Does this mean I'm one step closer to being able to claim my cat as a dependent?

I don't think this is a bad thing. That's to say I'm not sure it's a good thing either. Our society tends to ignore pregnancy loss, and I think any step to seriously acknowledge it is good. Of course, then the choice issue comes into play, and the crazies, and ugh.

I don't really get the point. A stillbirth is a terrible trauma, one that nobody should ever minimize; I think that issuing birth/death certificates is a kind idea. But I don't understand the point of a tax credit. I realize that one of the lawmakers suggested that it would reimburse parents for the cost of "decorating a nursery," which seems like a statement blinded by class privilege if ever I've heard one--but, really? Don't surviving children cost a lot more than that? I'm afraid I don't understand how this is supposed to help anybody.

That might be the most macabre thing I've heard in my life.

I don't think this is a bad thing. That's to say I'm not sure it's a good thing either. Our society tends to ignore pregnancy loss, and I think any step to seriously acknowledge it is good. Of course, then the choice issue comes into play, and the crazies, and ugh.

Um, I definitely see this as a bad - or, more specifically - a foolish thing. And I am pretty sure that the only people whose "recognition of pregnancy loss" should matter are the friends and family of the bereaved woman or couple. It definitely should not be a government matter.

How odd. Odd and creepy at the same time.

Aren't things like medical expenses already tax deductible?

So if my grandmother with Alzheimer's living in a nursing home dies, can I deduct that too? And as oliviaw said, can I deduct my cats? Pretty please????

I think the "decorating a nursery" comment is pretty callous, but it could help recoup the costs for things like maternity clothes (last pregnancy I would have been in maternity clothes at 8 weeks), and items you'd already purchased. A friend of mine who had a stillbirth in September had already renovated parts of her house for the baby. Then of course there's medical expenses, etc. etc. etc.

You can already deduct medical expenses that exceed a certain percentage of your income (can't remember how much, I THINK it's expenses exceeding 8% of your income). This just seems awfully nice and considerate to REALLY be about the parents who suffer the loss of a baby. Right now miscarriages are not included..if this passes will there be a movement to add those also? And then from what point- 27 weeks, 25 weeks, 20? Not to sound totally callous (though I know I do) it seems like more efforts by the right to imbue people with the idea that a fetus is a full human before it's born. (Despite the fact that the bill as it stands now specifies stillborn and NOT miscarriages.) I just think it would be a matter of time before the move is made to include them as well which would make it pretty problematic. Seems like another instance of "chipping" to me.

I think this is an excellent idea. With pregnancy comes a number of huge financial plans and spending to accommidate the baby, which only adds yet more sorrow to parents who lose their children in this way. I think it is a very good way of the government to sort of validate the experience in a way, which may be some comfort to those parents.

My fear of course, like anything related to laws and reproduction, is that this could then be twisted to support anti-choice policies.

I agree with you, Nazrafel.

Sunflwrmoonbeam, I am sorry that people experience such losses. However, something tells me this isn't truly about the expectant parents.

Never underestimate the tenacity of the far right. They want life to begin at conception as a matter of law. They will spend resources on even the most trivial gains in that battle -- so much so that some of us seem confused about what this is about. But they use every win in this category to boot-strap the argument that abortion and even contraception are murder. This is about arguing that "in every other area we recognize that the unborn are people." That's why I oppose all such recognition: no civil causes of action for the "unborn," no prosecutions for harming the "unborn" (harming a fetus in vitro should be a crime against the pregnant women so injured), etc.

I'm still not sold on this bill. I have known a handful of people who have lost wanted pregnancies, either from miscarriage or stillbirth, and every single one of them have gone on to have future successful pregnancies. I know that's anecdotal, but I just don't see how declaring an fetus a person for tax purposes actually does anything for expectant parents. I can't see how any financial means would lessen any grief, and of the ~400/yearly stillbirths in Missouri, how many of the mothers go on to have successful pregnancies/births in which they'd go on to make use of many of the things "bought" in preparation of a new baby?

nazrafel - agreed.
this is a thinly-veiled anti-choice step on the road to legislating "every sperm is sacred".

