NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm not talking about anything that would be so unreasonably high that it would be cost prohibitive; I'm talking like a 10% fee. The revenue from the fee would go towards prevention and education programs geared toward reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies.

EDIT: For the sake of argument, let's also say that women who meet a certain income criteria can have the fee waived with minimal inconvience--so basically, no one would have to choose between having the abortion and having food on the table.

The cost for women who need them the most is already prohibitive, especially when you factor in the long travel distances for many women who live in states with very restrictive laws and the amount of time that required waiting periods have added to the procedure. No--no extra fee.

No.

My wife had a false pregnancy. Her body went through the motions but there was nothing "cooking" so to speak.

The body wouldn't reject it so they basically had to perform an abortion to "clean her up."

Who would get this fee? Church groups?

No more than I'd support a poll tax or anything else which acted to discourage poor people from excercizing important rights.

Ultimately any fee would prohibit some abortions. Still though, if it was low enough then I think it would be reasonable. The usual objections of more taxation aside.

No more than I'd support a poll tax or anything else which acted to discourage poor people from excercizing important rights.

I forgot to mention that.

So BF why don't you post how much that 10% would be?

Great idea - make abortions even more unaffordable to those who actually have a proper reason to have one - poor people who just can't support a child. Then again, i'm sure those inferiour peasants would just resort to a broom handle and hopefully hurt themselves - will serve them right for daring to be poor, right?

If you're wanting to essentially "tax" unwanted pregnancies, then you should:

Make everyone who gives live birth pay a tax, unless they can prove (by holding forth an affidavit signed by both parents that the child was "wanted").

If you're only taxing abortions, you're not taxing the problem. You're taxing the solution to unwanted pregnancies.

Preventing them is not easy. Of the forms of birth control, vasectomy is the most effective, followed by tubal ligation. Every other form still carries a chance of pregnancy. So just handing out birth control does not eliminate the problem of unwanted pregnancy.

Abstinence doesn't sell too well. If you were to tell a married couple to abstain from sex as a method of preventing unwanted pregnancy, they would tell you to cut your own genitals off.

The cost for women who need them the most is already prohibitive, especially when you factor in the long travel distances for many women who live in states with very restrictive laws and the amount of time that required waiting periods have added to the procedure. No--no extra fee.

I dispute that there are any states with very restrictive laws, effectively creating a scarcity of abortion service availability.

I won't dispute the rest because, well... it's an opinion!

no
i dont think it makes good sense to add a tax, the administration of that tax and the burden of the fees and paperwork onto doctors and insurance companies.

If you're wanting to essentially "tax" unwanted pregnancies, then you should:

Ok, stop right there. Plenty of people get pregnant when they don't want to, but choose to not have an abortion; it's not the same thing.


Preventing them is not easy. Of the forms of birth control, vasectomy is the most effective, followed by tubal ligation.

Actually, I don't know about tubal ligation, but vasectomies are not 100% effective.

Every other form still carries a chance of pregnancy.

Because refraining from sex is out of the question :rolleyes:


So just handing out birth control does not eliminate the problem of unwanted pregnancy.

Yeah, but we both know that education would mitigate the problem... afterall, it tends to be the undereducated who are most likely to have unwanted pregnancies.

Abstinence doesn't sell too well.

Yeah, but it doesn't hurt; besides, there's a psychological benefit to would-be abstainers to having the option acknowledged and/or reinforced. But I'm not really interested in getting into the merits of teaching abstinence.

I made an edit to address some of the concerns people raised.

Actually, I don't know about tubal ligation, but vasectomies are not 100% effective.

Wrong.

The urologist who did mine has done over 23,000 vasectomies.

He then confirms that you have zero count by checking you at 3 months and 6 months after the operation. If you're zero, you stay zero. If you still show some count, he does it again - until you're zero.

None of his clients over the past 25 years have EVER fathered a child.

Are you saying that a married couple should abstain from sex?

Great idea - make abortions even more unaffordable to those who actually have a proper reason to have one - poor people who just can't support a child. Then again, i'm sure those inferiour peasants would just resort to a broom handle and hopefully hurt themselves - will serve them right for daring to be poor, right?

devil's advocate (pro-life side, in this case):

no, not to do with being poor.

rather, it would serve them right for wanting to murder something they created.... taking the easy way out rather than taking responsibility for the child and giving it a chance to live, which (no matter what -- spare the "the kid's life is going to suck; we're doing it a favor by killing it" arguments) is far better than having no chance at life.

Wrong.

I refer you to the first paragraph of this webmd article. If you continue to dispute this matter... well, I lack sufficient interest to continue the dispute :)

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/26/1728_59014.htm?lastselectedguid={5FE84E90-BC77-4056-A91C-9531713CA348}

EDIT: Here's another one that provides some actual statistics. I'm inclined to think that your doctor is a quack if (s)he claimed the procedure is 100%.

http://www.engenderhealth.org/news/newsreleases/040506.html

I refer you to the first paragraph of this webmd article. If you continue to dispute this matter... well, I lack sufficient interest to continue the dispute :)

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/26/1728_59014.htm?lastselectedguid={5FE84E90-BC77-4056-A91C-9531713CA348}

That's one study.

I have the study from my urologist. Meanwhile, while you abstain from sex, I'll be knocking one out for you.

devil's advocate, rebuttal of the above:

(singing)

It's my body, I'll abort if I want to
Abort if I want to
Abort if I want to
You would abort too if it happened to you (da da dada da)



hehe

Mary Lou she got pregnant
And was addicted to fifteen drugs
She went down to the abortion clinic
And was accosted by right-wing thugs

(chorus)
Will the foetus be aborted
By and by, Lord, by and by
There's a better home awaitin'
In the sky, Lord, in the sky

Little Mary was just fourteen
And she was raped by her own dad
Danny Quayle said, "Have that baby!"
But another choice she had....
(chorus)

Annie's pregnancy would have killed her
The doctor's warning gave her strife
Fundamentalists said, "Have that baby!"
But she said, "I want my right to life!"
(chorus)

Bridgett had ten kids already
And an abortion is what she chose
The christians showed her a bloody foetus
She said "That's fine, I'll have one of those."
(chorus)

Tania lived for the revolution
Wanted to overthrow the state
She had fifteen commie babies
Jerry Falwell ain't that great (or)
(chorus)

Reverend Goodman hated abortion
And for a peaceful end he searched
He said he'd never bomb our clinics
We said, "OK, we won't bomb your church!"
(chorus)

A man walked into an abortion clinic
Said he was gonna rape the boss
Then he'd make her have his baby
And then he'd hang it on his cross

EDIT: For the sake of argument, let's also say that women who meet a certain income criteria can have the fee waived with minimal inconvience--so basically, no one would have to choose between having the abortion and having food on the table.

What would be the point of your tax then? Most women who have abortions are women who are already living in poverty. I can't remember the stats off-hand, but they've been bandied about in other threads in this forum.

I doubt that the amount of money raised by taxing a small percentage of women getting abortions would fund much education or contraception at all. Especially after subtracting administrative costs of the tax.

rather, it would serve them right for wanting to murder something they created....
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

What would be the point of your tax then? Most women who have abortions are women who are already living in poverty. I can't remember the stats off-hand, but they've been bandied about in other threads in this forum.

