Kamala Harris supports decriminalizing sex work. Wha?
By: Topher Brennan
Tags: Kamala Harris, Sex Work, Sesta, Feminism, Fosta

When I saw that Kamala Harris had come out in support of decriminalizing sex work, I literally didn’t believe it. Just some journalist manufacturing a story out of a quote far more ambiguous than the headline, right?

Then I watched the interview, and right there at the 16:22 mark, the interviewer asks, “Do you think that sex work ought to be decriminalized?” Harris’ response? “I think so, I do.”

Say what?

If you know anything about Harris’ record, this is like Donald Trump suddenly announcing his support for open borders. Except that with Trump, you could dismiss the statement as evidence of senility, while Harris, despite her many other flaws, clearly isn’t senile.

To hear Harris tell it, there’s nothing surprising about her pro-decriminalization stance. “Back when I was DA, and remember I was elected DA over 15 years ago actually, I took office in 2004, and I was advocating then that we have to stop arresting these prostitutes and start going after the johns and the pimps,” she says.

However—and I need to be absolutely clear about this—Harris is lying about her record. In 2010, Harris’ last full year as San Francisco district attorney, the city arrested over 400 women for misdemeanor prostitution. And before that, in 2008, when a ballot proposition tried to effectively decriminalize sex work in San Francisco, Harris denounced the measure, saying “It would put a welcome mat out for pimps and prostitutes to come on into San Francisco.”

That language is extremely telling. It treats sex workers and “pimps” as equally icky people who must be kept away—with violence if necessary—simply because they’re icky. It’s not language you choose if you’re even pretending to care about the well-being of sex workers.

Harris reminds me of Democrats who supported the Defense of Marriage act in the 1990s but then suddenly discovered, some time around 2012, that they supported gay marriage and always had. What’s strange about Harris’ about-face is that she’s the first Democratic presidential candidate to support decriminalization.

If Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand had all come out in favor of decriminalization, Harris’ sudden about face—and whitewashing of her history—would be unsurprising. As is, I don’t know quite what to make of it. Maybe she got worried other candidates would endorse decrim, and wanted to be the first.

Regardless, this is a real win for advocates of sex workers’ rights. As Lux Alptraum put it on Twitter:

Rather than just dismiss Harris’ statement, other Democratic candidates need to start getting the question: “Kamala Harris supports decriminalizing sex work. Do you agree?” Harris also needs to be asked what she’ll do concretely as president to support decriminalization.

Harris might think that because sex work is largely a matter of state law, supporting decrim is safe, cheap talk now that she’s a national politician. But this is wrong. Numerous federal laws effectively commit the federal government to helping enforce state prostitution laws. If you think sex work should be decriminalized, such federal laws make little sense.

For example, 18 USC 2422(a) says:

(a) Whoever knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual to travel in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, to engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

If you support decriminalizing sex work, you should support amending this law to cover only cases involving coercion, by striking “persuades, induces, entices, or” from the section. Does Harris agree?

Similarly, SESTA, a law that Harris helped pass just last year, made it a crime to use the internet to “to promote or facilitate the prostitution of another person”. Even if Harris thinks SESTA had other necessary provisions*, that particular provision seems hard to square with her newfound support for decriminalization. Someone should ask her if she supports repealing it.

*Yes, the law should be repealed in its entirety, given that it’s actually harmed the fight against sex trafficking, but emphasizing a specific indefensible provision makes the question harder for Harris to weasel out of.