A Letter to Donald Trump

[Shadow Wolf]

The end of trophy hunting, vivisection, animal cruelty, sexual slavery etc. are slowly coming to pass, eventually abortion will also end.

No, it won't, and it shouldn't. Sometimes it is necessary to preserve the life of the mother, and other times it amounts to what is known as a "mercy killing."

 

[columbus]

As a party, the GOP wants abortion criminalizes so badly they don't care that women will suffer needlessly and die,

No they don't. Not most, as a group.
It is a well tested wedge issue that gets them political clout, which they can sell to wealthy donors.

For most of the first decade of this century the Republican party had total power in Washington DC. There was never a push to change RvW. Politicians use it as a talking point before they get elected. But once they get elected to high office they have more important things to do, like start wars and protect donors and get reelected.
Tom

 

[Marisa]

No they don't. Not most, as a group.
It is a well tested wedge issue that gets them political clout, which they can sell to wealthy donors.

For most of the first decade of this century the Republican party had total power in Washington DC. There was never a push to change RvW. Politicians use it as a talking point before they get elected. But once they get elected to high office they have more important things to do, like start wars and protect donors and get reelected.
Tom

Texas. The recent vote to defund Planned Parenthood. It's more than merely a wedge issue.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Texas. The recent vote to defund Planned Parenthood. It's more than merely a wedge issue.

And in addition to abortion, there are also the anti-birth control movements, bills, and even success in some areas.

 

[Marisa]

And in addition to abortion, there are also the anti-birth control movements, bills, and even success in some areas.

The fact that Rick Santorum was one sick child away from the GOP nomination in 2012 says a lot about whether female bodily autonomy is merely a wedge issue.

 

[Revoltingest]

Then how do you know if it is for convenience or not unless someone looks into it? You also have yet to define what parameters would define convenient. I'm assuming just because someone doesn't want to have a child would qualify, but what about those who can't afford to have a child, but become pregnant anyways?

Here's another problem with his punitive tax measure.....
- An abortion for "convenience" comes with a possibly high tax.
- "Convenience" he defines as an abortion not for medical reasons,
& not because of pregnancy resulting from rape.
This provides a financial incentive to accuse someone of rape.

 

[columbus]

Here's another one.
Suppose dad says "I want the baby", but mom wants the abortion.
Does she pay both halves?
Tom

 

[ZenMonkey]

It would also generate costs associated with investigating every instance of abortion, including ones that don't actually happen in clinics, because there's only like 200 ways to induce an abortion on yourself, with all the information freely available online, to make sure such tax is paid. I know people who have never filed an income tax return, already. They aren't going to be prosecuted (for the most part, if the taxes are taken out by an employer, they are losing out on money available to them) because the cost of chasing after someone who owes the IRS seven bucks costs more than seven hundred bucks.

Everything thing sounds great when you ignore costs and highlight revenue.



Also no data to prove it would encourage greater responsibility and accountability. At least the former is something that you probably could prove because it's a quantitative factor. There is no responsibility and accountability scale.

1st point: Abortion procedures require medical documentation and contractual agreements. Investigations are not necessary. Contractual agreements must be signed before an abortion takes place. By signing an agreement (release) to inform the IRS of the abortion would suffice. The medical documentation already list the reasons for aborting.

In what other instance has a tax ever held anyone responsible or accountable?

I don't know ... maybe every tax ever initiated.

I think of more as I'd be better off without this nation.

O.k

Dude, half of all pregnancies are unintended. A few are happening at the moment you read this. If it was easily prevented by simple modifications in behavior, there would be millions and millions of instance accidentally doing it.

If a person or couple is unwilling to have children and engage in activity that could produce a child that would be terminated my them, it's extremely irresponsible. It is irresponsible as well as unbelievably selfish behavior when a human life would be terminated if conceived for sake of something as petty as two people wanting to get off. It's very easy to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. Don't engage in activity that you already know beforehand could result in a pregnancy. These unintended pregnancies are a product of irresponsible choices. Easy.