I'm not sure what this tax would be meant to do? Is it a sin tax, like that on cigarettes and alcohol, designed to decrease consumption?

Brian is practicing abstinence. Since he's not getting any, he doesn't want anyone else to get any, either.

Mary Lou she got pregnant
And was addicted to fifteen drugs
She went down to the abortion clinic
And was accosted by right-wing thugs

(chorus)
Will the foetus be aborted
By and by, Lord, by and by
There's a better home awaitin'
In the sky, Lord, in the sky

Little Mary was just fourteen
And she was raped by her own dad
Danny Quayle said, "Have that baby!"
But another choice she had....
(chorus)

Annie's pregnancy would have killed her
The doctor's warning gave her strife
Fundamentalists said, "Have that baby!"
But she said, "I want my right to life!"
(chorus)

Bridgett had ten kids already
And an abortion is what she chose
The christians showed her a bloody foetus
She said "That's fine, I'll have one of those."
(chorus)

Tania lived for the revolution
Wanted to overthrow the state
She had fifteen commie babies
Jerry Falwell ain't that great (or)
(chorus)

Reverend Goodman hated abortion
And for a peaceful end he searched
He said he'd never bomb our clinics
We said, "OK, we won't bomb your church!"
(chorus)

A man walked into an abortion clinic
Said he was gonna rape the boss
Then he'd make her have his baby
And then he'd hang it on his cross

This doesn't have anything to do with this thread. I'm sorry that you're either unwilling or incapable of holding an intellegent discussion on this matter.

Brian is practicing abstinence. Since he's not getting any, he doesn't want anyone else to get any, either.

Nice flame.

It's rather obvious, Brian, that the whole point of your stealth tax on abortion, is to promote your agenda of no abortion, and everyone must practice abstinence, or be punished by paying a tax.

So I'm not off topic.

And why would anyone push such an agenda? Better yet, who in the world would accept it? The Taliban?

I have the study from my urologist. Meanwhile, while you abstain from sex, I'll be knocking one out for you.

I don't think you understand the word "study". Your personal urologist has hardly done enough vasectomies to be able to say that the success rate of this procedure is 100%. The fact that there have been men who had vasectomies and then fathered children - even if it were only one - would be ample evidence to say that the success rate of a vasectomy is not 100%. I don't know the actual percentage, but there have been these instances, studies have demonstrated them to be there, therefore it is not 100%. It could be 99.9% - and thus the risk is low.

I don't think you understand the word "study". Your personal urologist has hardly done enough vasectomies to be able to say that the success rate of this procedure is 100%. The fact that there have been men who had vasectomies and then fathered children - even if it were only one - would be ample evidence to say that the success rate of a vasectomy is not 100%. I don't know the actual percentage, but there have been these instances, studies have demonstrated them to be there, therefore it is not 100%. It could be 99.9% - and thus the risk is low.

23,000 vasectomies with no failures is pretty good odds for me.

Mary Lou she got pregnant
And was addicted to fifteen drugs
She went down to the abortion clinic
And was accosted by right-wing thugs

(chorus)
Will the foetus be aborted
By and by, Lord, by and by
There's a better home awaitin'
In the sky, Lord, in the sky

<snip>
Have you heard the version of this in song form, by Jello Biafra and Mojo Nixon?

Have you heard the version of this in song form, by Jello Biafra and Mojo Nixon?
Yes, I have the album.

Would you support a new fee on abortions?

No. It might hurt the business at abortion clinics. As it is now, they are barely scraping out a living.

Yes, I have the album.
Awesome. From some of your posts as Whispering Legs, I never would've guessed.

Anyway, back to topic: any tax on abortion will automatically make it cost-prohibitive for some people.

I also read the part where you said it could be waived if people don't meet some arbitrarily decided minimum income. The purpose of the fee, as you said, would be to support programs to help eliminate unwanted pregnancy. Instead of doing that, why don't you just have people who are concerned with unwanted pregnancies voluntarily donate money to charities or government programs designed to reduce unwanted pregnancies?

What would be the point of your tax then? Most women who have abortions are women who are already living in poverty. I can't remember the stats off-hand, but they've been bandied about in other threads in this forum.

I doubt that the amount of money raised by taxing a small percentage of women getting abortions would fund much education or contraception at all. Especially after subtracting administrative costs of the tax.

What are your thoughts on dollar values of what it would raise, and how much of that would you expect to go to administration? In the U.S., of course.

I can say from my own personal knowledge that approximately 15% of government fees are spent on administrative costs associated with collecting and accounting for the fee. In other words, for every dollar of fee collected, we can project that 85 cents would actually be spent on the program.

My understanding is that an abortion costs approximately $400, which is pretty believable since it's a major operation. Let's say that it's a slow year in the abortion industry and there are only 1 million abortions in the U.S. Let's say that of those, a mere 10% of mothers are deemed to not experience financial hardship as a result of the fee (a number that I would suspect is unrealistically low). That would leave only 100,000 abortions subject to the fee. Still, 100,000 X ($400 X 10%) = $4,000,000 in fees collected X 85% = $3,400,000 actually spent on prevention and education per year. If 50% of abortions qualified, that would increase the amount to $20,000,000 collected.

So, it wouldn't change the world, but (1) the burden would only be bourne by people who could afford it and (2) it would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies among those most affected and least able to afford it anyway.

devil's advocate (pro-life side, in this case):

no, not to do with being poor.

rather, it would serve them right for wanting to murder something they created.... taking the easy way out rather than taking responsibility for the child and giving it a chance to live, which (no matter what -- spare the "the kid's life is going to suck; we're doing it a favor by killing it" arguments) is far better than having no chance at life.

The thing is, the pro lifers are almost invariably very critical of social welfare. So what do they suggest? Force the woman to have the baby and then let both her and her baby starve to death? I've heard the whole "Put it up for adoption!" argument, but frankly I think that's a very tough thing for a mother. Aborting a non sentinent life form is a bit different from handing over a live baby that's spent 9 months inside you.

Awesome. From some of your posts as Whispering Legs, I never would've guessed.


I am a believer in individual personal freedoom.

The freedom to keep and bear arms as an individual right.
The freedom to have a say over your own body (pro-choice).
The freedom to use drugs (the government has no business here).
The freedom to worship as I choose.
The freedom to have any kind of consensual sex I can get.

I also read the part where you said it could be waived if people don't meet some arbitrarily decided minimum income.

Let's presume that it wouldn't be arbitrary.

The purpose of the fee, as you said, would be to support programs to help eliminate unwanted pregnancy. Instead of doing that, why don't you just have people who are concerned with unwanted pregnancies voluntarily donate money to charities or government programs designed to reduce unwanted pregnancies?

I acknowledge that this is a thoughtful question. In fact, you're absolutely right that people concerned about this shouldn't sit around and wait for the government to get involved. However, my answer is that there is a societal cost associated with unwanted pregnancies--regardless of whether the mother chooses to abort her child or not.

