Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
    • Reason TV
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • Just Asking Questions
    • Free Media
    • The Reason Interview
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Print Subscription
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password
Reason logo

Reason's Annual Webathon is underway! Donate today to see your name here.

Reason is supported by:
Eduardo Vasquez-Villalpando

Donate

Kamala Harris

Kamala Harris, Foe of Legal Sex Work, Questions Whether Laws Exist That Control Male Bodies

Fun fact: All laws give government control of the decisions that everybody of any gender can do with their bodies.

Scott Shackford | 9.7.2018 2:10 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Large image on homepages | C-Span
(C-Span)

While grilling Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh about whether he'd vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, Sen. Kamala Harris (D–Calif.) posed a question she thought was so clever that she decided to highlight the exchange on Twitter:

Can you think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body?pic.twitter.com/lDcXPZ56hX

— Kamala Harris (@SenKamalaHarris) September 6, 2018

Some tweeters immediately shot back with "conscription." It's a good point—federal law requires men to register with Selective Service and face the possibility of being drafted to fight in wars—but it doesn't go far enough. Harris' wording inadvertently reminds us that virtually all laws give the government the power to make decisions about bodies, both male and female. The drug war, for example, is all about controlling what people put into their bodies.

Harris is a former prosecutor, and she was California's attorney general before getting elected to the Senate. In those roles, she was not just a willing participant but a loud advocate of the war on sex work. As a prosecutor she went after the men behind Backpage.com, aiming to hold them responsible for the existence of online sex trafficking.

Surely laws against sex work give the government the power to make decisions about male and female bodies. If you are a woman (or man, but really we only talk about the women) who wants to offer up your body for sexual pleasure in exchange for money, Harris is here to use government force to try to stop you. Harris is no supporter of women's right to decide what they do with their body in areas outside of abortion, and it's cynical and grotesque (but sadly predictable) that she'd use Kavanaugh's hearing to present herself as such.

The ultimate irony is the reason why Harris has taken her anti-sex-trafficking role: She argues that it harms innocent children who are forced into the sex trade. In reality, the vast majority of "sex trafficking" busts involve behavior between consenting adults, but set that aside. According to Harris, women cannot decide for themselves what to do with their bodies because the results will harm innocent children. That's the exact same argument used by those who would ban abortion!

Bonus links: Elizabeth Nolan Brown on Harris' phony feminism. And at least one woman on Twitter responded to Harris asking her why she's trying to stop women from participating in sex work if she holds such a position. Don't hold your breath waiting for a response.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Trump: DOJ Should Investigate NYT Op-Ed Writer for 'National Security' Purposes

Scott Shackford is a policy research editor at Reason Foundation.

Kamala HarrisBrett KavanaughSupreme CourtAbortionSex Work
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Show Comments (59)

Dec. 2 - Dec. 9, 2025 Thanks to 83 donors, we've reached $16,511 of our $400,000 goal!

Reason Webathon 2023

Donate Now! Donate Now

Latest

The Trump Administration Says Nursing Isn't a Professional Degree. Here's Why That's a Good Thing.

Emma Camp | 12.2.2025 11:41 AM

No One Left Alive

Liz Wolfe | 12.2.2025 9:40 AM

It's That Time of Year—Support Reason Today

Katherine Mangu-Ward | 12.2.2025 8:24 AM

No, SCOTUS Did Not 'Invent' Judicial Review in Marbury v. Madison

Damon Root | 12.2.2025 7:00 AM

Republican Socialism: Trump Is Taking Federal Stakes in Private Companies

Eric Boehm | From the January 2026 issue

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS Add Reason to Google

© 2025 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

HELP EXPAND REASON’S JOURNALISM

Reason is an independent, audience-supported media organization. Your investment helps us reach millions of people every month.

Yes, I’ll invest in Reason’s growth! No thanks
r

I WANT TO FUND FREE MINDS AND FREE MARKETS

Every dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.

Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interested
r

SUPPORT HONEST JOURNALISM

So much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.

I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanks
r

PUSH BACK

Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.

My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
r

HELP KEEP MEDIA FREE & FEARLESS

Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

STAND FOR FREE MINDS

Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.

Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
r

PUSH BACK AGAINST SOCIALIST IDEAS

Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

FIGHT BAD IDEAS WITH FACTS

Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

BAD ECONOMIC IDEAS ARE EVERYWHERE. LET’S FIGHT BACK.

Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

JOIN THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM

Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

BACK JOURNALISM THAT PUSHES BACK AGAINST SOCIALISM

Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

STAND FOR FREEDOM

Your donation supports the journalism that questions big-government promises and exposes failed ideas.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

FIGHT BACK AGAINST BAD ECONOMICS.

Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks