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

Fox News10-03-2025

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."
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."
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."
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."
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.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The White House Is Delighted With Events in Los Angeles
The White House Is Delighted With Events in Los Angeles

Atlantic

time24 minutes ago

  • Atlantic

The White House Is Delighted With Events in Los Angeles

The last time President Donald Trump tried to send military forces into American streets to put down civil unrest, in June 2020, Pete Hegseth was positioned outside the White House with a Kevlar helmet and riot shield. Major Hegseth's mobilization as part of a District of Columbia National Guard unit summoned to restore order in the nation's capital, where protests had erupted following the police murder of George Floyd, occurred as Pentagon leaders scrambled to avert what they feared could be a confrontation between active-duty U.S. forces and their fellow Americans. Today, Hegseth is second only to the president in directing the administration's use of the National Guard and active-duty Marines to respond to unrest over immigration raids in Los Angeles. And this time, the military's civilian leadership isn't acting as a brake on Trump's impulse to escalate the confrontation. The Hegseth-led Pentagon is an accelerant. The administration's decision to federalize 4,000 California National Guard forces, contrary to Governor Gavin Newsom's wishes, and to dispatch 700 active-duty Marines to the Los Angeles area, marks a break with decades of tradition under which presidents have limited their use of the military on American soil. If there are any internal misgivings about busting through yet another democratic norm, they haven't surfaced publicly. Indeed, officials at the White House told us they are satisfied with the way the L.A. confrontation has unfolded. They believe that it highlights their focus on immigration and law and order, and places Democrats on the wrong side of both. One widely circulated photo—showing a masked protester standing in front of a burning car, waving a Mexican flag—has been embraced by Trump supporters as a distillation of the conflict: a president unafraid to use force to defend an American city from those he deems foreign invaders. 'We couldn't have scripted this better,' said a senior White House aide granted anonymity to discuss internal conversations. 'It's like the 2024 election never ended: Trump is strong while Democrats are weak and defending the indefensible.' Democrats, of course, take a different view, and say the administration's actions have only risked triggering further violence. Retired officers who study how the armed forces have been used in democracies told us they share those concerns. They point to the damage that Trump's orders could do to the military's relationship with the citizens it serves. 'We should be very careful, cautious, and even reluctant to use the military inside our country,' Bradley Bowman, a former Army officer who heads the defense program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracy, told us. Conor Friedersdorf: Averting a worst-case scenario in Los Angeles State and local authorities typically use law-enforcement personnel as a first response to civil disturbances or riots, followed by National Guard forces if needed. Retired Major General Randy Manner, who served as acting vice chief of the National Guard Bureau during the Obama administration, said the federalizing of California Guard forces—putting them under presidential rather than state control, a move allowed with certain limits—pulls those service members away from their civilian jobs and makes it harder to complete planned training or exercises. 'Basically, the risk does not justify the investment of these forces, and it will negatively impact on readiness,' Manner told us. Retired officers we spoke with also drew a distinction between the involvement of National Guard and active-duty forces. Whereas National Guard troops assist citizens after natural disasters and have the advantage of knowing the communities they serve, active-duty forces are primarily trained to 'see the enemy and neutralize the enemy,' said Mark Cancian, a retired Marine colonel now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 'When you're dealing with U.S. citizens, no matter what they're doing, that's not the right mindset.' 'This is not Fallujah,' Bowman added. 'This is Los Angeles.' Juliette Kayyem: Trump's gross misuse of the National Guard This morning, Hegseth made his first congressional appearance since his bruising confirmation process, appearing before a House committee. His tone with Democrats was at times combative. When Representative Betty McCollum, a Minnesota Democrat, asked the defense secretary what the cost of the California deployment would be, he declined to provide a figure and instead pivoted to criticism of Minnesota Governor Tim Walz for the state's response to the violence that followed Floyd's killing in 2020. (Military officials said later they expected the Los Angeles deployment, as envisioned, to cost roughly $134 million.) 'If you've got millions of illegals, you don't know where they're coming from, they're waving flags from foreign countries and assaulting police officers, that's a problem,' Hegseth told lawmakers. Trump, for his part, told reporters that anyone who tries to protest at the Saturday parade celebrating the 250th birthday of the U.S. Army will 'be met with very big force.' He also said that he wouldn't hesitate to invoke the Insurrection Act, which would permit him to employ the military for law enforcement or to suppress a rebellion, if he believed that circumstances required. Speaking to troops at Fort Bragg in North Carolina later in the day, the president promised to stop the 'anarchy' in California. ' We will liberate Los Angeles and make it free, clean, and safe again,' he said. 'We will not allow an American city to be invaded and conquered by a foreign enemy.' Some Republicans have privately expressed worry that Trump may overplay a winning hand. Even in the West Wing, two people we spoke with tried to downplay the incendiary rhetoric from Trump and Hegseth. They stressed that, to this point, National Guard forces have been in a defensive posture, protecting federal buildings. Although they believe that Trump has the political advantage at the moment, they acknowledged there would be real risks if U.S. troops got involved in violence. 'We don't know who would get blamed but no one wins if that happens,' one senior aide told us. 'No one wants to see that.' Hegseth's support for using active-duty troops in Los Angeles stands in contrast to what his predecessor did in 2020. At that time, Defense Secretary Mark Esper, along with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley, scrambled to block Trump's desire to employ active-duty forces against the demonstrators protesting racial violence. The president had mused about shooting protesters in the legs, Esper wrote later. To satisfy his boss while also avoiding a dangerous confrontation, the defense chief called active-duty forces from Fort Bragg to Northern Virginia but sought to keep them out of the fray. Tom Nichols: Trump is using the National Guard as bait In his 2024 book The War on Warrior s, Hegseth described how his experience as a D.C. Guardsman in 2020 crystallized his views about the divide between military personnel and what he saw as the degenerate protesters who were lobbing bricks and bottles of urine at the citizen soldiers. When the D.C. Guard was again summoned seven months later, to help secure the 2021 inauguration following the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, Hegseth was told to stand down because fellow Guardsmen suspected that one of his tattoos was a sign of extremism. (Hegseth has maintained it is part of his Christian faith.) Hegseth was angered by his exclusion and resigned from the Guard. That experience remains with him as he attempts to reshape the military, and its role in society, in line with Trump's worldview. As he has written: 'My trust for this Army is irrevocably broken.'

