Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Sunday, April 22, 2018

Reprinted with permission from AlterNet.

The GOP tax plan before Congress has billions in gimmicks and giveaways for corporate interests. But none may be as far-reaching, from a social policy perspective, as language declaring human fetuses are legal persons for federal tax purposes.

Having Congress or federal courts declare fetal personhood, as it is known, has been one of the anti-abortion movement’s top goals for decades. That’s because U.S. law is rife with rights and protections that are ascribed to persons, or to entities—such as corporations—whose behavior has human attributes. And as with so-called corporate personhood, which entered the American legal lexicon in the late 1800s, once that characterization becomes commonplace in law, it’s virtually impossible to extricate.

“The GOP has chosen to hide this deeply unpopular and extremely dangerous provision deep in the tax code where they think no one will find it,” wrote Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, for CNBC.com. “If it goes unnoticed and passes into the final bill, it will have succeeded where they have always failed: in establishing a definition of when life begins that goes against legal precedent, science, and public opinion.”

There’s a good reason the GOP tax bills are hiding personhood in an arcane provision. Despite a decades-long push by conservative Christians to create fetal personhood, the U.S. Supreme Court has not affirmed it in its abortion rulings. Nor have voters passed ballot initiatives creating fetal personhood, even in deep-red states such as North Dakota and Mississippi, even as it has appeared with more frequency in recent years. Neither have states passed fetal personhood bills, even though nine states introduced 13 bills in 2016. (Instead, abortion opponents have created other obstacles, from parental notification laws to waiting periods.)

But now the GOP has slipped a declaration of fetal personhood into a provision in the tax bill that would allow parents to create college savings accounts, known as 529 plans, for the unborn.

“Never mind that the provision is unnecessary: Americans can already set up 529s for the children they wish to have,” NARAL’s Hogue said. “A 529 that’s already seeded with capital in a parent’s name can be transferred to a child once that child is born… Never mind that the implementation would be a mess begging all sorts of questions as to when you get Social Security numbers and other identifying factors for children.”

As Hogue and others who have studied the religious right and dominionist Christians have noted, the fundamentalist movement’s goal is “to exercise dominion over society by taking control of political and cultural institutions.” Thus, a sweeping GOP tax bill has become the vehicle: to create legal fetal personhood under the guise of a government-backed college savings program.

“The anti-choice movement knows this [ruse], but they simply don’t care as their real intent was never to provide hard-working families a tax break,” Hogue said. “It was something else entirely: As Jeanne Mancini of March for Life told Politico:‘A child in the womb is just as human as you or I yet, until now, the U.S. tax code has failed to acknowledge the unborn child—all while granting tax breaks for those seeking an abortion under the pretense of ‘healthcare’…The proposed tax plan is a huge leap forward for an antiquated tax code, and we hope this is the first step in expanding the child tax credit to include unborn children as well.’”

Hogue noted that other proposals in the tax bill are anti-student and penalize academia. The bills cut student debt relief in current law, she said, and would newly tax graduate school tuition grants.

Frederick Clarkson, a senior fellow now with Political Research Associates, has studied and written about the religious right and dominionist Christianity for decades. In 2016, he reported that the religious right was increasingly seeking to exempt itself from government oversight. However, now that the GOP controls the Congress and White House, it is not surprising that the fetal personhood cause is making headway in Washington.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-TX, is the best-known dominionist leader in Congress, but he is not alone, Clarkson wrote in another piece that described the theocrat’s goal as “defending the right of Christians to continue to hold cultural authority and privilege.”

“Cruz and other national pols comprise the tip of a very large, but hard to measure political iceberg,” Clarkson said. “There are untold numbers of dominionist and dominionism-influenced politicians and public officials at all levels of government and who even after leaving office, shape our political discourse.”

“Roy Moore, the elected chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, has been a rallying figure for dominionists of all stripes for the better part of two decades,” Clarkson continued. “Most recently, he [Moore] has led efforts to exempt Alabama from federal court ordered compliance with marriage equality, citing his view of ‘God’s law.’”

Of course, Moore has since launched a run for the U.S. Senate from Alabama, where he has become embroiled in accusations that he sexually harassed or abused five different women several decades ago when he was a local prosecutor and they were teenagers.

“The tax bill is a horror in many different ways that will be publicly debated over the next days and weeks,” Hogue said. “But the dangerous ‘personhood’ language needs to be highlighted, as it has the potential to dramatically shift the ideological underpinnings of our laws and our culture while having nothing whatsoever to do with helping middle-class Americans get ahead.”

