https://twitter.com/joanmccarter/status/1130829683199635457

This is where Don McGahn works now:

The RNC's record spending in April was boosted by a $2 MILLION payment to Jones Day for legal and compliance services:https://t.co/neoVg0e465#FECFilingDay

— Derek Willis (@derekwillis) May 21, 2019

Illinois legislators are considering making major changes to Illinois’ estate tax. Two bills are currently being debated in the Illinois House. One would adjust the tax threshold to match that at the federal level. The other would remove it completely.

An estate tax is a tax someone must pay for any inheritance they receive. The problem some legislators see with this is that it is driving some families out of business, particularly farmers. Once a farmer passes away, it is very common for them to leave the family farm to close loved ones. Unfortunately, those loved ones have to pay an estate tax on that land and sometimes, that tax is thousands of dollars.

Many people simply cannot afford this and so, they end up selling off large pieces of equipment or even a portion of the land just to keep some of the farm in the family. This is what some legislators think is unfair, and why they want to do away with the tax altogether. Others look at the $254 million in state revenues from the estate tax in 2017 and say it is a move Illinois cannot afford to make.

“I do not understand why we are placing the state’s budget over the needs of our people,” says Steve Novak of Estate & Probate Legal Group. “Sometimes the tax is as high as 16 percent. Even on a small farm that is worth only $100,000, that leaves family members potentially still paying $16,000 in estate tax. It is too much to ask.”

Perhaps it is. So, will legislators be able to come to an agreement? They may, but it may not be on the bill that would eliminate the tax altogether. More likely, they will agree on House Bill 0820, which does not eliminate the tax, but it does make it applicable to only certain estates. This bill would raise the tax threshold to the federal level of $11.4 million. That is a far jump from Illinois’ current threshold of $4 million.

Under these thresholds, an estate would need to be worth a minimum of the threshold mark before being subject to estate taxes. This may be the best hope Illinois has for changing the estate tax. While it would not eliminate it, it would make it easier for those with smaller farms and other property to inherit the asset without depleting their savings in order to get it.

The Georgia Senate has approved a bill dubbed “C.J.’s Law” that would increase the penalties for drivers that hit someone and fled the scene of the accident. It stems from a crash that happened over ten years ago, and hopes to prevent more drivers from leaving the scene of an accident.

It was in January of 2009 when Charlie Jones, nicknamed C.J. by family, was out walking in Cobb County. A car struck him and left the scene, leaving C.J. on the road hurt. Another vehicle, not seeing C.J. lying in the street, then hit him again. The second driver stopped, but that crash was the one that took C.J.’s life. If the first driver had stopped to offer help, C.J. may still be with his family today.

“If someone is drunk and kills someone while behind the wheel of a car, they face up to 15 years in prison,” says Scott Pryor of Scott A. Pryor, Attorney at Law. “Why do hit and run drivers, that show just as much disregard for the lives of others, face a minimum of only five years?”

That is what the law is looking to change. Currently, drivers involved in a hit and run face anywhere between one and five years in prison. The new law increases that maximum prison sentence to ten years. However, that is still only the maximum, meaning that some hit and run drivers could still face minimal sentences.

C.J.’s family is very hopeful for the bill, although it is not likely going to help them. In the decade that has passed since C.J.’s death, the driver that hit him and fled the scene has never been caught. C.J.’s family though, still hopes that the new law will bring much-needed justice to families searching for it.

It was in February that the bill passed through the Senate with overwhelming support. While 50 legislators were in support of the bill, there was only one that was against it. Now, it moves onto the House of Representatives, where it will also need majority approval. If it gets that, the bill moves to the governor’s office for his signature.

Rachel Mikva, Chicago Theological Seminary

Alabama’s governor signed a bill this week that criminalizes nearly all abortions, threatening providers with a felony conviction and up to 99 years in prison.

It is one of numerous efforts across the United States to restrict access to abortion and challenge the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion nationwide.

