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

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

Sex-Selective Abortion in America

Abortion, , ,

Our friends at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview have released an excellent commentary on sex-selection abortion in America.

Sex-selection abortion is the act of aborting a child due to the baby’s sex. John Stonestreet writes,

Newsweek reported last year that sex-selective abortions are on the rise right here in the U. S. One study by Columbia University found that Chinese, Korean and Indian parents on their second pregnancy gave birth to 117 boys for every 100 girls. For third children, the ratio shot up to a staggering 151 boys for every 100 girls.

The culprit, says Newsweek, is sex-selective abortion. So-called “family planning” clinics like those affiliated with Planned Parenthood are helping women kill their unborn daughters. You’d think organizations that pride themselves on protecting and empowering women would want this to stop, but you’d be wrong. . . . .

Back in March, when Arkansas enacted a ban on sex-selective abortions, the American Civil Liberties Union complained that the law prevents women from “obtaining abortions that they want for whatever reason,” even, apparently, if that reason is preferring boys over girls.

The Arkansas law he mentions is Act 733 of 2017. It prohibits abortions performed due to the unborn baby’s sex, and it requires abortion doctors to obtain some of a woman’s medical records to verify she is not seeking a sex-selection abortion. Back in June the ACLU filed a lawsuit against Act 733 claiming “there is no medical reason to obtain these records prior to providing an abortion.”

Abortion providers are grasping at straws. Sex-selection abortion is indefensible — and so is failure to obtain a woman’s medical records prior to an abortion.

You can listen to John Stonestreet’s entire commentary here.

READ MORE