Thread: Gay Rights and Pro-Life Groups Oppose the Republican Tax Plan for the Same Reason

Gay Rights and Pro-Life Groups Oppose the Republican Tax Plan for the Same Reason

Joshua Roberts—Reuters
By Tessa Berenson November 6, 2017

The House GOP has angered two groups in an unexpected pairing by eliminating the adoption tax credit in their tax reform bill: advocates for same-sex families and pro-life groups.

Ed Harris, chief communications officer for Family Equality Council, says scrapping the credit will “have a disproportionate impact on same sex couples.” LGBTQ people in the United States disproportionately live in poverty, Harris notes, and often already face greater cost barriers to having children.

“By definition, unless you are a lesbian couple using a friend to provide donor sperm and doing insemination at home, then almost every other avenue costs money,” he says.

Same-sex couples are four times as likely to be raising adopted children than different sex couples, according to a report by the Williams Institute in 2013. Among couples with children under age 18 in the home, 13% of same-sex couples have an adopted child, while just 3% of opposite-sex couples do. As of four years ago, more than 16,000 same-sex couples were raising about 22,000 adopted children in the U.S.

Adoption advocates say that number has likely only increased since the report was published.

“You’ve got a growing number of LGBTQ individuals who are now increasingly pursuing adoption,” says Chuck Johnson, president and CEO of the National Council for Adoption.

The adoption tax credit on the chopping block is a tax refund available to parents who adopt children, which can be applied over the course of five years. For 2017, the Hill reports, the federal adoption tax credit was $13,570. The cost of an adoption can be far higher, up to nearly $40,000 from an agency, according to data from Adoptive Families Magazine.

Just as LGBTQ and adoption activists are pushing back against scrapping the credit, so too are pro-life groups, making for surprising bedfellows.

“Part of the pro-life message is promoting adoption as the loving option,” says Mallory Quigley from Susan B. Anthony List, a pro-life organization.

“The adoption tax credit is not just one more policy issue. Vulnerable children ought to be a priority for us all,” tweeted Russell Moore, head of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.

“Being pro-life means being pro-adoption,” echoed Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse. “Congress must remember this as we work through the details of tax reform in the coming weeks.”

Rep. Kevin Brady, the Republican congressman from Texas who oversaw the tax plan, is the father of two adopted sons, the Washington Post reports. He defends cutting the adoption tax credit, saying that the tax reform bill overall will still help parents who want to adopt children by growing the child income tax credit and “giving families more in their paychecks, especially the middle-class families that are crucial for adoption.”

The credit is a very small part of the overall tax system, costing the government $355 million in 2014, according to the Post. By comparison, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the plan will cost more than $1.4 trillion over ten years.

With reporting by Pratheek Rebala and Maya Rhodan

http://time.com/5012254/trump-tax-pl...lgbt-pro-life/

I didn't even know there was such a thing. There shouldn't be such a thing. Tell the charities and non-profits to pay for it.

"LGBTQ people in the United States disproportionately live in poverty, Harris notes, and often already face greater cost barriers to having children."

-------------------------------------

They live in poverty they have NO business having children...don't care who you have sex with. No taxpayer money!

Make it easier and more affordable to adopt...not DUMP yet another tax credit on the backs of taxpayers to pay for!

Cut off all these damn tax credits...live within YOUR means...not off the government hand outs.

Our government is one big giveaway. There are programs popping up that most people did not know existed or that they did not know how much the programs are abused and full of loopholes.

So true, GeorgiaPeach!

GRRRRR!!!! It's infuriating.

I believe I knew that exemption/credit existed. At least I remember when the debate was taking place years ago.

There are a lot of other things, however, that I am sure might surprise me - although not much does these days.

Is it wrong to give a tax credit or deduction for adoption? Yes, in a strict democracy.

However, there are a lot of people already having the birth of their children paid for by taxpayer dollars. If we are honest, we know some abortions are. Is that right?

It used to be you could deduct the cost not reimbursed by insurance of the cost of delivery. I don't know how those things work now.

If you have insurance with a company that has benefits for maternity, a lot of people who will never use that benefit are still paying for it.

That's the problem with the socialism that has crept into our society that we don't like to call socialism.

Is it, though, worse than giving a tax credit to buy a new car, or various other things our government uses tax dollars to steer monies to certain industries?

Adoptions shouldn't cost so much Since it theoretically means some child will have a better life, I can think of a lot of things we are wasting money on nowhere near as important.

However, there are a lot of people already having the birth of their children paid for by taxpayer dollars. If we are honest, we know some abortions are. Is that right?

I imagine taxpayers already paid for the births of most of these children being adopted if they were born in the United States. They'll get the child tax credit once the adoption goes through. These fees are fees paid to the adoption agencies, most of them legal fees.

No elective abortions are paid for with federal tax dollars. Some states and local communities might pay for some, but not with federal dollars.

Yes, those children who are adopted are probably those whose birth has been paid for by taxpayers. If, however, these children are adopted, the chances of their continuing to be supported by taxpayers are less than if they remained with the birth mothers.

That's not condoning it, just food for thought.

As for abortions not being paid for with federal dollars, our government has been giving money to planned parenthood for many years. I am not sure states have the funds to pay for all the abortions, so I'm pretty sure federal dollars do enter the picture. It can be funneled through any number of agencies and the government can then claim no connection.

Just thinking, but again is it worse to give a deduction or credit to someone who will perhaps keep a child out of poverty, crime, etc., than it is to give a credit for buying a new car, etc?

Free vasectomies and tubal ligations.

End breed and feed programs. Don't want them? Don't want to pay for them...go get FIXED. We need to stop paying people to breed! They know how much they get and for how many kids...disgusting!

Now, Beezer, that's a solution I can wholeheartedly agree with - with no hemhawing.

Great idea!!!