Six states have recently passed legislation that limit abortions to approximately six weeks after the end of a woman’s last period, before many know they are pregnant. Although the laws have not yet taken effect and several have been blocked on constitutional grounds, if enacted they would prohibit most abortions once a doctor can hear rhythmic electrical impulses in the developing fetus.

Called “fetal heartbeat” bills, they generally refer to the fetus as an “unborn human individual.” It is a strategic choice, trying to establish fetal personhood, but it also reveals assumptions about human life beginning at conception that are based on particular Christian teachings.

Not all Christians agree, and diverse religious traditions have a great deal to say about this question that gets lost in the polarized “pro-life” or “pro-choice” debate. As an advocate of reproductive rights, I have taken a side. Yet as a scholar of Jewish Studies, I appreciate how rabbinic sources grapple with the complexity of the issue and offer multiple perspectives.

What Jewish texts say

Traditional Jewish practice is based on careful reading of biblical and rabbinic teachings. The process yields “halakha,” generally translated as “Jewish law” but deriving from the Hebrew root for walking a path.

Even though many Jews do not feel bound by “halakha,” the value it attaches to ongoing study and reasoned argument fundamentally shapes Jewish thought.

The majority of foundational Jewish texts assert that a fetus does not attain the status of personhood until birth.

Although the Hebrew Bible does not mention abortion, it does talk about miscarriage in Exodus 21:22-25. It imagines the case of men fighting, injuring a pregnant woman in the process. If she miscarries but suffers no additional injury, the penalty is a fine.

Since the death of a person would be murder or manslaughter, and carry a different penalty, most rabbinic sources deduce from these verses that a fetus has a different status.

An early, authoritative rabbinic work, the Mishnah, discusses the question of a woman in distress during labor. If her life is at risk, the fetus must be destroyed to save her. Once its head starts to emerge from the birth canal, however, it becomes a human life, or “nefesh.” At that point, according to Jewish law, one must try to save both mother and child. It prohibits setting aside one life for the sake of another.

Although this passage reinforces the idea that a fetus is not yet a human life, some orthodox authorities allow abortion only when the mother’s life is at risk.

Other Jewish scholars point to a different Mishnah passage that envisions the case of a pregnant woman sentenced to death. The execution would not be delayed unless she has already gone into labor.

In the Talmud, an extensive collection of teachings building on the Mishnah, the rabbis suggest that the ruling is obvious: the fetus is part of her body. It also records an opinion that the fetus should be aborted before the sentence is carried out, so that the woman does not suffer further shame.

Later commentators mention partial discharge of the fetus brought on by the execution as an example – but the passage’s focus on the needs of the mother can also broaden the circumstances for allowing abortion.

Making space for divergent opinions

These teachings represent only a small fraction of Jewish interpretations. To discover “what Judaism says” about abortion, the standard approach is to study a variety of contrasting texts that explore diverse perspectives.

Over the centuries, rabbis have addressed cases related to potentially deformed fetuses, pregnancy as the result of rape or adultery, and other heart-wrenching decisions that women and families have faced.

In contemporary Jewish debate there are stringent opinions adopting the attitude that abortion is homicide – thus permissible only to save the mother’s life. And there are other lenient interpretations broadly expanding justifications based on women’s well-being.

Yet the former usually cite contrary opinions, or even refer a questioner to inquire elsewhere. The latter still emphasize Judaism’s profound reverence for life.

According to the 2017 Pew survey, 83% of American Jews believe that abortion should be legal in all or most cases. All the non-orthodox movements have statements supporting reproductive rights, and even ultra-orthodox leaders have resisted anti-abortion measures that do not allow religious exceptions.

This broad support, I argue, reveals the Jewish commitment to the separation of religion and state in the U.S., and a reluctance to legislate moral questions for everyone when there is much room for debate.

There is more than one religious view on abortion.

Rachel Mikva, Associate Professor of Jewish Studies, Chicago Theological Seminary

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.