ABC News (the one in Australia) reports:

For many National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) participants, a federal government decision means they can no longer access sexual services funding under the system, or they could risk financial pressure.

Sydneysider Oliver Morton-Evans says this decision has been “deeply disappointing” for many who live with a disability, including himself. “Now, only those who are financially well-off in the disability community can afford this service by paying out of pocket,” he said.

Whereas instead the government should be paying for this “service”? Because access to women’s bodies or at least hands is a human right?

Throughout times in his life, Mr Morton-Evans has sought the services of sex workers. He described it as an overall enriching experience.

Slaveowners said the same thing.

Mark Grierson, CEO of Advocacy Law Alliance/Disability Advocacy NSW, said there are valid and legitimate reasons as to why these services should be funded through the NDIS.

…

“We strongly feel that people with a disability need that access to intimacy, pleasure and sexuality like everybody else. Many have got quite severe physical disabilities and some may need extra assistance to get access to that sort of pleasure and intimacy,” he said.

But “access” to someone else’s body can’t be made a legal right without implying that some people are obliged to provide that body.

“Intimacy in all forms is vital. It’s a level of human connection and vulnerability that a lot of disabled people have challenges accessing anywhere else,” he said.

Therefore it should be a consumer item like any other consumer item, right? No, because it involves access to the bodies of other people.