I hate how either way you look at this, there is no pro-woman answer. If this law takes effect, grieving parents will have less financial burden, but a choice may be on the line. If this law does not take effect, a woman's pregnancy and the money she (or they) spent on the baby will be invalid financially in the eyes of the law. Just ONCE I want there to be laws solely for the benifit of women, not to restrict their choices and trample their experiences.

Babypop, I disagree with your statement that these mothers will just go on to have successful pregnancies and make use of what they bought. When my friend lost her baby, it became too painful to keep these things even though she went on to try again.

It may seem creepy, but I think it could be a good thing. Women and men who go through stillborn deliveries or miscarriages are often ignored or the subject feels too uncomfortable to bring up. Acknowledging these in our government is a good thing. it might make the subject a little less taboo to express. When it comes to the financial aspect, pregnancies, even those not ending in a life, can be expensive. Hospital visits for the mother is alway time consuming and costly. The financial break will not only help the parent/s in the bank, but give them a little stress break as well.

Hrm. On the one hand, I have no problem with giving the bereaved parents a bit of financial help - pregnancy and childbirth ain't cheap. But the whole thing smacks of citizenship-for-fertilized-eggs-styled nonsense, particularly the "dependent" bit. I do wish it was more clearly an economic proposal rather than an ideological one.

...will just go on to have successful pregnancies and make use of what they bought...

I'm aware of this. But I honestly do not see how a tax write-off is going to make it any less upsetting to the prospective parents, which, theoretically, it is supposed to do.

And...am I living in some sort of alter-universe? Because I don't feel like the subject has ever been "taboo." It's always been more of a "it's really none of my fucking business" topic or, on the other extreme, "I am sympathetic to the grieving parent(s) and since I am close to them, can give them my condolences when it is appropriate."

Can I get a tax write-off for the loss of my uterus and the potential children it would have birthed? Because I loss that a few years ago and am still grieving it.

The Missouri legislature has a history of introducing "personhood" legislation, as well as chipping away at abortion providers (by raising standards to the level of ambulatory surgery clinics, etc). It would be nice if this is really about helping out that nice lady down the street who suffered a still birth after outfitting the spare bedroom.
But the bill declares that the child dependency exemption may be taken for a still birth, which they're defining as 21-40 weeks.
The exemption is worth $1200, which would certainly help with the expenses of pregnancy. But having a law on the books that provides for legal recognition of a 21-to-40-week fetus as a dependent is cause for concern, if not outrage.

I wish my wife and I could deduct our fetus, because it would be a nice tax break at a time we could really use the extra cash.

And I also wish I could claim our flat screen tv as a dependent. And write off a new tablesaw as a medical expense (it's plausible, but I won't go into it).

Oh, and I wish I could trust the motives of the people behind this legislation.

Oh well. Life ain't like that.

Hi grimsaburger! Hero of knitted uterii everywhere!

Naw, it was just the one I knitted for you. Damn near killed me, that project, but it was the least I could do. Now, write a letter to the legislature and see if they'll give you $20 back on your taxes for it.

If they really want to help women they would offer the write-off for ALL women/families who give birth- alive or not- to offset the cost of having children. Why only do it if stillborn? Why not for parents of live-birth babies as well? They are going to need the money at least as much! If the response is that this write off is to lessen the grief of losing the child, are they SERIOUSLY suggesting that a TAX WRITE-OFF could possibly mitigate that kind of grief? I am all down for anything that makes parents' lives a little easier, but it's for everyone or no one- otherwise there are alterior motives at work. (ah, just saw Grimsaburger's post) Thought so. Bastards.

If they want to help offset the costs of expecting a baby that is then stillborn, relate it to those costs, not an imaginary dependent.

And I hate it when they don't put the bill number in the report. bleh.

I have no problem with giving the bereaved parents a bit of financial help - pregnancy and childbirth ain't cheap.

Right. I agree. I wonder if this couldn't be done as a sort of "recoup of medical expenses" sort of thing? Rather than a question of classifying the stillborn baby as a "dependent"? Why do the two have to be connected?

I don't know how the existing laws work: when you file taxes as a parent, if you're pregnant in say, December of 2007, but you don't give birth until April 2008, does the child go on the 2007 AND 2008 returns? Or just the 2008 returns?

Just the 2008.

