One by one they leap into the fray. Who will be the one to win the primary, dethrone Trump, and save us all from the hell we’ve been living since 2016? For my community of sex workers, there are no heroes—each addition to the roster of fighters is another name on a long list of politicians who have actively hurt us in their journey of power. Like many marginalized communities, we’ve been living in hell since long before 2016.

It doesn’t stop there: Elizabeth Warren introduced a bill about banking and trafficking that has some sex workers worried about their bank accounts (I’ve lost one myself). Amy Klobuchar, who co-introduced SESTA and has been fact-checked by the Washington Post for her alarmist trafficking rhetoric, has made the subject one of her congressional priorities. And Kamala Harris has been involved in a long history of legal cases against online advertising for sex workers.

Bernie Sanders is the most recent candidate to announce his run, probably falling squarely in the “ignorant” crowd. I volunteered for him in 2016, but he, along with Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, and Elizabeth Warren in the Senate, voted for SESTA. Representatives John Delaney and Tulsi Gabbard voted for FOSTA, the companion bill in the House. Don't look to any help from the Republicans. Trump signed SESTA into law with much fanfare.

Every congressional Democrat running in the 2020 presidential primary voted for SESTA, legislation that supporters promised would end an “online sex trafficking crisis” (which research has shown to be largely “ based on myths ”) by criminalizing sex-related online advertising—but that actually put sex workers at far more risk . Unfortunately, it appears that either our candidates didn’t take the time to actually read what they were voting on—much less understand the full impact SESTA would have on vulnerable sex workers and trafficking victims—or they simply didn’t care.

In addition, many people who work to combat actual instances of trafficking day to day have found that the political exercise of SESTA has had a direct negative impact on their ability to help people. Jean Bruggeman, the executive director at anti-trafficking organization Freedom Network USA , told me prosecutors are having a harder time finding the evidence they need to prosecute the worst offenders: “What I’ve heard from prosecutors is that a lot of online marketplaces were actually quite responsive to their subpoenas when trafficking did occur on their sites.”

Even if ignorance is the explanation, it’s not an excuse, and it’s definitely not enough to let this vote go unaddressed in the upcoming primary.

As Harris has said herself, "From my earliest days as a prosecutor, I’ve led the fight against Backpage and other sex trafficking platforms." (Harris, like many prohibitionists , consistently refers to all sex work as trafficking.) She supported SESTA soon after her successful senate run , and worked behind the scenes with tech companies on the bill’s language, despite sex worker organizers in her constituency (myself included) attempting to contact her office. My concerns were met with prewritten form responses .

You can’t be upset at people for being single-issue voters when that issue is their literal survival.

In San Francisco, where Kamala Harris gestated her political career and started her campaign against Backpage’s sexual advertising section, police are reporting an alarming 170 percent increase in reports of human trafficking in the year since SESTA. It’s also worth noting that while Harris was focused on online sex ads as Attorney General, dozens of police officers from her prior jurisdiction were implicated in the trafficking of an underage girl.

SESTA is hardly the first time that congress has passed legislation in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence against it. But even if ignorance is the explanation, it’s not an excuse, and it’s definitely not enough to let this vote go unaddressed in the upcoming primary. While it’s too early to tell how important of a political bloc sex workers are, we’re undeniably still people, and every person deserves basic dignity and human rights.

In the Democratic party, we should be judging our candidates not by how proudly they campaign as a hero on trafficking, but by how their actions actually impact people. As we pick someone to run against a con artist continuously reinventing his own reality, it’s imperative we look towards truth, science, and the real, hard work of solving complex societal issues.

A Democrat who believes in increased criminalization will sign the death warrant for countless sex workers.

We have to ask our candidates if their definition of justice is purely punitive—lock the “bad guys” up, take a victory lap, and walk away—or if it’s about actually helping as many people as possible. Do our candidates support carceral policies, or will they join us in prioritizing harm reduction?

At the very least, as impacted parties and as constituents, we deserve a response. In the past couple weeks, I’ve seen sex workers told to avoid criticizing candidates in the interests of “Democratic Unity.” But if you’re interested in social justice, you can’t be upset at people for being single-issue voters when that issue is their literal survival. If Democratic volunteers are worried about our complaints, they would be better served by making sure there is better policy around sex work in the Democratic platform than by asking sex workers to stop fighting for their survival. We are asking to stop the bleeding. Hell, we are asking for people to even acknowledge the wound.

This shouldn't be considered a high bar, and it’s not a far left purity test. A Democrat who believes in increased criminalization will sign the death warrant for countless sex workers. A Democrat willing to examine their mistakes and work towards decriminalization, decarceration, and destigmatization will help just as many people survive.