House GOP pushes for new abortion ban and end to adoption tax credit

[7,052,770]

Very good move. What's really needed though is a complete abortion ban by overturning the disastrous and outdated Roe v. Wade decision.

Bbbbut conservatives always shriek that overturning Roe v wade island returning it to the states is their end game, not a national ban!

[Tintrlvr]

While the two certainly are bad politics together, I don't agree with those who are outraged by the latter (and this from someone who probably will adopt some day). The tax code is just not the right place for subsidizing random things the government wants to support. I am certain funding for adoption providers to offset costs for potential adopting parents could be achieved in some other manner. There are a lot of terrible things about the tax "reform", but eliminating the myriad random tax deductions that currently exist is not one of them.

[dw93]

Very good move. What's really needed though is a complete abortion ban by overturning the disastrous and outdated Roe v. Wade decision.

So you want all of these unwanted fetuses to be born, yet you want to take away the tax credit that encourages people to adopt these unwanted fetuses you so desperately want born?

When the Mexicans get kicked out, who will do the cleaning and gardening?

So we're going to take away child labor laws and put these orphans into slave labor? Just goes to show pro forced birthers don't give two sh*ts about the life once its born.

Child labor? I'm not a monster. Hopefully, a nice corporation would adopt them, and after they become adults, provide them meaningful work beautifying the properties of suburban white folks so that they don't try doing it themselves and end up assaulted by their neighbors.

You guys are falling trap to the Santander special.

I'm not aware of this Santander Special.

[Catholics vs. Convicts]

Support the ban, vehemently oppose the repeal of the adoption tax credit. Absolute madness to oppose this tax credit if you call yourself pro-life. Complete hypocrisy.

[Dr. Arch]

Very good move. What's really needed though is a complete abortion ban by overturning the disastrous and outdated Roe v. Wade decision.

So you want all of these unwanted fetuses to be born, yet you want to take away the tax credit that encourages people to adopt these unwanted fetuses you so desperately want born?

When the Mexicans get kicked out, who will do the cleaning and gardening?

So we're going to take away child labor laws and put these orphans into slave labor? Just goes to show pro forced birthers don't give two sh*ts about the life once its born.

Child labor? I'm not a monster. Hopefully, a nice corporation would adopt them, and after they become adults, provide them meaningful work beautifying the properties of suburban white folks so that they don't try doing it themselves and end up assaulted by their neighbors.

You guys are falling trap to the Santander special.

I'm not aware of this Santander Special.

It's a special high level of trolling.

[dw93]

Very good move. What's really needed though is a complete abortion ban by overturning the disastrous and outdated Roe v. Wade decision.

So you want all of these unwanted fetuses to be born, yet you want to take away the tax credit that encourages people to adopt these unwanted fetuses you so desperately want born?

When the Mexicans get kicked out, who will do the cleaning and gardening?

So we're going to take away child labor laws and put these orphans into slave labor? Just goes to show pro forced birthers don't give two sh*ts about the life once its born.

Child labor? I'm not a monster. Hopefully, a nice corporation would adopt them, and after they become adults, provide them meaningful work beautifying the properties of suburban white folks so that they don't try doing it themselves and end up assaulted by their neighbors.

You guys are falling trap to the Santander special.

I'm not aware of this Santander Special.

It's a special high level of trolling.

Well, I don't catch trolling and jokes as quickly as most (the autistic in me), so now I know.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Very good move. What's really needed though is a complete abortion ban by overturning the disastrous and outdated Roe v. Wade decision.

Bbbbut conservatives always shriek that overturning Roe v wade island returning it to the states is their end game, not a national ban!

No, we don't.  We have always said that we want to completely ban abortion worldwide (it doesn't fix the problem if you can just go to another country).

Anyway, I strongly oppose getting rid of the adoption tax credit.

[Badger]

You got your culture war in my tax code.

You got your tax code in my culture war.

Two great ideas that go better together!

Basically the worst unfunded mandate  ever.

[GMantis]

Very good move. What's really needed though is a complete abortion ban by overturning the disastrous and outdated Roe v. Wade decision.

Bbbbut conservatives always shriek that overturning Roe v wade island returning it to the states is their end game, not a national ban!

No, we don't.  We have always said that we want to completely ban abortion worldwide (it doesn't fix the problem if you can just go to another country).

Anyway, I strongly oppose getting rid of the adoption tax credit.

How do you plan on banning abortion worldwide?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Very good move. What's really needed though is a complete abortion ban by overturning the disastrous and outdated Roe v. Wade decision.

Okay, I’ll bite.  What would the clear, well-defined, strictly objective legal standard rooted purely in scientific fact not conflicting with the principle of Stare Decisis be for what constitutes human life?  To me, it seems like two of the pro-life side’s main legal hurdles are these questions: at what precise point does a fetus objectively constitute human life instead of just life scientifically speaking and what legal basis is there for banning abortion that would still respect Stare Decisis (I.E. you’d need a strong constitutional argument the SC court hasn’t ruled on before and still respects the right to privacy)?  

The second issue could be ignored if you had an activist SC willing to legislate from the bench like the Roberts court did in D.C. v. Heller (I actually don’t mind too much when Clarence Thomas does this b/c he’s pretty honest about his disinclination to defer to precedent, but I hate when guys like Scalia and Gorsuch do it b/c they’re so self-righteous about opposing judicial activism and yet are some of the most activist SC judges since William Douglas).  However the first part of my question is an even bigger problem for you guys since the question of when a fetus goes from being life to human life seems like an inherently subjective question and banning abortion requires that it have an objective answer which - unlike mere opinion and religious beliefs - can be strongly supported by strictly scientific facts.  

While I’m pro-choice part b/c I’ve been unable find such a standard and suspect one simply doesn’t exist (also b/c don’t do our part as a society to support mothers and their children post-pregnancy and have an absolutely horrible foster care/adoption bureaucracy) I’ve always been pretty conflicted about the issue.  I personally think it’s wrong to get an abortion from the second trimester onward except to save the mother’s life.  However, I also appreciate that these are often complex, incredibly painful situations and that as a man I’ll never be in that situation.  I also know that if my daughter needed an abortion due to her boyfriend’s condom breaking or something, I’d respect her decision and pay for it if necessary (even if I’d go to my grave hating myself for it).  

Ultimately though, this is one of those issues where you need a legal standard rooted in objective scientific fact so you don’t end up inappropriately legislating your personal moral/religious views (the idea being to make the question of what constitutes human life a strictly factual one).  If you can come up with a workable version of such a standard that relies upon a new constitutional argument and doesn’t conflict with the right to privacy, I’d love to hear it.  

[#gravelgang #lessiglad]

^ Very good points but D.C. v. Heller was in 2008 - the Roberts Court, not Rehnquist.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

^ Very good points but D.C. v. Heller was in 2008 - the Roberts Court, not Rehnquist.

Fixed.  Good catch!

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Actual social conservatives oppose ending the adoption credit.

https://twitter.com/drmoore/status/928271472963063813