Yes. I don't have a problem in theory with saying, hey, here's a way to help parents who have experienced a stillbirth deal with some of the financial burdens they've incurred. But the fact that they're putting the stillbirth in the same deduction category (a dependent) as a living child makes this whole thing very suspicious to me.

this has potential to be very good. I was born at the very end of the year, and my dad was happy that I could be used as a tax deduction for the prior year because preparing for a baby is very expensive (I tell people that he calls me his little tax deduction because of this, though its not really the case) I cannot imagine the pain of not only loosing a baby, but also deal with everything that you have done to prepare for the baby--above and beyond medical costs.

However, I see this as potentially a very Bad thing, as it seems suspiciously like associating a fetus with a child. (stillbirth is not the same as a fetus from what I know)

There could probably be a better way of phrasing this bill, if the goal is to help people. I'm willing to bet that's not what is going on here.

I tried to find more news and found that AZ is doing something similar, but tacking it onto a bill that allows parents of murdered children to claim them as dependents for 5 years.

Because the first time a parent has to select 0 dependents after that kind of tragedy is a difficult milestone to pass.

Now, I can't even imagine what it's like to lose a child like that. But tax forms as therapy?

And it makes me wonder if this is a tactic that's flying under the radar at the moment, but will become more prominent.

Tangentially, I find the comparison of a fetus to a table saw, cat or television to be extremely insensitive and disrespectful. Some of us are grieving our stillbirths and/or miscarriages, and do not appreciate having it compared to a fucking powertool.

*THIS* is what pisses me off about the pro-choice movement (of which, btw, I am a usually proud, supporting member). The total devaluation of the fetus. I'm not one of those 'every fetus is a potential baby' types that will go on about how horrible it is to abort, but I'm reasonable enough to realize that the fetus is a form of life. Not a tablesaw. Something that one might grieve over.

disclaimers:
I do not suggest that everyone should put the same amount of value on a fetus.

I do not suggest that anyone who has an abortion grieves or should grieve.

I do not suggest that anyone who has a miscarriage grieves or should grieve.

I do not suggest that the fetus should be a protected life form. Simply that it is a form of life.

I do not suggest that a cat is not a form of life. ;)

Luna, I think people were engaging in the reductio ad absurdum type argument, not trying to suggest that people who have stillbirths aren't grieving.

I'm sorry you've suffered a loss.

But it's also really frustrating when people point to a couple comments by a couple people and say "See, this is what I hate about you people!" as if some insensitive comments represent a whole group.

This bill recognizes that the person was a child of this state, a child of a family of this state," he said.

Hmmm - I've heard that language before...

"The bill would only cover stillbirths, not miscarriages, which occur when a baby dies before the 20th week of pregnancy."

Backing up the time when it becomes a "child" to 20 weeks - very sneaky.

Actually, medically it's not sneaky. A fetal death after 20 weeks is called a stillbirth, not a miscarriage. I believe it has something to do with the way the fetus is extracted.

I find it very callous and shallow to expect a financial payoff to somehow "make things better" for people experiencing a stillbirth. And, having known a few people who've had one--and having had my own miscarriag--I know I and they never once wished for a recoup on the money spent on a wanted pregnancy. I agree this smells like "slippery slope".

Actually, medically it's not sneaky. A fetal death after 20 weeks is called a stillbirth, not a miscarriage. I believe it has something to do with the way the fetus is extracted.

I find it very callous and shallow to expect a financial payoff to somehow "make things better" for people experiencing a stillbirth. And, having known a few people who've had one--and having had my own miscarriage--I know I and they never once wished for a recoup on the money spent on a wanted pregnancy. I agree this smells like "slippery slope".

Seriously? argh. And people think Kansas is the crazy state... (missouri is sure winning this race!)

Planned Parenthood from throughout Missouri held a rally day at the State capitol today. They were lobbying against the latest abortion omnibus bill. The main point in the bill is making it a crime to "Coerce an abortion", which means that if anyone ever says "if you have an abortion, i'll ______" to a woman, it's instantly coercion and illegal to perform an abortion on her.
And pointless and impossible to prosecute, while they're at it.