I think that it stands to reason that there is a nexus between abortions and unwanted pregancies, so it's logical to associate the two. Consider similarly structured (though unrelated to abortions) fees--for example, in California, there is an oil shipping industry fee on oil ($0.25 per barrel) to pay for oil spill cleanups and prevention in California's open waters. Even though there are many shippers who have never had problems worthy of mention, all shippers pay the fee (those costs are ultimately passed on to California consumers). Nonetheless, it makes sense to charge the oil shipping industry this fee because of the nature of their activities, even though their own individual circumstances may not be a direct cause of the need. Doesn't it? I use the oil shipping industry as an example, but there are plenty of others--everything from taxes on recycleable goods to car tires to cigarettes to firearms. I believe that there is the nexus between abortions and unwanted pregnancies that would make a fee of this type appropriate.

So I'm not off topic.


Uh huh... :rolleyes:

I dispute that there are any states with very restrictive laws, effectively creating a scarcity of abortion service availability.

I won't dispute the rest because, well... it's an opinion!
Try Texas. Here's a link to an article from the Austin American-Statesman that's posted on an anti-abortion activism site. (http://www.texlife.org/docs/march.html)
Seven anti-abortion laws, including one requiring notification of parents of minors seeking abortions, were passed during the Legislature's 1999 session. That statistic led abortion rights advocates to declare Texas the nation's leader in what they consider the assault on reproductive freedom -- a status that pleases abortion foes such as keynote speaker Cheree Bartlett of the Los Angeles-based Center for Bio-Ethical Reform. "Give yourselves a big round of applause for the notification law," she said. "Because of people like you, having children and instilling in them the value of life, you've accomplished a great deal. We have a lot to be hopeful for."

And last year, Texas passed the most restrictive parental notification law in the country, one that could conceivably cause doctors to be tried for murder if they violate it.

Other states have made getting an abortion so difficult that there are only one or two clinics statewide. Now I'm not saying that what these states have done is illegal or unconstitutional--but it is most certainly restrictive. Your suggestion would make what is already an increasingly difficult procedure for women who live outside major urban areas to get that much more difficult.

I'm not talking about anything that would be so unreasonably high that it would be cost prohibitive; I'm talking like a 10% fee. The revenue from the fee would go towards prevention and education programs geared toward reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies.

Are payments for abortions not already taxed as transactions?

devil's advocate (pro-life side, in this case):

no, not to do with being poor.

rather, it would serve them right for wanting to murder something they created.... taking the easy way out rather than taking responsibility for the child and giving it a chance to live, which (no matter what -- spare the "the kid's life is going to suck; we're doing it a favor by killing it" arguments) is far better than having no chance at life.
So you're pretty much saying; "tax abortions more so they will be harder to get".

Also, for the purpose of keeping a cool head during abortion debates, I would advise against using the word "murder".

The only point in taxing them would be to reduce the number of abortions.

Married couples are NOT going to practice abstinence as a form of birth control.

What are your thoughts on dollar values of what it would raise, and how much of that would you expect to go to administration? In the U.S., of course.

I can say from my own personal knowledge that approximately 15% of government fees are spent on administrative costs associated with collecting and accounting for the fee. In other words, for every dollar of fee collected, we can project that 85 cents would actually be spent on the program.

My understanding is that an abortion costs approximately $400, which is pretty believable since it's a major operation. Let's say that it's a slow year in the abortion industry and there are only 1 million abortions in the U.S. Let's say that of those, a mere 10% of mothers are deemed to not experience financial hardship as a result of the fee (a number that I would suspect is unrealistically low). That would leave only 100,000 abortions subject to the fee. Still, 100,000 X ($400 X 10%) = $4,000,000 in fees collected X 85% = $3,400,000 actually spent on prevention and education per year. If 50% of abortions qualified, that would increase the amount to $20,000,000 collected.

So, it wouldn't change the world, but (1) the burden would only be bourne by people who could afford it and (2) it would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies among those most affected and least able to afford it anyway.

And allow me to ask you this: A 10% tax?

In a country where voters refuse to accept a 10 cent tax on a cup of coffee to support public schools? (Seattle)

In a country where state taxes aren't 10% for even the most highly-taxed states for the very highest income earners?

If this wasn't about abortion, would you still be advocating a 10% rate?

I thought Republicans were against the death tax.

Let's presume that it wouldn't be arbitrary.I'm really not sure how it wouldn't be in practice, but I suppose it could be, in theory, not arbitrary.


I acknowledge that this is a thoughtful question. In fact, you're absolutely right that people concerned about this shouldn't sit around and wait for the government to get involved. However, my answer is that there is a societal cost associated with unwanted pregnancies--regardless of whether the mother chooses to abort her child or not.The societal costs for unwanted children are higher than the societal costs for unwanted pregnancies. While it is true that by reducing unwanted pregnancies, you also reduce unwanted children, but you could also simply reduce unwanted children.


I think that it stands to reason that there is a nexus between abortions and unwanted pregancies, so it's logical to associate the two. Consider similarly structured (though unrelated to abortions) fees--for example, in California, there is an oil shipping industry fee on oil ($0.25 per barrel) to pay for oil spill cleanups and prevention in California's open waters. Even though there are many shippers who have never had problems worthy of mention, all shippers pay the fee (those costs are ultimately passed on to California consumers). Nonetheless, it makes sense to charge the oil shipping industry this fee because of the nature of their activities, even though their own individual circumstances may not be a direct cause of the need. Doesn't it? Well, I have no objections to taxing businesses in most cases, so usually it would make sense to tax a business just because. But, yes, in this case it does. But also in this case, a business can simply dissolve if it can't pay the tax. How is a woman with an unwanted pregnancy going to do this?

Are payments for abortions not already taxed as transactions?

Yes and no. Some states allow taxation for medical services--some for just cosmetic and/or elective surgeries, but plenty exempt all medical-related activities from taxation.

But regardless, for those that do allow it, the tax is a general tax that goes toward everything from ecosystem restoration to prisons.

On the other hand, a fee is a charge that applies to a specific activity and is used for a specific, related purpose. What I am suggesting is a fee.

And allow me to ask you this: A 10% tax?

In a country where voters refuse to accept a 10 cent tax on a cup of coffee to support public schools? (Seattle)

I was shooting for a percentage that wouldn't be cost-prohibitive, but still be enough to be effective to accomplish its purpose. What percentage would you choose?

Also, New York recently passed a $3 per pack tax on cigarettes, raising the cost per pack to almost $7. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/01/18/MNG71AS2521.DTL This means a fee of almost 100%. So it pretty much depends on the issue. I don't know what the Seattle situation is... may residents already felt like their schools are overfunded, maybe they don't see a nexus between coffee and education, maybe they're already paying too much tax and are just fed up--I'm speculating because I don't know the specifics in the case you're referring to (assuming your information is correct). But, as in the cigarette case, people can tolerate much more. I think the brunt of opposition would be people who wouldn't want anything to stand in the way of abortion, no matter how reasonable.

In a country where state taxes aren't 10% for even the most highly-taxed states for the very highest income earners?

(1) you're talking about state income taxes, not other fees, (2) the highest state income tax bracket in California is 11%--I don't know about other states, (3) in most states, combining state income tax, sales tax, property tax, etc., the majority of people pay way over 10% of their income to the state--and that doesn't even include federal, and (4) the last time I checked, the highest federal income tax bracket was 36%. So yes, I think that strictly from a taxation standpoint, people would definitely tolerate it.

If this wasn't about abortion, would you still be advocating a 10% rate?

No--not that you can make the comparison, but for other industries I could forsee it as appropriate to impose fees higher or lower than 10%... depending on the situation.