Biden admin evacuated 55 Afghans on terror watchlist to US during botched withdrawal: DOJ watchdog
Biden admin evacuated 55 Afghans on terror watchlist to US during botched withdrawal: DOJ watchdog

New York Post

time25 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Biden admin evacuated 55 Afghans on terror watchlist to US during botched withdrawal: DOJ watchdog

US officials encountered 55 Afghan evacuees on the terrorist watchlist after the Biden administration's chaotic 2021 withdrawal from the Middle Eastern country, according to a Justice Department inspector general report. The report, released Tuesday, confirmed longstanding suspicions from Republican lawmakers that the Biden administration failed to properly vet US-bound refugees as the Taliban retook control of Afghanistan. 'I've sounded the alarm about the need to thoroughly vet Afghan evacuee applicants since August 2021,' Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said in a statement, reacting to the DOJ IG report. 'The Biden-Harris administration, my Democrat colleagues in Congress and many in the media were quick to dismiss glaring red flags that a nonpartisan national security analysis now confirms.' 3 Grassley charged that the Biden administration endangered the lives of Americans by allowing improperly vetted Afghan refugees into the US. AP The FBI's Terrorist Screening Center (TSC) identified 55 Afghans that were either already on the terrorist watchlist and made it to a US port of entry or were added to the database during the evacuation and resettlement process, the report found. Of those, at least 21 were added to the terror list after they had already entered the US. After investigations, the FBI eventually removed 46 evacuees from the watchlist, determining that they posed no threat to the homeland. However, nine remained in the terror database as of July 2024 and eight were in the US. 'As if it wasn't already obvious, the Biden-Harris administration endangered American lives by allowing suspected terrorists to enter the United States and roam free for years,' Grassley argued, noting that his 'oversight of this matter will continue.' Roughly 90,000 Afghans were allowed entry into the US and became eligible for Special immigrant Visas under the Biden administration's Operation Allies Refuge (OAR) and Operation Allies Welcome (OAW) programs, which provided the foreign nationals immigration processing and resettlement support. 'According to the FBI, the need to immediately evacuate Afghans overtook the normal processes required to determine whether individuals attempting to enter the United States pose a threat to national security, which increased the risk that bad actors could try to exploit the expedited evacuation,' the DOJ IG report stated. Despite the 55 individuals flagged, the DOJ inspector general determined that overall 'each of the responsible elements of the FBI effectively communicated and addressed any potential national security risks identified.' 3 The Biden administration hastily evacuated tens of thousands of Afghans as the country fell to the Taliban in 2021. AFP via Getty Images 3 As of July 2024, eight Afghans on the FBI's terror watchlist were still in the United States. AP Last October, the DOJ charged an Afghan national brought into the US during the chaotic withdrawal with plotting an ISIS-inspired Election Day terror attack. Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, 27, was living in Oklahoma City on a Special Immigrant Visa as he took steps to stockpile AK-47 rifles and ammunition to carry out an attack on US soil 'in the name of ISIS,' according to the Justice Department. Tawhedi entered the US on Sept. 9, 2021, just weeks after the Taliban regained control of Afghanistan and the last US troops departed from the war-torn nation. Tawhedi was charged with conspiring and attempting to provide material support to ISIS and is currently awaiting trial.

Democrat Mikie Sherrill and Republican Jack Ciattarelli to face off in race for New Jersey governor
Democrat Mikie Sherrill and Republican Jack Ciattarelli to face off in race for New Jersey governor

Washington Post

time27 minutes ago

  • Washington Post

Democrat Mikie Sherrill and Republican Jack Ciattarelli to face off in race for New Jersey governor

TRENTON, N.J. — Democratic Rep. Mikie Sherrill and Republican Jack Ciattarelli, who had President Donald Trump's endorsement, won their primary elections in New Jersey's race for governor, setting the stage for a November election, poised to be fought in part over affordability and the president's policies. Sherrill emerged from a crowded field of five experienced rivals on the strength of her biography as a Navy pilot and former prosecutor who has been a vocal critic of President Donald Trump.

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