Watch Live: Congressional Hearing on IRS Scandal

Live Now on TheBlaze Radio: ‘The Buck Sexton Show’

Faith

Proposed Bill Would Allow MI Parents to Claim Fetuses As Income Tax Exemptions (Poll)

Nov. 21, 2012 9:06am

This story is sure to get people on both sides of the aisle fired up, specifically because of its relation to the controversial subject of abortion. In Michigan, lawmakers are considering whether to allow a fetus that is at least 12 weeks along to qualify as a “dependent,” thus leading to income tax benefits for the parents of the unborn.

House Bills 5684 and 5685 are at the center of the debate, with critics claiming that their true intention is to place further restrictions on abortion in the state. However, state Rep. Jud Gilbert, a Republican, claims that there are other more practical ideals driving the bills’ proposals.

Michigan Bill Would Allow Parents to Claim Fetuses as Income Tax Exemptions

Photo Credit: AP

“You’re recognizing the fact that people have additional expenses, another person to take care of,” Gilbert explained. “Money saved there could be contributed to doctor’s bills and all kinds of things.”

The proposed bill (House Bill 5684) fully explains theΒ parametersΒ governing the tax exemption. It reads, in part:

DEPENDENT INCLUDES A FETUS THAT HAS, ASΒ DETERMINED BY A PHYSICIAN, COMPLETED AT LEAST 12 WEEKS OF GESTATIONΒ AS OF THE LAST DAY OF THE TAX YEAR, AND THAT HAS BEEN UNDER THEΒ CARE AND OBSERVATION OF A PHYSICIAN SINCE AT LEAST 12 WEEKS OFΒ GESTATION. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION:

(A) “FETUS” MEANS AN INDIVIDUAL ORGANISM OF THE SPECIES HOMOΒ SAPIENS AT ANY TIME BEFORE COMPLETE DELIVERY FROM A PREGNANT WOMAN.

(B) “PHYSICIAN” MEANS AN INDIVIDUAL LICENSED TO ENGAGE IN THEΒ PRACTICE OF MEDICINE OR THE PRACTICE OF OSTEOPATHIC MEDICINE ANDΒ SURGERY UNDER ARTICLE 15 OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH CODE…

If passed, it looks like Michigan will be the first state in the nation to recognize the unborn in such a manner. As MLive.com notes, the National Conference of State Legislatures is unaware of any other locality that allows fetuses to be claimed as dependents during tax season, however the issue has not been extensively examined, so other similar legislation is possibly in existence.

While Gilbert believes that the measure simply extends what’s already in place to provide parents with up to $160 in savings, critics are less-than-pleased with the proposal. In addition to millions in lost revenue, the notion that Republicans are looking for a backdoor way to recognize the legal status of the unborn has come under attack.

According to WLNS-TV, the exemption is slated to be $3,950 for 2013 and $4,000 for 2014. The total cost may come in between $5 and $10 million per year.

“In our view these bills are an attempt to give some legal recognition to the unborn in tax law, which would then be used as a reason to give legal recognition to the unborn in other contexts such as in criminal law or in health law,” claims Mary Pollock, legislative vice-president of the National Organization of Women’s Michigan chapter.

Pollock’s fear is that efforts will be made to then ban abortion at the 12-week mark — something she and her organization would clearly oppose.

What do you think? Should parents be able to claim fetuses as taxΒ exemptions? Take the poll:

(H/T: MLive.com)

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Comments (67)

1 2
  • jackact
    Posted on November 21, 2012 at 1:10pm

    Meanwhile no eligibility requirements for Medicaid in NYS.
    You simply ‘call in’ your demands.
    :(

    Report this comment

    jackact  
  • EdgeOfSanity
    Posted on November 21, 2012 at 1:02pm

    The Feds used the tax laws to put Al Capone in prison because they couldn’t get him any other way. Maybe that is the case at hand too.

    Report this comment

    EdgeOfSanity  
  • dosdelgados
    Posted on November 21, 2012 at 12:56pm

    When you visit the White House, you have to register your unborn as a visitor. You’re supposed to contact them after the baby’s born and give them all the information: child’s name, DOB, SSN…

    Report this comment

    dosdelgados  
  • tommy.tommy
    Posted on November 21, 2012 at 12:47pm

    This is wrong. But by reading about those child molesting priests of the catholic church all the time….on the News? The catholic church should pay until the filthy catholic church goes bankrupt to the innocent kids.