So basically, 10% on this service would not be excessive or prohibitive.

I was shooting for a percentage that wouldn't be cost-prohibitive, but still be enough to be effective to accomplish its purpose. What percentage would you choose?

Also, New York recently passed a $3 per pack tax on cigarettes, raising the cost per pack to almost $7. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/01/18/MNG71AS2521.DTL This means a fee of almost 100%. So it pretty much depends on the issue. I don't know what the Seattle situation is... may residents already felt like their schools are overfunded, maybe they don't see a nexus between coffee and education, maybe they're already paying too much tax and are just fed up--I'm speculating because I don't know the specifics in the case you're referring to (assuming your information is correct). But, as in the cigarette case, people can tolerate much more. I think the brunt of opposition would be people who wouldn't want anything to stand in the way of abortion, no matter how reasonable.

So you are willing to compare addicts willing to spend as much as it takes to get their fix to women desperate for abortion? I had changed my mind about this being a sin tax when I re-read your first post about this money going towards education and contraception. But if you are placing it in the same category as a cigarette tax, I'm back to my original conclusion. On the one hand, I typically support measures that would reduce abortions, particularly those that offer increased sex education and affordable contraceptives. I'm just not sure that the cost of this should be born only by those women unfortunate enough to get pregnant and need/want an abortion. For one thing, this tax is gender-based, and even if you leave the poor out of the tax equation, you are targeting a vulnerable group of people that are already discriminated against (not because they are women, but because they are having an abortion).

Furthermore, I assert that the only reason the majority would accept this tax is because most of them believe it wouldn't affect them. The biggest concern of many would be how to keep their children from being exposed to the sex education funded by this tax. When was the last time Americans voted to increase a tax that affected everyone without bias? The Seattle coffee tax for schools resolution was voted down. In 2004, Alabama turned down another proposal to raise taxes for education. Oregon, New Hampshire, Tennessee, Alaska, and Wyoming all tried to raise taxes for education in 1999 - those proposals were also rejected by voters. An online buddy from Illinois tells me that his rural community rejected a property tax increase that would have provided funding for his public school. I came up with a lot of Google hits for US tax proposal reject vote state, but nothing but proposals (no approvals) for US tax proposal support approve vote state.

(1) (2) the highest state income tax bracket in California is 11%--I don't know about other states, According to http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/228.html the top rate for Californians is 9.3%, that's where I got all my state tax numbers from.

(3) in most states, combining state income tax, sales tax, property tax, etc., the majority of people pay way over 10% of their income to the state--and that doesn't even include federal, and (4) the last time I checked, the highest federal income tax bracket was 36%. So yes, I think that strictly from a taxation standpoint, people would definitely tolerate it. I am fully aware that there are taxes other than state taxes. However, given that tax increase initiatives are routinely voted down, tax cuts are approved, and conservatives and libertarians are howling for less government, the only way I see this abortion tax being approved is because the pro-life folks will consider it a punishment for having an abortion. And not enough of one, I might add.

Personally, I would support an abortion tax with proceeds going to sex education and contraception only if it applied to all taxpayers. Call it a federally applied surtax or something. I'm not fond of 'sin' taxes; I can only support them when the proceeds go towards correcting the harm it causes (may cause). For example, cigarette taxes going into health care and anti-smoking education campaigns, since smoking raise health care costs, and alchohol taxes going into health care, education campaigns, and policing (vs drunk drivers).

But abortion does not have the same measurable anti-societal effects as tobacco and alcohol. In fact, the Freakonomics folks argue that there are pro-societal benefits, although neither they nor I would argue that abortion is a better choice then effective contraception.

New York State actually taxes being born.

Oops, I thought you said, FREE abortions.


Which they should be,
'on demand and without appology.'


that way, those cretin psycho religious freaks (even some christians out there in the US)
who believe that a married woman must have sex with their husband if
they demand it, can get unpregnant without his psycho knowledge.


Come on,
if insurance covers sagging soldier due to a naturally aging body, duh,
the insurance, no tax dollars, should be required to pay for any
and all abortions that any woman wants, no matter what her age
and no one else has a right to know. no one else.

But if you are placing it in the same category as a cigarette tax, I'm back to my original conclusion.

I just used the cigarette fee as an example because it's the most excessive one that I'm aware of without doing much research, not because I was lumping this in as a sin tax. I also referenced fees on tires and a few other things--I guess I wasn't clear.


According to http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/228.html the top rate for Californians is 9.3%, that's where I got all my state tax numbers from.

Crap--good thing I'm not a tax attorney. I'm obviously not in the top bracket yet. :) Thank you correcting my memory failure.

I am fully aware that there are taxes other than state taxes. However, given that tax increase initiatives are routinely voted down, tax cuts are approved, and conservatives and libertarians are howling for less government, the only way I see this abortion tax being approved is because the pro-life folks will consider it a punishment for having an abortion. And not enough of one, I might add.

Well, I don't think it would be enough to in any way amount to a punishment. But your point is well taken.

But abortion does not have the same measurable anti-societal effects as tobacco and alcohol.

Yeah, but the fee would be to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies--if the number of abortions declined as a residual effect, then that's all good and well because that means that fewer unwanted pregnancies are occurring. You'll notice that I didn't address the negative societal impact of abortion--just the negative societal impact of unwanted pregnancies. To the pro-choicer, what does it matter if an unwanted child is not born because they were aborted versus if they were not born because they were never conceived to being with? Wouldn't it make sense to stop the problem before it ever started? The education and prevention funding would not go toward educating and preventing against abortions--it would go toward educating and preventing against unwanted pregnancies. Again, this would likely result in fewer abortions, but it would be because fewer people would be in the position where they had to make that choice.

It's rather obvious, Brian, that the whole point of your stealth tax on abortion, is to promote your agenda of no abortion, and everyone must practice abstinence, or be punished by paying a tax.

So I'm not off topic.

And why would anyone push such an agenda? Better yet, who in the world would accept it? The Taliban?

Ha. The suppositions you make about society are hilarious.

Well, I have no objections to taxing businesses in most cases, so usually it would make sense to tax a business just because. But, yes, in this case it does. But also in this case, a business can simply dissolve if it can't pay the tax. How is a woman with an unwanted pregnancy going to do this?


Well, presuming the bar would be high enough that only those who could truly afford it would be taxed, it wouldn't be an issue. Whatever the fee, it would have to be low enough that it wouldn't be cost prohibitive.

To review the terms: (1) the fee could not be reasonably perceived as cost-prohibitive, (2) the fee must generate enough income to be useful, and (3) the fee must be conveniently waiveable by women who, because of their finances, would experience hardship as a result of paying the fee. Maybe a flat fee, and only applied to women with household incomes in excess of $50,000, or something like that (please do not waste your time tearing apart these specific numbers, as I pulled them out of my butt. If you have numbers that you think would be more effective than 10%, I'm all ears.)

Yeah, but the fee would be to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies--if the number of abortions declined as a residual effect, then that's all good and well because that means that fewer unwanted pregnancies are occurring. You'll notice that I didn't address the negative societal impact of abortion--just the negative societal impact of unwanted pregnancies. To the pro-choicer, what does it matter if an unwanted child is not born because they were aborted versus if they were not born because they were never conceived to being with? Wouldn't it make sense to stop the problem before it ever started? The education and prevention funding would not go toward educating and preventing against abortions--it would go toward educating and preventing against unwanted pregnancies. Again, this would likely result in fewer abortions, but it would be because fewer people would be in the position where they had to make that choice.

