TaxProf Blog

Editor: Paul L. Caron
Pepperdine University School of Law

A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Taxing Abortion

In response to my post yesterday, Congress Considers "Botax" -- 10% Tax on Plastic Surgery to Fund Health Care Reform, Glenn Reynolds asks: "If Congress can tax plastic surgery, can it tax abortion?"  Although there have been various suggestions to tax abortion, a colleague tells me that such a tax would raise serious constitutional concerns.  In Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue, 460 U.S. 575 (1983), the Supreme Court held that a Minnesota use tax on the cost of paper and ink products violated a newspaper's First Amendment rights. Although the precise contours of this doctrine are much debated, a tax singling out the exercise of the constitutional right of abortion would likely face special scrutiny.  But a general tax on elective cosmetic surgery that also reached elective abortions may be permissible under the Minneapolis Star doctrine.

On the one hand, Susan R. Estrich and Kathleen M. Sullivan have stated: "Whatever position one takes on the decision to [publicly fund abortions], it is surely different than a state policy which seeks to 'encourage childbirth' by taxing abortion. Even assuming that rewards may be appropriate to secure the end of childbirth, punishments should not."  Abortion Politics: Writing for an Audience of One, 138 U. Pa. L. Rev. 119, 150 (1989).  On the other hand, Yvette Marie Barksdale has noted:

Sometimes the government simply excludes a broad category of activity that happens to include some constitutionally protected conduct. Thus, the government might decide to fund medical procedures but exclude discretionary medical procedures such as cosmetic surgery. The fact that the discretionary category includes non-medically necessary abortions does not mean that the government's failure to fund abortions infringes upon the woman's constitutional right to an abortion.  Although the decision harms the woman by denying her funding for abortion, the harm does not result because she decided to have an abortion. Rather, she was denied funding because she chose a discretionary medical procedure, which happened to be an abortion. Accordingly, such a refusal to fund is not really linked to, and thus should not be held to implicate, the constitutional right. [FN172]

[FN172]. An exception here might be where the government intentionally used this more general category as a way of targeting abortion. In such a case, the government's hostility to the woman's right to an abortion links the funding decision to the right and thus would implicate the right. See Minneapolis Star Tribune & Company v. Minnesota Comm'r of Revenue, 460 U.S. 575, 579-580 (1983) (discussing Grosjean v. American Press, 297 U.S. 233, 250 (1936), which invalidated a general Louisiana tax on large newspapers where all but one of the newspapers had “ganged up” on Huey Long and in which the Governor had advocated a general tax as a tax on “lying” newspapers; the Court in Grosjean further stated that the tax was a “deliberate” and “calculated” device in the form of a tax to limit the circulation of information to which the public was constitutionally entitled).

And the Poor Have Children: A Harm-Based Analysis of Family Caps and the Hollow Procreative Rights of Welfare Beneficiaries, 14 Law & Ineq. 1, 54 (1995). Cf. Andrew Koppelman, Forced Labor: A Thirteenth Amendment Defense of Abortion, 84 Nw. U. L. Rev. 480, 531 (1990) ("Measures that increase the cost of abortions, such as an abortion tax, present a trickier problem.).

Update #1: Jonathan Adler responds on The Volokh Conspiracy, Could Congress Tax Abortion?:

My own view is that, under current law, a tax targeted at abortions would be difficult to sustain. Under Casey, states may not impose regulations that place an "undue burden" on a woman's constitutional right to terminate her pregnancy. A law creates an "undue burden" where it has "the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus." Any abortion tax large enough to raise a meaningful amount of revenue would likely increase the cost of abortions sufficiently to constitute an "undue burden" under this test.

Update #2:  Eugene Volokh has weighed in with Targeted Taxes on Getting Abortions, Buying Guns, and Exercising Other Constitutional Rights.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2009/07/taxing-abortion.html

News, Tax | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4eab53ef011572455575970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Taxing Abortion:

Comments

Just out of curiosity--then could we claim tax exempt status of weapons (firearms/knives/etc.) for any product specific taxes (is there a federal excise tax on firearms)?

Posted by: BfC | Jul 29, 2009 2:41:49 PM

"In Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue, 460 U.S. 575 (1983), the Supreme Court held that a Minnesota use tax on the cost of paper and ink products violated a newspaper's First Amendment rights. Although the precise contours of this doctrine are much debated, a tax singling out the exercise of the constitutional right of abortion would likely face special scrutiny. But a general tax on elective cosmetic surgery that also reached elective abortions may be permissible under the Minneapolis Star doctrine."

If this is all true, then why are property taxes legal? After all, the Constitution specifically says that you have the right to "Life, Liberty and Property"... but a tax on property which you already own would seem to impose a government cost on exercising your constitutional right. What makes a property tax legal, while the others are not?

Posted by: Nick | Jul 29, 2009 3:35:54 PM

You mention the "constitutional right to abortion" when talking about why the newspapers couldn't be taxes. Where in the constitution is this right to abortion enumerated?

Thank you,
Louise B

Posted by: Louise B | Jul 29, 2009 3:41:15 PM

Don't I pay taxes on firearms and ammunition? How is taxing a right that's actually enumerated different than the made-up right to abortion?

Posted by: Simon Jester | Jul 29, 2009 4:37:46 PM

"constitutional right to abortion"

As a 47 woman I had to face the scientific fact that doctors are not sticking tubes up the nape of my neck sucking my brain but they are sticking tubes up the nape of another distinctly unique human being with its own distinctly unique human DNA's neck and sucking out another human being's brain therefore I do not understand how it is my constitutional right to abort a distinctly unique human being when the constitution protects me from being aborted.


I am sure 'the religious' have their owns reason for objecting to abortion however how is it constitutionally legal for me to be able abort another human being yet I receive constitutionally protected laws which protect me from being aborted?

How can the legal system protect me from being aborted yet deny the same right to another human being?


Posted by: syn | Jul 30, 2009 9:23:20 AM