Editor’s note. Part one of this series was published last week. Part two was published yesterday.
MYTH #5: It is a common misconception that government funding to Planned Parenthood is not being used for abortions.
This assertion is demonstrably false. It is evident that numerous state and local governments provide financial support to Planned Parenthood. Indeed, it is probable that these governments would continue to do so even in the absence of federal support. For instance, the Washington Post published an article on 6 April 2017, entitled “Maryland first to mitigate any Planned Parenthood cuts,” which highlighted the fact that the state of Maryland was planning to maintain its financial support for Planned Parenthood despite the federal government’s decision to reduce its funding.
At the present time, according to the Guttmacher Institute, 17 states currently utilise their own state funds to pay for abortions for Medicaid patients, including high population states such as California, Illinois, and New York. A total of 186 Planned Parenthood-affiliated clinics are located in the three aforementioned states. Furthermore, the abortion rate in these states is above the national average. Notably, nearly 80% of Planned Parenthood clinics in these states offer abortion services (as of 2016). It is reasonable to posit that a significant proportion of Planned Parenthood’s more than half a billion dollars in government funding originates from states such as these.
Planned Parenthood’s case is based on the Hyde Amendment, a piece of legislation that is passed annually. It states that federal funds are not to be used for abortions, except in rare instances such as rape, incest, or to preserve the life of the mother. This ensures that federal taxpayer dollars do not directly subsidize abortions, while allowing Planned Parenthood to receive federal funding for other services.
Planned Parenthood has long been engaged in efforts to repeal the Hyde Amendment. The repeal of the Hyde Amendment was a central tenet of the 2016 presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, who was a proponent of abortion rights. The Hyde Amendment has been associated with the saving of up to two million lives.
However, this amendment does not preclude federal funding from being directed towards Planned Parenthood, which already receives substantial financial support from the government (with annual revenues of approximately $1.3 billion as reported in its 2014-2015 annual report). Planned Parenthood can utilise this funding in a multitude of ways to advance its brand and maintain the viability of its abortion clinics.
It is possible for money that does not directly reimburse abortion costs to be used to pay for staff salaries, office equipment, rent, or community education and outreach programmes that raise the group’s profile and reputation. Moreover, even if federal funding does not directly reimburse abortion costs, it nevertheless serves as official recognition of the group’s medical credentials (regardless of their actual safety record) and the social acceptability of their agenda and mission. This may provide some reassurance to the woman who is considering terminating her pregnancy, although this is not a justifiable reason for doing so.
The funds allocated to Planned Parenthood are fungible, meaning that the expenditure on one area of the budget can free up other funds that would otherwise have been required to cover the same services. If one were to take one’s family out for pizza and a movie, and I were to offer to pay for the pizza but not the movie, this would still imply that one has more of one’s own money available to cover the movie tickets. It is possible that you may have had funds available for only one or the other, but with my assistance, you can cover both, despite the fact that I did not purchase the movie tickets.
The federal funding received by Planned Parenthood is instrumental in maintaining the organisation’s abortion services, which account for a significant proportion of its activities. These include family planning, sex education programmes and cancer screenings, which often utilise the same personnel, facilities and equipment as the abortion services. This results in a diversion of private contributions and additional revenue that could otherwise be invested in the delivery of genuine healthcare services towards the promotion and performance of abortion.
Planned Parenthood already receives a considerable sum of money each year from wealthy private benefactors, including billionaires such as Warren Buffett, George Soros, and the Packard Foundation (National Right to Life News Today, 8/31/16).
Those with the financial resources to maintain the operations of Planned Parenthood, a provider of abortion services, may choose to do so. This is a matter of personal choice, rather than a matter of public concern. However, there is no justification for the public to be funding organisations that, without any sense of regret or remorse, engage in the killing of innocent unborn children.
Once more, President Trump extended an invitation to Planned Parenthood to retain every federal dollar earmarked for contraceptive services, sexually transmitted disease testing and treatment, and cancer screenings, provided that the organisation ceased to perform abortions. This is despite the fact that Planned Parenthood has repeatedly stated that this represents only a small percentage of its services.
The aforementioned deal was rejected (multiple media sources, 3/6/17).
MYTH #6: Planned Parenthood was exonerated of any wrongdoing in the fetal tissue trafficking videos.
The reputation of Planned Parenthood was significantly damaged following the release of undercover videos in the summer of 2015. These videos depicted some of the organisation’s top executives negotiating the reimbursement fees for the fetal tissue and organs of babies aborted at its clinics. Those who remain unconvinced may wish to consider the vehemence of their denials, the endlessly repeated spin in the media that the videos were “heavily edited,” and the claim that full transcripts exonerated them and proved that they had done nothing wrong.
