Harris was not alone among 2020 Democratic presidential nominees in voting in favor of the legislation. In fact, so did Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Amy Klobuchar.
Harris’s current view on sex work decriminalization is rooted in the controversial “Nordic Model.”
After scoffing at Proposition K as district attorney, defending California’s criminalization of sex work as attorney general, and sponsoring FOSTA/SESTA as a senator, Harris sort of came out in favor of decriminalization during a February 2019, interview with The Root. Responding to a question asking whether she thought “sex work ought to be decriminalized,” the then-presidential hopeful responded, “I think so. I do.”
“When you are talking about consenting adults, I think that, you know, yes, we should really consider that we can’t criminalize consensual behavior as long as no one is being harmed,” Harris added.
Elsewhere in the interview, Harris discusses her “history on the issue,” noting that as district attorney she strived to “stop arresting these prostitutes and instead go after the Johns and the pimps because we were criminalizing the women, but not the men who associated with it, who were making money off of it or profiting off of it.”
As some experts on the subject pointed out at the time, Harris’ position does not seem to constitute fully advocating for the decriminalization of sex work. As journalist Melissa Gira Grant wrote in a Washington Post op-ed, “Despite Harris’ discussion of decriminalizing the sale of sex between consenting adults… it’s not clear that she is truly committed to such a position. That’s because Harris appears to still support criminalizing purchasing sex.”
This approach — targeting sex workers’ customers, not the workers themselves — is often referred to as the Nordic model, or End Demand. Gira Grant explains that these policies “don’t permit any legal way to engage in sex work,” even while supporters claim the approach amounts to full decriminalization. “As such, sex workers remain penalized and surveilled by police,” she says.
Harris sought to deny a transgender woman who was incarcerated gender-affirming health care.
While Harris was California attorney general in 2015, she defended the state’s decision to deny giving Michelle Norsworthy, a trans woman incarcerated in a men’s prison, medically necessary surgery for her diagnosed gender dysphoria. As Strangio noted in the aforementioned Out op-ed, “Not only did the state employ an ‘expert’ who categorically opposes the medical standard of care for transgender prisoners, but under Harris’s leadership not only defended the denial of care in court in the face of Ms. Norsworthy’s escalating distress and suicidality but then continued to appeal decisions in her favor.”
In one brief signed by Harris, she joins other state attorneys in dismissing the significance of Norsworthy’s plea to receive affirming health care: “Norsworthy has been treated for gender dysphoria for over 20 years, and there is no indication that her condition has somehow worsened to the point where she must obtain sex-reassignment surgery now rather than waiting until this case produces a final judgment on the merits.”
In April 2015, Federal District Court Judge Jon Tigar ruled that denying Norsworthy care violated her rights to adequate medical treatment under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which forbids cruel and unusual punishment. The historic ruling resulted in the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation being ordered to provide Norsworthy with “adequate medical care, including sex reassignment surgery… as promptly as possible,” as the court stated at the time.
Four years later, after Harris had announced her campaign for the presidency, a Washington Blade reporter pressed her on her role in repeatedly appealing court decisions that would have afforded Norsworthy — and countless trans folks after her — medically necessary health care.
