Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sex Work Decriminalization topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Heated hearing on H.2467: sex‑worker groups and researchers back a study; survivors and anti‑trafficking groups oppose it
Summary
A long public record showed sharply divided views on H.2467, a proposal to create an interagency study commission on decriminalizing commercial sex. Sex‑worker organizations and some researchers urged study and described evidence linking decriminalization to reduced harms; survivor‑led groups, clergy, law‑enforcement researchers and trafficking
Witnesses were sharply divided over H.2467, a proposal to create a study commission to examine decriminalizing commercial sex in Massachusetts.
Supporters — including sex‑worker‑led organizations and several academic researchers — urged the committee to authorize a study, arguing that research, lived‑experience input and comparative analysis can help craft safer policy. "A mountain of evidence shows that full decriminalization of sex work is the best policy to support workers' health and safety," said Jessica Van Mayer, an academic researcher who cited international meta‑analyses and post‑decriminalization evaluations.
Opponents from survivor‑led anti‑trafficking organizations, law‑enforcement researchers and clergy urged rejection. Several survivors and anti‑trafficking advocates said decriminalization increases demand and trafficking and pointed to historical experiences — including Rhode Island’s de facto decriminalization period — as cautionary examples. "Prostitution is violent," said a survivor‑advocate, calling for policies that criminalize buyers and bolster exit services.
Several testified that the proposed committee’s membership would be unbalanced and that a credible study must center survivor voices and anti‑trafficking expertise. Others urged that the state focus on prevention funds, housing, addiction and trauma‑informed services rather than changing criminal law without strong evidence. The committee collected testimony from multiple sides and did not vote at the conclusion of the hearing.
