As the 2012 budget battles began, Clare Coleman, CEO of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, took to the pages of the Washington Post. In a piece called “Five Myths about Planned Parenthood,” she argued that defunding the organization was an ignoble goal for members of Congress looking to cut the bloated federal budget.
She said she wanted to address “misperceptions” about the abortion-industry giant. She was joined in her goal on the front page of the Washington Post by reporter Sandhya Somashekhar, who painted a picture of Planned Parenthood that minimized the role abortion plays at the organization’s health-care affiliates.
Advertisement
In presenting Planned Parenthood as mainly focused on prevention, Ms. Coleman neglects to mention several statistics, gleaned from the organization’s own annual reports and fact sheets, that illustrate its heavy (and increasing) involvement in abortion, as well as its practices that routinely place women’s health and safety secondary to its own bottom line.
While the Washington Post declined to present an alternative to the Planned Parenthood way of thinking, there are a multitude of other facts to consider. To add to the discussion of whether Planned Parenthood should continue to be funded, let’s consider five truths about an industry that receives more than $360 million in taxpayer subsidies annually.
1. Planned Parenthood is the nation’s largest abortion provider, performing (and profiting from) one out of every four abortions in the United States.
In 2009, abortion was a “service” that Planned Parenthood provided to 12 percent of its patients overall, and to 97.6 percent of its patients who reported themselves pregnant. It performed 332,278 abortions in that one year alone. That is an average of 910 abortions each and every day.
Since the average cost of an early surgical abortion was $451 (according to the Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood’s former “special affiliate”), abortion accounted for approximately 37 percent of Planned Parenthood’s health-care-center income in 2009. And that figure — nearly $150 million in revenue from abortion — is a low estimate, considering that Planned Parenthood also performs later and more expensive abortions.
In terms of time, money, and unduplicated patients — rather than the bloated “services” rhetoric — abortion contributes significantly more than the 3 percent Ms. Coleman implies to Planned Parenthood’s bottom line.
2.Planned Parenthood increases its abortion numbers with each passing year, bucking the nearly 20-year national trend of a decreasing abortion rate.
Today, Planned Parenthood performs nearly double the number of abortions it did in 1999. And over the last twelve years — during which the amount of taxpayer funding Planned Parenthood receives has, coincidentally, also doubled — it has dramatically reduced the other pregnancy-related services it provides. In 2009, Planned Parenthood made referrals for only 997 adoptions, in contrast to the 2,999 referrals it made in 1999. Similarly, Planned Parenthood’s clients for prenatal care dropped from 18,878 to only 7,021.
Abby Johnson, the former director of Planned Parenthood’s clinic in Bryan, Texas, reports that, in 2009, her clinic was given an increased abortion quota in order to raise revenue. (According to Mrs. Johnson, “the assigned budget always included a line for client goals under abortion services.”) Mrs. Johnson has said that her superiors gave her “the clear and distinct understanding that I was to get my priorities straight, that abortion was where my priorities needed to be because that’s where the revenue was.”
The latest annual report for the affiliate Ms. Coleman headed before she assumed her current post, Planned Parenthood of Mid-Hudson Valley (PPMHV), seems to corroborate Mrs. Johnson’s claim that Planned Parenthood is increasing abortion services with an eye toward increased revenue. PPMHV is relocating its consolidated clinics to open larger and more “modern” facilities, which, notably, have “the addition of surgical abortion services.” The PPMHV report “anticipates” that these new centers will lead to “increasing our revenue and sustainability.”
Planned Parenthood’s new use of Skype to dispense abortion-inducing drugs and its mandate that all affiliates provide abortion services by 2013 also indicate that the organization wants its abortion-increasing trend to continue.
People who need abortions need Planned Parenthood, especially in underserved communities that otherwise lack an abortion provider. Abortions are a legal medical procedure and the public has and continues to expect the government to protect the one organization brave enough to continue to serve this vital function.
Is there really more proof required that we'll get more of whatever our taxes subsidize?
That being the case, it should be no shock to any student of basic economics that when we subsidize an abortion provider - surprise - we'll get more abortions.
They can call themselves anything they want but that's what Planned Parenthood is. Were abortions truly only 3% of their business, and were they truly focused on other business, they would drop the 3% of their business takes so much attention away from the other 97% of their business.
