Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.


Minnesota ‘safe harbor’ law serves as federal model for combating sex trafficking

Comments (1)

  1. Submitted by Craig Westover on 05/15/2014 - 06:50 am.

    Protection from whom?

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t a “Safe Harbor” law protect victims of sex trafficking from their own government more so than from the “bad guys”? Don’t misunderstand; I think the intent of Rep. Paulsen’s legislation is spot on and legislation ought to be passed. The point is, that government criminalized victims of sex trafficking in the first place reflects a chronic problem with government that transcends the sex trafficking issue.

    Another less dramatic case in point is the Mpls City Council considering dropping restrictions on “mobile grocery stores.” Entrepreneurs and non-profits wishing to sell fresh vegetables and meats in urban areas are currently prohibited from doing so by city regulations. There is a need, and people willing to fulfill the need, but government is in the way.

    A third example making the Facebook rounds is Wisconsin’s legalization of Cannibals Oil for the treatment of seizures in small children — but the legislation passed only after a citizen campaign led by parents of affected children. Why, in a free society, do parents and doctors have to make a case for freedom of choice when it is government that ought to demonstrate compelling interest before limiting individual liberty?

    These examples raise the valid question — just whom do Minnesotans need protection from?

Leave a Reply