We are living in pivotal times. As the pro-life movement has gained more and more momentum, the pro-abortion lobby’s grip on the culture and public policy is starting to weaken. Gallup polls are finding a growing number of youth identifying as “pro-life,” an unprecedented number of anti-abortion state laws have been enacted, and the House of Representatives voted to defund Planned Parenthood for the first time in history. The next few years may decide the future of abortion in the United States, and the pro-abortion lobbyists are quaking in their boots. A 2011 report by NARAL Pro-Choice America entitled, “The Powers of the President: Reproductive Freedom and Choice,” states that:
“The outcome of the 2012 presidential election very well could determine whether abortion remains legal and accessible for the next generation of American women.”
In the wake of New Hampshire’s recent decision to strip Planned Parenthood of $1.8 million in taxpayer funds, the abortion giant is again demonstrating to the American people their single-minded dedication to their abortion agenda. In New Hampshire, Planned Parenthood is willing to defend abortion at the cost of women’s healthcare. A recent editorial article analyzes the situation well:
The council [of New Hampshire] voted 3-2 against the [$1.8 million] contract primarily because Planned Parenthood performs abortions.
Its gravy train halted, Planned Parenthood got aggressive. It made a poster that features Executive Councilor Dan St. Hillaire’s face on the inside of a birth control pill container. The text states that St. Hillaire (personally, it is implied) denied women “health care” and “access to birth control.”
But the Executive Council voted to approve state contracts with 11 other community services groups that provide health care to women. The other groups just don’t provide abortions. So the issue is not “health care” for women; it is abortion. That and Planned Parenthood’s access to easy money.
As with any organization, Planned Parenthood’s prioritizes with the use of their revenues—and by this metric, it is clear that the organization’s priority is abortion. While Planned Parenthood is cutting down on contraception and cancer screening services even as abortion services remain untouched, the NH abortion provider is also launching a sizable PR campaign to defend its access to taxpayer dollars. The article goes on to explain:
Planned Parenthood claims that the Executive Council is denying services to women, but Reuters reported over the weekend that public funds from that contract make up only 20 percent of Planned Parenthood’s budget in New Hampshire. Given that Planned Parenthood claimed it had to restrict services for lack of funds, it is interesting that it had enough money to make fancy posters and go on a PR blitz. The Executive Council certainly didn’t order the organization to cut services for women, but continue spending on marketing, political activism and executive pay.
As this incident helpfully illustrates, one of Planned Parenthood’s core functions is political activism. The council was right to channel its community-service money to groups that focus more on services and less on politics.
Interesting that they could pay for the abortionist’s salary as well as the PR blitz. Like the Joker says in The Dark Knight, “You see, in their last moments, people show you who they really are.”
Just as David Daleiden predicted, Media Matters is continuing to attack Live Action’s credibility with the ferocity of an angry, rabid Chihuahua. Ironically, the strategy of these “watchdog” bloggers to churn out a lot of empty content is starting to backfire on them—if you flood the Internet with tons of illogical and spurious articles, eventually it becomes obvious to everyone that you’re either stupid or untrustworthy.
Media Matters’ latest attempt, categorized on their website as “research,” shows Lila Rose allegedly pushing the “falsehood” that abortion is a money maker for Planned Parenthood. They’re moving on to a different subject since the best they can do against Live Action’s latest undercover video is try to rewrite the history of Planned Parenthood’s scaremongering about its own defunding.
To prove their point that abortion is not a major revenue source for Planned Parenthood, they assert that:
Abortions Accounted For Approximately 16 Percent Of Planned Parenthood Of Indiana’s Total Revenue
According to Media Matters’ analysis:
Planned Parenthood of Indiana performed 5,580 abortions in 2010. [Planned Parenthood of Indiana Annual Report, 2010]
Planned Parenthood of Indiana’s total revenue in 2010 was $15,670,306. [Planned Parenthood of Indiana Annual Report, 2010]
According to Live Action’s own figures, which Politifact-Florida deemed reasonable in this case, Planned Parenthood charges an average of $450 per abortion. [Politifact-Florida, 4/21/11]
This means that Planned Parenthood of Indiana’s total revenue from abortion was approximately $2,511,000 or about 16 percent of its total revenue of $15,670,306
First of all, 16% isn’t a terribly small slice of the pie anyway. But that being said, a simple fact check reveals that their numbers are all wrong. If you go to PPIN’s 2010 annual report, you will find that annual revenue is indeed $15,670,306, but you will also realize that total revenue combines donations, government funding, miscellaneous sources, and patient services revenue. Patient services (revenue from the clinics themselves), which includes abortion, brings in $10,955,985 or 70% of PPIN’s total revenue.