"• Most American families want two children. To achieve this, the average woman spends about five years pregnant, postpartum or trying to become pregnant, and three decades—more than three-quarters of her reproductive life—trying to avoid an unintended pregnancy.[1]

• Most individuals and couples want to plan the timing and spacing of their childbearing and to avoid unintended pregnancies, for a range of social and economic reasons. In addition, unintended pregnancy has a public health impact: Births resulting from unintended or closely spaced pregnancies are associated with adverse maternal and child health outcomes, such as delayed prenatal care, premature birth and negative physical and mental health effects for children. [2,3,4]

• For these reasons, reducing the unintended pregnancy rate is a national public health goal. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Healthy People 2020 campaign aims to reduce unintended pregnancy by 10%, from 49% of pregnancies to 44% of pregnancies, over the next 10 years.[5]

• Currently, about half (51%) of the 6.6 million pregnancies in the United States each year (3.4 million) are unintended see box).[6]

• In 2008, 40% of unintended pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) ended in abortion and 60% ended in birth. This was a shift from 2001, when 47% ended in abortion and 53% ended in a birth.[6]

• Two-thirds (68%) of U.S. women at risk for unintended pregnancy use contraception consistently and correctly throughout the course of any given year; these women account for only 5% of all unintended pregnancies. In contrast, the 18% of women at risk who use contraception inconsistently or incorrectly account for 41% of all unintended pregnancies. The 14% of women at risk who do not practice contraception at all or who have gaps of a month or more during the year account for 54% of all unintended pregnancies (see graph).[14]

• Publicly funded family planning services help women avoid pregnancies they do not want and plan pregnancies they do want. In 2013, these services helped women avoid 2 million unintended pregnancies, which would likely have resulted in about 1 million unintended births and nearly 700,000 abortions.[15]

• Without publicly funded family planning services, the number of unintended pregnancies, unplanned births and abortions occurring in the United States would be 60% higher among women overall.[15]

• The costs associated with unintended pregnancy would be even higher if not for continued federal and state investments in family planning services. In 2010, the nationwide public investment in family planning services resulted in $13.6 billion in net savings from helping women avoid unintended pregnancies and a range of other negative reproductive health outcomes, such as HIV and other STIs, cervical cancer and infertility.[16]

• In the absence of the current U.S. publicly funded family planning effort, the public costs of unintended pregnancies in 2010 might have been 75% higher.[13]

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/FB-Unintended-Pregnancy-US.html

Noble -

I'd imagine wealthier people might actually get more abortions in general. I'd have to look at that more specifically cause I might be wrong. Either way, unintended pregnancies happen more lower on economic scale.



Mm, if drugs are legalized, there's not really a reason to tax drug users, because most would ignore legalities and acquire it elsewhere anyways. As for illegal drug use. That's actually a problem, it funds criminals. A tax on weed itself has already made CO a lot of money.

Yes ... and medical MJ is legal in CO, as it should be. How you'd go about taxing a drug user is not quite clear to me. That might be feasible when drug users are convicted of a crime, but it could be quite detrimental in terms of rehabilitation. Taxing legal drug use however would be a great idea!

People are going to have abortions despite it's legality and its conditions. By adding a 5% tax for life to an abortion, you're going to encourage abortions in not medically safe environments by professionals. As I mentioned, how to abort will yield as much as you'd imagine online as anything else does.

Any woman who chooses black a market abortion over a legal, sanitary, and safe abortion performed in an approved clinic and risk severe harm or death to both themselves and the unborn child to save paying a minimal tax doesn't deserve my sympathy. Sorry. You're trying to employ emotion to an issue that requires logic and reason. You're making woman sound like money hungry monsters actually. You're suggesting some woman would prefer unsafe back alley abortions over responsible behavior that could have prevented the pregnancy to begin with to evade a minimal tax.

 

[ZenMonkey]

At first you said if you saved one life, and now you are saying to save human loss of life. There's a big difference there.

If every abortion tomorrow was replaced instead with prevention of the pregnancy, than no one's life was saved.