And that's why I said I was ambivalent about this proposed tax. I fully support measures to decrease abortion through sex education and available contraception. It confuses me utterly that large numbers of pro-lifers reject sex education in schools - it seems to me the best way to reduce abortions.

But it still seems like a discriminatory tax to me. Apply it to everyone as part of a federal tax and I'm happy. Only tax the women getting abortions, and I can't support it at all.

Well, presuming the bar would be high enough that only those who could truly afford it would be taxed, it wouldn't be an issue. Whatever the fee, it would have to be low enough that it wouldn't be cost prohibitive.

To review the terms: (1) the fee could not be reasonably perceived as cost-prohibitive, (2) the fee must generate enough income to be useful, and (3) the fee must be conveniently waiveable by women who, because of their finances, would experience hardship as a result of paying the fee. Maybe a flat fee, and only applied to women with household incomes in excess of $50,000, or something like that (please do not waste your time tearing apart these specific numbers, as I pulled them out of my butt. If you have numbers that you think would be more effective than 10%, I'm all ears.)It still might make it more difficult to get an abortion by making women provide proof of income when they go get their abortions.

And that's why I said I was ambivalent about this proposed tax. I fully support measures to decrease abortion through sex education and available contraception. It confuses me utterly that large numbers of pro-lifers reject sex education in schools - it seems to me the best way to reduce abortions.

But it still seems like a discriminatory tax to me. Apply it to everyone as part of a federal tax and I'm happy. Only tax the women getting abortions, and I can't support it at all.

That's fair.

I don't want to get too much off track, but what about something like fishing licenses? A fishing license is a fee imposed on people who fish. In most states, if not all, the revenue is used for things like ecosystem restoration and protection, fish production at fish hatcheries, public outreach, construction and maintenance of fishing docks... basically, all the long-term stuff that the individual fisherman may never benefit from (especially if he purchased a one-day license). This fee only applies to fishermen (or fisherwomen, I guess :) ), but for good reason (in my opinion). Is there a distinction between this and my proposal?

It still might make it more difficult to get an abortion by making women provide proof of income when they go get their abortions.


What if it was structured like this: the mother is presumed to be unable to afford the abortion. The next year, when she's filing her income taxes, she's required to THEN pay the fee if her household income is sufficiently high, as reported on her taxes? This would require one new checkbox on the income tax form: "[] Did you opt for an abortion fee deferrment during the calendar year, and claim eligibility for refund of that fee? To be eligible for a refund, you must have a net household income below $XXXXX.XX (see line 39, next page)." Since other medical expenses can already be deducted and certain handicaps are specifically identified (such as deductions associated with blindness), this wouldn't be anything extraordinary.

Alternatively, the mother may choose to pay the fee upfront. Then, when she files her income taxes, if her income is sufficiently low, she may receive the money back in the form of a tax credit?

"Would you support a new fee on abortions?"

No. That would tend to exclude a sizable percentage of those who truly need one. :(

"Would you support a new fee on abortions?"

No. That would tend to exclude a sizable percentage of those who truly need one. :(

How so?

What if it was structured like this: the mother is presumed to be unable to afford the abortion. The next year, when she's filing her income taxes, she's required to THEN pay the fee if her household income is sufficiently high, as reported on her taxes? This would require one new checkbox on the income tax form: "[] Did you opt for an abortion fee deferrment during the calendar year, and claim eligibility for refund of that fee? To be eligible for a refund, you must have a net household income below $XXXXX.XX (see line 39, next page)." Since other medical expenses can already be deducted and certain handicaps are specifically identified (such as deductions associated with blindness), this wouldn't be anything extraordinary.

Alternatively, the mother may choose to pay the fee upfront. Then, when she files her income taxes, if her income is sufficiently low, she may receive the money back in the form of a tax credit?
I'm not sure that people whose sole income is from government programs fill out income tax forms.

That's fair.

I don't want to get too much off track, but what about something like fishing licenses? A fishing license is a fee imposed on people who fish. In most states, if not all, the revenue is used for things like ecosystem restoration and protection, fish production at fish hatcheries, public outreach, construction and maintenance of fishing docks... basically, all the long-term stuff that the individual fisherman may never benefit from (especially if he purchased a one-day license). This fee only applies to fishermen (or fisherwomen, I guess :) ), but for good reason (in my opinion). Is there a distinction between this and my proposal?

Don't try to trap me in the user fee vs tax argument. :) In my opinion, governments should not collect user fees. They should collect taxes, license fees, and fines. The only circumstance in which I would accept the government charging a user fee is when it is made to cover administrative costs for something. Like replacing your birth certificate, for example.

And last year, Texas passed the most restrictive parental notification law in the country, one that could conceivably cause doctors to be tried for murder if they violate it.



I have no problem with a minor living at home having to have a parent sign for them to have a medical procedure. I believe it wrong to pass a law that lets a child go behind their parents back.

Regards,

JMayo

I'm not sure that people whose sole income is from government programs fill out income tax forms.


If you're not legally required to file a tax return, you wouldn't be legally required to pay.

23,000 vasectomies with no failures is pretty good odds for me.

It is pretty good odds. But all vasectomies have not been successful. Therefore, a claim that the rate of success is 100% is just plain silly.

The only point in taxing them would be to reduce the number of abortions.

While BT has made some pretty illogical assertions, I don't see how this directly follows.

What BT seems to be suggesting is that the money would go to reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies, whether aborted or not. Society itself could greatly benefit from a reduction of unwanted pregnancies, as neither the choice to continue the pregnancy nor the choice to end it is an easy one - and both have their own adverse affects to the mother.

Now, the question to me would be whether we should limit such an initiative to women who have already had a problem. Perhaps it would be better to use taxes paid by all of society - as all of society would benefit from the education services that are necessary. Of course, if our public schools did a decent job of sex education....

Married couples are NOT going to practice abstinence as a form of birth control.

Generally not, but I fail to see what that has to do with the conversation at hand. Married couples aren't exempt from unwanted pregnancies either - and we should do what we can to ensure that the members of the couple each know how to avoid that circumstance.

I have no problem with a minor living at home having to have a parent sign for them to have a medical procedure. I believe it wrong to pass a law that lets a child go behind their parents back.

What if the parent is the father of her child? Should she have to ask his permission? What if the parent does not believe in medical treatment, but the teen does, should she be forced to be denied treatment? What if the parent is abusive, and would harm her if they knew, should she have to ask permission and get beaten? What if the parent would turn the minor out on the streets because of her decision, should she be forced to live on the streets because of it?

These are things that can and do happen - and they are exactly the reason that the courts have held that there must be, in any parental consent law, a way that a young girl can appeal to the courts to have the need for parental consent waived. If the girl is mature enough to make the decision, and can demonstrate that telling her parents could be a threat to her, then she should be able to make the decision on her own.

What if the parent is the father of her child? Should she have to ask his permission? What if the parent does not believe in medical treatment, but the teen does, should she be forced to be denied treatment? What if the parent is abusive, and would harm her if they knew, should she have to ask permission and get beaten? What if the parent would turn the minor out on the streets because of her decision, should she be forced to live on the streets because of it?
Or what if the girl doesn't want an abortion, but the parent does?

