I am aware that in the US, the term ‘sex trafficking’ is commonly used to describe human trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation. One could argue that my objection to the term is mere nitpicking, but I think it’s important to discontinue using it. Firstly, shortening the admittedly long-winded description to ‘sex trafficking’ removes the human element. Just compare it to drug trafficking: it describes the illegal trade of drugs. ‘Sex trafficking’, however, is the illegal trade and commercial sexual exploitation of human beings, not of sex, and I don’t consider that unimportant. Secondly, the term adds to the common misconception that the majority of cases of human trafficking involve commercial sexual exploitation, which, according to the best available guesstimates is not the case. (One should note, however, that other forms of human trafficking might very well involve sexual harassment or rape, too.) Thirdly, the term is a slippery slope: more and more media outlets and organisations – and as you described above, law makers – use the terms ‘sex trafficking’ and ‘prostitution’ like synonyms, which obviously, they aren’t. In my view, the term ‘sex trafficking’ adds to the conflation of sex work and human trafficking and, considering how complex these subjects are, one shouldn’t shorten it for mere convenience. Here are two quotes by other people about the term:

“Some GAATW members and allies have also made a deliberate choice not to use the term “sex trafficking” based on concerns that all human rights violations against trafficked persons across all occupational sectors should be addressed, not just the sexual aspects of trafficked persons’ experiences. There is also a worry that the term “sex trafficking” encourages voyeurism by directing public attention to the sensationalistic aspects of what women were forced to do rather than the full range of human rights violations women experienced and the human rights protections they are entitled to. A sole focus on trafficking for the purposes of prostitution can also divert attention and urgently needed resources from human rights violations in other sectors, e.g. labourexploitation or the “trafficking-like” effects of particular government overseas labour programs.”

From GAATW Working Paper “Exploring Links between Trafficking and Gender” by Julie Ham
http://www.gaatw.org/publications/WP_on_Gender.pdf

“From a linguistic/semantic point of view, people are trafficked, NOT SEX, and the purpose of trafficking is exploitation, NOT SEX! Some people may not see it, but there is a clear difference between sex and sexual exploitation. And although the meaning of “sex trafficking” is clear to everyone, the people and the exploitation are missing from it, as if they are somehow unimportant. But words matter and guide policies, and the fight against human trafficking becomes a war on sex, in which the buyers of commercial sex are portrayed as just as bad as the traffickers, while the actual trafficked people and their human rights come secondary. “Trafficking in persons/trafficking in human beings/human trafficking for sexual exploitation” may be a bit of a mouthful but is much more correct from a conceptual and semantic point of view. And then there’s even the derivative verb “sex trafficked”, which I find even more annoying. As a linguist by education I both welcome and dread the development of language – you just never know which madness will catch on next. While browsing for this part, I came across a similar complaint, albeit on more everyday issues:

“When my aircraft pulls up to the gate at airports these days I am deplaned. At restaurants, my food gets plated (I wonder why my drinks aren’t also cupped or my soup bowled). People used to engage in dialogue. Now they just dialogue. Friends no longer enjoy fellowship, they simply fellowship…”

“Trafficked for sexual exploitation”, although not quite as “sexy”, is clear and precise enough and doesn’t abuse the language (and is not even such a mouthful)!

From Bobby Gerasimov “Hey! Mind your language!”
http://bgerasimov.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/hey-mind-your-language.html

So, (something like) 80 in anchorage and 4 in the rest of the state.

So 76 (obviously majority) were penalized under municipal statutes then. Like I said that is more common here too.

“In 2012 and 2013, every person who has been charged with prostitution under state law has also either been charged with sex trafficking or allegedly been a victim of sex trafficking.” Although I have been examining the impact of these policies for quite some time I hadn’t heard of that result before.

The rest were most likely penalized through municipal statutes. That is much more frequent here too.

Respectfully allow me to point out that Terra didn’t equate trafficking laws to slavery and genocide. She said the same logic was used to promote them: “The same idea was used to justify hundreds of years of slavery…” Saying that government actions have the same oppressive philosophies behind them does not mean one is equating them.