Ohio Could Give Tax Credits for Unborn Children
According to Newsweek, An Ohio lawmaker, Representative Gary Click (R-Vickery), has introduced a new bill that would allow parents to claim unborn children as dependents on their state income taxes. The proposal, titled the Strategic Tax Opportunities for Raising Kids (STORK) Act, would permit Ohioans to include embryos or fetuses conceived during the taxable year as dependents.
“I’ve introduced a bill—look for the acronym here, it’s called Strategic Tax Opportunities for Raising Kids: STORK,” Click said in a video posted to his X (formerly Twitter) page. “You can claim your child as a deduction on your state taxes the year they were conceived and not the year they were born… And that is going to help young families get a head start.”
In a statement, Click emphasized that the costs of child-rearing begin well before a baby is born. “Any parent can tell you that the costs of child-rearing begin piling up well before a baby is born. We should absolutely be in the practice of supporting young families. Passing this bill will be an easy step in that direction.”
Also read: FAST CASH: Americans to get one-time payment worth up to $7,824 from $17.5m photo settlement
Mixed Reactions to the Proposal
The bill, which has not yet been assigned to a committee, has received mixed reactions from the public and various advocacy groups. While some see it as a way to offer financial relief to expectant parents, others argue that it is a backdoor attempt to establish fetal personhood and erode abortion rights.
Bradley Kehr, the government affairs director at Americans United for Life, praised the bill, saying, “This common-sense legislation is a win for Ohio parents and families. The tax code should reflect that expectant mothers are already mothers.”
Critics, however, have expressed concern about the implications of recognizing fetuses as dependents. Pregnancy Justice, an advocacy group, argues that such legislation could pave the way for limiting the rights of pregnant people. “The theory of a fetus as a legal person has become the framework of anti-abortion states… Fetal personhood changes the legal rights and status of pregnant people and forces them to forfeit their own personhood,” the group said in a statement.
Dana Sussman, Senior Vice President of Pregnancy Justice, further criticized the bill as part of a broader strategy to undermine reproductive rights. “This bill typifies the insidious creep of fetal personhood disguised as seemingly well-meaning legislation. The promise of tax credits today at the expense of bodily autonomy forever is a losing proposition.”
Broader Implications of Fetal Personhood
Legal experts have also weighed in on the potential consequences of the STORK Act. Professor Mary Ziegler of UC Davis, an expert on reproductive law, noted that while recognizing fetal rights in non-criminal contexts may not be inherently problematic, the broader strategy of granting constitutional rights to fetuses could have significant implications.
“In theory, I don’t think a lot of people have objections to recognizing fetuses as persons in contexts that don’t lead to criminalizing the conduct of doctors or pregnant patients,” Ziegler said. “But in the United States, a lot of laws recognizing fetal rights in non-criminal contexts are part of a concerted strategy to establish that fetuses have constitutional rights… You’re also talking about whether this could lead to other outcomes that are maybe not ones that you would support.”
Ziegler pointed out that similar policies already exist in states like Georgia and Utah, and that some states have laws classifying the murder of a pregnant woman as two homicides. While these laws have been popular, Ziegler cautioned that they could be part of a broader effort to restrict abortion rights.
Addressing Concerns
In response to criticism that his bill could be part of a larger anti-abortion agenda, Click dismissed such concerns. “While I may disagree with the recent amendment to Ohio’s Constitution, it is done. They were successful. A first-year law student knows that the Constitution is supreme,” he said. “It’s time to lay aside the conspiracy theories and give our young and upcoming families a little room to breathe and grow.”
He added that the bill is not meant to be divisive and should garner bipartisan support. “This should be bipartisan. Yet, there seems to be a fear by some that this small tax relief for young families getting started will undermine their entire agenda. Those folks should relax.”
While Click acknowledged that the bill may not pass in the current general assembly, he expressed optimism about reintroducing it with modifications in the future. “I anticipate that I will need to reintroduce the STORK Act in the 136th General Assembly with a few modifications and improvements based on feedback.”
The STORK Act is part of a broader national debate on fetal personhood, with similar legislation being introduced across the U.S. Although it is framed as a financial relief measure for expectant parents, the proposal has sparked concerns about its potential impact on reproductive rights.
