::Marge Simpson concerned noise:: when sex worker advocates in mainstream pubs inevitably go “and they treat having a lot of condoms on you as evidence of being a sex worker! When there are plenty of other reasons to! Here’s some woman who were affected!”

And imply, but do not actually say “and these women were not sex workers, who had them for the other reasons”. Whenever addressing the issue at all, in the positive, as an irrelevance or even a mitigating factor

As would a good defense lawyer, which they mostly are, trying to span the gap between a desire to whip up support and the fact that “the burden of sex work criminalization falls on criminalized sex workers” is priced in, the concept, by confecting up an implication that the non-sex-working population might bear some. (If the authorities aren’t checked by any logic of the law here, they sure are by the logic of the politics, but that’s probably also a complaint of the authors’)

Got sympathy, but it’s still a little too-lawyerly in an unsavory way