"Kansas' abortion omnibus bill (HR 2736) includes everything BUT the kitchen sink; missouri's abortion omnibus bill (HR 1831) includes everything AND the kitchen sink"

The KS bill includes an injunctive relief section, stating that a parent, sibling, guardian, etc can file an injunctive relief suit, but also "a public official with appropriate jurisdiction to prosecute or enforce the laws of this state". (does that mean the cop who tickets your car, too?) Which you just KNOW means phill kline is going to be camped outside PP, filing injunctive reliefs like crazy.

If this was to cover the costs of pregnancy and preparing for a live child, then they also should be giving an additional credit for children who survive. I am sorry for stating it callously, but the dependent deduction is intended to cover the expense of having an additional household member consuming food, clothing, and so on. So this just makes the "incidental pregnancy expenses" look like a crazy excuse they came up with. And I'm angry that the legislature would put a tragic situation like this in such a position -- if you're against it, you're callously ignoring the grief over a stillborn children.

(If I ever am unlucky enough to be in this situation, I'd rather get JUST a death certificate and some closure. Why continue to be reminded of my loss: once when filling out my tax form the year after and saying my child is there when [s]he's not, once again when filling out the form the year after that and the child is gone again... that "zero dependents" has to be there at some point.)

Actually, medically it's not sneaky. A fetal death after 20 weeks is called a stillbirth, not a miscarriage. I believe it has something to do with the way the fetus is extracted.
I was under the impression that it was to do with whether it was possible for the fetus to survive outside the womb (like, do lungs work yet, etc). You're spot on about the medical terms being far different from the general public's interpretation of them, though. [disclaimer: I speak with no medical training, just what I learned in childbirth class.]

Some great comments since checking back. I was at the gym thinking...though...why is my grief of fertility loss at such a young age something that should not be financially compensated while the loss of a pregnancy is? I am not sure if this varies from state-to-state, but from what I understand, adoptive parents are not able to recoup expenses if a birthmother decides not to relinquish a child. Is this not devastating to potential adoptive parents in an equitable? (I know several couples this has happened to.) Adoptive parents aren't allowed to claim their non-children as "dependents" for tax purposes. How at all is it fair to let birth parents claim their fetus as a deduction but not adoptive parents who were unable to complete an adoption?

Erica--that's just my guess from researching the Federal Abortion Ban. I do know that the definition in terms of weeks has been that way for quite awhile and I think the youngest baby to survive outside the womb was 21 weeks--and there's only been one of those, I believe.

If this were really about helping grieving parents with the fallout from a stillbirth, wouldn't they be giving financial aid and social services at the time of the event instead of a tax writeoff? It seems to me that if you're looking at the hospital costs, etc., then they 1-probably outstrip the deduction for one dependent, and 2-by tax time, your credit would already be ruined by the bills.

It seems to me that if this were about the parents, you'd see a proposal for grief counseling and some kind of claim for a fund to deal with their bills associated with the pregnancy. That would just make more sense to me than a tax deduction.

Also RE: the tablesaw comment, I honestly think it was made because this Missouri initiative is so fucking transparent as to its aim.

We all know that if it were about helping parents financially, there'd be health care initiatives, child care initiatives, etc. And I think that if it were even really about helping grieving parents cope with a loss, there would be more reasonable bereavement time measures offered up. But nope, they had to go with the "declare that fetus as a dependent," which to me just reeks of bullshit and disingenuousness.

Arizona does this. In my (limited) experience, mothers get really weirded out and upset when a tax preparer asks them if they've had a stillborn.

So what happens if you find out late in the pregnancy that there's something horribly wrong with the fetus? You're rewarded with a tax deduction for carrying around a dying fetus for a couple months? You're punished for deciding to terminate a doomed pregnancy?

"it could help recoup the costs for things like maternity clothes (last pregnancy I would have been in maternity clothes at 8 weeks), and items you'd already purchased. A friend of mine who had a stillbirth in September had already renovated parts of her house for the baby."

Good point. I just realized that some pregnancies might be both more likely to involve extra spending and more likely to end in stillbirth. For example, what if someone has a stillbirth after expecting a baby who'd probably never walk and installing ramps (and maybe even installing an elevator) in the house?

