AoftheA Has Moved!!!!!

Why are you here? I'm over here now:

Acts of the Apostasy...on WordPress!

Click the link and read all the new stuff! Your friends are over there waiting for you!

Instant "Acts"ess

You're one click away from AoftheA's most recent posts:

Today Is The Day
Get ready for it.
Okay Then, That Was Unexpected...
Weird.
Church Art Shouldn't Make You Say "Blech!"
Or cringe.
Cardinal Urges Priests To Liven Up Sermons
I got some ideas...
New Translation Objections Are Becoming More Ridiculous
Grasping at straws...
This Comes As No Surprise
Up with the ex-communicated!
Things A Catholic Ought Never Say
Watch your mouth!
Sister Patricia: On Seven Quick-Takes Friday
Catching up with Sr Pat.
Just Thought You'd Like To Know...
A public service announcement.

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

A Proposal

I've been doing some thinking.

President Ronald Reagan once said, and this is a partial paraphrase, that if you want to limit any activity, just tax it. The same goes for behaviors - if you want them changed, regulate them to death.

We've seen it with cigarettes and other tobacco products. With alcohol. And now there's a proposal before the Senate to levee taxes on non-diet sodas, energy drinks, flavored teas and a couple other beverages. To pay for nationalized health care. Which begs the obvious question, won't there be diminishing revenue from year to year as less and less people purchase these types of drinks? Whatever - logic is lost on liberals.

Now - let's consider the premise that the Democrats and President Obama are sincerely interested in reducing abortions. They want to "dialogue" with those who have differing ideologies. Forget for the moment that these differences, in the words of President Obama from his campaign speech at ND, are "irreconcilable".

They really want to reduce abortions? Then tax them. Put a 200% tax on each abortion that is performed in this nation. Assuming a out-of-pocket cost of $350 per killing, at a 200% tax rate (hey, why not? They want the abortions reduced, so make it really prohibitive), that's $700 in revenue to the government. Figuring 1,200,000 baby-killings a year, that comes to $840 Million. Not an insignificant amount.

I can hear the liberals cry: "What about abortions in the case of rape or incest?" Statistically, these are rather insignificant, but for the sake of argument, perhaps a compromise where a police report would be required, and the tax would be waived (that would weed out the fakers). "What about abortions to protect the health of the mother?" Okay, how about two independent doctors' reports, along with a psychological examination verified by a certified board of examiners proving that the mother's health would indeed be endangered. That would clear out any women merely making the claim of "endangered health". "What about poor mothers who can't afford the abortion in the first place?" They'd have to prove financial hardship, and then make the provider pay the federal tax. "What about unborn children who would not be able to be cared for once born?" Well, Obama made the claim that adoptions should be easier and more appealing. This is a circumstance where new initiatives can be implemented (the poor mother situation would fall in this category as well).

Taxing abortions would reduce the number in a baby's heartbeat. But let's not stop there. Reducing unintended pregnancies is important, too. So tax contraception. Many abortions are procured due to contraception failure, so if contraception is cost-prohibitive, then many people wouldn't purchase it. Think of the tax windfall that would generate. It would be a staggering figure.

And by they way, there is a free, untaxed, safe, no-harmful-chemicals-required method available called NFP. So there is an alternative to condoms, pills and patches.

Taxing behaviors affects the frequency of behaviors. If a single condom became more expensive than two movie tickets and a jumbo bucket of popcorn, then there'd be less teenage sex. Less teenage sex would lead to fewer unintended pregnancies. An additional benefit would be fewer cases of sexually transmitted diseases, so that would help keep health care costs down. See? Everyone wins!! If abortions were to cost more than a monthly mortgage payment, then maybe people who ought not to be having sex with each other will keep their pants on (kind of like before legalized contraception and no-fault divorce). And thus, fewer abortions.

And that's what the powers-at-be want, right?