The next anti-sex law
mark94
Arizona
A new law that shuttered websites used by voluntary sex workers to screen clients has already forced some to risk their lives by returning to the streets to find business.
But the broad bipartisan alliance that passed that legislation last month isn’t done. Now, Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who both voted for the first bill, are pushing a proposal in the Senate that would impose similar restrictions on sex workers’ bank accounts — a move that sex workers say could further endanger their income, safety and lives.
Just like last month’s Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act, Warren and Rubio’s End Banking for Human Traffickers Act is intended to crack down on human trafficking. The bill, which passed the House in overwhelming fashion last month, would increase pressure on banks to shut down the accounts of anyone suspected of engaging in trafficking. Besides Warren, five other Senate Democrats are co-sponsoring the bill; a Senate vote is not yet scheduled.
“Human trafficking generates $150 billion a year in illegal profits,” a representative for Warren told HuffPost. “Our bill would connect federal regulators, law enforcement, and the banking industry to help strengthen existing anti-money-laundering efforts that combat traffickers — Congress should pass it.”
But given the frequency with which sex trafficking and voluntary, consensual sex work are conflated, sex workers including webcam performers, adult film actors and business owners, strippers and escorts fear these efforts will hit them too.
But the broad bipartisan alliance that passed that legislation last month isn’t done. Now, Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who both voted for the first bill, are pushing a proposal in the Senate that would impose similar restrictions on sex workers’ bank accounts — a move that sex workers say could further endanger their income, safety and lives.
Just like last month’s Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act, Warren and Rubio’s End Banking for Human Traffickers Act is intended to crack down on human trafficking. The bill, which passed the House in overwhelming fashion last month, would increase pressure on banks to shut down the accounts of anyone suspected of engaging in trafficking. Besides Warren, five other Senate Democrats are co-sponsoring the bill; a Senate vote is not yet scheduled.
“Human trafficking generates $150 billion a year in illegal profits,” a representative for Warren told HuffPost. “Our bill would connect federal regulators, law enforcement, and the banking industry to help strengthen existing anti-money-laundering efforts that combat traffickers — Congress should pass it.”
But given the frequency with which sex trafficking and voluntary, consensual sex work are conflated, sex workers including webcam performers, adult film actors and business owners, strippers and escorts fear these efforts will hit them too.
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
11 comments
"No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session."
- Mark Twain
I think pimps and trafficers are scum of the earth and should be locked up. But the "unintended consequences" of this legistation drive girls who are not victims of these situations into more dangerous situations. If their were also concurrent laws regulating licensed prostitution then it would possibly be helpful.
oh... what can i say?
Believe it or not, we have to lay a lot of the blame for this on 9/11. 9/11 changed a lot of things in this country, politically and culturally. Back in the 90s, when Bill Clinton and the Democrats were trying desperately to come up with excuses to regulate and control the Internet, telecoms, and banking, it was usually Republicans like John Ashcroft (seriously!) who stood up for our privacy.
Then Bush got elected, 9/11 happened, they passed the Patriot Act, and we all know the rest of the story. Both parties saw what, to them, looked like national victory over something bad (terrorism) brought about by regulation and pressure on banks and telecoms. As a result, both parties have now decided that they will use their power over banks and telecoms to go after everything "bad" that they can think of.
Bills like this put the lie to the notion that we will have freedom as long as Congress is more powerful than the Executive branch. Sure, an imperial presidency is worse. But this is almost as bad.
And for those liberals who cling to the antiquated notion that The New Left is "pro sex," I would just point out that every single House Democrat voted Yes to this bill (it hasn't gotten to the Senate yet). Exactly two people voted No, both Republicans, and they're the only two legitimate libertarians in the House, Justin Amash and Thomas Massie. So if this is something that matters to you, you should ask yourself if the leftist movement is really a positive thing. After all, Bernie Sanders voted for FOSTA, too.
And for the Trump supporters, please just take a few moments to ruminate about what a disgusting hypocrite he truly is. I know FOSTA was passed with a veto-proof majority, and he couldn't have stopped it. But he also could have said something critical or allowed it to become law without his signature. Instead he eagerly signed it. 100% guaranteed that he will sign "Pocahontas'" and "Little Marco's" bill, too. And Trump is the only politician in DC who we know for a fact has paid for sex. (Not that lots of others haven't, as well.) If that's not hypocrisy, I don't know what is. Are we winning too much yet?