Thursday, January 9, 2020

Planned Parenthood Should Lose Its Non-Profit Status, It Uses Our Tax Dollars to Elect Pro-Abortion Democrats

 OPINION   KRISTAN HAWKINS   JAN 8, 2020   |   11:25AM    WASHINGTON, DC
Unlike most public policy, unfettered abortion was brought to life following a Supreme Court judgment call made by seven men in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. Without the input of the executive or legislative branches of government, all of the nation’s abortion-related laws were wiped out with the judicial stroke of pen. But with the future of Roe in doubt, according to legal experts, reconsidering the assumptions that have been made about a billion-dollar abortion industry is timely.
Case in point, why should Planned Parenthood have a “get out of taxes free” card and avoid the financial realities that impact other businesses in America?
At the very least, Planned Parenthood and the nation’s abortion vendors should be taxed, just as cigarettes, alcohol and gambling are taxed, because of the high social costs of abortion for the women subjected to them.
Pregnancy is not a disease cured by abortion, and when it comes to actual health care, Planned Parenthood offers fewer services and none (except abortion) that are not widely available elsewhere. Planned Parenthood’s just released annual report for 2018-2019 shows that its abortion business is booming and that taxpayer support is at a record high at more than $616 million in 2018. Over the past 10 years, taxpayer support of Planned Parenthood has increased by almost 70%.
Women sold abortions have risks of bleeding and exposure to disease, as well as higher risks of mental health issues, higher rates of suicide, infections, further surgeries (including hysterectomies) and infertility. Breast cancer rates are higher for women whose first pregnancy ended in abortion. A taxed Planned Parenthood would result in redistributed funds needed to address the social fallout of abortion.
Taxes impact health care providers. For example, the National Conference of State Legislators notes that a “provider tax,” sometimes termed a “fee” or “assessment,” authorizes collecting revenue from specified categories of providers.  “In most states, it is used as a mechanism to generate new in-state funds and match them with federal funds so that the state gets additional federal Medicaid dollars,” and as such it can generate billions, the organization reports. In fact, 49 states and the District of Columbia use such taxes. Only Alaska has refrained.
Operating with more than half-a-billion dollars in taxpayer funds and tax-free status gives Planned Parenthood incredible room to maneuver politically.
As reported at National Review, “Planned Parenthood’s PAC is among the most powerful lobbying groups in American politics, shelling out $40 million last year for “public policy” and investing upward of $175 million in such nebulous categories as “movement building,” “strengthening and securing Planned Parenthood,” and “engaging communities.”
Considering the level of activism subsidized on the taxpayers’ dime, requiring Planned Parenthood to contribute taxes is a natural step in addressing a billion-dollar industry that has been shown to negatively impact women.
SUPPORT LIFENEWS! If you like this pro-life article, please help LifeNews.com with a donation!
And frankly, taxing things – harmful or not – is a common cost of business and strongly advocated by the current crop of Democratic political hopefuls.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren want to tax  “wealth.”  Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg wants taxes on fuel and drinks with sugar. Anyone who has booked a hotel room in recent years has seen the fat “room tax” that municipalities add to a stay in a community. Consider that “the median state tax on cigarettes has increased more than fourfold — from 34 cents in 2000 to $1.57 in 2017,” according to a Pew study.
Industry by industry, economists can chart the impact of Uncle Sam taking a cut, and, in this presidential season, “at least seven Democratic presidential candidates have proposed raising the corporate income tax rate” just as a cost of doing business in the U.S., notes the Tax Foundation.
Why should the profitable abortion industry refuse to pay its fair share?
According to the National Council of Nonprofits, loss of tax exempt status is possible when an organization devotes “a substantial part of its activities to attempting to influence legislation,” “participate or intervene in any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office,” or “organized for or conduct activities that are illegal or violate fundamental public policies.”
Such as policies protecting women’s health and safety in health care settings, for example? In the case out of Louisiana coming to the Supreme Court in March, the justices will ponder the question of whether an abortion vendor should be able to ignore health and safety standards designed to protect women in real health care settings.
Even if abortion were in the Constitution – and it’s not – that still does not justify tax-free status or a right to ignore laws and regulations designed for public safety. A right to bear arms is in the Second Amendment but weapons are not sold tax-free or with taxpayer subsidies.
Planned Parenthood tries to have it both ways, dodging laws and costs by hiding behind the Constitution, but fundraising and engaging with the media in the name of health care.
Given how sharply divided the country is over abortion, common ground can be found in ending the special status Planned Parenthood has achieved through its political contacts and require it operate like the health care enterprise it claims to be.

