Taxes on abortion

[Derideo_Te]

So, you do NOT beleive that that is is constitutionally acceptable to levy a punitive taxes on the exercise of right to arms, just as it does not allow for punitive taxes on the exercise of the right to an abortion.
Correct?
Please explain your answer.

Taxation has been decided as "constitutionally acceptable" since the inception of the union. As far as "punitive taxes on the exercise of right to arms" is concerned that occurred back in 1934. The subsequent "behavior modification" of that law is open to interpretation but the precedent of "punitive taxation" on gun purchases does exist.

So, you agree that similar punitive taxes on abortion are constitutionally acceptable as well.
Correct?
If not, why not?

There is nothing in the constitution that would stop the imposition of punitive taxation on abortion. There are already attempts in some states to do similar things such as requiring the clinic to undergo expensive upgrades in order to remain open. That can be considered a form of punitive taxation. Whether it works or not as a means of "behavior modification" will depend upon the outcome of the various lawsuits wending their way through the legal system as a result of these attempts. Similar lawsuits would be filed in the event that any attempt was made to impose punitive taxation on gun purchases too.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Pursuant to:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/288121-taxes-on-guns.html#post7074359

If the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms - the purchase and ownership of firearms in particular - can be heavily taxed to encourage or force people to not exercise said right for the "good" of society, why can't the same logic be applied to abortion?

Would punitive taxes on abortion, making it less attractive and affordable, be a legitimate means of limiting the number of abortions unterdaken each year and the number of innocent human lives ended for convenience?

The Constitution does not prevent behavior modification taxes, so that argument is out.

Current privacy rights jurisprudence forbids measures that manifest an undue burden to a woman obtaining an abortion. If an out-of-pocket ‘tax’ were to be so exorbitant as to deter a woman from exercising her fundamental right to privacy, manifesting a de facto ban, then such a measure would likely be struck down as un-Constitutional, particularly given such a measure would be subject to strict scrutiny. See: Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).

There is no similar case law with regard to the Second Amendment, however, where only outright statutory bans are prohibited. And given most Second Amendment restrictions are subject to intermediate, not strict, scrutiny, the comparison between the two lacks merit.

The majority adopted the same approach used in Ezell, Chester, Marzzarella, and others, to arrive at intermediate scrutiny.

Under Heller, therefore, there are certain types of firearms regulations that do not govern conduct within the scope of the Amendment. We accordingly adopt, as have other circuits, a two-step approach to determining the constitutionality of the District’s gun laws. We ask first whether a particular provision impinges upon a right protected by the Second Amendment; if it does, then we go on to determine whether the provision passes muster under the appropriate level of constitutional scrutiny.

As explained below, and again in keeping with other circuits, we think that insofar as the laws at issue here do impinge upon a Second Amendment right, they warrant intermediate rather than strict scrutiny.

Instant Analysis: DC v. Heller II (D.C. Circuit 2011) | Josh Blackman's Blog

In the District of Columbia, for example:

All firearms must be registered with the MPD. To obtain a registration certificate, the applicant must be 21 years old (or be over 18 and have a notorized permission and liability statement signed by his parent or guardian), pass a vision test or have a valid D.C. driver’s license, complete a firearms training course conducted by a state-certified firearms instructor or a certified military firearms instructor that includes one hour of firing training and 4 hours of classroom instruction.

NRA-ILA | District of Columbia

Just to possess a firearm, not to carry.

Could the above be construed as an ‘undue burden’ to exercising one’s Second Amendment rights? Perhaps, but the courts have held such regulations as Constitutional, and the imposition of a tax, absent an outright ban, might survive a challenge as well.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Pursuant to:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/288121-taxes-on-guns.html#post7074359

If the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms - the purchase and ownership of firearms in particular - can be heavily taxed to encourage or force people to not exercise said right for the "good" of society, why can't the same logic be applied to abortion?

Would punitive taxes on abortion, making it less attractive and affordable, be a legitimate means of limiting the number of abortions unterdaken each year and the number of innocent human lives ended for convenience?

The Constitution does not prevent behavior modification taxes, so that argument is out.

Current privacy rights jurisprudence forbids measures that manifest an undue burden to a woman obtaining an abortion. If an out-of-pocket ‘tax’ were to be so exorbitant as to deter a woman from exercising her fundamental right to privacy, manifesting a de facto ban, then such a measure would likely be struck down as un-Constitutional, particularly given such a measure would be subject to strict scrutiny. See: Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).

Thank you for that background information. I was not aware that there were such measures in place.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Go ahead and try to get one passed.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Taxation has been decided as "constitutionally acceptable" since the inception of the union. As far as "punitive taxes on the exercise of right to arms" is concerned that occurred back in 1934. The subsequent "behavior modification" of that law is open to interpretation but the precedent of "punitive taxation" on gun purchases does exist.

So, you agree that similar punitive taxes on abortion are constitutionally acceptable as well.
Correct?
If not, why not?

There is nothing in the constitution that would stop the imposition of punitive taxation on abortion. There are already attempts in some states to do similar things such as requiring the clinic to undergo expensive upgrades in order to remain open. That can be considered a form of punitive taxation. Whether it works or not as a means of "behavior modification" will depend upon the outcome of the various lawsuits wending their way through the legal system as a result of these attempts. Similar lawsuits would be filed in the event that any attempt was made to impose punitive taxation on gun purchases too.

Indicative of the devious nature of those opposed to privacy rights, where such regulatory measures concerning clinics night not be construed as an undue burden placed upon the woman; as she has a right to privacy, but clinics lack the right to stay in operation.

This also goes to conservative hypocrisy with regard to their advocacy of ‘property rights,’ where they decry regulatory measures concerning worker safety or harm to the environment but support such ‘government interference’ with privately owned and operated clinics.

 

[sfcalifornia]

I'm fine with taxes on abortion. But your outrageous gouging solely with the intent of discouragement because noone would be able to pay it, is ridiculous.

I like it though, that the people who scream against abortion are now suggesting as a possibility revenue generation for the government from doing it.

No new taxes! Except when it suits us!
Conservative hypocrites. LOL

Your avoidance of the primary issue leads me to believe you accept the soundness of the premise contained therein and wish to argue something else instead.
Thus, I'll place you in the "It is constitutionally OK to place a punitive tax on abortion" column.
Thank you.

And you would be correct in placing me in that column.

Costs to society of any product or service should be paid for by the people who utilize those products or services and should be taxed accordingly.

 

[Derideo_Te]

So, you agree that similar punitive taxes on abortion are constitutionally acceptable as well.
Correct?
If not, why not?

There is nothing in the constitution that would stop the imposition of punitive taxation on abortion. There are already attempts in some states to do similar things such as requiring the clinic to undergo expensive upgrades in order to remain open. That can be considered a form of punitive taxation. Whether it works or not as a means of "behavior modification" will depend upon the outcome of the various lawsuits wending their way through the legal system as a result of these attempts. Similar lawsuits would be filed in the event that any attempt was made to impose punitive taxation on gun purchases too.

Indicative of the devious nature of those opposed to privacy rights, where such regulatory measures concerning clinics night not be construed as an undue burden placed upon the woman; as she has a right to privacy, but clinics lack the right to stay in operation.

This also goes to conservative hypocrisy with regard to their advocacy of ‘property rights,’ where they decry regulatory measures concerning worker safety or harm to the environment but support such ‘government interference’ with privately owned and operated clinics.

It never ceases to amaze that the right to own a firearm is written on a stone tablet that descended from the heavens while something as intimate as a pregnancy can be subjected to cross examination, vaginal probes, ultrasounds, waiting periods and indoctrination lectures. On the plus side at least they have stopped bombing clinics and murdering doctors in cold blood.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

There is nothing in the constitution that would stop the imposition of punitive taxation on abortion. There are already attempts in some states to do similar things such as requiring the clinic to undergo expensive upgrades in order to remain open. That can be considered a form of punitive taxation. Whether it works or not as a means of "behavior modification" will depend upon the outcome of the various lawsuits wending their way through the legal system as a result of these attempts. Similar lawsuits would be filed in the event that any attempt was made to impose punitive taxation on gun purchases too.

Indicative of the devious nature of those opposed to privacy rights, where such regulatory measures concerning clinics night not be construed as an undue burden placed upon the woman; as she has a right to privacy, but clinics lack the right to stay in operation.

This also goes to conservative hypocrisy with regard to their advocacy of ‘property rights,’ where they decry regulatory measures concerning worker safety or harm to the environment but support such ‘government interference’ with privately owned and operated clinics.

It never ceases to amaze that the right to own a firearm is written on a stone tablet that descended from the heavens while something as intimate as a pregnancy can be subjected to cross examination, vaginal probes, ultrasounds, waiting periods and indoctrination lectures. On the plus side at least they have stopped bombing clinics and murdering doctors in cold blood.

One is a right enumerated in the Constitution; the other is a right imagined from penumbras and emanations.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

There is nothing in the constitution that would stop the imposition of punitive taxation on abortion. There are already attempts in some states to do similar things such as requiring the clinic to undergo expensive upgrades in order to remain open. That can be considered a form of punitive taxation. Whether it works or not as a means of "behavior modification" will depend upon the outcome of the various lawsuits wending their way through the legal system as a result of these attempts. Similar lawsuits would be filed in the event that any attempt was made to impose punitive taxation on gun purchases too.

Indicative of the devious nature of those opposed to privacy rights, where such regulatory measures concerning clinics night not be construed as an undue burden placed upon the woman; as she has a right to privacy, but clinics lack the right to stay in operation.

This also goes to conservative hypocrisy with regard to their advocacy of ‘property rights,’ where they decry regulatory measures concerning worker safety or harm to the environment but support such ‘government interference’ with privately owned and operated clinics.

It never ceases to amaze that the right to own a firearm is written on a stone tablet that descended from the heavens while something as intimate as a pregnancy can be subjected to cross examination, vaginal probes, ultrasounds, waiting periods and indoctrination lectures. On the plus side at least they have stopped bombing clinics and murdering doctors in cold blood.

it never ceases to amaze me how the left pushes death....whether it be from abortions or gun control.......On the plus side...nada

 

[Rozman]

Pursuant to:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/288121-taxes-on-guns.html#post7074359

If the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms - the purchase and ownership of firearms in particular - can be heavily taxed to encourage or force people to not exercise said right for the "good" of society, why can't the same logic be applied to abortion?

Would punitive taxes on abortion, making it less attractive and affordable, be a legitimate means of limiting the number of abortions unterdaken each year and the number of innocent human lives ended for convenience?

The Constitution does not prevent behavior modification taxes, so that argument is out.

I'm sure the first thing that comes back at you is that you are targeting minorities with this.So then the Liberal attack machine aka MSNBC will be all over this.

 

[Rozman]

But I kinda like the idea.Cigarettes and tobacco products are taxed to the hilt.Same with Alcohol.
The Libs want to generate revenue...they can pick up some cash here.

 

[Oldguy]

Sounds good to me.

Two or three thousand dollar tax on each abortion would be nice with the money going to support children who have been born and put up for adoption.

I'm fine with taxes on abortion. But your outrageous gouging solely with the intent of discouragement because noone would be able to pay it, is ridiculous.

Why not? It's being done with cigarettes. What's the difference?

 

[Flopper]

Pursuant to:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/288121-taxes-on-guns.html#post7074359

If the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms - the purchase and ownership of firearms in particular - can be heavily taxed to encourage or force people to not exercise said right for the "good" of society, why can't the same logic be applied to abortion?

Would punitive taxes on abortion, making it less attractive and affordable, be a legitimate means of limiting the number of abortions unterdaken each year and the number of innocent human lives ended for convenience?

The Constitution does not prevent behavior modification taxes, so that argument is out.

Punitive? Depends on your point of view. As a way to helping pay for the consequences of gun violence 6 states are looking at taxing ammunition.

What would at tax on abortion be used for?

 

[MondoBongo]

Pursuant to:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/288121-taxes-on-guns.html#post7074359

If the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms - the purchase and ownership of firearms in particular - can be heavily taxed to encourage or force people to not exercise said right for the "good" of society, why can't the same logic be applied to abortion?

Would punitive taxes on abortion, making it less attractive and affordable, be a legitimate means of limiting the number of abortions unterdaken each year and the number of innocent human lives ended for convenience?

The Constitution does not prevent behavior modification taxes, so that argument is out.

There are more than two amendments. One of them deals with the right to privacy. You might want to consider looking that one up.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Taxation has been decided as "constitutionally acceptable" since the inception of the union. As far as "punitive taxes on the exercise of right to arms" is concerned that occurred back in 1934. The subsequent "behavior modification" of that law is open to interpretation but the precedent of "punitive taxation" on gun purchases does exist.

So, you agree that similar punitive taxes on abortion are constitutionally acceptable as well.
Correct?
If not, why not?

There is nothing in the constitution that would stop the imposition of punitive taxation on abortion.

Very good - thank you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Pursuant to:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/288121-taxes-on-guns.html#post7074359

If the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms - the purchase and ownership of firearms in particular - can be heavily taxed to encourage or force people to not exercise said right for the "good" of society, why can't the same logic be applied to abortion?

Would punitive taxes on abortion, making it less attractive and affordable, be a legitimate means of limiting the number of abortions unterdaken each year and the number of innocent human lives ended for convenience?

The Constitution does not prevent behavior modification taxes, so that argument is out.

Current privacy rights jurisprudence forbids measures that manifest an undue burden to a woman obtaining an abortion. If an out-of-pocket ‘tax’ were to be so exorbitant as to deter a woman from exercising her fundamental right to privacy, manifesting a de facto ban, then such a measure would likely be struck down as un-Constitutional, particularly given such a measure would be subject to strict scrutiny. See: Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).

There is no similar case law with regard to the Second Amendment, however, where only outright statutory bans are prohibited. And given most Second Amendment restrictions are subject to intermediate, not strict, scrutiny, the comparison between the two lacks merit.

Based on what?

 

[M14 Shooter]

No new taxes! Except when it suits us!
Conservative hypocrites. LOL

Your avoidance of the primary issue leads me to believe you accept the soundness of the premise contained therein and wish to argue something else instead.
Thus, I'll place you in the "It is constitutionally OK to place a punitive tax on abortion" column.
Thank you.

And you would be correct in placing me in that column.

Thank you very much.

 

[Rozman]

Pursuant to:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/288121-taxes-on-guns.html#post7074359

If the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms - the purchase and ownership of firearms in particular - can be heavily taxed to encourage or force people to not exercise said right for the "good" of society, why can't the same logic be applied to abortion?

Would punitive taxes on abortion, making it less attractive and affordable, be a legitimate means of limiting the number of abortions unterdaken each year and the number of innocent human lives ended for convenience?

The Constitution does not prevent behavior modification taxes, so that argument is out.

Punitive? Depends on your point of view. As a way to helping pay for the consequences of gun violence 6 states are looking at taxing ammunition.

What would at tax on abortion be used for?

What would at tax on abortion be used for?

Well for spending of course....Obama and his crew want more revenue so they can spend it.... Duh!

 

[M14 Shooter]

There is nothing in the constitution that would stop the imposition of punitive taxation on abortion. There are already attempts in some states to do similar things such as requiring the clinic to undergo expensive upgrades in order to remain open. That can be considered a form of punitive taxation. Whether it works or not as a means of "behavior modification" will depend upon the outcome of the various lawsuits wending their way through the legal system as a result of these attempts. Similar lawsuits would be filed in the event that any attempt was made to impose punitive taxation on gun purchases too.

Indicative of the devious nature of those opposed to privacy rights, where such regulatory measures concerning clinics night not be construed as an undue burden placed upon the woman; as she has a right to privacy, but clinics lack the right to stay in operation.

This also goes to conservative hypocrisy with regard to their advocacy of ‘property rights,’ where they decry regulatory measures concerning worker safety or harm to the environment but support such ‘government interference’ with privately owned and operated clinics.

It never ceases to amaze that the right to own a firearm is written on a stone tablet that descended from the heavens while something as intimate as a pregnancy can be subjected to cross examination, vaginal probes, ultrasounds, waiting periods and indoctrination lectures. On the plus side at least they have stopped bombing clinics and murdering doctors in cold blood.

That;s what happens when one right is specifically protected by the constitution, while the entirety of another is based on eminations and penumbras.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Pursuant to:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/288121-taxes-on-guns.html#post7074359

If the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms - the purchase and ownership of firearms in particular - can be heavily taxed to encourage or force people to not exercise said right for the "good" of society, why can't the same logic be applied to abortion?

Would punitive taxes on abortion, making it less attractive and affordable, be a legitimate means of limiting the number of abortions unterdaken each year and the number of innocent human lives ended for convenience?

The Constitution does not prevent behavior modification taxes, so that argument is out.

I'm sure the first thing that comes back at you is that you are targeting minorities with this.So then the Liberal attack machine aka MSNBC will be all over this.

Nope. Applies to everyone.