On Abortion: It's Professional, Political & Personal

-->

First, Trump proposes a “gag rule” denying funds for any organization that makes referrals for abortions, shares physical space with an abortion provider, or provides abortions directly. Next, he appoints Diane Foley, an avowed religious activist, to oversee family planning at the Department of Health and Human Services. Then the Supreme Court rules that California cannot regulate Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs) based on a dubious free speech argument. And now, with Justice Anthony Kennedy stepping down, the future of Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to a safe abortion is threatened.

As deputy secretary of H&HS, Diane Foley will oversee Title X (the sole federal program that supports family planning and preventive services). Foley is the former president of Life Network, an organization that runs two CPCs.

CPCs are nonprofit organizations. Here’s a typical vision statement: “A culture where women and men faced with pregnancy decisions are transformed by the gospel of Jesus Christ and empowered to choose life for their unborn children and abundant life for their families.” Yet their ads claim that all options about pregnancy are provided. This is a consistent tactic – deliberately deceptive advertising followed by falsified information stating abortions cause breast cancer, lifetime depression, and suicide. Note that the gag rule eliminates requirements that providers counsel patients about all health care options (including parenting, adoption, and abortion). Voila – CPCs will be replacing full-service nonprofits like Planned Parenthood.

And the Supreme Court just ruled that the state of California can’t require CPCs to provide accurate information about all pregnancy options. This, even though the Court has allowed states to require that medical providers tell pregnant women about the possibility of adoption.

I have worked in the nonprofit world all of my adult life. I didn’t do it for the big bucks or the bright lights; I chose this work because it’s a world in which people and organizations choose to heal the world, to make it a better place. For me, it is profoundly unethical for a nonprofit to lie to clients based on religious doctrine.

Here’s my personal story. In my early twenties, shortly after the Roe V. Wade decision, I had two abortions. I was young, trying to find my way in life; I was using contraception that failed. All I had to do was walk down the street to the local clinic where the doctor (a friend of mine) treated me compassionately and professionally, without judgment. I have never regretted those abortions; they were absolutely the right choice for me at that time in my life. And when I was older, ready, and in a stable relationship, I chose to have a family (two sons and now four completely adorable grandchildren).

Here’s a powerful quote from Ruth Bader Ginsberg: “The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a woman’s life, her well-being and dignity. When the governments controls that decision for her, she is being treated as less than a full adult human responsible for her own choices.”

So what I am feeling now is deep and angry. It’s professional, political, and very personal. Anyone who does not believe in abortion has the right to let that determine her personal decisions. But no one – and certainly not five men in black robes – has the right to tell women what our personal reproductive choices should be. I urge you all to join me in speaking out against the gag rule, opposing the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, and donating to Planned Parenthood.  

One More Time: Congress, the IRS, and Nonprofits

Heads up: Congress is considering two measures that will affect IRS regulation of nonprofits.

First, a little background – for the past ten years, Republicans lawmakers have vented their anger at the IRS’ supposed bias against right-leaning nonprofits by slashing its budget big-time (current budget is 18% less than it was in 2010, adjusted for inflation) – despite the inconvenient fact that numerous left-leaning groups were also targeted for similar scrutiny. 

Now, suddenly things have changed, following the passage of the new tax (their signature and pretty much only legislative accomplishment since they have controlled the Presidency, the House, and the Senate). The House Appropriations Committee just released a spending bill for 2019 that would increase the IRS budget, albeit modestly, including new funds to help implement the GOP tax law.

Here’s what else is in the bill: a provision that would pretty much bar the IRS from denying tax-exempt status to churches that participate in political campaigns. Sound familiar? It’s the Johnson Amendment redux (quick review – it’s a long-standing tax law that prevents churches and other nonprofits from endorsing or opposing political candidates). The House Appropriations Committee included a provision trashing the Johnson Amendment in the 2018 spending bill, but it didn’t make the cut. Apparently, if at first they didn’t succeed, they intend to keep trying and trying again. 

On the other side of the aisle, the Senate Appropriations Committee is considering a proposal eliminating donor reporting requirements. As it stands now, federal tax law requires nonprofits that file an annual tax return to provide information on donors giving contributions totaling $5,000 or more (in money or property). Note that the IRS is required by law to keep this information confidential.This issue has long been fought in state courts. In 1958, the NAACP successfully challenged an Alabama law requiring nonprofits to provide a list of members, arguing that disclosure would harm them, their supporters, and their right to free speech - and they won. But more recently, in a case brought by Citizens United in New York, a federal court ruled the other way. According to the judge, "an individual who seeks to advance a cause might reasonably hesitate knowing that an officer of the state will see that they have done so, but totalitarian tendencies do not lurk behind very instance of a state's collection of information about those in their jurisdiction." 

So: Is maintaining donor anonymity essential to protect free speech, especially for those voicing controversial options in hostile environments? And does free speech mean that churches should be able to use tax-deductible dollars to support partisan political candidates? The debate continues in courts, in Congress, and online. 

Here's where I stand: I'm firmly on the side of donor transparency. I believe the public has the right to know the provenance of tax-deductible donations supporting issue-driven nonprofits, whether conservative or liberal. And I'm firmly on the side of separation of church and state. All nonprofits, including churches, can already speak out and advocate on important issues, but active participation in partisan politics crosses the line.

Three Simple Fundraising Tips: Bequests, Brokerage Accounts & IRAs

Bequests, brokerage accounts and IRA contributions: all of these are important tools to include in your fundraising kit. Here’s some basic information about each, including how they are affected by the new tax law:

Bequests: Bequests are a simple, easy, and common form of charitable giving (8% of total annual giving, and 90% of planned gifts). All a donor has to do is add a clause in their will or trust, designating a specific amount of money (or stocks, bonds, assets) to be given to your nonprofit. Your nonprofit doesn’t have to have a complicated planned giving strategy, or a designated legal advisor, or a big marketing plan. All you have you to do is actively encourage people to consider a bequest to your nonprofit – on your website, brochures, enewsletters – as well as in personal meetings with supporters. Start building a list of folks who have done so, give the group a catchy moniker, and post the list (with permission) on your walls and website. Ask them to publicly share a personal story about why they chose to do so.  And note that bequests come for all kinds of people (not just the obviously well-to-do) - often as a surprise, from long time donors who have given small gifts over time, and whom you may not have even met.

Brokerage accounts: Many Boomers may not be to make significant cash donations, but as their parents pass on, they are quite likely to inherit appreciated stocks. Under the new tax law, folks who donate appreciated stocks, bonds or other assets to a charity will continue to be able to avoid all capital gains tax - regardless of whether or not the donor is able to itemize. To facilitate these gifts, your nonprofit needs to have a brokerage account (my recommendation: Schwab is the easiest and best option). It takes some doing to set it up, but there's no cost, and once the paperwork is in place you are ready to go. Be sure to make it clear on your donation page that you welcome gifts of stock, and that it's easy to do.

IRA Rollover Contributions: Folks who are 70 1/2 or older and have an IRA can make a charitable donation (of up to $100,000) directly from their IRA accounts. It's easy - and, similar to gifts of stock, can be done whether or not the donor is itemizing. Plus the amount of the distribution will be excluded from their taxable income, yielding a much better bottom line on returns; as well, these donations will count towards the annual required minimum distribution.

None of these tips are instant money-makers: we're just talking basic, long-term strategies, all of of them simple and well worth pursuing. You just need to make a decision to move forward and let folks know about these opportunities to support your good work.