Black Leaders Tell Supreme Court: Abortion is Racist, “Long History” of Targeting Black Babies

 NATIONAL   MICAIAH BILGER   JAN 8, 2020   |   11:50AM    WASHINGTON, DC
African American leaders urged the U.S. Supreme Court to recognize how abortion hurts the black community in an amicus brief filed ahead of an important abortion case.
The Daily Wire reports the brief represents the voices of prominent African American pro-life leaders, including Ryan Bomberger, Alveda King, the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Dean Nelson, Catherine Davis, Stacy Washington, Walter and Lori Hoye and Day Gardner.
They asked the high court to uphold a Louisiana law that requires doctors who do abortions to have hospital admitting privileges for patient emergency situations. A pro-life, African American Democrat lawmaker, state Rep. Katrina Jackson, sponsored the legislation. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the case, June Medical Services v. Gee,in March.
Citing the poor treatment of black women and their unborn babies, the pro-life leaders argued that the abortion industry has “a long history involving unqualified and uncredentialed abortion providers disproportionately harming black women,” the report states.
They pointed to the horrors uncovered during the prosecution of Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell less than 10 years ago. Louisiana lawmakers passed the hospital admitting privileges law in response to the Gosnell case.
For years, Gosnell subjected primarily minority women to horrific conditions inside his abortion facility. According to the Grand Jury report, his treatment was racist as well.
“… white women were attended to by a doctor and black women were pawned off on clueless untrained staffers,” the investigation found.
“A nineteen-year-old girl was held for several hours after Gosnell punctured her uterus. As a result of the delay, she fell into shock from blood loss and had to undergo a hysterectomy,” according to the report.
PRO-LIFE COLLEGE STUDENT? LifeNews is looking for interns interested in writing, social media, or video creation. Contact us today.
Another woman, a refugee named Karnamaya Mongar, died as a result of Gosnell’s shoddy practice.
“These gruesome deaths are part of a long history involving unqualified and uncredentialed abortion providers disproportionately harming black women,” the African American leaders stated in their brief. “By requiring admitting privileges, [Louisiana] also created a means for reports about individual doctors to be checked against a national database — for the benefit of all patients, of all races, equally.”
They told the Supreme Court that the abortion industry targets black women and their unborn babies for abortions.
They wrote:
“The struggle for racial equality is not over. The black community experiences a disproportionate share of abortions, often from doctors that do not have the same credentials as those who perform other forms of surgery. Until Act 620, Louisiana’s abortion clinics were exempt from the admitting privileges requirement that applies to other outpatient and ambulatory surgical centers in the state. This disparity is significant to black women, who make up the majority of abortion clinic patients and thus bear most of the known risks of abortion in Louisiana. These known risks are life-threatening to mothers.”
It is telling that abortion activists, who claim to fight for women’s health, are challenging a law to protect women’s health by ensuring abortion facilities are prepared to treat emergency complications.
As the African American leaders noted in their brief, “Ensuring continuity of care is especially important to black women, who continue to face disparities in healthcare quality.”
The abortion facility at the center of the case, Hope Medical Group, has a troubling record. In December, a Fifth Circuit Court ruling indicated the abortion facility may have covered up the sexual abuse of young girls and one of its abortionists may be performing abortions that lead to second-trimester babies being born alive.
In November, the Louisiana Department of Justice announced suspicions about alleged criminal activity that may have happened at the Hope Medical Group. It accused the Hope Medical Group of hiding evidence of criminal and professional misconduct from the U.S. Supreme Court as it challenges an abortion clinic regulation law.
In 2010, state health department officials said they found “significant health and safety risks to clients” and recommended that its license be revoked; but a judge blocked the state from closing the facility.