Planned Parenthood will always have their apologists who will attempt to assure everyone otherwise but the bottom line is if you are pro-abortion, you are pro-Planned Parenthood. If not, you are against them. It's that simple.
Abortion is murder, plain and simple! God created every human being (at conception) with a plan for that child! To view it any other way is deceiving yourself. Planned Parenthood should be defunded immediately! I don't understand why people don't seem to get the kind of organization PP is, even after they were exposed so blatantly. If they want to stay in business, they should exist on private donations only!
Obviously, the less abortions that are performed, the better.
However, they are legal to perform and it is illegal for federal appropriations to be spent on performing abortions.
Therefore this argument that an agency should lose federal funding based on the number of procedures they perform without federal funding is completely invalid.
Furthermore, I question the statistics in this article. There was plenty of discussion after Senator Kyle completely misrepresented the number of abortions on the Senate floor. Twelve percent of all services is obviously much higher than the three percent that has been widely reported. And I am even more skeptical of the fact that 97+ percent of reportedly "pregnant" women received an abortion.
Generally speaking, people need to start calling this what it is. A total ban on all abortions is a theological issue. This country is not a theocracy, despite the number of Christians who want it to be. Women's rights are at stake and a woman has the right to choose to be a mother or not.
@ Pro Choice,
You set forth that government money does not go towards PP's providing abortions. However, that is not true- they do not have any firewall in place. Money is fungible- the money received offsets all expenses by PP, so does in fact subsidize abortion.
You also make this statement:
"Women's rights are at stake and a woman has the right to choose to be a mother or not."
Of course, the reasoned response is that the choice is up front- once a baby is involved, no mother has the right to decide any longer the life and death of her child. Parenthood is already a fact, and the options for choosing are care for the child, or place it with adoptive parents.
Fact is, it is illegal to kill an unborn child (HOMOCIDE or MANSLAUGHTER) in every case, except when the mother or abortion provided are the ones carrying out the deed. This inconsistency must be resolved, and must be in favor of life, and protecting those who cannot protect themselves, if our society is to survive.
Planned Parenthood is "brave enough" to ensure their bottom line (money) is met.
This organization was begun by a racist, eugenicist woman, whose beliefs about preventing those she deemed less desirable to reproduce inspired her. I find it neither brave nor worthy of any federal support. If all the "pro choice" people here believe so strongly in the organization's mission, then, by all means, support it. No one is stopping you.
There are many other abortion providers out there.
It is frightening how much blood is on the hands of the United States for not only allowing abortions, but subsidizing it. As a taxpayer and citizen, I am outraged.
As a woman myself, to say that women's rights are at stake greatly offends me. Taking the life of an unborn human who is very much alive is NO right of mine. Women have the right to choose to be a mother when they choose to have s## and to have it with or without protection. This is legitimate "choice". Not the murder PP is in the business for.
I worked for Planned Parenthood for three years. As a man, my overall experience with the organization was that PP and all of its employees cared more about the well being of women and children more than the combined conservative population of the United States.
"People who need abortions need Planned Parenthood, especially in underserved communities that otherwise lack an abortion provider."
If we accept the statistics in the article then only 1 in 4 abortions are provided by PP. Apparently there are other means available and 75% of the people use them instead.
"Abortions are a legal medical procedure ..."
So are nose jobs and the public supports the people's right to them but why should the people, who must pay through taxation, be expected to fund the procedures?
I have no doubt that there are large parts of the country where obtaining a rhinoplasty is challenging but no one seems to want to spend taxpayer moneies help the nostrily impared lead the kind of life you and I take for granted.
I am curious. Why is it so important to people such as yourself that people such as myself must participate (willingly or by force (taxation is force)) in what we consider to be a highly immoral act?
Do you think that by attempting to involve those of us who object you can gain some sort of credibility that you otherwise lack?
It can not be because of money because there are more than enough private funds available to support PP so it must be something else.
BTW, since my money goes for this I have every right to be as opposed as you do to be in favor. You can not have it both ways by suggesting that we should keep silent even as we pay.
"... brave enough to continue to serve this vital function."
Brave? How much bravery is required to poison a baby or cut him to pieces with a scalpel?
BTW, if we start with a human egg and fertilize it with a human sperm and then we allow this fertilized egg to grow to maturity what will we ultimately get? What MUST we ultimately get?