"Not to sound totally callous (though I know I do) it seems like more efforts by the right to imbue people with the idea that a fetus is a full human before it's born. (Despite the fact that the bill as it stands now specifies stillborn and NOT miscarriages.) I just think it would be a matter of time before the move is made to include them as well which would make it pretty problematic. Seems like another instance of 'chipping' to me."

More good points.

Why not have a pregnancy tax deduction* instead of a stillborn one? It acknowledges the cost (medical and otherwise) of pregnancy without the creepiness/possible infringement on choice. Whether or not the fetus lives or dies, pregnancy is expensive, so why not deduct all of them?

*I don't think that would be some kind of veiled attempt to make women not abort if they want to. To suggest that would completely devalue the woman as an entity to weigh what would happen to her life carrying to term (even if she adopts it out) versus a small tax write-off. It would be completely offensive to women in general to suggest that.

Another thought: Anyone ever noticed how, by conservative logic, tax breaks fix EVERYTHING? Joblessness? Tax cuts! Homelessness? Tax cuts! Health care? Tax cuts! Devastating grief? Tax deduction!

Notice how anything really pro-active (i.e., unemployment benefits, universal health care, flexible work-life balance) to actually help people in need is a big no-no to the right wing. It's all about the afterthought and taxes.

What exactly is a stillbirth dependent on? There are medical expenses and funeral expenses, but are those things tax deductible if your 10-year-old child or 93-year-old grandmother dies? I don't know for sure, and I'd be extremely surprised if it's true. There's really nothing inherently special about a stillbirth that would warrant a tax break.

A pregnancy deduction would be fine as tax policy to encourage pregnancies (watch out for a catch that the deduction would not apply in case of abortion) and to help parents with the expenses of pregnancies. But the dependency deduction, as someone else mentioned, is to defray the costs of having a child living with you. Extending the dependency deduction to a stillborn is an obvious attempt to extend recognition of the unborn as a person legally.

"A pregnancy deduction would be fine as tax policy to encourage pregnancies (watch out for a catch that the deduction would not apply in case of abortion)."

I don't see why it would apply in case of abortion. I'm talking about a wanted pregnancy carried to term. I suppose in the case of stillbirth or miscarriage there could be complications with the deduction, but I'm not a legislator so I'm not going to work out all the nuances. It's not to *encourage* pregnancy, it's to give a break to the people who would be having a baby anyway.

I doubt a small tax break would encourage someone to have a baby or keep a pregnancy they would otherwise have aborted. Any lawmaker who thinks that obviously doesn't think very highly of women as intelligent beings.

Call me a callous bitch, but I have to agree with a couple of the others. If a pregnancy that never came to term can be claimed as a dependent, then I don't see why I can't claim my cats.

Ask yourself, will it make it hurt less to get a tax break? Financially, it will give you a boost, but it's little more than blood money, which I for one would be loathe to use.

I think they are considered dependents because currently, the fetal death certificates require the parents, by law, to bury their power tool, fetus, child, dream, hope, future (whichever you think is the appropriate reference). So, they are considered dependents in this sense, i.e. burial, just like the burial of a child. I don't think they should NECESSARILY be just like a dependent deduction, but I think that this might explain the rationale.

This is off topic, but what on earth is up with the True banner to the right? I'd like to catch up on my feminist news without seeing giant-breasted women with handles like KissyFace tittering at me and asking me if I'd like to chat.

Another thought: Anyone ever noticed how, by conservative logic, tax breaks fix EVERYTHING? Joblessness? Tax cuts! Homelessness? Tax cuts! Health care? Tax cuts! Devastating grief? Tax deduction!

Heh. So dead-on true.

This is screwed up, I posted a comment an hour ago, its not up. Now the comment I posted two minutes ago is up, but its not my comment. I am outsider, I posted this:

"I think they are considered dependents because currently, the fetal death certificates require the parents, by law, to bury their power tool, fetus, child, dream, hope, future (whichever you think is the appropriate reference). So, they are considered dependents in this sense, i.e. burial, just like the burial of a child. I don't think they should NECESSARILY be just like a dependent deduction, but I think that this might explain the rationale."

oops, I was wrong, screen names go under on this site :)

