logo
Red state bill could zero out tax burden for donors to pro-life pregnancy centers

Red state bill could zero out tax burden for donors to pro-life pregnancy centers

Yahoo10-03-2025

Missouri residents donating to pregnancy resource centers that do not provide abortions could enjoy significant reductions in their state tax bill if a new GOP bill passes into law.
SB 681, sponsored by state Sen. Jill Carter, a Republican, would establish a 100% tax credit for such donations beginning in 2026, up from a 70% credit for the years 2021 to 2025. Essentially, for every dollar donated, one dollar would be deducted from the taxpayer's annual income tax obligation.
"I think states that are Republican-led are racing to try to figure out how to get more tax dollars back to their communities," Carter told Fox News Digital in an interview Friday. "So, we don't want to shift the burden necessarily to the taxpayer, but to incentivize people being able to say, 'with my own dollars, I want to invest in these women who are community members,' and in supporting those things that they also value."
Abortion Pill Mifepristone Sparks New Pro-life Debate As Some Doctors Stress Safety Concerns
Under Carter's bill, taxpayers can claim up to $50,000 in tax credits each year for donations of at least $100, with any unused credits carrying over to the next year. SB 681 also removes the previous $3.5 million cap on total credits that could be claimed for fiscal years up to 2021. The same bill was introduced in the state House, which passed the tax reform committee last month in a key legislative hurdle.
"We're trying to help people support the values that they believe in by being able to personally invest instead of government doing it for them," Carter said. "I think that's a strong conservative Republican policy and position."
Read On The Fox News App
Carter added that Republicans are "in a really transformative stage right now with politics and policy" when it comes to more pro-life options.
In a written testimony submitted to the state House legislature, Alissa Gross, the CEO of Resource Health Services that runs four pregnancy centers in Missouri and a virtual office in Kansas, wrote, "The impact of the tax credits on our organization has been profound."
"We have seen our budget increase dramatically and in return, our ability to impact more men and women for life as well as build healthy families has been substantial," Gross wrote. "We are so grateful for this opportunity and are hopeful for the increase so our reach can grow into the KC area and beyond."
Written testimony submitted by Cindy Speer, a board member and volunteer client advocate at Oasis Resource Center, wrote that her pregnancy center "just completed a debt-free 5000-square-foot center due in large part to the Missouri tax credit."
"Our next phase is housing for these women, many of whom are unable to afford, let alone find a place for themselves and their baby," Speer wrote. "This would be revolutionary in helping guide these women to become productive citizens who can then become role models for their children."
Scotus Turns Down Abortion Clinic Buffer Zone Challenge, Thomas Slams 'Abduction' Of Duty
Other written testimonies opposing the bill say they didn't want their tax dollars going toward "unregulated, anti-abortion pregnancy centers" that discourage women from having abortions.
The bill comes after Missouri voters enshrined an abortion amendment into their state constitution – becoming the first state to overrule a near-total abortion ban – during the November general election. Abortion providers have recently resumed their services, which had been outlawed since 2022, but a slew of pro-life bills introduced at the start of the legislative session in January are still coming down the pipeline for consideration.
The package of bills includes two proposed constitutional amendments. The first would ban abortion again, allowing exceptions only for medical emergencies, cases involving fetal anomalies, and certain instances of rape or incest, provided patients present the necessary documentation. A public hearing on the measure was held last month.
Other bills under consideration include a proposal to reclassify the abortion drug mifepristone as a Class IV controlled substance, similar to a Republican-led law passed in Louisiana last year. Another proposed amendment aims to make abortion illegal after a fetus reaches viability, typically around 24 weeks of pregnancy.
Other bills introduced in the state target the timing of abortions, including House Bill 194, which would ban the procedure once a fetal heartbeat is detected. Attorney General Andrew Bailey vowed after the election to continue enforcing the abortion ban after fetal viability.
"Under the express terms of the amendment, the government may still protect innocent life after viability," Bailey wrote. "The statutes thus remain generally enforceable after viability."
New York Gov. Hochul Signs Law Protecting Abortion Pill Prescribers After Doctor Indicted In Louisiana
Several other states also passed abortion amendments in November, including Arizona, Colorado, Maryland and Montana.
President Donald Trump signed an executive order in January, titled the "Enforcing the Hyde Amendment," which revokes two 2022 executive orders from the Biden administration that had expanded access to abortion services. By reinstating the Hyde Amendment, the executive order prohibits federal funding for elective abortions, aligning with long-standing policies that prevent taxpayer dollars from being used for abortions.Original article source: Red state bill could zero out tax burden for donors to pro-life pregnancy centers

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Georgia Supreme Court makes ruling on changes to elections
Georgia Supreme Court makes ruling on changes to elections

Yahoo

time19 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Georgia Supreme Court makes ruling on changes to elections

