Warren signals potential shift on sex worker rights. Two presidential candidates, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D–Minn.) and Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.), made statements on sex work decriminalization yesterday.

While unveiling her Securing LGBTQ+ Rights and Equality Platform, Warren brought up the issue unprompted, tweeting that she was "open to decriminalizing sex work," that "sex workers, like all workers, deserve autonomy," and that sex workers "are particularly vulnerable to physical and financial abuse."

"The criminal justice system should work to ensure safety for all," Warren followed up. "My plan to reform our criminal justice system recognizes that LGBTQ+ individuals—particularly LGBTQ+ people of color—face unique risks and are disproportionately harmed, and takes steps to reform the status quo."



Speaking of status quo: Asked about the issue during a CNN town hall last night, Klobuchar still situated sex-work decrim as something that would harm children and women. Klobuchar said she opposes decriminalization because it would encourage human trafficking.

Amy Klobachar actually challenged about legalizing sex work. She confirms her opposition to decriminalization. — Scott Shackford [Blue Checkmark] (@SShackford) October 11, 2019

Klobuchar's answer is no surprise; she's a former prosecutor who has been behind some of the worst sex-work-related legislation in Congress over the past few years.

*Former prosecutor* Amy Klobuchar is not open to decriminalizing sex worker. This is me not being AT ALL surprised. You're never going to get a cop to sign off on "stop arresting women just because they had sex". https://t.co/saXIv3jNcO — Mistress Matisse (@mistressmatisse) October 11, 2019

Klobuchar, doing what these people do best. QUICKLY SWITCH AND CONFLATE EVERYTHING ABOUT SEX WORK TO TRAFFICKING.#DecrimNow#FuckSESTAFOSTA#RightsNotRescue — aya tasaki????彩 (@asiannomad) October 11, 2019

I was watching the equality townhall on CNN and Sen klobuchar said she's not in favour of decriminalising sex work because she thinks it will put young women at risk and just… how?! When sex work is criminalised it's driven unground and harder to regulate. That's the risk! — ????Moniza Hossain???? (@moniza_hossain) October 11, 2019

But Warren has been no good in this realm, either. Not only did she vote for FOSTA (almost everybody did), but she sponsored legislation that would encourage banks and other financial institutions to terminate sex workers' business accounts.

Are you still going to wanna regulate our bank accounts ???? https://t.co/fNhrDrlChT — ???????????????? ???????????????????????? ???? (@babyshadyx) October 10, 2019

You believe sex workers deserve autonomy? Then repeal FOSTA/SESTA- a bill YOU voted for that has put the sex work community in greater danger just for trying to survive. Hollow support means nothing. I need to see actual change. https://t.co/30gACTSUaR — ???????????????????? ???????????????????? ???? ???????????????????????????? (@robynwildexo) October 10, 2019

Journalist Melissa Gira Grant reached out to the Warren campaign, asking: "Does 'open' mean 'support'?" She was told, "It means she is open to it."

I'm glad she said this. I'm also…not buying it, or on board with the carefully chosen "open to" vs the "push" in the previous sentence. Warren's statements continue to stand in contrast to her history. Folks, she's a politician ????????‍♂️ pic.twitter.com/u8b61JtQNh — Conner Habib (@ConnerHabib) October 11, 2019

Still, the fact that this has become even this much of a prominent and mainstream issue still signals a positive shift. For perhaps the first time, leading politicians are framing sex worker rights and the decriminalization of prostitution as matters of harm reduction, labor rights, criminal justice reform, and LGBTQ concerns instead of just using the language of victims and criminals, enslavement and empowerment, human trafficking, or morality.

This is remarkable and due to the rather Herculean efforts of sex worker organizers https://t.co/UmXO5BbItf — Molly Crabapple???????? (@mollycrabapple) October 10, 2019

This has been a slow-moving but notable shift, and is the result of some extremely aggressive activism: one of the two front-runners for the Democratic nomination is using the preferred language of sex worker activists and acknowledging them as *workers.* https://t.co/YmMSXnkG5c — N.S. Dolkart drafts too slowly (@N_S_Dolkart) October 10, 2019

People can evolve and change their minds. But please back it up in legislation. Apologize for FOSTA-SESTA, repeal the law, and aim for full decriminalization. https://t.co/CBVdFfS90M — Amber Ying 應 緣 ???????? ????️‍???? ???? (@amberying) October 10, 2019

At least four other candidate for the Democratic nomination—Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D–Hawaii) and Sens. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.), Kamala Harris (D–Calif.), and Cory Booker (D–N.J.)—have all made statements about decriminalizing sex work, though their statements haven't always been very clear.