    Report this comment

    tommy.tommy  
  • danbarlinmar
    Posted on November 21, 2012 at 12:16pm

    you can’t have it both ways. either the government recognizes a fetus as a life or it doesn’t. the government can make it legal for you to claim a fetus as a dependent, but it has to make abortions illegal. you can’t have it both ways.

    Report this comment

    danbarlinmar  
    • AJBrad
      Posted on November 21, 2012 at 12:28pm

      I agree that on the surface this sounds ridiculous, but thinking about it, the point is to recognize the “fetus” as a tax deduction means it is a child. That would be a first step to outlawing Roe v. Wade. I AM FOR IT.

      Report this comment

      AJBrad  
    • Jesse_J
      Posted on November 21, 2012 at 12:31pm

      I thought a fetus wasn’t a human life, I guess taxes aren’t really money then. Maybe I should pay my taxes in rocks. Read fresh political commentary at: http://smallcraftadvisorychronicles.blogspot.com/

      Report this comment

      Jesse_J  
    • Tractorboy
      Posted on November 21, 2012 at 1:20pm

      @DANBAR& AJBRAD, this may be a brilliant move to help end the barbaric act of abortion, just as the 3/5 clause in the constitution was used to end slavery…..This may be a great way to start to give the unborn their just rights.

      Report this comment

      Tractorboy  
    • Pontiaku
      Posted on November 21, 2012 at 6:10pm

      Now if only god, the biggest abortionist of all, would recognize a fetus as a human being.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage
      Oh and it would be great if he would stop “giving” deadbeats and rape victims children they did not want.

      Report this comment

      Pontiaku  
  • hi
    Posted on November 21, 2012 at 12:10pm

    How about each taxpayer can claim 25 people on food stamps as their dependents.

    Report this comment

    hi  
  • blanco5
    Posted on November 21, 2012 at 10:31am

    This should pi$$ off leftys for sure, so I say YES!

    Report this comment

    blanco5  
    • naughtycal
      Posted on November 21, 2012 at 10:45am

      Not until the Supreme Court OVERTURNS Roe v. Wade until that happens a fetus is just tissue not a child and not a deduction.

      Report this comment

      naughtycal  
    • BetsyRoss1513
      Posted on November 21, 2012 at 11:42am

      So let me understand this, see if I can make sense out of this: “Everyone” in this country wants abortion on demand for a pc of tissue inside the womb that is NOT KNOWN as a PERSON (according to them), and THEN they also want the OPTION of referring to this ’tissue’ as a person they can claim on taxes as a dependent? WELL, WHICH IS IT? One, or the other. NOT BOTH.

      The answer would be NO.

      Report this comment

      BetsyRoss1513  
    • jungle J
      Posted on November 21, 2012 at 11:43am

      stupid reason for doing the right thing.

      Report this comment

      jungle J  
    • Exrepublisheep
      Posted on November 21, 2012 at 11:44am

      In 2013, the per-child value of the child tax credit will fall by half, to $500. The β€œadditional,” refundable portion of the credit will be limited to strike the 15% provision stated above. Additionally, the child tax credit will only be available for Schedule I filers β€” AMT filers will not be able to claim the credit. So Michigan is REDUCING child tax credits on children post birth, but increasing it for fetuses?

      Report this comment

      Exrepublisheep  
    • The_Jerk
      Posted on November 21, 2012 at 11:49am

      The gimme women should be behind this proposal.

      Report this comment

      The_Jerk  
  • Mapache
    Posted on November 21, 2012 at 10:27am

    we’ll end up with a bunch of people getting pregnant and then have after twelve weeks abortions to get the tax benefits. Life is too precious to allow such games to be played.

    Report this comment

    Mapache  
    • ladyevidence
      Posted on November 21, 2012 at 6:58pm

      I wondered the same thing, actually. What happens if the baby dies?

      Overall, I like the measure only because it is one state’s way of combating Roe vs Wade. I wonder if they will give the baby an SSN for it? If your child doesn’t have an SSN, you cannot claim them. That is the one downside for people who choose not to give their children SSNs.

