Amsterdam’s seedy sex industry. “I’m saving for my two kids. For their future. They’re with my mother in Hungary. My kids don’t know what I do.”

So now, by legalizing and regulating the sex trade, the presiding government functions as Kristina’s pimp by exploiting an exploitation business for tax revenue—a never-ending cycle of exploitation. Advocates for sex trafficking victims in New York told CBS News that “Most often [legalizing prostitution] increases sex trafficking…If you legalize, you are condoning brothels to become businesses and pimps to become business managers. That’s what we’ve seen around the world. The argument about safety is false.”

Seeking to protect vulnerable individuals by either decriminalizing or legalizing prostitution is a misguided notion. The laissez-faire approach to protecting human dignity will always create more problems, not solutions.

Reduce the Demand for Sex Trafficking by Going After the Buyers

by Patrina Mosley

September 20, 2019

Recently, Congresswoman Ann Wagner (R-Mo.) and Congressman Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) introduced the bipartisan Sex Trafficking Demand Reduction Act, which would amend the minimum standards of combatting sex trafficking (contained in the current Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000) to include language prohibiting the purchase of sex.

This change would specifically target the buyers of sex. As Demand Abolition, a research organization dedicated to eradicating the commercial sex industry, puts it, “[s]ex buyers drive the illegal sex trade. Without their money, pimps and traffickers have zero incentives. No buyers = no business.” Demand Abolition’s research Who Buys Sex? found that U.S. sex buyers spend more than $100 per transaction on average.

As stated in the bill’s findings, “[r]esearch has shown that legal prostitution increases the demand for prostituted persons and thus increases the market for sex. As a result, there is a significant increase in instances of human trafficking.”

Thus, the bill declares that “if a government has the authority to prohibit the purchase of commercial sex acts but fails to do so, it shall be deemed to have failed to make serious and sustained efforts to reduce the demand for commercial sex acts.”

Passage of this bill would be an excellent step towards curbing the demand for paid sex. By making the purchase of sex acts illegal, it would implement a part of the Nordic model of combating commercial sexual exploitation. This model has proved successful in countries such as Sweden (which pioneered the model), Norway, Iceland, Northern Ireland, Canada, France, Ireland, and most recently, Israel. One of the model’s aims is to change the culture’s perception of certain behaviors and actions as unacceptable. Buying human beings is one such behavior the model discourages, and it does so by creating criminal sanctions for the buying of human beings.

You can check out my previous blog, How Prostitution and Sex Trafficking Are Inseparably Linked, for more information on what research has shown us on this subject. The Sex Trafficking Demand Reduction Act references a key piece of research that analyzed 150 countries and found that, on average, countries with legal prostitution experienced higher reports of human trafficking.

Efforts to combat sex trafficking should combine with efforts to combat prostitution. Both are businesses that profit through the buying and selling of human beings for sex. The Sex Trafficking Demand Reduction Act is a crucial step in positively shaping our country’s culture and re-affirming the human dignity of women, boys, and girls who are being bought and sold.

Archives