Gabbard told Buzzfeed (to little fanfare) way back in March:

If a consenting adult wants to engage in sex work, that is their right, and it should not be a crime. All people should have autonomy over their bodies and their labor.

Booker also said unequivocally that "sex work should be decriminalized." After hedging on the issue at first, Booker in June told Buzzfeed:

As a general matter, I don't believe that we should be criminalizing activity between consenting adults, and especially when doing so causes even more harm for those involved. The real question here is what will make sex workers safer and reduce exploitation, and abundant evidence points to decriminalization.

Harris claims to be for decriminalization, but in the same breath talks about arresting prostitution customers, making her part of a growing number of people trying to co-opt sex-worker-friendly language to push a carceral and generally anti-prostitution agenda. The only reason this contingent professes for disfavoring arrest of sex workers themselves (under certain circumstances) is by portraying all or at least the majority of them as victims—thereby making those who patronize, employ, or interact with them in any economic capacity (including landlords, websites where they advertise, hotels where they rent rooms, and so on) legally liable for these associations.

Sanders has been vague, saying things like "decriminalization is certainly something that should be considered" while still framing it almost entirely in term of sex trafficking:

It is a complicated issue. I think nobody wants to do anything which increases the horror of sex trafficking in this country, so it's an issue that has to be discussed. It is a complicated issue, but my promise to you is it's an issue that I will discuss, and we will hear from all sides and come up with the best solution that we can.

For what it's worth, neither the president nor Congress can directly "decriminalize sex work," as prostitution is not a federal crime.

Getting rid of laws surrounding commercial sexual activity between consenting adults is up to cities and states. Still, there are a number of ways that the federal government could incentivize states to do so, starting with putting to a stop to current federal law-enforcement pressure and incentives to intensify sex stings. It could also, for a start, repeal harmful federal laws related to prostitution, such as last year's FOSTA and the (still very much enforced) 1910 Mann Act.

FREE MINDS

Dispatches from the presidential LGBTQ equality forum. Nine Democrats running for president appeared on the televised CNN forum last night. The topics covered include the Equality Act, violence against transgender women and youth, the ban on transgender troops, and more. Reporter Chris Geidner offered a solid rundown on Twitter of what happened. Start here:

First question to @CoryBooker from Twitter Gay™️ @tombellino, asking Booker about the his college column addressing prior "disgust" about gay people. (see: https://t.co/mQUe75KOjS) Booker mainly talks about how he was getting people to think differently about gay people. pic.twitter.com/1cEW2nKGBK — Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner) October 10, 2019

In other news from the forum:

O'Rourke's proposal would violate the constitutionally protected rights not to have a government benefit denied based on religious exercise or viewpoint. Living in a free country means neither O'Rourke nor anybody else can impose religious beliefs on others. That's good. https://t.co/UBPRmgVZfu — Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) October 11, 2019

FREE MARKETS

Cities are banning fast-food drive-throughs. Their reasons are as diverse—public safety, car concerns, promoting weight loss—as they are silly. NPR reports:

Minneapolis became the latest city to pass an ordinance banning the construction of new drive-through windows. Similar legislation restricting or banning the ubiquitous windows has also passed in Creve Coeur, Mo.; Long Beach, Calif.; and Fair Haven, N.J.

They should heed the lessons of cities that have already tried this:

Obesity rates went up, not down, after South Los Angeles banned new stand-alone fast-food restaurants and drive-through windows, according to research published in the journal Social Science & Medicine in 2015. Sturm, the lead author, notes that the rates of overweight and obesity continued climbing in the three years following the ban. "We need to be careful not to overstate what these bans can do," says Sturm. "If we want to lower obesity and want people to be healthier, [drive-through bans] are not going to achieve that."

QUICK HITS

California banned hotels from providing miniature shampoo bottle and other travel-size toiletries.

Facebook is already fielding accusations of 2020 election interference.

Gawker heir Splinter is shutting down.

Prostitution decriminalization efforts in D.C. are moving forward:

DC sex work decriminalization advocates: Judiciary & Public Safety Committee

will hold a public hearing 10-17-19 (10 am-5 pm). You can provide public comment and help Bill 23-0318, the "Community Safety and Health Amendment Act of 2019 move forward. https://t.co/ePbPusetd0 — Jess Mears (@jess4liberty) October 9, 2019

Meanwhile, in Trumpworld: