Feb 09, 2011 1:21 AM GMT
See, after all they take their fiscal responsibilities more seriously than their social biases. (Subsidizing religion via tax deductions is fairly fiscally prudent, won't you say?) After all, some 87% of health insurance plans offer abortion (http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2009/07/22/index.html):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/08/house-subcommittee-abortion_n_820419.htmlIn comments to reporters on Tuesday, Cantor argued that H.R. 3 is consistent with the GOP promise to cut spending.
"This is consistent with our commitment that we are going to take away government funding for abortions," Cantor said. "This is consistent with where most Americans are and consistent with reducing spending."
He would support even a provision that would increase taxes on employer benefits that cover abortion. "The provision that you speak to does have some connect to government funding," he added.
Ranking member Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) called the provisions in H.R. 3 a "Republican tax increase." He continued, "It's about government interfering with private health care decisions. It is not about protecting the innocent, it is about creating appalling, even life threatening situations, for women." He also raised the troubling constitutional issue of if tax exemptions are government funding, then will religious institutions still be able to receive them? From his opening statement:
"I am equally surprised to find out that my Republican colleagues think that a tax exemption or credit is a form of government funding. What happened to all the rhetoric about it being 'our money,' or does that only apply in certain circumstances? Will we now have to call every tax exemption or credit a form of government funding for the recipient? I'm sure there will be many businesses, charities, and religious denominations that will be alarmed to find out that they are receiving government subsidies. [...]
Among others that should be horrified are all the churches and synagogues and mosques that will now have to, presumably, give up their tax exemptions, because if tax exemptions are government subsidies, that's a direct establishment of religion. And the logic is inexorable. Either a tax exemption is government funding -- in which case we cannot give tax exemptions to churches and synagogues and mosques -- or it is not, in which case this bill has no claim on anyone.