Woman do die from pregnancy. MMR is up from 2009 also. Some woman even take their own lives because of unwanted pregnancies. This tax would help prevent human loss on a much larger scale, but if it saved a single life it would be worth it. Follow?

 

[ZenMonkey]

I can't believe you know this little about medicine, much less prenatal care. "Medical necessity" is a huge gray area.

All pregnancies carry an elevated risk to the mother over not being pregnant. Some more than others. Then there is the risks to the baby. Assessing all these is not precise.
A normal pregnancy with good prenatal care doesn't present much danger. Problems can be caught early and the best thing to do decided. Usually the odds of fixing a problem are good. But they vary.
And a risk that is acceptable to one person or couple may not be to another. Suppose a pregnancy has approximately 5% risk of severe damage or death to the mother, and a 20/40% risk of a mentally disabled child. And two different doctors have different opinions on what the risks really are. One couple might decide to have an abortion and start over. Another might decide to go for it.
If your going to start handing out penalties you are going to have to draw some clear bright lines in one of murkiest gray areas imaginable.
Tom

There are already guidelines in place that determine medical necessity. I've already pointed out other factors such as rape, incest, terminal disease, known impairments that would prevent quality of life, and medical necessity (probable threat to life).

 

[ZenMonkey]

The only fact is you have no right to dictate my sex life, you have no right to place any sort of burden on me to try and control my sex life, and you have no right to burden my sex life with your own personal code of morality. What is unbelievably selfish is that you think my sex life is selfish and irresponsible and you want to install legal penalties because you do not agree with it.

No one is trying to dictate your sex life. There would be no burden placed in attempt to control anything. I think lots of things are selfish and irresponsible actually. This just happens to be one that requires loss of human life. I don't agree with killing human life so you can get off. I make no apologies for it. The incentive controls nothing. You're perfectly free to do what you want. It would help encourage better decisions. You still get to choose.

 

[ZenMonkey]

I didn't get personal. Pointing out that you are trying to sell a tax to a party that wants to repeal all taxes is not getting personal.

Pointing out the correlation between poverty and abortion is pointing out a hole in your logic. You are expecting people who have no money to pay money.

Taxing people for getting abortions will not stop people from getting abortions. Such a tax on a basic right, which medical privacy is one of, is probably going to be laughed at by the most conservative members of SCOTUS.

A tax on a basic right doesn't infringe on rights. I think you need to take this one back to the drawing board. A more appropriate idea would be to work for national acceptance of the only methods PROVED to reduce abortion, no attempting to recreate the wheel.

Who I'm selling to isn't what was personal. The attack on my person was. Those who have no income wouldn't be taxed. Those who do, would. If you have little income, then it would further necessitate even greater measures to be taken to prevent a pregnancy. Poverty is not an excuse to make bad decisions. That's a cop out. Stopping people from getting abortions isn't the goal. I've already stated my stance on the privacy issue. What's the basic right and how exactly would the proposal infringe on it?

 

[ZenMonkey]

ZenMonkey - Our society is materialistic enough as is. Using financial means to try and solve an ethical aberration (aka sin) also misses the mark.

The end of trophy hunting, vivisection, animal cruelty, sexual slavery etc. are slowly coming to pass, eventually abortion will also end.

In the mean time we can encourage pregnancy prevention through tax incentives. This doesn't address abortion directly, only prevention of unwanted pregnancy. This isn't about ending abortion, but rather encouraging more responsible behavior. This has nothing to do with morality, only to help ease the pangs that are a result of unwanted pregnancies.

 

[ZenMonkey]

Here's another problem with his punitive tax measure.....
- An abortion for "convenience" comes with a possibly high tax.
- "Convenience" he defines as an abortion not for medical reasons,
& not because of pregnancy resulting from rape.
This provides a financial incentive to accuse someone of rape.