I am a feminist. I experinced the stillbirth of my son a little over two months ago. My comments on this subject have went to moderation, probably because they were too lengthy (I have a lot to say on this issue). I have them posted at my site if you would like to read my argument FOR these bills from a feminist AND, more recently, from the perspective of a mother to a stillborn. Click on my name or go to www.anarchistmom.blogspot.com

Outsider - I read your blog posting. Thank you so much for sharing that and helping me see another perspective more clearly. Given the source of this bill, I still have to disagree with your ultimate conclusion (that this bill *isn't* meant to chip away at women's reproductive health) but I do appreciate your openness about your experience. I think it's a good step to a more bountiful meeting of the minds - how can the state lessen the financial and emotional trauma of childbirth? I honestly had no idea stillbirths were still somewhat swept under the rug, so to speak.

Also, a question - did you read the questions/comments I posted about adoptive parents? Thoughts on this?

Ousider,
I am so sorry for your loss. I enjoyed your post and I agree with you. No, a tax break does not bring back your loss or solve anything, but it does allow a woman a little less stress, some help from a tax break she was already relying on. Why do issues have to be so black and white for us to be pro-women and feminists? I agree that the law is probably in place to restrict choice, and this is terrible. But rather than just saying no to this vital pro-woman law (which I don't think was made with pro-woman policies in mind), we should be demanding both. Yes women who experience still births should get the financial help they would get if the child were born alive and no it should not be written into law in such a way as to restrict choice. I think we should redirect our actions to being pro-woman for all women, those who are trying to have children AND those who want the choice, not make catty claims of protecting pets and women just wanting "blood money" to solve their losses.

Sorry, Luna, for how that came across. I can't imagine the heartbreak of a stillborn child. If I tried, right now, with my wife just 22 weeks along, I don't know if I could ever sleep.

I wrote "fetus" for the sake of clarity, after typing "daughter" then erasing it, but daughter is how I think of her, even though I won't get to meet her for many weeks yet.

I'm still pro-choice, because I don't see how the complexities of pregnancy are improved by inviting in the government to any decision making, but I recognize now more than ever the complexity of it.

And I know it isn't relevant, but given the cost of my last emergency room visit, a better, safer table saw would be a reasonable medical expense. The flat screen comment was me choosing funny over kind, which was a dumbass choice, given the topic.

Sorry.

If the state wants to recognize and honor this difficult situation, they should help foot the bill for mental health care.

Thank you Jessica. You put into words what I was trying to say but not saying effectively, to find another solution that both protects choice and helps unburden those suffering this loss.

This is such a difficult issue, but I know that the intent of these bills is about women, not fetal personhood. Whoever holds up a birth certificate to show 'personhood'? If you understand the definition of birth, you know it has two outcomes, live birth and still birth. Most of these laws want certificates of still birth, these are not the same as certificates of live birth. These laws are not surreptitious, period. If you look at the definitions of stillbirth in these laws, they are crystal clear.

I think the tax deductions for pregnancy is a great idea, but unworkable. The fact is most pregnancies after 20 weeks end in live birth. They will get a tax deduction, just like I would've had my son been born alive on his due date on 12/14/07. Including pregnancy gestations and cutoffs in the law would be insanely arbitrary. So, I think a specific law focusing on stillbirths is the most pragmatic solution.

Perhaps it would be better to get it all cleared up by just having a 'birth' tax deduction/credit. Whether that birth was a live birth or a still birth? I also don't see why adoption couldn't be included, there are similar financial sacrifices, but the physical sacrifices (women's health, preg risks, etc.) are admittedly different.

Outsider, I think many of us can agree to a tax break related to stillbirths. It's just a little suspicious to give the stillborn baby the status of "Dependent." There are better ways to do it.

Unfortunately, this hyperawareness and caution come from a pattern of the prolife community using things that would usually fly under the radar to get a wedge into the law that they can later use to insert more and more anti-choice legislation.

All I can think of is Hotblack Desiato spending "a year dead for tax reasons".

This is just going to turn into a "first step" for some version of the "fetuses are children" thing. I can feel it a-comin'.

Outsider, perhaps you are confusing your good intentions (because you have experienced this grief) w/ the intentions of the Missouri politicians, which are clearly to chip away at choice. Look at babypop's first links, and you see that anti-choice groups are behind it. We cannot deny the obvious.