The Georgia Supreme Court ruled that multiple proposals by election officials to change how elections are run in the state were not allowed by state law. Seven changes, proposed by several members of the Georgia State Election Board, led to a lawsuit by several groups, including the organization Eternal Vigilance Action, over claims that they went beyond what state law allowed. In the latest ruling, members of the state's highest court said efforts to require hand counting of ballots, make county election officials make a 'reasonable inquiry' before they could certify results, required voters show identification before dropping a ballot off and that officials 'examine all election' documents that are created during elections were not legal. Separately, a rule proposing surveillance of drop box locations was allowed. [DOWNLOAD: Free WSB-TV News app for alerts as news breaks] Two additional rules proposed for poll watchers and daily reporting requirements were ones that plaintiffs could not challenge 'as voters, community-stakeholders or organizations.' The ruling said that while a trial court had ruled Chatham County Board of Elections member James Hall had standing as a member of that body to sue, it was 'not based on correct legal analysis.' RELATED STORIES: Lawsuit filed against State Election Board by Republicans to 'rein in unelected' members' authority Raffensperger says voters 'should be concerned' over new, possibly illegal, Election Board rules Secretary of State say State Election Board has overstepped legal authority over new rules State elections board votes to require hand-counting of ballots at polling places Georgia AG says new rules from State Election Board may 'conflict' with state election laws Brad Raffensperger calls Georgia Election Rule Changes misguided, criticizes state board Judge says new Georgia election rules are 'illegal, unconstitutional and void' Georgia Election Board member's appearance at Trump rally sparks debate over code of conduct As a result, the court chose to vacate those two decisions blocking the rules and send them back to a lower court for further hearings. Those contesting the rules, including Eternal Vigilance Action and its CEO Scot Turner, said previously that they were going to court to prevent 'empowering the administrative state to act with the force of law.' They said Georgia's state constitution does not allow rules from unelected appointees on the State Election Board to supersede our laws. Responding to request for comment, one of the Republican board members told Channel 2 Action News in September that they would 'continue to do the work of the people with the goal of restoring faith in our election process.' Previously, Sec. of State Brad Raffensperger came out against some of the proposed changes, particularly the hand counting proposal, saying the board was 'misguided.' He has also said the recent actions by board members should have voters 'concerned' and that they might not even be legal. Should a lower court rule that Hall does have standing in his official capacity, it would then have to rule on the two proposals the Supreme Court declined to make a decision on. In response to the latest decision at the Georgia Supreme Court, Turner said in part that the ruling was a major victory, adding that 'this ruling makes clear: the legislative power belongs to the General Assembly, not executive agencies operating without proper constraints. The Georgia Constitution means what it says, and thanks to this decision, the nondelegation doctrine is once again alive and well in our state.' Channel 2 Action News has reached out to members of the State Election Board and the Secretary of State's Office for comment and are waiting for their responses. The Associated Press contributed to this report. [SIGN UP: WSB-TV Daily Headlines Newsletter]

Congress introduces bill addressing national guidelines for college sports
Congress introduces bill addressing national guidelines for college sports

USA Today

time30 minutes ago

  • USA Today

Congress introduces bill addressing national guidelines for college sports

Congress introduces bill addressing national guidelines for college sports With the settlement of three athlete-compensation antitrust cases against the NCAA and the Power Five conferences having received final approval from a federal district judge on June 6, members of the U.S. House of Representatives have moved into action with new legislative proposals regarding national rules for college sports. On Wednesday, June 10, Reps. Lisa McClain, R-Mich., and Janelle Bynum, D-Ore., introduced a bill that comes shortly after Reps. Gus Bilirakis, R-Fla., and Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., circulated a discussion draft of a bill that would largely put into federal law the terms and new rules-making structure of the settlement. The discussion draft is set to be the centerpiece of a hearing June 11 by a subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Bilirakis, who has been involved in previous college-sports bill efforts, chairs the subcommittee. Guthrie chairs the full committee. The bill – in addition to being a bi-partisan presentation – continues recent work related to college sports from McClain, who is the current House Republican Conference chair. That makes her the GOP's No. 4-ranking member in the House. In April, McClain introduced a bill that would prevent college athletes from being employees of their schools, conferences or an athletic association. The discussion draft – as posted on Congress' general resource site, - includes language that specifically would allow the NCAA, and potentially the new Collegiate Sports Commission, to make rules in areas that have come into legal dispute in recent years and in areas that the NCAA wants to shield from legal dispute. The discussion draft, first reported on by The Washington Post, also includes language that would require most Division I schools to provide a series of benefits for athletes that are currently called for under NCAA and some conferences' rules but do not have the force of federal law. In addition, the discussion draft includes a 'placeholder' section for language that likely would be connected to providing antitrust or other legal protection for various provisions. According the discussion draft, an 'interstate collegiate athletic association' would be able to 'establish and enforce rules relating to … the manner in which … student athletes may be recruited' to play sports; 'the transfer of a student athlete between institutions'; and 'the number of seasons or length of time for which a student athlete is eligible to compete, academic standards, and code of conduct'. The NCAA's rules regarding when recruits can be offered money in exchange for the use of their name, image and likeness; athletes' ability to freely transfer; and the number of seasons in which they are eligible to compete all of have been – or currently are being – addressed in federal and state courts across the country. That has raised concerns for NCAA officials about the future of rules such as those concerning academic eligibility requirements The discussion draft also includes language that would require most Division I schools to provide a series of benefits for athletes that are currently called for under NCAA and some conferences' rules but do not have the force of law. These include medical coverage for athletically related injuries for at least two years after the conclusion of an athlete's career; guaranteed financial aid that would allow an athlete to complete an undergraduate degree; and 'an administrative structure that provides independent medical care and affirms the unchallengeable autonomous authority of primary athletics health care providers (team physicians and athletic trainers) to determine medical management and return-to-play decisions related to student athletes.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store