      Report this comment

      ladyevidence  
  • AbrahamsSheepdog
    Posted on November 21, 2012 at 10:15am

    I have had friends born without limbs. 1 you may have heard of. All life is a precious treasure. That’s our job protect life at All cost. Animals do it.

    Report this comment

    AbrahamsSheepdog  
    • JRook
      Posted on November 21, 2012 at 10:28am

      Ok it is really time for republicans to start focusing on the real issues facing the country and stop with the lame, childlike attempts to undermine the LAW OF THE LAND. It is the woman’s choice within the framework of Roe v. Wade. Worry about the choices you make in your own life.

      Report this comment

      JRook  
    • naughtycal
      Posted on November 21, 2012 at 10:49am

      JROOK,
      As long as Roe v Wade is the quote unquote law of the land then a fetus is tissue nothing more nothing less in the eyes of Government if having extra tissue in your bopdy is a tax break then everyone with a BMI more than what it should be should get the same tax break.

      Report this comment

      naughtycal  
    • Stoic one
      Posted on November 21, 2012 at 10:57am

      OK no tax deductions at all. first dollar , no first penny on up …. tax it all.

      Report this comment

      Stoic one  
    • objectivetruth
      Posted on November 21, 2012 at 11:52am

      @naughtygirl
      I don’t live in MI thank god.I understand your logic though.If I lived there though I might be offended[just joking about being offened] I wouldn’t have a tax break at all.No children and my BMI definetly wouldn’t qualify me.Although I can see it now people gaing weight for a tax break.Please don’t give them any more ideas.These people are truly nuts as the mad hatter on steriods.Seriously if they think it would boost gdp and get a tax base they will do it.Please stop arming the mad hatters.

      Report this comment

      objectivetruth  
    • objectivetruth
      Posted on November 21, 2012 at 11:56am

      @naughtycal
      Would someone with a low bmi have to pay?Look you don’t realize it you may have actually given these friutcakes an idea.We need to know how to defend against it.Thats why I’m asking.It isn’t to be flipatent.

      Report this comment

      objectivetruth  
  • AbrahamsSheepdog
    Posted on November 21, 2012 at 10:05am

    They want our kids. To cut off bloodlines. For labrats. Next is Biochip for newborns. You are their Protecters!!! God have mercy

    Report this comment

    AbrahamsSheepdog  
  • RedShirtOrdie
    Posted on November 21, 2012 at 9:56am

    You know, I look at this 2 ways, on the face it sounds stupid, but looking at it objectively, if you are pregnant, it does cost more, you have trips to the Doc, you are buying stuff to get ready for the kid, painting a nursery etc. I guess in the end i’m all for people being able to keep more the THEIR money. I wish we could just pass a flat or fair tax, and get rid of all these deductions.

    Report this comment

    RedShirtOrdie  
  • HumbleMan
    Posted on November 21, 2012 at 9:44am

    Flat tax. Problem solved.

    Report this comment

    HumbleMan  
  • MBA
    Posted on November 21, 2012 at 9:44am

    This is the most ridiculous proposal this week. How can you K * l l a fetus through abortion because it is not a person but then turn around and claim it as a deduction? The liberal people in this country are so lazy, selfish, greedy, stupid, and unbelievably disgusting it is hard to have words to describe the degradation and depravity.

    Report this comment

    MBA  
  • Aldo
    Posted on November 21, 2012 at 9:34am

    I can see it now… Waves of pregnancies in November and December. Waves of free abortions in January. In the world of libs, they could easily rationalize this.

    Report this comment

    Aldo  
    • thekuligs
      Posted on November 21, 2012 at 9:42am

      They said the fetus must be at 12 weeks gestation BUT I have fear that it would cause the exact same thing.

      Report this comment

      thekuligs  
  • Frodo RinosBane
    Posted on November 21, 2012 at 9:31am

    Let them claim the “fetus.” Then, our use of them will come full circle. Their children can be used for tax breaks before being killed to help the family finances less than 9 months in the future.

    Report this comment

    Frodo RinosBane  
  • BasketFullOfPuppies
    Posted on November 21, 2012 at 9:25am

    So, if a person claims the baby as an exemption, and then has an abortion, would that be tax evasion?

