Abortion Taxes

Gerard Magliocca

Gerard N. Magliocca is the Samuel R. Rosen Professor at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law. Professor Magliocca is the author of three books and over twenty articles on constitutional law and intellectual property. He received his undergraduate degree from Stanford, his law degree from Yale, and joined the faculty after two years as an attorney at Covington and Burling and one year as a law clerk for Judge Guido Calabresi on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Professor Magliocca has received the Best New Professor Award and the Black Cane (Most Outstanding Professor) from the student body, and in 2008 held the Fulbright-Dow Distinguished Research Chair of the Roosevelt Study Center in Middelburg, The Netherlands. He was elected to the American Law Institute (ALI) in 2013.

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. Joe says:

    In Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, Blackmun didn’t seem to consider a “A tax on abortions” appropriate and Stevens in a letter during the proceedings raised the specter too. I know a tax on machine guns was upheld; I wonder how a tax on handguns in place to discourage their use would currently be treated.

    The abortion funding cases allow selective subsidies. I don’t know about targeted taxation of this type. As a “defusion” technique, this seems if anything a means to aggravate the issue. As to revenue, that’s rather feigned if all we have is a small tax just on abortions. A neutral tax on “unnecessary” (I’m not really keen on that term here, but it would be seen that way) health services of all kinds would be more appropriate. Clearly, 2/3 are the true reasons.

    I am not really sure if the corporate surcharge is useful either. I guess the logical thing there is not to allow that money to be taxed as ordinary business expenses, resulting in higher taxes. Something of that sort might work. I don’t think that’s really the problem though. Forcing corporations to spend a bit more money probably won’t satisfy people.

  2. Gerard Magliocca says:

    If we only permit a nominal tax, then I agree. I’m wondering if courts should give more leeway towards qualifying these rights through more substantial taxes rather than through regulatory restrictions or conditions. But I’ll have to work through that question.

  3. Joe says:

    Taxes or no taxes, all the regulations in place for abortion and campaign finance cost people a decent amount of money. So, I guess it boils down to what the money is for.