This means that when abortions are properly compared to PPIN’s other services, they bring in 23% of the revenue from patients—substantially higher than the phony 16% statistic.
Media Matters is using the wrong statistic. They should be comparing abortion revenue to PPIN’s product output revenue, not their public and private donations. I want to know how much Media Matters is paying their “researchers” because their numbers are either laughably irrelevant or deliberately deceitful.
In the same article, Media Matters tries to demonstrate that abortion is an insignificant part of what Planned Parenthood does by showing that abortions account for 3.56% of total services. On the contrary, this statistic proves that abortion is their cash cow! When 3.56% of their services generates 23% of their product revenue, it is no wonder that Planned Parenthood defends abortion at all costs.
Even more damningly, Lila Rose pointed out in the Media Matters video clip that “Planned Parenthood has been increasing its share of the abortion market across our nation every single year.” This claim seems to be true of PPIN as well.
Using Media Matters’ own metric in arriving at the 3.56% of services statistic, I went back in time and looked at the abortion numbers since 2005. My findings are on the left.
Clearly, Planned Parenthood of Indiana has substantially increased its abortion numbers since 2005. The raw number of abortions committed has increased by 13% since 2005, and as a percentage of total services, abortion has increased by 21%!
And in all fairness, who can blame PPIN for these increases? Abortion is clearly the most lucrative part of their business and organizations, as a general rule, tend to do what pumps the most cash.
Again we see another example of Media Matters’ spin coming back to haunt them. If truthfulness is the measure of success in this match, the facts demonstrate that Lila Rose truly wins the day.
In the wake of the Federal Government’s failure to defund Planned Parenthood, multiple states have stepped up to prevent taxpayer dollars from going to Planned Parenthood. Susan B. Anthony List recently published a state-by-state scorecard listing the states that have denied funding to the nation’s largest abortion provider. See here:
The recent removal of over $60,000,000 in taxpayer dollars will inevitably deal a crippling blow to Planned Parenthood clinics across these states. These new measures don’t just damage the abortion business financially, they also send a message to the American people that Planned Parenthood is not the kind of organization that should be receiving government support. Planned Parenthood knows this all too clearly and has responded with lawsuits and expensive public relations campaigns.
From an economic standpoint, the removal of government subsidies will lead to the downsizing of the abortion business. With less money and tighter budgets, Planned Parenthood will not have the financial resources to operate as many clinics in some states. Faced with the prospect of losing state funding, Planned Parenthood describes apocalyptic-sounding scenarios where “thousands of women” will no longer have access to healthcare. While this claim is bogus, it does highlight Planned Parenthood’s substantial reliance on public funds. Governments are propping up Planned Parenthood—making abortion cheaper and more accessible than it would otherwise be.
The effects of revoking state subsidies are already starting to materialize. Since losing state funding last May, Planned Parenthood of Indiana may have to shut down eight clinics. The same fate assuredly awaits Planned Parenthood of Texas.
On Monday, North Carolina Governor Beverly Perdue vetoed a measure designed to make more information readily available for women considering an abortion. The legislation includes a 24-hour waiting period, mandated access to ultrasound, and a list of important information abortion doctors are required to tell their patients.
Governor Perdue defended her veto by arguing that the bill interferes with the doctor-patient relationship.
According to Reuters,
“This bill is a dangerous intrusion into the confidential relationship that exists between women and their doctors,” the Democratic governor said in a statement.
“The bill contains provisions that are the most extreme in the nation in terms of interfering with that relationship.” [emphasis mine]
Upon reading the actual legislation, it is difficult to find the “extreme” interferences mentioned by Governor Perdue. Doctors are required to give essential information to their their patients. This includes:
The name of the doctor who will perform the abortion
The medical risks of the particular abortion
The probable gestational age of the unborn child
That ultrasound imaging and other printed information is available
That the woman has other alternatives to the abortion procedure such as adoption or keeping the baby
That the woman is free to withdraw her consent to the abortion at any time
Doctors are also required to perform an ultrasound on their patients and provide a medical description of the ultrasound images.
Do these requirements sound like the country’s “most extreme” interferences in the doctor-patient relationship? Doctors should give their patients basic information before performing any procedure. Patients have a right to know and weigh their options. The bill simply makes this standard procedure a requirement, thereby protecting women from the pressures or negligence of abortion providers. The North Carolina legislation is not the first of its kind either; twenty-five other states have adopted similar laws.
“Choice” is defined as “an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities.” Letting a patient know her options is as pro-choice as it comes. And yet, the pro-abortion lobby continues to fight against laws like the one in North Carolina. The reason is obvious—these laws historically lead to reductions in the number of abortions. Live Action’s investigations have repeatedly shown that the primary concern of abortion providers is not to help women, but to sell abortion at whatever the cost.