This is one of those columns where I will ask you to do your best to not form a final opinion until you have read the entire column. We should always avoid jumping to conclusions but sometimes it's a little bit harder to do because the topic might be somewhat emotional or offensive.

The state legislature in Illinois will be considering a bill entitled the Sex Workers Protection Act. In short, the bill will legalize prostitution. The proponents of the bill correctly state that prostitution being conducted illegally promotes abuse of women, transgender and, yes, men, who can be prostitutes. It promotes sex trafficking and the abuse of the prostitutes. Often the prostitutes are coerced into becoming sex workers and remain so under threats of violence or by getting them addicted to drugs.

As you can imagine, there are some pretty strong opinions on both sides of the issue. Beth Brelje writing for The Federalist makes what I think is a cardinal sin in expressing her opinion against the bill. She makes some very absolute statements regarding prostitution. In the bill, there is a statement that says legalizing prostitution would create a consensual relationship between the worker and the client. Beth states that this type of sex is never consensual and is always, always coerced. She seems to base this on the idea that any person deciding to become a sex worker has suffered significant trauma in their life making them incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions.

I lived in Nevada where prostitution is legal in some areas. I can tell you that from certain standpoints legalizing prostitution does eliminate many of the negatives that plague illegal prostitution. At the time I worked in insurance claims and one of our agents insured the owner of one of the brothels as well as the business itself. Because of that relationship I had the chance to learn more about the business. It should also be noted that several of the working girls ran for public office whether at the county, municipal, or state level.

I came to the conclusion that the vast majority of women working in the legal brothels were there voluntarily. They had the ability to refuse to work with customers. None of them were coerced into working and if the owner thought maybe there was a husband or boyfriend forcing a girl to enter the profession, they would turn her away. They would point her to help that was available to get away from that abusive relationship.

They were also very strict with some of their rules. No drugs or excessive use of alcohol while they were on the property. The state required weekly physical examinations to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, and it rarely ever happened. The women made good money. And I can tell you the women with whom I came into contact or watched run for office certainly did not appear to be any more damaged than people in the general population.

Now this does not say I support legalized prostitution. I am not making a moral judgment in this case, rather I'm looking at it from an observational and analytical standpoint. It is a statement of facts in my experience that confirms why nobody should ever say always or never as Ms. Brelje did.

I do agree with the idea that she expresses in saying that we are going to have a casino, a bar, a weed shop, and a brothel potentially lined up next to each other on some of the streets of our towns and cities. Taken individually, you might think each of those is not a bad thing, but we know from history that when we begin to become more focused on carnal pleasures, we begin to stray from the principles and morality that made us a great country. It also allows the ruling class to more easily change our lives for the worse because we are distracted by these so-called pleasures.

Take from this what you will. But understand one of the undeniable truths of life in my world, there is bias in every news report or editorial piece of which you must be aware. Especially when absolute statements are made. Take those statements with a huge grain of salt.