Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Kansas House panel expects to vote on abortion bill

February 29, 2012

Advertisement

— A Kansas House committee is preparing to act on a bill aimed at preventing the state from indirectly subsidizing abortions through tax credits or deductions.

Wednesday's agenda for the Federal and State Affairs Committee included a vote on the measure, which would make several changes in state tax laws, all designed to cut off indirect support for abortions.

For example, people who deduct medical expenses from their income taxes couldn't include abortion expenses in the calculation. A nonprofit organization that provides abortion services would have to pay the state sales tax on what it buys, unlike other nonprofits.

Also, the measure would prohibit public schools from using materials in human sexuality classes from groups that provide abortion services.

Comments

Hooligan_016 2 years, 6 months ago

"Also, the measure would prohibit public schools from using materials in human sexuality classes from groups that provide abortion services."

Really? I guess I'm not too surprised being here in KS, but come on. State censorship?

0

somebodynew 2 years, 6 months ago

It is not State - it is Brownback Kingdom.

0

pace 2 years, 6 months ago

Letting America flounder is the GOP policy to defeat Obama. Hence GOP job bills are disguised as elaborate tax sucking bills designed to restrict access to a variety of civil rights, voting, medical, marital, property, they are just sneaky ways to give work to lawyers and "consultants".

0

William Weissbeck 2 years, 6 months ago

If a 1L student was given this same question on a final exam, he or she could probably get the right answer: The tax code allows for itemized deductions for certain expenses incurred by tax payers such as property taxes, medical expenses and professional licenses. A certain medical procedure is recognized as legal although not necessarily medically necessary - the use of antibiotics to treat viruses. The state wants to discourage the use of antibiotics, so it passes a law that the taxpayer cannot claim the use of antibiotics as a medical expense deduction. Is this a valid, constitutional law?

0

Katara 2 years, 6 months ago

This is pretty stupid. You still could get the deduction on your Federal Income taxes. The State cannot prevent that.

And given that the State only allows a fraction of the deduction for medical expenses, it really has not much of an impact on the taxpayer.

0

verity 2 years, 6 months ago

Just more red meat to the righteous right.

0

verity 2 years, 6 months ago

My immediate thought on reading this is that it is unconstitutional to make a law against one medical expense---if they made a general group that included this, I believe they could---but this seems completely unconstitutional.

I think that both intelligence and an understanding of the Constitution are not a strong suite of many of our illustrious legislators. They have grown drunk with power and insane with fear of those not like themselves.

See you in Topeka on April 28.

0

somedude20 2 years, 6 months ago

This is their mindset. They have their talking points. Go get em tiger

"The question is — and this is what Barack Obama didn't want to answer — is that human life a person under the Constitution? And Barack Obama says no. Well if that person — human life is not a person, then — I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say, 'We're going to decide who are people and who are not people.'" —Rick Santorum, CNS News interview "

Take your fake Christ and get it out of my life. You are the ones who are shoving your beliefs down other throats. I personally believe that anyone over 12 who believes in Santa, E. Bunny, T Fairy and Jesus Christ/God need to be in a sanitarium

It bothers me to no end that your beliefs are hurting and killing women; a fetus is not a human but women is and they can really die. Your god is fake and is getting in the way of life

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 6 months ago

The bill was amended over the long weekend and section 10 had some of it's language changed. However, the relevant portion remains unchanged.

‎(a)No civil action may be commenced in any court for a claim of wrongful life or wrongful birth, and no damages may be recovered in any civil action for any physical condition of a minor that existed at the time of such minor’s birth **if the damages sought arise out of a claim that a person’s action, or omission, contributed to such minor’s mother not obtaining an abortion*

This language is no different from the original bill and still permits physicians to actively lie to and withhold critical medical information from pregnant women.

Thank you, Kansas Legislature, for helping me to find my raging inner feminist! For the rest of my life I will work tirelessly to educate and activate people and to throw your sorry a$$es out of the state house.

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 6 months ago

Oh! And, once more, section 10 is being ignored in the press. What's up with this news blackout?

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.