'Prostitution pledge' ruling splits conservatives

[Revmitchell]

The 6-2 decision struck down a policy in the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which was developed by the Bush administration to fight HIV/AIDS globally. The policy required private health organizations to denounce prostitution and sex trafficking in order to receive taxpayer money for the global fight.

The Obama administration argued in favor of the constitutionality of the law, saying it is reasonable for the government to give money only to groups that oppose prostitution and sex trafficking, which contribute to the spread of HIV and AIDS.

On the surface, it sounds like a common sense policy, commentators say, but Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said the issue more broadly involves freedom of speech.

"By requiring recipients to profess a specific belief, the Policy Requirement goes beyond defining the limits of the federally funded program to defining the recipient," Roberts wrote.

The policy required that recipients of funds explicitly agree with the government's policy to oppose prostitution and sex trafficking, but the First Amendment prohibits the government from telling people what they must say, the court decided.

"This case is not about the government's ability to enlist the assistance of those with whom it already agrees," Roberts wrote. "It is about compelling a grant recipient to adopt a particular belief as a condition of funding."

http://bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=40593

 

[Aaron]

Sounds like a precedent to overturn the Civil Rights Act of 1965.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

More like strict constitutional constructionist philosophy, and it's about cotton-pickin' time, even if we don't like some of the resulting rulings.

 

[saturneptune]

The ruling surprises me, as the last two administrations supported the concept. Neither adminstration is known for its conservative principles, but certainly the Bush administration was more conservative than the present. Even the Obama administration agreed with the Bush policy in this case. What makes the ruling surprising is that one of the Bush nominees to the court took the opposite position.

One would think that this would have been a no brainer. In this rare case, worldly thinking, Biblical principles, and law lined up. Prostitition is illegal in all juristictions except some isolate places in Nevada. Activity such as prostitution encourages the spread of sexual disease, without even considering the moral aspects of the issue. However, despite all of this, a majority of justices on a conservative court came to the conclusion that somehow, the law violated the Constitution. It certainly shows how far down the road we have come for the art of not using common sense.

It is a historical fact that many Supreme Court nominees turn out to be different than everyone predicted at the time of approval by the Senate. Look at the record of David Suiter, a nominee of the first Bush.

 

[saturneptune]

Sounds like a precedent to overturn the Civil Rights Act of 1965.

It is not going to happen.

 

[saturneptune]

More like strict constitutional constructionist philosophy, and it's about cotton-pickin' time, even if we don't like some of the resulting rulings.

How does a strict interpretation of the Consititution lead one to believe that prostitution is acceptable?

 

[church mouse guy]

I don't understand why the majority of taxpayers cannot define who is going to get taxpayer money. I do not like what Roberts has done, and I fear for what he might do next.

 

[Revmitchell]

"By requiring recipients to profess a specific belief, the Policy Requirement goes beyond defining the limits of the federally funded program to defining the recipient," Roberts wrote.

The policy required that recipients of funds explicitly agree with the government's policy to oppose prostitution and sex trafficking, but the First Amendment prohibits the government from telling people what they must say, the court decided.

"This case is not about the government's ability to enlist the assistance of those with whom it already agrees," Roberts wrote. "It is about compelling a grant recipient to adopt a particular belief as a condition of funding."

I agree if this were to stand what other belief would be next. We have seen what the IRS does under an extreme administration like Obama.

 

[Aaron]

It is not going to happen.

Yeah, it will. Whether it is after we are subjugated to the total despotism of Marxist Socialism, or after a bloody revolution and liberty is restored, it will happen.

But . . . I was just pointing out the contradictions in the ruling and the practice of the last 50 years.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

How does a strict interpretation of the Consititution lead one to believe that prostitution is acceptable?

The ruling has nothing to do with prostitution, but the requirement for organizations to take a position opposing it, or rather more broadly, requiring organizations to take any position on anything. That, according to the judges, is unconstitutional as a violation of First Amendment protections of freedom of speech. Therefore, distasteful as it is to prevent an outspoken position against prostitution, the ruling is strict constructionist and correct.

 

[church mouse guy]

I do not understand why the government has to give money to a group that is working counter to the government policy in the name of free speech. If you ask me, Roberts has now given us two goofy decisions--the first being that Obamacare is a tax. This reminds me of the argument over Robert Mapplethorpe when the National Endowment for the Arts gave him $10,000 for a photographic exhibit that included a crucifix in a beaker of urine, etc.--there point being that the government should not censor art. Eisenhower gave us Earl Warren in a musical chairs political deal in California and now W has given us John Roberts--apparently Hoosiers wanted him out of Indiana. So our gain is America's loss.

 

[Benjamin]

The policy required private health organizations to denounce prostitution and sex trafficking...

Seems an easy resolution could have been to change the wording from "denounce" which would require speaking an opinion on values, which has to do with GASP! "morality", to simply requiring them to be involved in "education" about the dangers prostitution and sex trafficking.