Remember the furor a couple of months ago when it was revealed that H.R. 3, otherwise known as "No Taxpayer Funded Abortions", redefined rape for the purposes of abortion? The uproar forced Rep. Christopher Smith (R - NJ) to remove the word "forcible" from defining exceptions allowed because of rape, incest or for the health of the mother. As upsetting as all that was, and as much or a relief as is that that change was made, the bill itself is still a terrible one. There were 1,375 rapes in New York City last year. There have already been 465 rapes so far this year. How many of those might have resulted in pregnancies that ended in abortions is unknown, but can you imagine being the victim of a crime; reporting it to the police; having to go through that whole ordeal; finding out you are pregnant; deciding that you cannot go through with it; having an abortion and then having to explain it to the IRS? It is unimaginable. And yet that could happen if H.R. 3 becomes law since the following would have to be policed somehow:
Sec. 303. Prohibition on tax benefits relating to abortion
For taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of this section--
(1) no credit shall be allowed under the internal revenue laws with respect to amounts paid or incurred for an abortion or with respect to amounts paid or incurred for a health benefits plan (including premium assistance) that includes coverage of abortion,
(2) for purposes of determining any deduction for expenses paid for medical care of the taxpayer or the taxpayer’s spouse or dependents, amounts paid or incurred for an abortion shall not be taken into account, and
(3) in the case of any tax-preferred trust or account the purpose of which is to pay medical expenses of the account beneficiary, any amount paid or distributed from such an account for an abortion shall be included in the gross income of such beneficiary.
As much as proponents of reproductive rights might abhor the Hyde Amendment, they might look back on it fondly if H.R. 3 becomes law (unlikely as that is with the Democrats controlling the Senate and the president already having stated that he would veto it if it ever did reach his desk). Bearing in mind that it is unlikely that H.R. 3 will become law, it is chilling to realize that if it did, then the IRS might have to start making inquiries into women's health issues. The above quoted section still allows for policies to cover abortions in the case of rape, incest or for the health of the mother. This apparently means that the IRS would have to confirm that any abortions covered by insurance policies that do receive tax benefits are in fact provided because the recipient was a victim of rape or incest or required it in order to save her life. Can you imagine having to speak to an IRS auditor of all people about any of those things?
The bill would also make it increasingly difficult for women to obtain an abortion. Under the new healthcare law, if you buy health insurance, you enjoy a tax benefit as you can deduct the premiums from your taxable income. If H.R. 3 passes, anyone purchasing a health insurance policy that provides a full range of reproductive choice, will lose that tax savings.
This abortion penalty would also be applied to any company that offered health insurance to their employees. If the policy the company provides covers reproductive choice, than the company will lose out on the tax benefits. This is all rather startling in a party that has always seemed to find taxes to be such a burden.
Apparently the GOP are so anxious to show the pro-life movement that they are on their side, that they do not see how nor care how this law would really work, and how interesting that taxes are okay when applied by the social conservative set to steer women away from choice. Abortion would not be illegal, yet, but if a woman wants it, then she will have to pay for it out of pocket. This makes this bill all the more odious as it does not make abortion illegal across the board, which at least would be morally consistent. Instead, all it does is make it difficult for women without means to get an abortion. Viagra or other erectile disfunction aids to help men have sex are okay, but, ladies have to be made to understand that sex has consequences, afer all. In effect, it is a tax hike with a nod to a mask of morality, a mask rather than real since all the law will really do is make if more difficult for women in lower tax brackets to be able to afford choice. Choice would be a luxury like a high priced handbag.
To add further insult to injury, the following provision means that female servicemembers who work to protect us all are not entitled to the same reproductive choice as the average woman:
Sec. 304. Limitation on Federal facilities and employees
No health care service furnished--
(1) by or in a health care facility owned or operated by the Federal Government; or
(2) by any physician or other individual employed by the Federal Government to provide health care services within the scope of the physician’s or individual’s employment, may include abortion.
This means that if a servicewoman gets pregnant, and is on a base in Afghanistan or Iraq or Libya? She cannot have an abortion on base. Will she either have to find somewhere local, hope and pray that it is safe, or try to get leave so she can fly home to obtain one if that is what she decides she wants or has to do? How does this make sense? Why should a woman who decides to serve her country be punished in this way?
You can read the bill in its entirety here.
The bill is going to be voted on today and it will likely pass in the GOP controlled House. Contact your representative and let him or her know how you feel about it. If you are uncertain who that is, you can click here.
Comments