It remains to be seen whether the Congress and the courts will ultimately permit Planned Parenthood to evade legal consequences. Even if the most expensive legal counsel is able to identify loopholes in the lax fetal tissue laws and persuade prosecutors and judges that no violations occurred, this will not significantly enhance Planned Parenthood’s reputation.
Planned Parenthood is eager to discredit the videos, as it is keen to prevent people from viewing them. Those who do view them will be unable to forget what they have seen. Those who viewed the videos, whether the “edited” versions or the longer ones featuring lunch and bathroom breaks, were unable to unsee or unhear Planned Parenthood National Director of Medical Services Deborah Nucatola sipping wine, eating salad, and discussing the procurement of fetal tissue. Furthermore, the videos show Deborah Nucatola, the National Director of Medical Services at Planned Parenthood, discussing the importance of “crushing above” and “crushing below” to obtain intact hearts, lungs, and livers. Additionally, Mary Gatter, the president of Planned Parenthood’s Medical Council, is seen discussing the use of “less crunchy techniques” to obtain fetal parts, presumably for her own personal use.
In other videos, individuals observed the legs, hands, eyes, and brains of infants who had been extracted from their mothers’ wombs mere hours prior. Some Planned Parenthood employees made light of the situation, stating, “It’s another boy!”
The issue that caused concern for many individuals was not simply that Planned Parenthood personnel might have been seeking to generate even greater financial gain from the termination of unborn fetuses than they had already done. The issue was compounded by the fact that they could so casually and callously disregard the destruction of innocent human life, even at a gestational age of 20 weeks or more. This was as if the child were nothing more than a toenail, a tonsil, or an inflamed appendix.
The discourse surrounding the issue had shifted away from discussions of challenging or “tragic choices,” and instead focused on the absence of emotional distress and loss. It is perplexing to consider why there was no evident sense of horror or revulsion when viewing the dismembered remains of a human infant, which had only recently been developing within the womb of its mother. Those who were indifferent to the humanity of the unborn child were in danger of losing their own lives.
Those who viewed the videos were able to discern that they had observed something sinister and malevolent, with Planned Parenthood at the center of it all.
MYTH #7: Planned Parenthood is a selfless non-profit health care provider.
For a non-profit healthcare organisation, Planned Parenthood appears to have a considerable surplus of financial resources. In its last six annual reports, spanning financials from fiscal years ending in 2010 through 2015, Planned Parenthood not only averaged over $1.2 billion in annual revenues, but also had a total of $505.5 million in excess of revenue over expenses. (It should be noted that non-profits are not permitted to count these as profits, which is the reason for the somewhat awkward description.)
While senior executives were remunerated with substantial six-figure salaries and engaged in social interactions with prominent figures in the entertainment industry, the national office initiated an expensive advertising campaign and affiliates across the country were purchasing or constructing expansive new facilities, with interior designs by leading designers in the country.
These are the areas in which Planned Parenthood operates.
It is somewhat difficult to accept the sincerity of their appeals on behalf of the disadvantaged and marginalised, given the apparent inconsistency between their actions and their stated beliefs.
In addition to investing significant resources in marketing, Planned Parenthood also maintains a robust and well-funded political arm. Is this a strategy to garner support for and elect politicians who will endorse cancer screenings? This is a highly unlikely scenario.
The general consensus is that cancer screenings save lives. This is the rationale behind Planned Parenthood’s assertion that this is the objective of the organization. However, the service that Planned Parenthood defends and demands, the one key box that every political candidate they support must check, is abortion.
A significant proportion of the American population would be willing to support Planned Parenthood if the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) were genuinely interested in becoming a comprehensive healthcare provider. This would entail offering a wider range of services, including prenatal care, infertility assistance, and primary care, in addition to the current provision of STD testing, contraceptives, cancer screenings, and abortion services.
However, Planned Parenthood is prepared to sacrifice all of its legitimate health care services in order to promote and perform abortions. It is evident that Planned Parenthood is unable to perceive the distinction between these two issues, which represents a significant obstacle to progress.
The distinction between the two can be elucidated as follows: The objective of healthcare is to save lives. The practice of abortion is not an act of saving human lives; rather, it is the taking of lives.
In the event of a choice between abortion and healthcare, Planned Parenthood has opted for the former. The rationale behind this decision is unclear.
Such is their identity.
Daniel Miller is responsible for nearly all of National Right to Life News' political writing.
With the election of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency, Daniel Miller developed a deep obsession with U.S. politics that has never let go of the political scientist. Whether it's the election of Joe Biden, the midterm elections in Congress, the abortion rights debate in the Supreme Court or the mudslinging in the primaries - Daniel Miller is happy to stay up late for you.
Daniel was born and raised in New York. After living in China, working for a news agency and another stint at a major news network, he now lives in Arizona with his two daughters.
