Yesterday, the University of St. Thomas Law Journal sponsored a terrific symposium on Human Trafficking. At some point soon, I'll write a post with some of my own thoughts on the day, but in the meantime, let me share the powerful and thought-provoking comments Chato Hazelbaker, our Director of Communications, posted on his blog:
The symposium gave attendees a lot to think about, particularly from the remarks of Norma Ramos one of the cofounders of the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women. In discussing her rejection of the term “sex-worker” she asked the simple question when did sex become work, and do we have to live with the commoditization of everything? Is human sexuality something to be traded on and with? In her talk and as part of a panel later in the day Ramos draws clear lines between a “porn” culture, prostitution, human trafficking and abuses that I cannot even bring myself to write about.
This issue of ending the sex-trade in all of it forms really does rise above political points of view and gets at something we may have already lost, the dignity of each human being as a person. Norma Ramos is a card carrying liberal of great pride and accomplishment, but what I heard her talking about are the very things that the right should be caring about and talking more about. This is not an issue of first amendment, this is an issue where we look at the degradation of the individuals involved in the sex trade, and the devastation to the communities in which we live and we have to ask ourselves simply, “Is this something that any reasonable society should live with?” Again, Ramos makes a powerful point here. She took the examples of theft and murder, and pointed out that no society has ever said that theft and murder and going to happen so we should just figure out how to regulate these things.
It is a Christian point of view that looks at a society and cares for the most vulnerable, and here is a place where we are clearly failing miserably. Beyond just the Christian, for a long time people have been told that to speak up against pornography in any form is to be a prude, to reject a reasoned approach to life, and to infringe on the rights of others. Yesterday, Norma Ramos gave me permission to get over that.
I have two daughters, and when she gave the example of a parent holding a young child and the dreams that go through a parents head of what that child will become: doctor, lawyer, missionary, on that list no parent ever thinks “prostituted person”. So today I’m coming before my God and asking myself, why I would ever support or watch something that I would make me angry, sad, or disappointed in what I had accomplished as a parent if I see my child in it?
There is room for broad agreement on this issue. We have sold enough of our dignity. The solution for me personally is not in legislative action outlawing obscene material, it is the simple act of looking at movies, television shows, advertisements and the flood of media in my eyes and saying, that is someone’s child and a child of God.
If I provide comments to HHS about its proposed new conscience rule, I'm afraid my comments will not be favorable. Consider this sweeping grant of individual rights in the proposed rule:
Any entity "that carries out any part of any health service program or research activity funded in whole or in part under a program administered by the Secretary of Health and Human Services" shall not "require any individual to perform or assist in the performance of any part of a health service program or research activity funded by the Department if such service or activity would be contrary to his religious beliefs or moral convictions."
Our society's ongoing debates about conscience are important and difficult. This rule provides a single resolution to the debate to more than 584,000 different health care entities. As explained in this paper (and in a forthcoming book), I am very leery of top-down solutions to our ongoing battles over conscience. Those of us who favor the idea behind charitable choice should be especially leery of imposing contested moral norms on organizations that receive federal funding. You might like the "strings" this time around, but you'll have less basis on which to object next time around. Freedom of conscience is best viewed as a negative liberty, protecting against state encroachment, not as a positive liberty, empowering individuals to act as they wish without the possibility of any negative fallout from the organizations that employ them. This proposed rule advances an individualist, rights-driven understanding of conscience, further weakening our political commitment to institutional autonomy and suggesting a lack of confidence in the potential power of mediating structures.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, "the overall U.S. abortion rate is at its lowest level since 1974." (Of course, this report cannot be right, because we know that, during the last eight years, the poor have been neglected by an administration that is hostile to the social-welfare programs that reduce the need for abortions and that has instead tried to distract and deceive pro-life voters with symbolic anti-abortion legislation and hype about Roe v. Wade. Still, if it were true, it would be good news.)