    Report this comment

    BasketFullOfPuppies  
    • contkmi
      Posted on November 21, 2012 at 9:30am

      No, that would be murder.

      Report this comment

      contkmi  
    • SacredHonor1776
      Posted on November 21, 2012 at 9:31am

      It should be tax evasion and murder. Since the ‘fetus’ is a dependent. Dependent is a person right?

      Report this comment

      SacredHonor1776  
    • turkey13
      Posted on November 21, 2012 at 9:34am

      If they pass this law they also should modify it to allow the parrents to sell babies after they get their tax deductions for live babies. At least this would be fair to the parent that doesn’t abort and I’m sure someone that can’t conceive would pay. I have a neice that has 2 beautifull little boys that they adopted because of health problems.

      Report this comment

      turkey13  
    • AbrahamsSheepdog
      Posted on November 21, 2012 at 10:08am

      Murder

      Report this comment

      AbrahamsSheepdog  
  • Duchylivin
    Posted on November 21, 2012 at 9:24am

    I live in Michigan.

    We have problems. Big problems. Debt, falling population, no jobs, little hope. Detroit is heading for collapse and bankruptcy and we have no money to bail it out. And all our legislature and Governor seem to want to work on are social engineering projects.

    Michigan is poster child for Progressive Republican failure.

    Report this comment

    Duchylivin  
    • contkmi
      Posted on November 21, 2012 at 9:29am

      Uh, wut? Who has been in charge of Detroit for the last billion years?

      Who was in charge of MI before Snyder?

      Report this comment

      contkmi  
  • 65Mustang
    Posted on November 21, 2012 at 9:24am

    I cannot wrap my mind around the asinine thought process that devised this stupid idea…is everyone losing their mind.

    Report this comment

    65Mustang  
    • objectivetruth
      Posted on November 21, 2012 at 10:30am

      Join the crowd.Every day I keep thinking I’ve heard seen it all.Then something else comes along to remind me I’m wrong about that
      Actually, at his point I don’t want to know who came up with this ridiculous proposal.I don’t live there.If I knew who proposed it I would give them a call and a piece of my mind.On second thought maybe we do need to know.Maybe if enough of us across the nation said something we could stop it in its tracks.

      Report this comment

      objectivetruth  
  • bekhiet
    Posted on November 21, 2012 at 9:23am

    I agree, it is a life and their are expenses. Some families have to meet high deductibles on their insurance plans, you also have to buy a lot of baby items that add up quickly, and finally some women can’t work or put on bed rest restrictions and this deductible would mean a lot for such families.

    Report this comment

    bekhiet  
  • biohazard23
    Posted on November 21, 2012 at 9:21am

    β€œIn our view these bills are an attempt to give some legal recognition to the unborn in tax law, which would then be used as a reason to give legal recognition to the unborn in other contexts such as in criminal law or in health law…”

    Um, aren’t there already laws on the books where there are 2 criminal charges if a pregnant woman and her unborn baby are killed? These pro-murder people will stop at nothing to keep right on killing babies at will. Sick sick sick.

    Report this comment

     
  • candymanal
    Posted on November 21, 2012 at 9:18am

    I have a tumor in my stomach.
    Can I move to Michigan and claim it?
    After all, it’s just a lump of tissue, according to Palnned Parenthood.

    Report this comment

    candymanal  
  • Cavallo
    Posted on November 21, 2012 at 9:17am

    Anything that allows you to keep more money from being extorted by gunpoint is okay with me. I’m all for claiming pets and imaginary friends if necessary. The imperial overlords don’t merit one more cent from your pocket.

    Report this comment

    Cavallo  
    • Duchylivin
      Posted on November 21, 2012 at 9:27am

      I agree about keeping more of my money, but the overlords must not be allowed to manipulate how we get to keep it. This is progressivism. Republican progressivism is just as dangerous as liberal progressivism, perhaps more so because it gets conservatives to buy into the progressive mantra because the cause is sympathetic.

      Report this comment

      Duchylivin  
    • Cavallo
      Posted on November 21, 2012 at 9:40am

      Touche’.
      Agreed.
      Bravo.

