WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) today said a federal appeals court ruling that allows the U.S. Government to deny HIV/AIDS relief funds to groups that do not publicly disavow prostitution and sex trafficking demonstrates that this policy is an integral part of any global effort to eliminate HIV/AIDS.  

“The court’s decision illustrates that eliminating human trafficking is a priority for the U.S. Government,” said Smith, who authored the amendment that requires organizations to renounce sex trafficking and prostitution which was included as key provision in the “United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act” (P.L. 108-25).

            “To say you are opposed to the global spread of HIV/AIDS but not the global sex trade industry is not only counter-productive to the fight against HIV/AIDS, it is detrimental to U.S. efforts to end the heinous crime of human trafficking.  Above all, sex trafficking and prostitution degrades and exploits women and young girls,” added Smith, who just returned from a trip to Nigeria that focused on both anti-human trafficking and HIV/AIDS relief initiatives.

Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed a lower court’s decision that ruled in favor of an organization’s contention that the policy requiring rejection of sex trafficking and prostitution violated their First Amendment rights.  U.S. Circuit Judge A. Raymond Randolph’s reversal recognized that the “official position of the United States is that eradicating prostitution and sex trafficking is an integral part of the worldwide fight against HIV/AID” and that applicants are not compelled to “advocate the government’s position” but organizations that wish to receive government funds “must communicate the message the government chooses to fund.”

“I commend the court on this common-sense decision that clearly reaffirms that the government has a right to define U.S. policy objectives—in this case halting the spread of HIV/AIDS and ending human trafficking and prostitution—when distributing federal funds,” Smith said.  “While organizations should not be compelled to advocate for the government, the government should also not be forced to give taxpayer money to those who are actively working against the policy of the U.S. government.”

            The case arose from the refusal of DKT International, Inc. to certify that it has a policy opposing prostitution and sex trafficking in their application to receive federal grants for HIV/AIDS relief work.

            “The decision is plain and clear.  If DKT—or any other applicant for federal HIV/AIDS relief funding—does not share the U.S. Government’s view that eliminating the heinous crimes of sex trafficking and forced prostitution is not only a noble humanitarian endeavor, but also an integral part of the worldwide fight against HIV/AIDS, then they should not receive federal funding,” said Smith.

Smith emphasized that “the legislation—and therefore also the court’s decision—do not prevent U.S. Government-funded organizations from reaching out and helping prostitutes in matters related to HIV/AIDS.  It simply prevents funds from going to organizations that do not have a policy explicitly opposing sex trafficking and prostitution.”

Smith is author of the nation’s first anti-trafficking law, the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (P.L. 106-386) and its subsequent reauthorizations.  These laws form the crux of U.S. policy to address human trafficking on both the national and international level.   

            “If the U.S. were to fund organizations who believe in the misguided approach that legalized prostitution and ‘safe sex’ are ways of fighting sex trafficking, we would in turn be enabling the traffickers and pimps who make millions off forced prostitution,” said Smith.