Justice Department Confirms ERA is Dead, Would Have Forced Americans to Fund Abortions

 NATIONAL   MICAIAH BILGER   JAN 8, 2020   |   4:01PM    WASHINGTON, DC
A pro-abortion amendment to the U.S. Constitution cannot move forward, despite abortion activists’ attempts to revive it past the deadline, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) technically would ensure equality for women through the U.S. Constitution. However, pro-life leaders long have warned that it would be used to end all abortion restrictions and allow unborn babies to be aborted for any reason up to birth.
U.S. Congress set a seven-year deadline for the ratification of the amendment, but it ended in 1982. Some pro-abortion lawmakers have ignored the deadline and passed the amendment anyway, including the Nevada legislature in 2017 and Illinois in 2018.
Virginia is expected to become the 38th and final state needed to ratify the ERA to the Constitution after pro-abortion Democrats gained control of the state legislature this month.
However, many have raised questions about if the states’ votes count after the deadline and if other states that voted to ratify but later to rescind their ratification also should be considered.
On Monday, the Justice Department basically settled the question.
“We conclude that Congress had the constitutional authority to impose a deadline on the ratification of the ERA and, because that deadline has expired, the ERA Resolution is no longer pending before the States,” it stated.
The DOJ cited statute 1 U.S.C. § 106b, which says that Congress has the authority to set a deadline for ratifying a Constitutional amendment. According to the DOJ, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Congress’s authority to impose the deadline as well.
Click Like if you are pro-life to like the LifeNews Facebook page!
National Right to Life Senior Policy Advisor Douglas Johnson said the ERA is dead, and no state legislative actions can resurrect it.
“The Justice Department opinion makes it clear that the current Congress has no power to travel back in time and alter what Congress, by two-thirds votes, proposed to the states in 1972,” Johnson said.
Ed Martin, president of the conservative Phyllis Schlafly Eagles organization, also celebrated the news.
“The radical left has tried every trick in the book to subvert the will of the states but their trickery is no match for truth,” Martin said. “The matter is closed. America knows ERA is bad for our nation and our Constitution. They have soundly rejected it over and over again.”
Abortion activists may challenge the decision, but Johnson expressed hope that the DOJ decision will be upheld in court.
National Right to Life has warned for decades that the ERA would pose a constitutional threat to all limitations on abortion. And pro-abortion groups now openly admit that the ERA could decimate laws that protect unborn babies and mothers from abortion.
In 2019, the pro-abortion group NARAL said “the ERA would reinforce the constitutional right to abortion” and “require judges to strike down anti-abortion laws …”
Years ago, Johnson said National Right to Life fought for pro-life changes the ERA that would have protected unborn babies’ right to life, but Congress rejected them.
Should the ERA be adopted, it would invalidate the federal Hyde Amendment, which prohibits taxpayer funding of abortions in Medicaid, and all state restrictions prohibiting tax-funded abortions. Likewise, it would nullify any federal or state restrictions on partial-birth abortions or third-trimester abortions (since these are sought “only by women”).
Johnson said laws that allow government-supported medical facilities and personnel — including religiously affiliated hospitals — to refuse to participate in abortions likely would be in jeopardy as well.
To pass a new ERA, Congress would have to vote to start the process all over again. Amending the U.S. Constitution requires a two-thirds majority vote in the U.S. House and Senate and ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures.
In December, Alabama, Louisiana and South Dakota sued to stop the final ratification of the ERA past the 1982 Congressional deadline.
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall said their states are “firmly committed to equality,” but the ERA should not be ratified.
“The people had seven years to consider the ERA, and they rejected it. To sneak it into the Constitution through this illegal process would undermine the very basis for our constitutional order,” Marshall said in a statement.
He said the ERA “would not promote true equality, but rather a far-left agenda,” including abortion on demand up to birth.

Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts Declares Day of Prayer to Stop Killing Babies in Abortions

 STATE   MICAIAH BILGER   JAN 8, 2020   |   5:19PM    LINCOLN, NEBRASKA
Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts continued to stand strong for unborn babies on Wednesday by proclaiming Jan. 22 a Statewide Day of Prayer to end abortion.
KETV 7 reports the pro-life Republican governor issued the proclamation in response to the upcoming anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that allowed abortions up to birth. Since 1973, Roe has allowed more than 61 million unborn babies to be legally aborted.
“Governor Ricketts’ proclamation encourages Nebraskans to pray for an end to abortion and a deepening in respect for the humanity of unborn children,” his office said in a statement.
Ricketts has a long record of working to protect unborn babies and mothers from abortion. In 2019, he signed a law requiring that women be informed about the abortion pill reversal procedure, which has saved hundreds of babies’ lives.
He also has supported pro-life license plates, proceeds from which go to help pregnant mothers and babies in need, and worked to defund the abortion chain Planned Parenthoodof taxpayer dollars.
The governor has spoken at state March for Life events as well. In 2016, he encouraged pro-lifers not to give up hope.
“It has been a long fight,” Ricketts said. “Because of what you are doing we are making progress. We will, in the end, be successful.”

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *