Sex Trafficking and the First Amendment - NYTimes.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/04/opinion/sex-trafficking-and-the-first-amendment.html?_r=1&emc=tnt&tntemail1=y

Source: NYTimes.com

Editorial

Published: April 3, 2012

For months now, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and its allies in the contraception and abortion wars have complained that the Obama administration showed anti-Catholic bias when it declined to renew the conference’s contract to aid victims of human trafficking. In fact, the contract was not renewed because the bishops’ group was unwilling to meet the needs of trafficking victims, many of whom have been sexually abused or forced into prostitution.

The group required its subcontractors to agree not to use any federal money they had received to pay for contraceptive and abortion referrals and services. (A federal rule, the Hyde Amendment, bars use of federal money for abortions but makes exceptions for rape, incest and when a woman’s life is endangered.)

A recent decision by a federal district court judge in Boston supplied another good reason for denying the bishops’ group a new contract: respect for the First Amendment. Ruling on a case filed three years ago, Judge Richard Stearns found that the group’s old contract, which expired in October, violated the Constitution’s bar on government establishment of religion because it allowed the bishops to impose religion-based restrictions on the use of taxpayer dollars. “To insist that the government respect the separation of the church and state is not to discriminate against religion,” Judge Stearns wrote. “Indeed, it promotes a respect for religion by refusing to single out any creed for official favor at the expense of all others.” The bishops are likely to appeal.

The sound ruling could have implications for the faith-based initiative begun by President George W. Bush and continued under President Obama by calling into question the dubious notion of giving churches and other groups wide latitude to use public money for their religion-based social service programs.

In the meantime, Congressional Republicans should stop obstructing legislation to reauthorize and strengthen the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, the federal law central to the fight against human trafficking and slavery that expired at the end of last year.

Related articles

• Bishops lose fight over loss of federal funding | Florida Independent (trafficking-monitor.blogspot.com)
• Google Under Scrutiny Over Sex Trafficking Ads (techdailydose.nationaljournal.com)

Advocates say reproductive services 'important' for trafficking victims | USCatholic.org

http://www.uscatholic.org/news/2011/12/advocates-say-reproductive-services-important-trafficking-victims

Thursday, December 15, 2011

By Dennis Sadowski Catholic News Service

WASHINGTON (CNS) -- Longtime advocates for victims of human trafficking told a House committee that the government must ensure that females who are trafficked can access all reproductive health services including contraception and abortion.

Addressing the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Dec. 14, Florrie Burke, a consultant to anti-trafficking organizations, and Andrea Powell, executive director of FAIR Girls in Washington, said victims who are raped must be able to determine for themselves what services they need rather than facing restrictions on care imposed by others.

The hearing was requested by minority Democrats on the committee as part of the congressional probe into the process followed by the Department of Health in Human Services to award grants for services to trafficking victims.

House Republicans maintained during the 80-minute hearing -- as they did Dec. 1 -- that they believe HHS officials violated federal law protecting religious conscience in denying up to $2.5 million in funding to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Migration and Refugee Services because the church agency would not provide or refer female trafficking victims for contraceptive, abortion or sterilization services.

Grants were awarded under the National Human Trafficking Victim Assistance Program to three other agencies including two whose original applications scored lower than the MRS proposal. Those two agencies initially were not recommended for funding by the staff of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Division of the Office of Refugee Resettlement that administers the program within HHS.

Both Powell and Burke disagreed with the policy written into the contract HHS had with MRS for case management services for trafficking victims from April 2006 to October 2011 that allowed the church agency to prohibit the local groups it subcontracted for services to refer clients for reproductive health care that violated church teaching.

Burke said such services were as vital as the need to refer clients for cancer screening, diabetes treatment or heart disease.

"It's not just contraception, abortion or other services, but it's the education that goes along with it, that victims are often young, victims are often undereducated, victims often come with a different primary language and don't really understand their own sexual health, they don't understand the functions of their body. They're very vulnerable to illness and disease," she said.

Powell said her duty as a social worker and victim advocate is to ensure that the full range of services is available to clients.

In response to a question from Rep. Gerald Connolly, D-Va., a Catholic, as to why such services are needed, Powell said, "It's important for their lives."

"It's not just about whether or not we think they might need it," Powell explained. "These individuals absolutely need the ability to have these referrals."

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., committee chairman, concluded the hearing by saying he was concerned about the process followed in awarding the grants. He described the process has "inherently flawed" because in the end the funding selection was left to an individual administrator rather than being based on the quality of a grant application.

"That is one of the challenges for this committee ... to figure out how the grant process can be honest and legal upfront so that nobody enters knowing that there is a trapdoor at the end and so that from the remaining people who are eligible they receive contracts in a fair and impartial fashion," Issa said.

Copyright (c) 2011 Catholic News Service/U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

Related articles

• Bishops - It's Not About You " Blog of Rights: Official Blog of the American Civil Liberties Union (trafficking-monitor.blogspot.com)
• Modern-day slavery decried - Catholic Courier (trafficking-monitor.blogspot.com)

The Human Trafficking Project: ACLU Suit Can Move Forward

Image via Wikipedia

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Late last month, a federal district court in Massachusetts ruled that the ACLU's suit against the Department of Health and Human Services can proceed. In 2009, the ACLU sued HHS on behalf of the taxpayers of Massachusetts because HHS' funding of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) to provide aftercare services to victims and survivors of trafficking imposes restrictions on the services provided to victims and survivors due to religious beliefs.

The USCCB has been one of the main providers of services for trafficking victims and survivors, including case management, shelter, counseling, job training, advocacy, and other needed services. However, the USCCB does not provide birth control, will not fund abortions, and restricts reproductive health options. The ACLU has taken issue with these restrictions, arguing that they "impose religious doctrine on victims of human trafficking."

Judge Richard Stearns ruled on March 22nd that the ACLU's suit can go forward. Initially, the USCCB had argued that the ACLU could not bring the suit forward on behalf of taxpayers, but instead that only a trafficking victim or survivor could bring the suit. The ACLU argues that "It is unlikely a trafficking victim or a cash-strapped nonprofit organization that provides services to trafficking victims would come forward to sue the federal government, and it has been well established for the last 40 years that taxpayers can challenge government-funded religion." While their point is well taken, it is important to also be cautious about speaking on behalf of or for marginalized people or victims of violence. Such acts can be oppressive and re-victimizing, while perpetuating the silencing of these populations.

The case is far from over. The USCCB has also argued that freedom of religion allows them to determine the programs and services that they provide and support, and that were the ACLU's suit was to triumph, it would be in violation of freedom of religion.

Amanda Kloer points out that regardless of the outcome, victims are likely to suffer in this case: "It will involve organizations which serve trafficking victims spending lots of time and money on legal fees which could be spent on people. If USCCB is told they must provide reproductive health care, then trafficking survivors will lose a competent, experienced service provider and have their recovery process disrupted as they're shuffled around. If USCCB can carry on, then women in need of health care might not get it, resulting in more trauma in their lives. If I'm a woman trying to rebuild my life after trafficking, no version of the future is looking bright and rosy."
Posted by JenniferKK at 7:07 AM

The Human Trafficking Project: ACLU Suit Can Move Forward