“We should be raising the alarm and shouting this from the rooftops,” Hogue continued. “The conversation about when life begins belongs with our scientists, our clergy, and our families. The last place it belongs is in our tax code.”

Steven Rosenfeld covers national political issues for AlterNet, including America’s democracy and voting rights. He is the author of several books on elections and the co-author of Who Controls Our Schools: How Billionaire-Sponsored Privatization Is Destroying Democracy and the Charter School Industry (AlterNet eBook, 2016).

 

9 Responses to Republicans Sneak Anti-Choice Language Into Tax Bill

  1. I remain convinced the biggest problem with fetal personhood is the issue of spontaneous miscarriage. I’ve heard figures of up to 30% of all pregnancies miscarry. As it is, this is a sadness for the family, but does not reach out into the larger community.

    Under fetal personhood one would have to file a “death certificate” for the fetal person who died.

    One would need a Doctor to sign off(?). That Doctor would have to certify that the death was natural(?).

    Less than optimal pre-natal care could be a cause of death(?) being other than natural? Police would investigate other than natural deaths? Rightly so in my opinion, if you do it for post-birth killings, a fetal personhood law would mandate it for pre-birth killings.

    All of which takes a private sad, but common, occurrence and turns it into a public records event.

    As an aside, another problem with fetal personhood is the ability to file suit by the fetal person against his Mother for less than optimal pre-natal care? For diet deficiencies? For alcohol or drug use? For any ensuing birth defects? If you leave a Lawyer an opening to sue; he’ll do so. I foresee a judicial nightmare.

    • Google is paying 97$ per hour,with weekly payouts.You can also avail this.
      On tuesday I got a great New Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $11752 this last four weeks..with-out any doubt it’s the most-comfortable job I have ever done .. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      !da122d:
      ➽➽
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleDaily$97/HourUpdateWorkFromHome/more/cash ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫:::::!da122luuuuu

    • And you could have the situation as has happened in El Salvador of a woman being sentenced to prison for having a miscarriage. I think it is difficult to tell in some cases what has caused a miscarriage so a woman could suffer criminal charges.

      • Google is paying 97$ per hour,with weekly payouts.You can also avail this.
        On tuesday I got a great New Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $11752 this last four weeks..with-out any doubt it’s the most-comfortable job I have ever done .. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
        !da162d:
        ➽➽
        ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleDailyZoneUpdateWorkFromHome/more/cash ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫:::::!da162lu

    • And, many times with miscarriages, there is no actual body to certify that death was natural! This is a very depressing thing for a woman to go through as it is….but these people are trying to make it even more depressing! This is a very private matter…..they need to mind their own business and do whatever they feel is right for themselves and push their beliefs on others!

      • Well yes, but am I right logically? I don’t see how you can have “fetal personhood” without the concomitant records.

        If the fetus is a person, and it dies, then that death needs to be recorded, unless you wish to have any number of “people” who died in utero and are still on public records somewhere. Makes identity theft much easier.

        Marilyn is right too. How does one establish what caused a miscarriage? But under “fetal personhood” isn’t intentionally causing a miscarriage intentional murder?

        Has anyone considered these items when they propose “fetal personhood”? Are these the same people opposed to “intrusive government”?

  2. When a corporation can go into a voting booth and vote; or when a fetus can do the same, I will grant the fetus personhood…..however, I sincerely neither of these things will ever come to pass, so I’m against it! A fetus is NOT a person until it can breathe on its own! Prior to that, it’s just a part of the mother, connected to her by an umbilical cord and unable to survive without that connection. To say anything different is ridiculous! I’m not for or against abortion….I just think that it’s not the government’s business what a woman chooses to do…..it’s between her, the father, and the doctor taking care of her!! I may not choose this road for myself, but I certainly do NOT hold it against a woman for doing what she feels she has to do for her sake or for the sake of the child!! The government, mostly men, need to keep their business out of our lady parts!!!

  3. Our Constitution guarantees the separation of church and state; in other words, there is no state-sanctioned religion.

    What we have here with making legal abortion, in effect, no longer able to be had by women is the domination of one religion over another; illegal to our Constitution.

    It might also be implied that it is another attempt by males to help subjugate females by taking away rights (keep ’em ‘fat,’ barefoot and in the kitchen philosophy of more primitive times).

Leave a reply