Maybe you're confusing this mans (albeit disturbing) rhetoric to represent what this bill's originial intent is. It's unfortunate this douchebag wants to use stillbirth for his agenda, or views it in that light. I assure you, the women who started and have championed these bills do not have that intent.

How about spending the money on programs to offer support to people who've lost pregnancies? I think that emotional support and the ability to connect with people who've gone through pregnancy loss is far more valuable than a tax deduction.

Outsider, your blog is quite interesting and informative. I may comment on it. Can anyone comment on those blogs?

How about we stop rewarding people for reproducing in the first place?

Please do comment! Just click on comments, I allow anonymous ones too :)

"How about we stop rewarding people for reproducing in the first place?"

Evelyn, does this mean you are opposed to tax breaks for living dependents? So if you are, say, a single mother struggling to support her kids, you think she shouldn't get any kind of break to help her with her costs of living? You really think these minor breaks count as a reward? Why don't we just get rid of maternity leave benefits while we are at it.

As I said earlier, I think it is dangerous to classify stillborns as dependents, but I am all for financial support for people who have to spend more to support a child or planned child on the way. Just not in a way where we chip away choice even more.

Well, it's true, Evelyn, if what you want is to further the feminization of poverty, that would be a great way of achieving your goal.

I think Marissa has it exact. There are ways to have these laws in place that don't chip away at reproductive rights by defining a fetus as a person. I don't know what the legal term is for dependent, I'm not sure that dependent means person.

Sure, this idiot's rhetoric implies that, but the texts of these bills and definitions are what is important. Not the douchebags who manipulate and use our stillbirths in order to take away women's rights. Really, what they're doing to families like mine is quite predatory, hijacking our grief for their own agendas.

I'm not convinced fetuses after 20 weeks are not dependents. They are dependent if every sense of the word from what I gather.

So if this law were ever expanded to include miscarriages, does that mean abortions would be compensated too, since they're technically "induced miscarriages"?

Actually, medically it's not sneaky. A fetal death after 20 weeks is called a stillbirth, not a miscarriage. I believe it has something to do with the way the fetus is extracted.
I was under the impression that it was to do with whether it was possible for the fetus to survive outside the womb (like, do lungs work yet, etc). You're spot on about the medical terms being far different from the general public's interpretation of them, though. [disclaimer: I speak with no medical training, just what I learned in childbirth class.]

Medically, a fetus is considered viable when it can survive outside the womb. The term "can" is used quite literally--it's not a judgment of the likelihood of survival, merely the possibility. In general, the age of viability is 22-26 weeks, so a marker of 20 weeks is pushing things.

What I find most interesting is that any fetus miscarried before 20 weeks does not count. Could this possibly be a sneaky way to establish when a fetus becomes a person under law? That would worry me, because, as stated above, a fetus usally is not viable until at least 22 weeks. I've heard usually 7 months is the rule of thumb.

More to the point, is the government now valuing the life of an unborn child at $1200? Ask a woman who has lost her child what the price should be. I don't like assigning a monetary value to human life.

I agree with the suggestion for support groups. I'm sure there are some run by religious organizations etc., but it would be nice to have the government money going toward people's emotional well being.

Ask and I'll answer. In my world, $1200 would help immensely. Nothing will bring back my son, you insinuating that this money represents the price of my child is more offensive to me.