      Report this comment

      Cavallo  
  • NSDQ
    Posted on November 21, 2012 at 9:15am

    While abortion is legal, I say no way. You cant have it both ways, either the law is going to recognize a baby to be a person/dependent and abortion murder or its not

    Report this comment

    NSDQ  
  • ColoradoMaverick
    Posted on November 21, 2012 at 9:10am

    Why not? Out tax laws allow illegals in the country to claim children that are even here and without proof they even exist.

    Report this comment

    ColoradoMaverick  
  • Locked
    Posted on November 21, 2012 at 9:10am

    Makes no sense. You don’t provide food or shelter for a fetus in the same way you would a born child; all the “provisions” you’d give a fetus are already covered under medical expenses. Plus, what if a miscarriage occurs? Do you see your taxes increase the next year because you no longer have a dependent? How’s that for a double-slap in the face…

    Report this comment

    Locked  
    • sta
      Posted on November 21, 2012 at 9:17am

      If a pregnant “low income” woman gets WIC, why can’t any other woman get a tax break?
      Your miscarriage analogy is misleading. What if a born baby dies? Same thing.

      Report this comment

      sta  
    • Locked
      Posted on November 21, 2012 at 9:32am

      It’s not misleading at all. A born child is a dependent; they rely on the parent or parents for more than just incubation as a fetus does. That’s the point of dependency status.

      To take it the other direction, why not offer dependent status to a couple who is trying to get pregnant? There is no child yet, but they’re hoping for one within the next year. It’s ridiculous.

      Report this comment

      Locked  
    • sta
      Posted on November 21, 2012 at 9:45am

      You’re right, your statement is not misleading, it’s a strawman. The same “slap in the face” of a boost in taxes after a born baby dies would be the same as if a Pre-born babies dies.

      Why does a low income pregnant woman get WIC? The baby inside is dependent on the mother for the right nutrition. And if a couple is TRYING to get pregnant, then the woman has no child inside her.
      Ya know, it’s their money anyway. It doesn’t belong to the government.

      Report this comment

      sta  
    • Locked
      Posted on November 21, 2012 at 9:59am

      @Sta

      “The baby inside is dependent on the mother for the right nutrition. And if a couple is TRYING to get pregnant, then the woman has no child inside her.”

      Dependency status is not the same thing as medical expenses. The WIC for low-income pregnant women is (if I understand it correctly) is to cover medical expenses for those who cannot afford pregnancy care otherwise; they wouldn’t have medical expenses to write off on their taxes because they would not be able to afford proper medical care. It has nothing to do with dependency. I already said why being an incubator is different than having a born child that requires extra care.

      As for the strawman comment, well, if you want to argue that dependency = medical expense coverage and don’t see that as a strawman, but claim that a fetus is dependent in the same way that a born child is and see nothing wrong with that argument… methinks you don’t understand the strawman fallacy :-)

      I don’t like this idea for one reason: it’s more government intervention in the lives and taxes of citizens and brings us a step further from the idea of “all people should pay the same (hopefully low) rates.” Sure, it’s socially conservative big-government… but I don’t care about that.

      I disagree with the WIC for the same reason, so your arguing about it isn’t gaining much traction.

      Report this comment

      Locked  
    • objectivetruth
      Posted on November 21, 2012 at 11:45am

      Actually any child born during the year that dies is considered to be a dependent for tax purposes.Well provided that all other requirements are met.To those of you attempting to compare WIC to taxes.While being pregnant is a dependent for WIC purposes its not for tax purposes.The unborn baby is for medical reasons/not financial considered a dependent.One of the requirements for a dead child to be considered a dependent[for federal taxes] is that it must be born alive.
      @STA
      The only way you get a boost in taxes is if your income increases and is taxable sta.Your whole argument is based on illogic sta.What would increase is your EIC and child care credits.This is money back to parents.Not an increase in taxes.You want to argue the strawman approach use true logic to do so.Arm yourself with the facts before attempting debate into matters you seemingly don’t understand.

      Report this comment

      objectivetruth  
    • Locked
      Posted on November 21, 2012 at 2:07pm

      Thank you objectivetruth. I think you said it better than I’ve been trying to.

      Report this comment

      Locked  
1 2

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love