An analysis of 2013 Sex Trafficking Bill, AB67 reveals failed policy:
1) Too broadly written
If you really care about sex trafficking victims, stop conflating consensual adult sex with child sex slavery.
2) Hidden agenda
If you really want to help victims of sex trafficking, don’t let government agencies and non-profits benefit off their victimization.
3) Unintended consequences
If you really want to stop sex trafficking, very little in this bill will work because it all has unintended consequences that further victimize vulnerable people and communities.
Read Nevada Assembly Bill 67 as proposed here: http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/77th2013/Bills/AB/AB67.pdf
Page 4, lines 17-20 refer to several state and federal provisions that the bill defines as human trafficking as written with clickable links below:
Of particular concern is that NRS 201.300 (Pandering) and 201.320 (Living from earnings of prostitute) contain vague definitions and are redefined as “sex trafficking,” thus carrying harsher penalties and requiring registration as a sex offender. A definitive ruling determining who is covered by the law is not possible based on the standards provided. Does living off the earnings of a prostitute include children and other family members supported by the earnings of a woman working legally in a Nevada brothel?
Contact members of the Nevada Legislative Committee on Judiciary who will be deciding this bill: https://www.leg.state.nv.us//Session/77th2013/Committees/A_Committees/JUD.cfm
2013 Nevada Guide to Legislative Advocacy (via League of Women Voters of Las Vegas Valley) http://www.nved.org/guide-to-legislative-advocacy/