As previously noted, the Tax Bill is being used to do more than transfer money from poor people to oligarchs. It is also setting the stage for changing the legal definition of “child” in such a way that it threatens reproductive rights.
In the version passed by the Senate, Section 11028, using the 529 educational program as cover, redefined “unborn child” as follows
“(6) TREATMENT OF UNBORN CHILDREN.—
“(A) IN GENERAL.—Nothing shall prevent an unborn child from being treated as a designated beneficiary or an individual under this section.
“(B) UNBORN CHILD.—For purposes of this paragraph—
“(i) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘unborn child’ means a child in utero.
“(ii) CHILD IN UTERO.—The term ‘child in utero’ means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.”.
The reason this is suspicious? There is no need to redefine “unborn child” in this context. There are at least two ways to set up a 529 plan for an unborn child right now. This is not something anyone debates. So why the change?
Here’s why: so you can redefine “individual” to mean anything you want it to mean. By expanding the definition of “in utero” to include any stage of development … in the womb you are now able to include fertilized eggs in the fallopian tubes (pre-implantation) as individuals. That is exactly what Alito decided in Burwell v Hobby Lobby (check out footnote 7 on page 9).
Why bring this up now?
Because the amendment originally inserted (and later removed) was sponsored by Marco Rubio. This is the guy who “got what he wanted” before changing his vote to Yes.
So what exactly did he get? It wasn’t help for the working poor. So what was it? Search the conference report of the reconciled bill for “unborn” and you find two uses of the term on page 586 (out of 1097)
House Bill
Under the House bill, no new contributions are permitted into Coverdell savings accounts after December 31, 2017. However, rollovers of account balances from one Coverdell education savings account to another pre-existing Coverdell education savings account benefiting another beneficiary remain permitted after this date. Additionally, the provision allows section 529 plansto receive rollover contributions from Coverdell education savings accounts.
The provision modifies section 529 plans to allow such plans to distribute not more than$10,000 in expenses for tuition incurred during the taxable year in connection with the enrollment or attendance of the designated beneficiary at a public, private or religious elementary or secondary school. This limitation applies on a per-student basis, rather than a per-account basis. Thus, under the provision, although an individual may be the designated beneficiary of multiple accounts, that individual may receive a maximum of $10,000 in distributions free of tax,regardless of whether the funds are distributed from multiple accounts. Any excess distributions received by the individual would be treated as a distribution subject to tax under the general rules of section 529.
The provision also modifies section 529 plans to allow such plan distributions to be used for certain expenses, including books, supplies, and equipment, required for attendance in a registered apprenticeship program. Registered apprenticeship programs are apprenticeship programs registered and certified with the Secretary of Labor.
Finally, the provision specifies that nothing in this section shall prevent an unborn child from qualifying as a designated beneficiary. For these purposes, an unborn child means a child in utero, and the term child in utero means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.
[emphasis added]
This is the fight for “the working poor” that Rubio was waging. At least that is how it got reported in the media. You really need to legislate a limit of $10,000 a year contribution for people who can barely pay their rent? No, don’t be fooled. This is in there for one reason and one reason only.
It further blurs the definition of “child” in ways specifically designed to allow banning abortion and several forms of FDA-approved contraception.
Make no mistake, this is a backdoor approach to establishing laws that will be used to support the banning of FDA-approved contraceptives along with abortions at all stages of pregnancy. If you think this is happening in a vacuum you are wrong. The day this passed, the CDC was given an official list of banned words. Sounds awfully Soviet-era to me, but hey. What words did they ban?
The forbidden words are “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.”
The fact that “child” is now being defined in a way that flies in the face of established science, with no evidence, after the Supreme Court established a precedent of siding with superstition over science, should scare anyone who thinks there are constitutional protections guaranteeing women their reproductive rights.