So are nose jobs and the public supports the people's right to them but why should the people, who must pay through taxation, be expected to fund the procedures?
---
Abortions are not funded by federal taxes. In fact, it illegal for any abortion provider to use government money to perform an abortion.
PP uses their federal aid to provide other healthcare services to underprivileged women.
If someone believes that PP is misappropriating their money, that's a different argument entirely. But I haven't heard it yet.
To me the point is why should the federal government be involved at all with PP, regardless of your feelings about abortion. How is this a function of the feds and where is this responsibility defined in the Constitution? Supposedly fed funding is a small part of PP funding so why doesn't PP hustle its supporters to up their contributions, cut its fed funding to zero, and thereby eliminate the controversy?
"In 2009, we provided nearly 11.4 million medical services for three million people, and helped to prevent approximately 612,000 unintended pregnancies."
The table of provided services reports 332,278 abortions, which works out to one abortion per 9.03 clients, or 11.07% percent. Granted, some clients may have have multiple abortions within the calender year.
If you look at the number of abortions (332,278), the number of prenatal clients (7021), and the number of adoption referrals (977) the math necessary to arrive at 97.65% is straightforward. To be fair, some percentage of clients who discover they're pregnant are likely referred to other clinics for prenatal care, but it is still accurate that the service provided by PPFA directly to pregnant women is overwhelmingly abortive.
The accounting by number of "services" is a dishonest representation in a number of ways. It conflates something as trivial as selling or giving away a pack of condoms with a surgical procedure. I go to work five times a week, but I go to the bathroom maybe five times /a day/; does that mean I go the bathroom more than I work?
Additionally, there is clear padding in the numbers. A client seeking an abortion will likely be counted as getting multiple "services"; e.g. a pregnancy test to confirm, an AIDS test, an STI screening, possibly a pap smear and finally a handful of complimentary condoms on the way out the door. In other words, a client going in for an abortion - and only an abortion - may be counted more on the non-abortion side of the ledger.
Whether funding Planned Parenthood is de facto funding for abortion is a matter that can reasonably be disagreed upon. To the extent that federal funds can be used to pay for surgical facilities that will ultimately be used primarily for abortion (given that they perform very few other surgical services) and covering ancillary costs of abortions (the aforementioned tests), I lean toward thinking that it is.
Moreover, I see no good reason why federal funding should be directed to a controversial private organization to provide health services that could be provided through the community health centers operating under the HRSA program.
Smither Jones, your comment about "underserved communities" is a joke! Do you mean underserved by abortionists? Do you mean minority communities? They are targeted for extinction by Planned Parenthood, which is a racist eugenicist organization. If you have ever heard abortionists actually speak, it is chilling. They can obfuscate all they want about "women's health" but we know what they do for a living: destroy and break hearts.
Through our tax dollars, we all have to support issues we may morally object to. I am against the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. Thousands of civilians and American soldiers have been killed or maimed. Why is your moral outrage over abortion (which your tax dollars don't support anyway, just Planned Parenthood overhead and other services)more valid than my objection to pointless war?
As to bravery, it takes alot of bravery to continue to provide the vital service of abortion in the cultural climate in which providers are called murderers and have to wear kevlar.
Underserved communities? Why yes. There are states with only one provider, often Planned Parenthood.
The whole "Planned Parenthood is eugenicists" canard is well and truly played out. Lots of organizations have evolved from their dubious inceptions. Same with PP.
Don't like abortions? Fine. You don't have to. But this fait accompli assertion that because PP provides abortions we should stop funding it is not an accepted premise. Have the country thinks that PP provides a vital service to the community, including abortions, and that federal funding should continue.
We would be better off closing all the foreign military installations and service academies.
If we start with a human egg and fertilize it with a human sperm and then we allow this fertilized egg to grow to maturity what will we ultimately get? What MUST we ultimately get?
What is this pathetic dependence on the "profit" meme about?
Planned Parenthood is not in business for profit. It is prohibited by its own organizational documents from making a profit. It uses any accumulated surplus to further its own charitable ends. Like any other organization, it pays its employees. Like any other charity, it can't spend money it doesn't have and its net assets go up and down year over year. The only dividends it pays are psychic ones to its contributors and beneficiaries.
I guess certain statements in the article aren't intended to be factual.
