Don’t report the pregnancy but file an amended return the year after the child is born?
4 Likes
I can’t help but feel that some people are missing the point here?
13 Likes
Intentionally so, I’d wager.
I hate this stupid timeline…
9 Likes
When your rights are an intellectual exercise to show how clever someone is, it kind of sucks.
12 Likes
Even with an actual infant, they wouldn’t.
9 Likes
Up to one year old, anyway.
After that, it’s “fuck you; pay me.”
11 Likes
following the legal stupidity of this, a child in georgia is now 1 year old just two to three months after being born.
the effects for pregnant people due to all this is horrific, the implications for law ridiculous
21 Likes
13 Likes
Been there, done that a few times myself. When you know you’re pregnant – and want to be – you know what you’re looking at, but otherwise there’s no way to distinguish a miscarriage in the first 3 months from a bad period.
But they still have to give you a D&C, to make sure there’s nothing left from the placenta that could cause an infection and thus potentially cause sterility.
Oh wait, sorry, that’s the Before Times. Now, if you miscarry, you’re probably a murderer, so there’s no way you’re going to get a medically-protective D&C after that.
20 Likes
15 Likes
Not at all. The whole system the GQP are building for their rabid base is anti-body autonomy and every other kind of autonomy for women; that’s so obvious and disgusting. I just find it interesting that they are generating potential points of failure in the tax system in their quest to ‘prove’ that a fetus is a person.
2 Likes
One of the other terrible, terrible checkpoints that the fuckers are celebrating is that every single miscarriage is a potential felony and can be investigated by law enforcement. If you don’t have the resources to defend yourself, you may very well end up in prison.
And who gets abused by the justice system the most?
4 Likes
Probably not a federal crime because something something states’ rights.
4 Likes
detectable human heartbeat
That’s… contradictory, when talking about six-week pregnancies. The “heartbeat” of a six-week embryo isn’t actually, in any way, a heartbeat, much less a “human heartbeat.” It’s basically a rhythmic fluttering that you can get even with a handful of heart cells in a petri dish. It’s been mis-described in order to be weaponized by forced birthers. So I guess this is just another case where conservative law doesn’t match reality, giving all sorts of wiggle room to not apply in any rational way, or with any consistency, if they don’t want it to, but yet it would still function as a way of sneaking “fetal personhood” into the law without actually having to engage in that legal battle.
It doesn’t match up with reality or existing law in multiple ways - which makes me think this is just a trap, a way of getting anti-abortion laws in the books that could never actually be used to give a tax break to a pregnant woman.
And of course they’ll simply ignore many of the implications of the law, leaving citizens off balance, never sure when it applies and when it doesn’t.
Not yet anyways.
10 Likes
What about couples that have dozens of embryos frozen at the fertility clinic? OR Why wouldn’t everyone just bank several dozen frozen embryos for the tax shelter it provides?
Georgia’s code referenced here is absurdly vague, which will lead to selective and false prosecutions. For example, it specifies detectable “human” heartbeat. How does the effect of this regulation change if the doctor thinks the heartbeat sounds like a sheep? What is “detectable?” What if the woman cannot afford the technology to “detect?” What if it’s a steady and repetitive muscle spasm that’s not in a heart? The list goes on. O.C.G.A. 1 - 2 - 1 Defining persons and corporations
1 Like
So it will work as intended then…
11 Likes
Because it is very expensive without insurance and the insurance won’t pay for it if it isn’t medically necessary. On top of that, it would only apply to state taxes, not federal.
3 Likes
But it probably shuts down claiming frozen embryos.
Someone could have built quite a tax dodge on the promise of eventually thawing them out.
2 Likes
I would say, probably yes. In fact, I would argue they’ll be charged with murder while in the act of tax fraud. The argument will be that the murder occurred specifically to allow the tax fraud.
There’s no way to look at this and not see a dystopian future. There are quite literally no other outcomes.
PS: Every time I see one of these stories or interviews, I want to ask the person to give up a kidney. Immediately, today, right after the interview. It would save someone’s life. If they’re unwilling to do it, murder charge and lock them up. That would at least be consistent with what they’re asking for. Just as dystopian too.
