Fetus Now A Deductible Dependent On Georgia Income Tax Return

Georgia's Living Infants Fairness and Equality (LIFE) Act amends the definition of "natural person" in Georgia's statutes to mean "any human being including an unborn child". Last month, the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the Act. In light of that, Georgia's Department of Revenue has issued Guidance related to House Bill 481, Living Infants and Fairness Equality (LIFE) Act (Aug. 1, 2022), reading in part:

[T]he Department will recognize any unborn child with a detectable human heartbeat, as defined in O.C.G.A. § 1-2-1, as eligible for the Georgia individual income tax dependent exemption. The 11th Circuit’s ruling made HB 481’s amendment to O.C.G.A § 48-7-26(a), adding an unborn child with a detectable heartbeat to the definition of dependent, effective as of the date of the court’s ruling, which was July 20, 2022.

[Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

NYT Explores Implications of Fetal Personhood

The New York Times has posted an 8-part series on the legal and societal implications of fetal personhood. In an introduction to the series, Times editors write in part:

The creation of the legal scaffolding for the idea that the fetus is a person has been the steady work of the anti-abortion movement, at the national level and in every state. Today, at least 38 states and the federal government have so-called fetal homicide laws, which treat the fetus as a potential crime victim separate and apart from the woman who carries it.

The movement has pressed for dozens of other measures to at least implicitly affirm the idea that a fetus is a person, such as laws to issue birth certificates for stillborn fetuses or deny pregnant women the freedom to make end-of-life decisions for themselves. Some of these laws are also intended to create a basis for challenging and eventually overturning Roe.

In the hands of zealous prosecutors, cautious doctors and litigious attorneys, these laws are creating a system of social control that polices pregnancy, as the editorials in this series show. Because of the newly fortified conservative majority on the Supreme Court, such laws are likely to multiply — and the control to become more pervasive — whether or not Roe is overturned.

In the concluding part of the series, Times editors opine:

A society that embraces a legal concept of fetal personhood would necessarily compromise existing ideals of individual freedom. Americans — even many who oppose abortion — have not considered the startling implications of this idea, even as it has steadily gained strength in the law and in social norms. If a fetus is granted equal rights, women who become pregnant may find their most personal decisions coming under state control.

Sympathetic Court Nevertheless Rejects Claim That Chimpanzees Are "Persons" Entitled To Habeas Relief

A New York state trial court judge yesterday in a 33-page opinion sympathetic to plaintiffs' claims nevertheless rejected attempts by animal rights activists to obtain a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of two chimpanzees used in scientific studies at State University of New York at Stony Brook.  In Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v. Stanley, (NY Cty. Sup. Ct., July 30, 2015), after dealing with a number of procedural and jurisdictional issues, the court moved to the central question in the case: "whether a chimpanzee is a legal person entitled to bring  writ of habeas corpus." The court pointed out that "'legal personhood' is not necessarily synonymous with being human..."  Courts use the legal fiction of personhood to treat corporations as persons. However the court decided it was bound by appellate precedent to reject the claim of personhood here. The opinion concluded:

The similarities between chimpanzees and humans inspire the empathy felt for a beloved pet.  Efforts to extend legal rights to chimpanzees are thus understandable; some day they may even succeed.  Courts, however, are slow to embrace change, and occasionally seem reluctant to engage in broader, more inclusive interpretations of law, if only to the modest extent of affording them greater consideration.  As Justice Kennedy aptly observed in Lawrence v. Texas, albeit in a different context, "times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress."... The pace may now be accelerating. (See Obergefell v. Hodges....)

In a press release on the decision, the Nonhuman Rights Project said it will promptly appeal the decision to the Appellate Division.  New York Times reports on the decision.