A woman can and some may actually cry wolf and claim rape to avoid paying the tax. It's certainly possible. It's just not probable. This would place the woman in very very severe legal situations. False police reports, investigations, invasive medical examinations not to mention the stigma, doubt, and shame that typically follows woman who reports a rape. Is this truly worth going through just to be deceptive? I mean having this accusation permanently attached to them for life and all the criminal risks involved just to save $15 - $20 a week ... Seriously? Although some woman would might maybe do this, the possible criminal charges, jail time, investigations, invasive medical examinations, and the stigma attached would deter the vast majority. Hell, more than half of woman who are raped don't report it and you really think they'd do so deceptively and face all the above to save $15 - $20 bucks a week?

 

[ZenMonkey]

Here's another one.
Suppose dad says "I want the baby", but mom wants the abortion.
Does she pay both halves?
Tom

No - This may seem unfair, but it's already unfair to these fathers. Also, the father would only be taxed if the mother reveals who he is, which places the mother in a position where she could be responsible for the fathers portion of the tax given she refuses to reveal him. A vindictive woman could give a false name also, but the tax would not be applied to the father until genetic (dna) testing is done on the aborted fetus. This is not only possible but will need to be a mandatory procedure when a potential father has been named. Where this tax proposal shines is the position it puts both parties in before sexual intercourse even takes place. In short, this would help encourage both to take preventative measures.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No one is trying to dictate your sex life.

It sounds to me like you are:

It's very easy to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. Don't engage in activity that you already know beforehand could result in a pregnancy. These unintended pregnancies are a product of irresponsible choices. Easy.

By signing an agreement (release) to inform the IRS of the abortion would suffice. The medical documentation already list the reasons for aborting.

The thing is, that would directly violate HIPPA laws if a woman was forced to sign medical release forms so the IRS could have a document of her medical procedures.

There are already guidelines in place that determine medical necessity.

Yes, and they get very blurry, very difficult to determine, and what may be necessary to one doctor is not necessary to another. It just really is not that simple.

 

[ZenMonkey]

It sounds to me like you are:


The thing is, that would directly violate HIPPA laws if a woman was forced to sign medical release forms so the IRS could have a document of her medical procedures.

Yes, and they get very blurry, very difficult to determine, and what may be necessary to one doctor is not necessary to another. It just really is not that simple.

"The HIPAA rules provide a wide variety of circumstances under which medical information can be disclosed for law enforcement-related purposes without explicitly requiring a warrant. These circumstances include (1) law enforcement requests for information to identify or locate a suspect, fugitive, witness, or missing person (2) instances where there has been a crime committed on the premises of the covered entity, and (3) in a medical emergency in connection with a crime.

In other words, law enforcement is entitled to your records simply by asserting that you are a suspect or the victim of a crime."

Tax evasion is a crime -

Privacy is a valid concern with this tax incentive. A right to privacy could be argued certainly. It could possibly be argued that it infringes on your right to privacy. If implemented the IRS could gain access to your medical records along with the police and FBI if suspected of tax evasion. Your private medical records are already open to certain entities like the FBI and Law Enforcement. While the IRS does not have direct access to your medical records, if suspected of a crime such as tax evasion they could get them absolutely through the appropriate channels. This would not be a direct infringement of your rights. I would suggest signing a release form. If you refuse to sign the release form, you will have demonstrated probable cause.for suspicion of possible tax evasion. If this happens, then an investigation would ensue. Investigations are not necessary, but could be required given refusal to sign the release form.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

"The HIPAA rules provide a wide variety of circumstances under which medical information can be disclosed for law enforcement-related purposes without explicitly requiring a warrant. These circumstances include (1) law enforcement requests for information to identify or locate a suspect, fugitive, witness, or missing person (2) instances where there has been a crime committed on the premises of the covered entity, and (3) in a medical emergency in connection with a crime.

Obviously, the IRS is not a law enforcement agency.

Your private medical records are already open to certain entities like the FBI and Law Enforcement.

Not without a warrant.

I would suggest signing a release form. If you refuse to sign the release form, you will have demonstrated probable cause.for suspicion of possible tax evasion. If this happens, then an investigation would ensue. Investigations are not necessary, but could be required given refusal to sign the release form.

