November 17, 2002


THE WSJ VS. SEX: When the Wall Street Journal-- or anyone else-- lauds "a remarkable coalition of Christian evangelicals and feminists," it's time to be worried. While I've no doubt that there is terrible exploitation and general nastiness in the sex trade (the Journal's article has some lurid examples), this is inherent in anything pushed underground, largely by government sanction. No, I'm not saying that in the lawless third world, the life of a prostitute is "empowering" because it's legal, but I would venture to guess that in Nevada-- where liberal democracy, rule of law, due process and all that good first-world stuff reigns in addition to debauchery and sin-- prostitutes are a lot better off than in parts where their trade is illegal.

The WSJ actually framed this (at least on the website) as an attack on Hillary. I'm not Mrs. (Ms.?) Clinton's biggest booster, but doesn't their tagline sort of mis-state her position? It says "Hillary Clinton backs 'voluntary' prostitution." The article says:

...Sen. Hillary Clinton rightly attacked this trafficking as "nothing less than the equivalent of modern-day slavery." Like so many voices at this conference, though, Mrs. Clinton's anti-trafficking rhetoric is belied by an ideological disposition--pushed during her husband's administration--to try to exempt from prosecution pimps and handlers of women who have "voluntarily" chosen prostitution.
Impeachment was also "pushed during her husband's administration," but I don't think she was ever for it...

Posted by John Tabin at November 17, 2002 06:58 PM