No.

My wife had a false pregnancy. Her body went through the motions but there was nothing "cooking" so to speak.

The body wouldn't reject it so they basically had to perform an abortion to "clean her up."

Who would get this fee? Church groups?

If there is no pregnancy then it is not an abortion.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

devil's advocate says:

if it stops a human life with the intent to kill (and not in a situation of self-defense or war, for instance), it's murder

the fetus is growing... growth = life

the fact that some treat the fetus as if it has the rights of a stone (that is, no rights at all, since it is apparently not human) is disgusting.

that is what the devil's advocate would say

First of all, I don’t support a tax on any good or service. I do, however, find it ironic that so many on the left are against this, despite the fact that the fee would go toward the “common good“.

devil's advocate says:

if it stops a human life with the intent to kill (and not in a situation of self-defense or war, for instance), it's murder

the fetus is growing... growth = life

the fact that some treat the fetus as if it has the rights of a stone (that is, no rights at all, since it is apparently not human) is disgusting.

that is what the devil's advocate would say
Murder is defined as the the unlawful klling of a person. Abortion is legal. Comprende?

I'm not talking about anything that would be so unreasonably high that it would be cost prohibitive; I'm talking like a 10% fee. The revenue from the fee would go towards prevention and education programs geared toward reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies.

EDIT: For the sake of argument, let's also say that women who meet a certain income criteria can have the fee waived with minimal inconvience--so basically, no one would have to choose between having the abortion and having food on the table.I support giving special tax rebates to women who choose to abort. If you want to raise funds for education and pregnancy prevention programs, just take all the money being wasted on abstinance only programs (which have been proven to INCREASE unsafe sex and teen pregnancy rates).

First of all, I don’t support a tax on any good or service. I do, however, find it ironic that so many on the left are against this, despite the fact that the fee would go toward the “common good“.

Many on the left are also against high taxation of those on low income, despite the fact the fee would go towards the common good. Since most people who need abortions are on low incomes, it would effectively be a tax on the poor - although I appreciate that BT is trying to prevent that in this hypothetical proposal by making it only applicable to those who can afford it.

Absolutely not. This would be a punitive taxation on a medical procedure.

Are you going to tax bypass surgery?
Are you going to tax tooth extractions?
Are you going to tax hemorrhoid repair?

Then don't tax this.

Absolutely not. This would be a punitive taxation on a medical procedure.

Are you going to tax bypass surgery?
Are you going to tax tooth extractions?
Are you going to tax hemorrhoid repair?

Then don't tax this.

I could actually be persuaded to impose fees on some of those procedures:

1. bypass surgery: fee goes toward heart disease education and prevention. Seems reasonable to me!

2. tooth extracations: fee goes toward tooth decay education and prevention. Again, I wouldn't necessarily have problems with this.

In either case, there would have to be waivers for low-income beneficiaries.

I'm also not sure that this is the same because bypass surgery and, arguably, tooth extractions are not elective surgeries, whereas the abortions discussed are entirely elective. A difference between a tax and a fee is that you can avoid fees by not engaging in a specific activity.


but you lose me with hemorrhoid repair.

*Snipage as I have a few questions*
Brians Test, I admit to being intrigued at your proposal, but I do have a few questions for you. How would you determine low income status for a wavier? Usually the person appliying for waivers of any kind have to show proof of low income status, correct? My issue then is that in most states, abortions are legal only till the start of the second trimester (no matter how many times people scream about it, late terms are ONLY done when the health of the mother is at risk). Since anything having to do with goverment paperwork takes time, especially taxes, is there not a risk then that child could be BORN by the time the waiver is granted (ok, I'm being a little silly, but time is an issue).

Who would get the money and what types of programs to you plan to offer? Teen pregnancy is down, possibly due to increased use of contraceptives (I haven't seen a definitive study on the reasons), but usually teens are not the ones getting abortions, adults are. So how would you reach adults who are no longer in school and a captive audience (and less likely to listen to anything they think takes away their freedom of choice)?

Finally you made a statement about how, if after the fee goes into effect, a measure would be taken to see if it works. Less abortions would be taken to show less unwanted pregnancies. That does not sound like a logical conclusion. I mean, less abortions could be the result of less people getting them due to fees or paperwork, not due to your education program. How do you plan to test for that?

I could actually be persuaded to impose fees on some of those procedures:

1. bypass surgery: fee goes toward heart disease education and prevention. Seems reasonable to me!

2. tooth extracations: fee goes toward tooth decay education and prevention. Again, I wouldn't necessarily have problems with this.

In either case, there would have to be waivers for low-income beneficiaries.

I'm also not sure that this is the same because bypass surgery and, arguably, tooth extractions are not elective surgeries, whereas the abortions discussed are entirely elective. A difference between a tax and a fee is that you can avoid fees by not engaging in a specific activity.


but you lose me with hemorrhoid repair.


So in other words, screw everyone, make them pay twice for necessary procedures.

Yes, that's almost as fair as one of the previous governors of New Jersey imposing a tax on toilet paper as it was not "a necessity".

Yes, that's almost as fair as one of the previous governors of New Jersey imposing a tax on toilet paper as it was not "a necessity".
Uh... sorry, Katganistan, slightly off topic, but not a necessity? To paraphrase a US Navy sub commander, one cannot help but wonder what the Governor of New Jersey was using in place of the material once so well known to this command.

I'm not talking about anything that would be so unreasonably high that it would be cost prohibitive; I'm talking like a 10% fee. The revenue from the fee would go towards prevention and education programs geared toward reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies.

EDIT: For the sake of argument, let's also say that women who meet a certain income criteria can have the fee waived with minimal inconvience--so basically, no one would have to choose between having the abortion and having food on the table.
Assuming the fees for thoes that need it were low ... I guess I would not be imediatly opposed to it
I am all for education providing that the education kept religion out of it and only taught saftey methods

Uh... sorry, Katganistan, slightly off topic, but not a necessity? To paraphrase a US Navy sub commander, one cannot help but wonder what the Governor of New Jersey was using in place of the material once so well known to this command.

Precisely. My uncle lives in Jersey -- you should have heard him on the topic. Wanted to know if the governor was using his head. ;)

It's pretty sexist given that men will never be puni-- uh, charged this fee.

Brians Test, I admit to being intrigued at your proposal, but I do have a few questions for you. How would you determine low income status for a wavier?

I think that this would probably be pretty easy; the policy wonks have all sorts of people who take into consideration all sorts of factors to determine whether someone is income eligible to receive different kinds of government benefits. For example, if you make below a specified income, you can have court fees waived, you can have a court-appointed defense attorney, you can have access to all sorts of social welfare programs (ever hear of government cheese?) etc. In my hypothetical example, to be eligible for a fee waiver, your household income would need to be low enough that paying the fee would measurably impact your access to things like food, clothing, housing, medicine, education... maybe even motorized transportation... but basically, it would be high enough that extent of the hardship on those paying it would be that they would have to eat in instead of going to the Olive Garden the following Wednesday.

Usually the person appliying for waivers of any kind have to show proof of low income status, correct?

Correct.

