When Will The GOP Stop Attacking Women?
The House Ways and Means Committee held a hearing on H.R.3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act, which would “prevent women from using itemized medical deductions, certain tax-advantaged health care accounts or tax credits included in last year’s health care law to pay for abortions or for health insurance plans that cover abortion.” Doing so would force both women and small businesses that provide health insurance that covers abortion to pay more in taxes than they would otherwise.
As Bloomberg News’s Richard Rubin points out, under “common Republican definitions,” this can be “viewed as a tax increase — which is anathema to the House majority.” Even economic conservative Grover Norquist was “concerned” that the policy, “however well-intentioned or virtuous,” would “mask a net tax increase.”
So, any woman who’s buys insurance on her own or whose business buys insurance for their employees would see a tax increase if that policy includes abortion coverage. But men who buy insurance that includes abortion coverage would not be subject to a tax increase.
It’s kind of like men are allowed coverage for Viagra but women are not allowed coverage for birth control which is yet another legislative battle in Congress.
Can somebody tell me how this legislation is not an attack on women in general, regardless of whether or not any particular women is pro- or anti abortion? HR-3 will force women to pay higher taxes than men. How is that leading to a more fair and equitable country?