Back in August, I wrote a column entitled “Breeder tax solves unborn death rate.”

My goal was to figure out how to get the abortion rate to decline, and I concluded that a good start would be to first get politicians interested in seeing babies be born alive — and lots of them. Therefore I proposed something that goes against every fiber of my being — a new tax — specifically, a live birth tax.

Utilizing government math, under my plan, 40 percent of the money raised via the live birth tax would go toward providing health care to every American; 40 percent would go toward infrastructure; and the other 40 percent would be placed into the re-election coffers of the members of Congress in whatever district the live birth occurred. There wouldn’t be a pro-choice politician remaining.

Now, a professor of obstetric medicine at the University of Western Australia has caught on to my idea, but for a reason that misses the mark:

A West Australian medical expert wants families to pay a $5000-plus “baby levy” at birth and an annual carbon tax of up to $800 a child.

Writing in today’s Medical Journal of Australia, Associate Professor Barry Walters said every couple with more than two children should be taxed to pay for enough trees to offset the carbon emissions generated over each child’s lifetime.

Partly a step in the right direction, to be sure, but I can’t help but disagree with the reason for the professor’s proposal.

My “live birth tax” idea is designed to get liberal and/or “pro-choice” politicians to want to see babies born alive, and the professor’s proposal would cheapen life by assigning each human a value limited to three aspen trees, an old growth oak and half-dozen flowering shrubs.

It was a nice try, but it’s not quite what I had in mind, professor.


Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.