If we took this out of theory land and actually tried to implement this, here is where a problem would most likely arise. My proposed solution gets a bit technical, but here it goes:

Let's pretend for the sake of this portion of the discussion only that the threshold for waiver eligibility was $40,000 net per year. When the mother went to have the procedure, she would have two options. (1) At the time of the procedure, she could elect to delay payment. Then, on her next income tax form, there would be one new line with a check box. The box would read something like, "[] I deferred ___ number of pregnancy mitigation fees in 2005." Then, if she earned more than $40,000 net, she would then be charged the amount of the fee as a part of her income tax cycle. If she earned less than $40,000, she would not then or ever be required to pay. If she earned so little that she was not required to pay or file income taxes, she still wouldn't be required to pay then or ever. Privacy issues, as with the other option, shouldn't be a consideration because there is pretty much no limit to the depth of personal information, including health information, that isn't already directly or indirectly regularly disclosed through income tax forms. Besides, I'm sure the accounting wonks couldn't care less as they poured over their hundreds of millions of annual returns.

(2) At the time of the procedure, the mother could elect to pay the fee up front. At income tax time, when she filed her return, there would be one new line with a check box. The box would read something like, "[] I payed ___ number of pregnancy mitigation fees in 2005." Then, if she earned less than $40,000 net, she would be reimbursed the amount of the fee in the form of a tax credit. If she earned more than $40,000, she would have already paid the fee, so no change in her position. Even if she had no income that year, she would simply file the paperwork and receive her credit (although it's pretty unlikely that anyone who had no income whatsoever would pay up front, but you never really know.)

This system may not be perfect, but it seems pretty plausible at first blush. I'm still open to suggestions.

My issue then is that in most states, abortions are legal only till the start of the second trimester (no matter how many times people scream about it, late terms are ONLY done when the health of the mother is at risk).

I dispute this to the extent that abortions are legal in most states through the second trimester, and legal through the third trimester in most with restrictions. I'm actually unaware of any states wherein most abortions after the first trimester are illegal, but I'm not especially learned on this particular area of law in the 50 states. But regardless, I don't want to get sidetracked. I think we agree that most abortions conducted because the pregnancy is simply unwanted occur early on in the pregnancy.

Since anything having to do with goverment paperwork takes time, especially taxes, is there not a risk then that child could be BORN by the time the waiver is granted (ok, I'm being a little silly, but time is an issue).

Hopefully, my previous explanation would cover this.

Who would get the money and what types of programs to you plan to offer?

I could think of a lot of options. My first instinct would be to send it through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and from there distribute it to local, state-run organizations.

Teen pregnancy is down, possibly due to increased use of contraceptives (I haven't seen a definitive study on the reasons), but usually teens are not the ones getting abortions, adults are. So how would you reach adults who are no longer in school and a captive audience (and less likely to listen to anything they think takes away their freedom of choice)?

I don't know what the adult/teen ratios are, but regardless, if the programs were targeted at teens, they could still carry the knowledge through to their adulthood.

Alternatively, the money could be spent on public awareness campaigns--TV ads, radio ads, newspaper ads, posters on the sides of buses, etc. There are lots of ways to reach the public other than through text books and classrooms.


Finally you made a statement about how, if after the fee goes into effect, a measure would be taken to see if it works.

I did? Seriously, maybe I did and don't remember... I am getting older...

Less abortions would be taken to show less unwanted pregnancies.

Oh, ok. I know what I said; I think I was misunderstood. Maybe I even typoed. I just meant that a reduction in the number of unwanted pregnancies would likely result in a reduction in the number of abortions. I would be inclined to presume that multi-million dollar campaigns had some effect, and I wouldn't feel the need to test whether or not it was working at all, absent articulable evidence that it wasn't working at all.

That does not sound like a logical conclusion.

It wouldn't be. I didn't intend to communicate that.

Abortion should be cheaper and easier, not more expensive.

Or what if the girl doesn't want an abortion, but the parent does?

That would be quite an issue as well. Luckily, there is no law (that I know of), requiring a young girl to get a parent's permission for prenatal care (just as there are no laws - at least in most areas - requiring such a permission for obtaining a prescription for the birth control pill). Interestingly enough, out of all of the reproductive health issues (and most of the health concerns in general), abortion is the only thing I can think of that requires a parent's permission.

I dispute this to the extent that abortions are legal in most states through the second trimester, and legal through the third trimester in most with restrictions. I'm actually unaware of any states wherein most abortions after the first trimester are illegal, but I'm not especially learned on this particular area of law in the 50 states. But regardless, I don't want to get sidetracked. I think we agree that most abortions conducted because the pregnancy is simply unwanted occur early on in the pregnancy.

Abortions are legal throughout pregnancy - it is the restrictions upon them that change over time. In all states but one or two, the restrictions placed upon 2nd trimester abortions are much greater than those placed upon 1st trimester. In most, a medical reason is required for 2nd trimester abortions, although medical reasons could include many things. In all states, the restrictions placed on 3rd trimester abortions are much greater than those in either of the first two. In these, the restrictions usually limit it to a severe threat to the health of the mother, a severe defect of the fetus itself, or a dead fetus.

No, I dont want a fee on abortions

All abortions should be outlawed, so there would be no need for fees

No, I dont want a fee on abortions

All abortions should be outlawed, so there would be no need for fees
Lol go figure :p

There shouldn't be an add-on fee for abortions. I, however, like to leave a 15% tip. It's the polite thing to do(unless service at the clinic was sub-par).

How much do you tip your abortionist?

Great idea - make abortions even more unaffordable to those who actually have a proper reason to have one - poor people who just can't support a child. Then again, i'm sure those inferiour peasants would just resort to a broom handle and hopefully hurt themselves - will serve them right for daring to be poor, right?

Laenis why destroy a perfectly good $5 or $10 broom when you could just use a cheap .05 cent wire hanger. That would make those conservative religious types happy to know these women would most likely die or nearly bleed to death.

(ever hear of government cheese?)
Know it? I had to eat it for a few years growing up. Makes me appreciate being able to buy Tillamook even more (God that stuff was FOUL! :p ).

Any case...

In my hypothetical example, to be eligible for a fee waiver, your household income would need to be low enough that paying the fee would measurably impact your access to things like food, clothing, housing, medicine, education... maybe even motorized transportation... but basically, it would be high enough that extent of the hardship on those paying it would be that they would have to eat in instead of going to the Olive Garden the following Wednesday.
Ok, that's an acceptable level for me.

Let's pretend for the sake of this portion of the discussion only that the threshold for waiver eligibility was $40,000 net per year. When the mother went to have the procedure, she would have two options. (1) At the time of the procedure, she could elect to delay payment. Then, on her next income tax form, there would be one new line with a check box. The box would read something like, "[] I deferred ___ number of pregnancy mitigation fees in 2005." Then, if she earned more than $40,000 net, she would then be charged the amount of the fee as a part of her income tax cycle. If she earned less than $40,000, she would not then or ever be required to pay. If she earned so little that she was not required to pay or file income taxes, she still wouldn't be required to pay then or ever. Privacy issues, as with the other option, shouldn't be a consideration because there is pretty much no limit to the depth of personal information, including health information, that isn't already directly or indirectly regularly disclosed through income tax forms. Besides, I'm sure the accounting wonks couldn't care less as they poured over their hundreds of millions of annual returns.

