Planned Parenthood and the Factory Abortion Industry Part I
September 4, 2019
By Dr. Eric Criss
Press coverage intensified in August as the deadline for compliance with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Title X Protect Life Rule came and went. This blog series, Planned Parenthood and the Factory Abortion Industry, covers the current Protect Life Rule’s impact and its origins. Today, let’s talk about the history of Title X, specifically the recent rule’s link to Title X’s original intent, and the reason Planned Parenthood’s sacrificed its Title X funding.
The Act’s Original Intent
Pro-life groups, the Trump administration, the medical establishment, and pro-choice groups alike have reacted to the Protect Life Rule also known as Title X’s Abortion Provider Prohibition Act. The original intent of Title X reveals the necessity for the current Protect Life Rule. In 1970, under Nixon, Congress passed the Family Planning Services and Population Research Act which included Title X. Significant for the 2019 Protect Life Rule is section 1008 of the original 1970 act, which reads “none of the funds appropriated under this title shall be used in programs of facilities where abortion is a method of family planning.” At issue under the current rule lies taxpayer funded abortion and, more specifically, funding family planning and women’s health services as opposed to abortion.
HHS clarified the need for clear streams of funding saying there is a need for “clear financial and physical separation between Title X funded projects and programs or facilities where abortion is a method of family planning. This separation will ensure adherence to statutory restrictions and provide needed clarity for the public and for Title X clinics about permissible and impermissible activities for Title X projects.” In other words, the Protect Life Rule requires grantees (clinics receiving Title X funds) to be located separately from abortion clinics and expects grantees to receive funding which remains entirely separate from moneys which cover abortion.
Planned Parenthood: Factory Abortion Champions
Now, the response of some women’s health clinics is telling and, considering their disregard for human life, their refusal of Title X funds falls right in line with their political and fiscal agenda. We know clearly who responds to politics rather than the needs of American women in rural and urban areas who struggle financially. Guess who doesn’t prioritize women’s health care? Clinics who provide abortion and women’s health services, namely, Planned Parenthood, who have refused Title X funds since the Protect Life Rule’s passing. The need for cancer screenings, annual exams, pregnancy testing, and STI testing exists among 4 million women with low incomes.
Planned Parenthood’s decision to turn down Title X funds reveals the priority they place upon abortion services and their pro-abortion political agenda even above providing health services for women with low incomes. According to its 2017-2018 Annual Report, Planned Parenthood performed 332,757 abortions. Do you wonder how much Planned Parenthood makes for performing abortions? You guessed it . . . Planned Parenthood obscures their abortion earnings. Within the same annual report, Planned Parenthood claims over $2 billion in net assets, including income of $1.6 billion for its last fiscal year and $244.8 million in excess of revenue over expenses.
The Factory Abortion Industry
Jeanneane Maxon, J.D., an associate scholar for the Charlotte Lozier Institute, estimates Planned Parenthood’s possible range of abortion income as roughly $216 million to $334 million. Maxon explains, “Assuming that the prices shown in Planned Parenthood of Southern New England’s Cost Calculator are reflective of nationwide prices, Planned Parenthood would have received income between $216,292,050 on the low-end (an in-clinic abortion under 12 weeks without sedation) to $334,420,785 on the high-end (an in-clinic abortion between 16-18.6 weeks with sedation).” Planned Parenthood’s significant abortion earnings reveal why they chose to turn down Title X funds which serve women with low incomes. They prefer raking in the dough by discussing and promoting abortions and sharing locations with abortion facilities over providing health services for women. Next week, we further consider the impact of clinics’ refusal of Title X funds upon women with low incomes and describe the responses to the Protect Life rule by pro-life groups.