ÃÛÌÒÓ°ÏñAV

Rep. Nick Kupper is sponsoring House Bill 2004 to provide a new tax credit — a deduction of state taxes owed up to $4,000 — in the year of a birth for people who meet certain income restrictions. Its specific aim, stated in the proposed legislation, is to "encourage women in this state to carry their unborn children to full term.''

But the measure by the Surprise lawmaker is written in a way that doesn't get into legal or moral questions about abortion or attempt to regulate it. House Minority Leader Oscar De Los Santos said Democrats could get behind it.

Kupper noted the perennial debates at the Capitol about abortion. He also acknowledged the legal right of women to terminate a pregnancy.

What's missing, he said, is a discussion of the reasons. "I looked at the stats,'' Kupper said.

"And from what I was able to see, it appears that 93% of women choosing to abort, if it's an elective abortion, they say it's a lack of finances, security or support,'' he said. "And a lot of that falls on men sucking.''

Data produced by the Arizona Department of Health Services, however, is a bit murkier.

The department, which is required to keep track of such things, reports that there were 12,888 abortions in Arizona in 2023, the most recent year for which statistics are available. Its breakdown of the reasons cited falls into different categories.

In most cases, more than 9,300, the reason listed is that abortion is elective. Another more than 4,100 declined to specify a reason.

Most of what remains falls into the "other'' category, which includes everything from not wanting to have children, to financial reasons and being unprepared, to personal emotional and mental health issues.

But Kupper said that, whatever the reason, there is more the state can and should do to take care of women.

"If we can help support women in a financial way somewhat, why would we not?'' he said.

Income restrictions

He's structured his HB 2004 in a way to help only those most in need.

As written, it would provide a $2,000 a credit in the year a child is born to single individuals or $4,000 to married couples filing jointly.

But the full credit would be available only to those below the federal poverty level. That's $21,150 for a two-person household or $26,650 for a family of three, with higher figures for larger families.

The credit would be reduced above that level, to the point it would disappear at 145% of the federal poverty level. 

"Obviously, it's not for every pregnancy because if you're wealthy, then finances aren't an issue,'' Kupper said.

Most significantly, this would be a refundable tax credit.

Individuals and couples would get an actual check from the state if the credit exceeds their tax liability. Kupper said that makes the most sense, as many who are at or below the federal poverty level may owe little or no state income tax.

What his legislation also does is avoid the whole hot-button issue of abortion.

"In no way, shape, or form does it force anybody to give birth,'' he said. "I just want to give an option.''

Kupper said he does not yet have any estimate of how much his proposal would reduce state tax revenues.

"We spend a lot of money on a lot of stupid things as governments, and not just Arizona,'' Kupper said. "But I think if we can spend some money on taking care of our people, that's one of the things we can agree across the aisle.''

De Los Santos agreed.

"Democrats invented the child tax credit,'' he said. "We are always looking for ways to make life more affordable for working families and working moms.''

Still, De Los Santos said, there's that unanswered question of the price tag, with legislative budget analysts saying the state could be headed for a budget deficit.

"If we can find a way to pay for this that doesn't cut health-care programs or doesn't cut education, we're very open,'' he said.

Separate proposal 

The new child tax credit isn't Kupper's only foray into using tax policy to deter abortions.

His HB 2011 would offer tax breaks to individuals to offset their medical and related costs to adopt frozen embryos that the biological parents no longer want or need.

The proposal is not without precedent.

For more than a decade, Arizona's tax code has allowed adoptive parents to reduce their taxable income by the amount of unreimbursed medical and hospital costs, counseling, legal fees and agency fees. What Kupper wants to add is language that expands that to "human embryo adoptions.''

In essence, what's involved here are frozen embryos typically created through in vitro fertilization but which end up not being used by the original couple. At that point, the choice could come down to allowing the unnecessary embryos to be destroyed.

One alternative is what have become known as "snowflake adoptions,'' a name that relates to both the fact the embryo was frozen and the idea that each is unique.

Agencies can pair the biological parents with someone who may be having trouble conceiving, allowing the adoptive mother to go through pregnancy and childbirth.

"IVF adoption is already happening,'' Kupper said. He said families who adopt the embryos should get the same tax breaks as already exist for other kinds of adoptions.

The relief is on a one-time basis.

"You're still going to have the cost of any other child if you adopt one of these embryos once they're born,'' Kupper said.

Kupper said his HB 2011, dubbed the "Investing in Life Act,'' falls into line with other programs the Legislature has adopted, often on a bipartisan basis, such as subsidized child care.

"We're trying to promote life,'' he said. "We have all these other things for the families in general because we want to promote a healthy environment for everybody. For me, this is an extension of that.''

De Los Santos said he has not studied this measure and has no comment.

Kupper said his measure is not designed as a back-door method of granting some sort of legal status to embryos and fetuses. He said that's not necessary, pointing to an existing 2021 statute that spells out that an unborn child has "all rights, privileges and immunities available to other persons, citizens and residents of this state.'' Still, he conceded, that statute, part of a measure to restrict abortions, was declared unconstitutional and unenforceable by a federal judge.