I don't know- I'm torn. My son was born at 27 weeks and died shortly after he was born, but because he lived for a half hour, he was issued a social security number, a birth certificate, etc... so he was able to be claimed as a dependent on our taxes that year. I really struggled with whether or not I should... I mean, on one hand it seems unseemly, but on the other hand, my pregnancy with him was extremely costly. Because we knew at 5 months that there were problems with the pregnancy, I had almost weekly ultrasounds, because had he passed away in utero and no one had known, I could have had very serious health repercussions. At 65 dollars apiece (the co-pay for the ultrasound+the copay for the facility), the cost of actually having him, combined with the cost of everything associated with his death, plus the time off work (keep in mind that a stillbirth is still child birth and often results in lost wages due to missed work) the tax break did help financially. It didn't bring him back, it didn't lessen the pain, but it did relieve some financial stress, and when you've gone through something as horrific as carrying a wanted, loved child (I use child here as opposed to fetus because I view a late-term wanted child much differently than a fetus) and feeling it kick and move and going through childbirth only to hold a dead child in your arms, any thing that can help relieve stress is a good thing. Yeah, support groups are great and very necessary and beneficial, but it doesn't help relieve the stress of wiping out your savings to pay for a funeral (I didn't do a funeral because I was a wreck and couldn't handle it, but I met several couples who did just that), or forgoing bills to cover your cost of living while you take your medically mandated 6 weeks of unpaid leave, the burial/cremation costs, etc... It's not necessarily about the mental trauma, which would be better served by grants for mental health help and support groups, but about helping people with the practical financial aspects of losing a fetus at or right before birth. I do find it callous and cruel to compare that to asking for a tax break for your cat (and I have 3 cats who I love dearly and would be devastated if anything happened to them) when a stillbirth usually involves numerous medical bills, bills from the costs associated with burial/cremation and a fairly large chunk of time off of work. I can't remember the last time I had to take 6 weeks off from work due to my cat (or my dog for that matter and he's had to have his leg amputated- I think I took a couple days off to help him recuperate, but that's about the extent of it). Which I guess would be my response to the difference between a stillbirth and a set of adoptive parents- they usually don't have the same kind of considerations (time off of work, extensive medical bills) it's more just the mental trauma that I do think would be better served by mental health grants. That being said, I think the language here is disturbing and agree that it is probably written from a less than good place- it would be better to see it written in more pro-woman, pro-family language and less about the dependency status of the fetus.

a set of adoptive parents- they usually don't have the same kind of considerations (time off of work, extensive medical bills) it's more just the mental trauma that I do think would be better served by mental health grants.

Jmcchesney - first let me say, I am very sorry for your loss, and I thank you for sharing your experience in helping us better understand the circumstances that women faced with stillbirth have experienced. It's very important to the conversation.

However, being that this measure has financial ends, I *do* know for a fact that adoption can have equitable costs associated with it, particularly in domestic adoptions that are open or semi-open, where the adoptive parents help the birthmother with costs associated with pregnancy and childbirth. I do understand that medically, pregnant women physically go through more than adoptive parents, for obvious reasons, so that strain has no comparison. But it still, to me, seems like financially/emotionally anyway, there would be a similar correlation. Adoptive parents are not entitled to financial compensation/reimbursement if the birth mother changes her mind. Theoretically, of course, adoptive parents wouldn't have the trauma/expense of funeral costs such that parents experiencing a stillbirth would have, but in that case, why not just make funerals tax deductible, not defining stillbirths as dependents?

Also, another question - I am trying to be as considerate as possible when discussing this. What would the most accurate term for stillbirth fetuses be? Babies? Children? Fetuses? I know that for families who have experienced this, of course they are babies, but is there a proper name for this that I should be using?

When I first read this I thought what??? Why? Then I read reasoning. I thought to cover the costs of pregnancy? ALL pregnant women should get more help with that IMO. To cover the costs of things bought? More convincing though hopefully couples will eventually have another child and still use everything. To cover costs only associated with stillborns? I had not thought of this before so thanks. After reading comments, the proposal does make more sense. Has it been approved? Seems feministing posts about a lot of proposals and then I always don't know if they've gone through or not.

The purpose of claiming a dependent is to offset the cost of raising a child. If the child isn't born, then there is no dependent. I'm not being callous. It's just that there is no tax benefit to pregnancy. My son was born on Jan 18, 2004. I got no tax benefit for 2003, because the expense of pregnancy isn't considered.

Perhaps it should be, but as the law stands, it isn't. Personally, I'd love to see laws that support a woman's right to choose homebirth and not be penalized by an insurance company. I'd take that over a tax break, personally.

OK, I gotta say, I'm not in love with those weird "video chat with summercusp while she's wearing a low-cut shirt and bending forward so you look down her cleavage" ads, either. Is there a way to make them go away?

This seems pretty obvious to me...the goal is to set up a situation in which women can be said to profit from miscarriage. It builds on the "welfare queen" myths of poor women having children just to cash in on the state benefits: "miscarriage queens" who conceive only to deliberately miscarry (what's the word for that again?) so they can spend the windfall on flatscreen TVs.