Supreme Court Rejects Anti-Prostitution Pledge
Ruling strikes down restrictions on AIDS funding
By Kevin Spak, Newser User
Posted Jun 20, 2013 2:40 PM CDT
A file photo of the US Supreme Court in Washington.   (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster, File)

(Newser) – The government can't make opposition to prostitution a prerequisite for federal funding for non-profits, the Supreme Court ruled today. In doing so, it struck down a 2003 law that required any group getting federal funding for HIV-prevention programs overseas to have a blanket policy against sex trafficking and prostitution. Opponents said the law made it difficult for groups to help prostitutes, often the ones most in need of HIV intervention. The decision was 6-2, with Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas in the minority and Elena Kagan recusing herself, Reuters reports.

In his majority opinion, John Roberts explained that the law violated the non-profits' First Amendment rights. The condition amounted to "the affirmation of a belief that by its nature cannot be confined within the scope of the government program," he wrote. In his dissent, Scalia argued that the rule was "nothing more than a means of selecting suitable agents to perform the government's chosen strategy."

More From Newser
My Take on This Story
To report an error on this story,
notify our editors.
Supreme Court Rejects Anti-Prostitution Pledge is...
4%
6%
6%
64%
1%
18%
Show results without voting
You Might Like
Comments
Showing 3 of 35 comments
JT119
Jul 3, 2013 9:07 AM CDT
IF SODOMY IS LEGALIZED, PROSTITUTION SHOULD BE LEGALIZE ALSO. it's the lesser of too evils
Johnny_ReduxII
Jun 22, 2013 2:20 PM CDT
I thought this was a story about Congress, but most of its members would never make such a pledge.
Pointy01
Jun 21, 2013 4:46 PM CDT
You have to ask yourselves why the newest appointed SUPREME COURT JUSTICE prefers to RECUSE herself from making a decision, could it be that she prefers to emulate that other useless so called politician whom either recused himself by merely voting PRESENT when asked to vopte for or againt. For that matter does anyyone know of another instance where a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE has recused him/herself?