So, in other words, make it a crime to not hand your medical records over to the IRS, and throw up even more obstacles for women seeking an abortion?
Ultimately, your proposal is nothing more than trying to coerce people into following your own moral standards. Fortunately, America is taking more and more steps further away from personal beliefs dictating the lives of others. And because it appears that legalized abortions may have decreased crime rates, further infringement upon a woman's bodily autonomy is not a good idea.
And, if you think it through, you'll have to have all sorts of definitions and extra bits added to the law, because is a reason of donating fetal tissue to scientific research an abortion for convenience? Is not being able to afford a child and not wanting to add to the number of children in the system who need a home a convenience? What if one doctor says it's a medical necessity, yet another one doesn't? What if some doctors will sign off any ways and help women avoid the tax?

 

[philbo]

(Rising taxes & gov spending is a bigger problem than abortion.)

For you, perhaps

 

[ZenMonkey]

Obviously, the IRS is not a law enforcement agency.

Not without a warrant.

So, in other words, make it a crime to not hand your medical records over to the IRS, and throw up even more obstacles for women seeking an abortion?
Ultimately, your proposal is nothing more than trying to coerce people into following your own moral standards. Fortunately, America is taking more and more steps further away from personal beliefs dictating the lives of others. And because it appears that legalized abortions may have decreased crime rates, further infringement upon a woman's bodily autonomy is not a good idea.
And, if you think it through, you'll have to have all sorts of definitions and extra bits added to the law, because is a reason of donating fetal tissue to scientific research an abortion for convenience? Is not being able to afford a child and not wanting to add to the number of children in the system who need a home a convenience? What if one doctor says it's a medical necessity, yet another one doesn't? What if some doctors will sign off any ways and help women avoid the tax?

Yes - without a warrant. Refusal to sign a release would not be a crime. It would only give cause for suspicion. Morals? Lets talk about this more in depth. I support keeping abortion legal. This would not be an infringement on a woman's bodily autonomy. You would still be free to choose. Your choice's surrounding abortion would just require deeper personal reflection. Convenience abortions are performed to basically maintain a certain lifestyle, so yes. Which doctor would YOU listen to? In that is the answer. Your last point couldn't be stopped, but it would be a crime and could result in prison time for the doctor if discovered. Lets set this tax aside for a bit and talk about abortion, though. I will speak freely.

Until released from the womb, an unborn human has no identity apart from its mother. However, self (personal) identify could certainly be argued, even while still inside the womb. Many identify themselves as being apart or separate from other existent things. We're all connected though. We have no identity apart from what sustains our existence. We live interdependent lives. We rely on our surroundings and other life forms for our survival. An unborn human relies on its surroundings for survival also. Rational intelligence would dictate an acknowledgement of our interdependent reality. It would demand acknowledgement of the illusion (delusion) of viewing life in terms of independence. To refer to aborted human life as "line items" (a planned parenthood associate) not only demonstrates a dire disconnect from reality, but also the callousness that results from being so intimately involved in so many abortion procedures. These people are no longer rational and have been severely damaged in heart and mind, perhaps beyond repair. I pity them and my heart goes out the unborn human lives who give their lives for another's pleasure.

You speak of morals and I ask you, what is moral about any of this? Wait, forget morals. You seem to have none. What drives people to such selfishness that they are so willing to not only severely damage those willing to perform these procedures (for their safety), but hire them as contract killers so they could bust a nut in the bedroom? Seriously. This isn't about morality, but selfishness so severe that human lives are terminated. It's about selfishness so severe that people place those looking out for their safety in extremely difficult positions that results in the loss of human life. I suggest people this selfish are a danger to our society. If they are willing to go this far, they would be willing to do anything to get what they want. The following is a demonstration of a vacuum procedure performed @ 23 weeks. Only an estimated 1.5 % of abortions are performed so late in a pregnancy. Most are performed within the first 12 weeks. However, the same application is utilized at every stage of pregnancy. What you will see in this video is how a vacuum aspiration abortion is performed and what actually takes place inside the uterus, and to the human life within it. These procedures literally rip the fetus apart reducing them to "goo" via suction.