Congressional Proposal Would Scrap Adoption Tax Credit

Abortion, Adoption, , , ,

Last week Congress rolled out H.R. 1, the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.” Congress needs to cut taxes and rework its budget, but the proposal contains a troubling provision: It ends the federal Adoption Tax Credit.

Under current law, a taxpayer may claim $13,570 in adoption tax credits per eligible child. This is a small step the federal government takes to encourage adoption.

Considering the government estimates average adoption expenses can run anywhere from $20,000 – $50,000, the credit helps make adoption a reality for many children and families. Unfortunately, the new budget proposal would end this good tax credit.

One way the government can oppose abortion is by promoting adoption. As President Reagan told Congress in 1985,

The question of abortion grips our nation. Abortion is either the taking of a human life or it isn’t. And if it is — and medical technology is increasingly showing it is — it must be stopped. It is a terrible irony that while some turn to abortion, so many others who cannot become parents cry out for children to adopt. We have room for these children. We can fill the cradles of those who want a child to love.

Adoption gives women alternatives to abortion. That’s why in 1995 we worked closely with Sen. Fay Boozman to pass a law in Arkansas giving families tax breaks for adoption expenses.

Congress should keep the federal Adoption Tax Credit in place. It’s a simple policy; the federal government misses out on very little tax revenue because of it; but it goes a long way to help end abortion in America.

READ MORE

Have You Read This Proclamation?

Thanksgiving

We’re counting down to Thanksgiving at our office. Today we continue our series tracing the history of Thanksgiving.

In 1775—more than a year before the signing of the Declaration of Independence—the Continental Congress issued a proclamation setting aside a day for colonists to fast, pray for God’s blessing, and join together for worship.

A year later in 1776 Congress issues a similar proclamation. By that time, the American Revolution was in full swing and country’s situation was dire.

In November of 1777 Congress issued a third prayer proclamation—this time calling for citizens to “acknowledge with gratitude their obligation to [God] for benefits received.” In other words, to give thanks.

Throughout the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, it was fairly common for Congress to issue proclamations each year calling on Americans to pray for the nation. The 1777 proclamation is significant, because it is one of the first setting aside a day for giving thanks. Congress did not only want people to pray for the nation, but also to thank God for the blessings He had already given.

You can read the proclamation from 1777 here.

Thanksgiving is deeply woven into the fabric of our nation. It is more than just turkey, football games, parades, and Black Friday. It’s about stopping to pray and give thanks to God.

If you have never donated to Family Council or the Education Alliance, now is a great time to do so. Your financial support will make Arkansas a better place to live, work, and raise a family. It will promote and strengthen home schooling. It will help fight abortion and make Arkansas a more pro-life state. Click here to send a generous, tax-deductible donation today.

READ MORE

American Bar Association Targets Pro-Life Judicial Nominee

Abortion, , ,

In August we told you about Steve Grasz, an attorney from Nebraska who has been nominated for the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

While it is impossible to know for sure, Mr. Grasz’s track record working for the Nebraska Attorney General’s office leads us to believe he would make an excellent federal judge.

Now it is up to the U.S. Senate to review and confirm Mr. Grasz’s nomination. However, this week a committee with the American Bar Association said Mr. Grasz is not qualified to serve in the Eighth Circuit.

The American Bar Association committee cited Mr. Grasz’s “pro-life agenda,” saying his personal convictions “created a lack of objectivity” and that Mr. Grasz’s “passionately-held social agenda appeared to overwhelm and obscure the ability to exercise dispassionate and unbiased judgment.”

Writing at National Review Online, legal expert Ed Whelan notes the ABA’s statement was based in large part on a longer report written by University of Arkansas School of Law professor Cynthia Nance.

He writes,

Nance’s strong ideological bias is not difficult to uncover. Among other things, she signed a letter opposing the confirmation of Justice Alito. Given the ABA’s persistent complaints about Grasz’s supposed inability to separate his judging from his “pro-life agenda,” it’s notable that that letter against Alito complains about the impact that he would have on—euphemism alert!—“women’s reproductive freedoms.” Nance also signed a letter arguing that the “government’s interests in protecting women’s health and reproductive freedom, and combating gender discrimination,” meant that even religiously affiliated organizations—like the Little Sisters of the Poor—should be required to provide contraceptive coverage (including drugs and devices that can also operate in an abortifacient manner) notwithstanding their own religiously informed views on what constitutes illicit moral complicity in evil.

It is unfortunate anyone would try to argue that being pro-life or defending pro-life laws makes a person unfit to serve as a judge, but it appears the American Bar Association is doing precisely that.

Photo Credit: By Brian Turner (Flickr: My Trusty Gavel) [CC BY 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons.

READ MORE