(2) At the time of the procedure, the mother could elect to pay the fee up front. At income tax time, when she filed her return, there would be one new line with a check box. The box would read something like, "[] I payed ___ number of pregnancy mitigation fees in 2005." Then, if she earned less than $40,000 net, she would be reimbursed the amount of the fee in the form of a tax credit. If she earned more than $40,000, she would have already paid the fee, so no change in her position. Even if she had no income that year, she would simply file the paperwork and receive her credit (although it's pretty unlikely that anyone who had no income whatsoever would pay up front, but you never really know.)

This system may not be perfect, but it seems pretty plausible at first blush. I'm still open to suggestions.
Ok, that too also works, however I would wonder about the reporting on the IRS tax forms. Technically, you're asking for self ID for women who have had abortions.

Now, as you have pointed out, the basic form conatins a lot of health related issues, so I am not concerned so much with people reporting due to the stigma of abortion, but what about those who have an abortion, defer, and then 'forget' to check the book in order to have the fee taken out? Not to mention that such fees varry from clinic to clinic so it might be hard to control how much that 10% is unless a recipt is attached.

The only solution I am seeing to this issue is to have the clinics track and report their records, but doesn't that break the medical privacy laws?

I do however agree with your implied suggestion that having to bring last year's tax return with you to get an abortion is a bit much.

I dispute this to the extent that abortions are legal in most states through the second trimester, and legal through the third trimester in most with restrictions. I'm actually unaware of any states wherein most abortions after the first trimester are illegal, but I'm not especially learned on this particular area of law in the 50 states. But regardless, I don't want to get sidetracked. I think we agree that most abortions conducted because the pregnancy is simply unwanted occur early on in the pregnancy.
Sorry, I should have been clearer. The first trimester, to my knowledge, has no legal limits (for adults). The third trimester is, again to my knowledge, restricted unless the health of the mother would be impacted (according to The Cat-Tribe who posts such laws reguarly). The second is where things get fuzzy and I am not clear at all.

Hopefully, my previous explanation would cover this.
It did, thank you.

I don't know what the adult/teen ratios are, but regardless, if the programs were targeted at teens, they could still carry the knowledge through to their adulthood.

Alternatively, the money could be spent on public awareness campaigns--TV ads, radio ads, newspaper ads, posters on the sides of buses, etc. There are lots of ways to reach the public other than through text books and classrooms.
Very true, but classroom do give a captive audience. *lol* I admit that I would love to see the argument you'll have to get any poster talking about sex on the sides of buses in some areas of the country. Your points are well made though.

Oh, ok. I know what I said; I think I was misunderstood. Maybe I even typoed. I just meant that a reduction in the number of unwanted pregnancies would likely result in a reduction in the number of abortions. I would be inclined to presume that multi-million dollar campaigns had some effect, and I wouldn't feel the need to test whether or not it was working at all, absent articulable evidence that it wasn't working at all.

It wouldn't be. I didn't intend to communicate that.
Ok, I accept your explination, I was wondering about you when I read the first statement.

I hate to say it, and it may be a first, but I'd be willing to agree with you on this as long as a good mechanisim to allow the waivers that would not violate medical privacy laws is found.

I dont find the idea attractive. Kind of like the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff trying to save the people just setting out on a hike.

Rather than put a fee on abortion to raise funds for education, wouldnt it make more sense to reform the education that is currently in place? That way funds available for education intended to prevent abortions being necessary will not be contingent on the failure to do so...

I could actually be persuaded to impose fees on some of those procedures:

1. bypass surgery: fee goes toward heart disease education and prevention. Seems reasonable to me!

2. tooth extracations: fee goes toward tooth decay education and prevention. Again, I wouldn't necessarily have problems with this.

In either case, there would have to be waivers for low-income beneficiaries.

I'm also not sure that this is the same because bypass surgery and, arguably, tooth extractions are not elective surgeries, whereas the abortions discussed are entirely elective. A difference between a tax and a fee is that you can avoid fees by not engaging in a specific activity.


but you lose me with hemorrhoid repair.


The power to tax is the power to destroy.

I would also add that using taxes as a method of social engineering is a stupid way to do things.

If you tax hemorrhoid repair, then people will learn to eat more fiber and avoid the tax, by your logic.

This is all assuming that government education programs have a major impact - that people listen and do what the government says.

You'll notice how great an effect that has had in stopping people from smoking crack in the inner city.

I only support free abortions for welfare recipients.

If there is no pregnancy then it is not an abortion.

It's the same process used.....

Here's an idea.

We tax only those people who can afford abortions. If they don't have enough money for an abortion, then we use the tax money collected to pay for those.

That way, the rich subsidize the abortions of the poor.

It would certainly keep down the number of unwanted children.

We tax only those people who can afford abortions. If they don't have enough money for an abortion, then we use the tax money collected to pay for those.

Except that federal law limits the use of federal funds for abortions.

See the Hyde Amendment, http://www.prochoice.org/pubs_research/publications/downloads/about_abortion/public_funding.pdf

Not banned, but highly restricted so that there is precedent for further restriction.

Now, as you have pointed out, the basic form conatins a lot of health related issues, so I am not concerned so much with people reporting due to the stigma of abortion, but what about those who have an abortion, defer, and then 'forget' to check the book in order to have the fee taken out?

Correct, the IRS forms already contain all sorts of health-related information. In fact, there are already deductions related to specific types of disabilities (such as blindness).

As for your question, if they made over $40,000, they would be evading taxes, and would be penalized accordingly (it would come to about $15 in addition to the $40 or so already owed). When people underpay taxes, they're charged a percentage of what is owed. You only go to jail for really serious violations like serious fraudulent deductions.

Not to mention that such fees varry from clinic to clinic so it might be hard to control how much that 10% is unless a recipt is attached.

This is an excellent point--for this reason, it would probably need to be a flat fee instead of a percentage. Good job.

The only solution I am seeing to this issue is to have the clinics track and report their records, but doesn't that break the medical privacy laws?

Tracking shouldn't be an issue because the clinics should keep their patients' entire personal and medical information on file anyway. The only thing new would be that they'd have to mail a short, non-descript account to the IRS at the end of the year. As for medical privacy laws, the primary act in the U.S. is HIPAA. Under HIPAA, there are certain enumerated reasons for which medical information cannot be released. This would not be one of them. The only thing that would change would be that the doctor performing the procedure would have to inform the mother at the onset how her information might be used.

I do however agree with your implied suggestion that having to bring last year's tax return with you to get an abortion is a bit much.

I too agree with myself ;)

Except that federal law limits the use of federal funds for abortions.

See the Hyde Amendment, http://www.prochoice.org/pubs_research/publications/downloads/about_abortion/public_funding.pdf

Not banned, but highly restricted so that there is precedent for further restriction.

That's too bad. But you could have a state tax.

Just exactly how would a woman qualify for the exception? Any woman can go in and say 'I was raped, I need an abortion' it just doesn't make sense, the fee would be good for certain things, but its just not necessary, not now at least.

That's too bad. But you could have a state tax.

That's true. In fact, I think it's happening in a few states already.

That's true. In fact, I think it's happening in a few states already.

I'm for the tax if it's used to help women who can't afford an abortion. Help pay for the abortions of poor women.

I'm against the tax if it's used for an attempt to change behavior - an attempt to reduce abortions by making them cost prohibitive to the poor.