But what do they hate the absolute worstest?
So, putting two simple thoughts together, a state senator in -- where else? -- Kansas wants to tax abortion.
[Mary Pilcher Cook] noted that governments routinely use tax policy to effect [sic] behavior – cigarette and liquor taxes, for example, or tax breaks designed to spur economic activity.
“If you want less of something, you tax it,” Pilcher Cook said.
Several Senators liked the idea. Sen. Susan Wagle, a Wichita Republican, said it would not only reduce abortions, it might also convince another late-term abortion provider from setting up shop in Kansas now that George Tiller’s clinic is closed.
Most resisted the idea, though no critics voiced opposition to the abortion tax. Instead, they argued against reducing the overall sales tax increase.
Pilcher Cook’s amendment failed 17-22.
In the comments there, some (sane) people doubt whether a sales tax on abortion would actually deter women. One genius pipes up that that would depend on the tax rate. He says:
I'd make it 700%. That'd send 'em up to Iowa, huh?
Hm. That reminds me of someone else. Oh yeah, Mr Kicking Abortion's Ass proposing a 500% tax on contraception to make the 'sterile' pay for their future entitlements.
So, big loss for the fetus fetishists?
The fetus fetishist reasons thus:
. . . I think taxing it is a pretty horrible idea.
When you tax something, especially targeting something specific, it creates a revenue stream that politicians get addicted to – thus making the object of your taxation harder to eliminate.
Taxing something also gives it legitimacy in the eyes of many. Even objects that fall under the so-called category of “sin taxes” have this legitimacy – almost as if being taxed gives you government approval.
Politicians would like the munny and the people would get the idea that abortion is, you know, OK.
Let's do it! Tax abortion! Tax marijuana! Tax equal marriage! Tax clear thinking!
All right, I'm getting carried away. . .