Americans Oppose Taxpayer Funded Abortions: How Would Huckabee Stop It?

Americans Oppose

Taxpayer Funded Abortions Each GOP presidential candidate says he would not allow tax dollars to pay for abortions.

But how?

In the current tax code every line has a lobbyist. To change any line in a government rule or reg requires political log-rolling and horse-trading.

Every GOP candidate promises to tinker on the edges of our tax system. Small efforts will only provide marginal returns.

Mike Huckabee has an idea to rid America of our current scheme of tax collection. He would eliminate taxes on income and move tax collection to consumption in a national sales tax.

This is commonly known as the FairTax. Wage earners would receive their entire paychecks. No withholding. No tax preparation. No Internal Revenue Service.

April 15th would become just another pleasant spring day.

End the IRS Please help us get rid of the IRS.

Support Mike Huckabee.

He is the only candidate who would eliminate an entire government department and make real tax changes.

Thank you (foot)notes:

See the press release of the Family Research Council on the study,

New Poll: Americans Oppose Abortion Coverage In ‘Universal Health Care Plans’ Less Likely to Support Candidates with such a Plan, at the jump.

What do the Chinese like best about America? Our current tax system.

Photo Credit: Your Business Blogger

View this Press Release online at:

http://www.frcaction.org/index.cfm?i=PR08A03&f=PR08A03

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 23, 2008

CONTACT: JP Duffy or Maria Donovan, (866) FRC-NEWS

New Poll: Americans Oppose Abortion Coverage In ‘Universal Health Care Plans’

Less Likely to Support Candidates with such a Plan

Washington, D.C. -Today, FRC Action, the legislative action arm of Family Research Council, released the results of a commissioned national survey showing that a clear majority of voters would be less likely to support a candidate who proposes a national health care plan that includes universal abortion coverage.

The scientific survey by Wilson Research Strategies asked the following question of 801 likely voters: “If a candidate for the Presidency proposed a national health care plan with universal coverage of abortion at taxpayer expense, would you be more or less likely to vote for that candidate?”

A clear majority of voters (56%) signaled that they would be “less likely” to vote for a presidential candidate proposing universal abortion coverage compared to (31%) who would be “more likely” to support such a candidate.

Intensity runs strongest among those opposed to the idea, with 45% indicating they would be “much less likely” to vote in favor of a candidate whose plan forced taxpayers to pay for abortion, compared to 19% who would be “much more likely” to endorse such a candidate.

Opposition to universal abortion coverage crossed nearly every demographic including sex, race, region, and age.

“Presidential candidates should take notice that Americans oppose the resurrection of anything similar to Bill Clinton’s 1993 health care plan which required employers and employees to finance elective abortions. If they hope to capture the support of ‘independent’ voters, a bloc critical to any campaign’s success, they would be wise to make clear their opposition to universal abortion coverage,” noted FRC Action President Tony Perkins.

[Charmaine will returning to FRC.]

Some of the poll’s most interesting findings include the following:

+ Independent voters of all ages and each sex would be less likely to vote for a candidate that proposed a national health care plan with universal coverage of abortion at taxpayer expense.

+ Although a majority of Democrats would support a candidate that proposed a national health care plan with universal coverage of abortion at taxpayer expense, the support is soft at best (51%).

+ Resistance to abortion coverage is consistent between both sexes and all ages. Women aged 55 or older are the most opposed to such coverage (59% are less likely to vote for a candidate endorsing it), men of all ages follow in opposition (57% less likely to vote for a candidate endorsing it), and the majority of (51%) of women aged 18-54 are less likely to support such a candidates.

+ Widespread disapproval of candidates who support taxpayer-funded abortion coverage spans all but one region of the United States –New England.

Go to www.frcblog.com to read the full survey results including crosstabs.