Abortion Is Not Health Care Act of 2025This bill excludes amounts paid for an abortion from the itemized tax deduction for qualified medical and dental expenses. Under current law, individuals who itemize their tax deductions may deduct qualified medical and dental expenses to the extent that such expenses exceed 7.5% of the individual’s adjusted gross income for the tax year. Further, under current law, the calculation of the itemized tax deduction for medical and dental expenses may include amounts paid for a legal abortion.
If enacted, HB73 would significantly impact the way abortion-related expenses are treated under tax law, effectively removing the ability for individuals to claim these costs as part of their medical deductions. This alteration could reduce the financial accessibility of abortion services for some individuals, as it may contribute to a perception that such procedures do not qualify under mainstream healthcare expenditures. The implication is that it may further stigmatize abortion as a healthcare option, framing it instead as a non-essential service.
House Bill 73, titled the 'Abortion Is Not Health Care Act of 2025,' aims to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 specifically regarding the treatment of expenses paid for abortions in relation to tax deductions. The bill proposes that any amount paid for an abortion during a taxable year should not be considered when determining eligibility for medical expense deductions on tax returns. This change reflects a broader legislative movement to redefine what constitutes healthcare expenses, particularly in the context of reproductive rights.
The discussions surrounding HB73 likely encompass contentious points regarding reproductive rights and healthcare. Supporters of the bill argue that it reaffirms the notion that abortion should not be classified as a healthcare expense, aligning with certain ethical or ideological beliefs about the nature of abortion. Conversely, opponents of HB73 may regard this move as a further assault on women's reproductive rights, viewing it as part of a broader strategy to legislate against access to safe and legal abortion services. This potential division has implications for ongoing debates about healthcare funding, personal autonomy, and the role of the government in regulating women's health care choices.