"House GOP Wants To Use Tax Code To Curb Abortions"

[BayGirl2]

Except it has been said there should be no government funding of abortions. The tax money can be viewed as a benefit that SHOULD have gone to the government for income earned. Am I reading it correctly?

I see that argument - that it is potentially taxable money being used, so the tax payers deserve that theoretical tax. But the problem I see with that is there are A LOT of tax deductions out there that we all take to lower our taxable income (charitable donations, mortgage interest, child care, child deductions). The same argument could be used to say I don't want "taxpayer money" funding x daycare or y charity or z house or neighborhood, but that would be considered the government interfering in private lives. (there are requirements for tax deductible status, but they are not that specific or scrutinized) So I think its a stretch to consider a portion of my HSA money "taxpayer money" since we, as Americans, don't look at other deductions the same way.

My real opposition is just that I don't see this bill as an effective tactic that helps either side of the debate in reality, so probably a waste of our legislature's time and effort.

[icunurse]

I think MANY of us who are pro-life do both. We oppose federal funding of abortion AND we work hard at helping families who are struggling. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

This is not directed personally at you, as I do not know your work and contributions. But tossing $25 a month to the local pro-life clinic isn't enough. Not even $100 per month. We know what it costs to care for a child and to raise him/her in a reasonably safe environment. Childcare, rent, transportation, schooling, food and clothing....who helps freely and easily with that to someone who isn't prepared to do it themselves? It is the rare facility that walks the walk and actually takes in someone and helps them get their life in order to provide for a child long-term. And I give major props to them when it is done right and without strings. But it needs to be done on a bigger level, with access to all.

[ellies mom]

I think this is an important point, as well--for something that's being billed as a means of saving taxpayer money, how much of that taxpayer money is actually going to be saved via this method, and how much is going to spent (in man hours and actual expenditure) dicussing, introducing, debating, etc. this measure?

I don't think any money is saved at all. The money in a HSA is your own money that is not being taxed. So if I make $55,000 a year and I put $2000 into an HSA, I'm now being taxed on $53,000. If I spend $1000 of my HSA money on an abortion, the money we are talking about is the tax difference between a taxing someone on $55,000 and taxing them on $54,000. Pulling numbers out of thin air here, if the tax rate is 20% then at $55,000 the person would pay $11,000 and at $54,000, the person would pay $10,800. So $200. And that $200 is not coming from taxpayers. It is simply $200 less that is paid in taxes. So to say that it is taxpayer money is disingenuous.

What it does create is more red tape, less privacy. And because medical insurance benefits are also typically pre-tax it sets a dangerous precedence. Because say my medical benefits cover abortion, should I have to pay out of pocket for an abortion because I'm decreasing my taxable income?

And if I have an abortion because the baby has a condition incompatible with life or due to my own health, do I really need to rehash the situation with an IRS agent? Shouldn't I have some expectation of privacy under HIPAA? And what about cases of rape or incest? Should I be forced to relive that experience as well for the benefit of the taxpayers? As of Feb 11th, the bill still had language that stated that only "forcible rape" would be allowed. So now I have to prove to some government person that my rape was "forcible"? Really?

[ha98ed14]

I don't understand why people believe it will make it harder for women to be able to get an abortion just because she can't pay for it with tax free dollars? Yes, it will cost a bit more, but that's it.

Right. Exactly. And I would venture to say that women who are living below the poverty line that would be most deterred by an increased cost probably do not have HSAs so it won't matter to them anyway. Now I'm sorry I posted the article at all. It's total grandstanding like MommyLamb said.

[BabyMine]

So I can't use my HSA but I can still deduct it from my taxes? Yes I know you have to reach a minimum to deduct medical but the option is there for people that exceed that amount.

[AshleyAnn]

And if I have an abortion because the baby has a condition incompatible with life or due to my own health, do I really need to rehash the situation with an IRS agent? Shouldn't I have some expectation of privacy under HIPAA?

And who exactly gets to decide what qualifies as incompatible and what does not? As a PP said Trisomy 18 babies CAN survive. My baby could have survived, had I got on bedrest and had surgery on my cervix.

[ellies mom]

And who exactly gets to decide what qualifies as incompatible and what does not? As a PP said Trisomy 18 babies CAN survive. My baby could have survived, had I got on bedrest and had surgery on my cervix.

Well, ideally you and your doctor and not some IRS caseworker who probably doesn't have a medical background.

[wellyes]

I think it is cheap pandering. I used my HSA dollars for LASIK and gluten free food. But I couldn't use it if I believed a needed a LEGAL and constitutionally protected abortion. Unbelievable.

People who can afford HSAs aren't generally people who will no have a procedure if it cost 25%-30% more. At best they'd add a little debt.

[Green_Tea]

Personally, I think this is petty and a waste of taxpayer time to pursue (as I question how many abortions are being used from HSA accounts). I wish these same people would put their time and efforts into reforming and improving the foster care system, WIC, healthcare for women and children, and job creation. Give women TRUE choices for getting and maintaining a pregnancy before taking any other options off the table. "Saving" a pregnancy doesn't mean a thing if we subject those born children to a life of real hardship and pain. Let's save the family first. JMHO.

Exactly.

I am appalled that THIS is what MY tax dollars are being used to debate and legislate when we are fighting wars in more than one country, the child poverty rate amongst minority children hovers at more than 33% and so many people don't have jobs.

[jenfromnj]

I don't think any money is saved at all. The money in a HSA is your own money that is not being taxed. So if I make $55,000 a year and I put $2000 into an HSA, I'm now being taxed on $53,000. If I spend $1000 of my HSA money on an abortion, the money we are talking about is the tax difference between a taxing someone on $55,000 and taxing them on $54,000. Pulling numbers out of thin air here, if the tax rate is 20% then at $55,000 the person would pay $11,000 and at $54,000, the person would pay $10,800. So $200. And that $200 is not coming from taxpayers. It is simply $200 less that is paid in taxes. So to say that it is taxpayer money is disingenuous.

What it does create is more red tape, less privacy. And because medical insurance benefits are also typically pre-tax it sets a dangerous precedence. Because say my medical benefits cover abortion, should I have to pay out of pocket for an abortion because I'm decreasing my taxable income?

And if I have an abortion because the baby has a condition incompatible with life or due to my own health, do I really need to rehash the situation with an IRS agent? Shouldn't I have some expectation of privacy under HIPAA? And what about cases of rape or incest? Should I be forced to relive that experience as well for the benefit of the taxpayers? As of Feb 11th, the bill still had language that stated that only "forcible rape" would be allowed. So now I have to prove to some government person that my rape was "forcible"? Really?

I hope that you didn't take my post to mean anything other than what it was literally saying, elliesmom! I agree with you, and perhaps I should have put "saved" in quotes in my OP. I was merely saying that even IF that hypothetical $200 that you referenced in your post above could be considered tax income that would now be "recaptured" by the government as a result of this change in law for anyone who has an abortion using their FSA contributions, it still doesn't seem to justify the considerable expenditure of time and money to formalize this proposal as law, let alone to set about enforcing it.

And that's not even getting into the ethical issues, which I am not touching with a 39.5 foot pole at the moment, as I don't have the time or patience right now.