No Tax Breaks for Radical Corporate Activism Act would punish companies that fund employees’ travel to other states for abortion or gender-affirming care
Some of the biggest companies in America have recently announced that they will be including such compensated travel in order to make employee compensation consistent nationwide.
Context
Abortion is already difficult to access in some states; for example, there is only one remaining clinic in Mississippi. But if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, as a draft opinion leaked to Politico indicates is likely, the procedure’s legality would be set by the states. 23 states and territories are poised to immediately ban abortion if Roe is overturned.
As a result, some of the nation’s most prominent companies are beginning to fund employees’ travel to another state for abortion. Those corporations include Amazon, Microsoft, and Tesla, as well as Apple, Bumble, Citigroup (parent company of Citibank), Levi Strauss, Match, and Yelp.
Red states are similarly attacking gender-affirming care for transgender people.
Texas recently directed — and the Texas Supreme Court recently unanimously upheld — the state’s Department of Family and Protective Services to investigate transgender teens’ families for potential child abuse because the families have provided gender-affirming care to their children. Alabama also banned transgender medication for teenagers and minors, although that law is currently blocked by a federal judge, even though the judge was appointed by Donald Trump.
Similarly, some prominent companies have recently announced they will pay for employees’ travel to other states for gender-affirming care, if the employee or their child is transgender. Last week, Starbucks said they would do so.
What the legislation does
The No Tax Breaks for Radical Corporate Activism Act would prevent any tax deductions by an employer for an employee’s travel for an abortion or gender-affirming care.
Those two prongs have often been tied together in Republican-led legislation, particularly at the state level. Conceptually, the two prongs both presume that the state has the right to decide what happens to the bodies of its citizens, even if that decision is against the wishes of a given citizen.
“Anti-trans and anti-abortion legislation are often very similar in terms of the literal bills that come to state legislative floors,” Johns Hopkins University history professor Jules Gill-Peterson told NBC News. They are part of the same political strategy, and they are being funded and ghost-written by the same kinds of groups.”
The Senate version was introduced on May 3 as S. 4131, by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL). The House version was introduced later that week on May 6 as H.R. 7684, by Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL18).
What supporters say
Supporters argue that if companies want to make such a decision, they can, but they should be punished financially if they do.
“Our tax code should be pro-family and promote a culture of life,” Sen. Rubio said in a press release. “Instead, too often our corporations find loopholes to subsidize the murder of unborn babies or horrific ‘medical’ treatments on kids.” (The scare-quotes around the word medical are from the press release.)
“These woke corporations and their far-left allies in Washington have proven that they are completely out of touch with the values of Floridians,” Rep. Mast wrote in a blog post. The legislation would “make sure that these corporations are not allowed to use taxpayer funds to support dangerous procedures that harm our kids and kill innocent babies. We need to send a clear message to the Biden Administration and to corporations: we will protect innocent kids and unborn babies at all costs.”
(There is no scientific consensus that gender-affirming care is harmful to kids.)
What opponents say
Opponents say that the companies which fund such travel aren’t breaking any laws. Rather, they’re contributing to employees’ healthcare costs for a procedure which is legal in other parts of the United States, even if not in the state where the employee actually lives.
“It’s a priority for us to offer our employees consistent healthcare coverage, regardless of where they live,” a Yelp representative told CNN Business.
“Microsoft will continue to do everything we can under the law to protect our employees’ rights and support employees and their enrolled dependents in accessing critical healthcare — which already includes services like abortion — regardless of where they live across the U.S.,” a Microsoft spokesperson told the Wall Street Journal.
Odds of passage
The House version has attracted four cosponsors, all Republicans. It awaits a potential vote in the House Ways and Means Committee.
The Senate version has not yet attracted any cosponsors. It awaits a potential vote in the Senate Finance Committee.
Odds of passage are low in the Democratic-controlled Congress.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
This article was written by GovTrack Insider staff writer Jesse Rifkin.
Want more? Follow GovTrack by email, on Twitter, and for our “A Bill a Minute” video series — on Instagram, or on YouTube.
Like our analyses? Support our work on Patreon.
