PPNNE’s Actions in New Hampshire Reveal Its Abortion-minded Agenda

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.”

  • Anonymous

    I normally live LiveAction’s work, but I think this is a bit misleading. The reason why abortion is not being cut is because abortion is profitable for PP. Abortions are about $500 on average and costs are much lower (the late Dr. Bernard Nathanson talks about this in “The Hand of God”). In other words, cutting abortions would actually reduce revenues more than costs. Why would PP do this (absent a belief that abortion is wrong, which they institutionally lack)? I agree with the general gist that PP is very pro-abortion for this reason. This blatant conflict of interest (motive to maximize abortion revenue) is a serious problem, but the NH case isn’t about prioritizing revenues to spend on abortion. It’s about preserving a stream of profitable activity.  

  • Anonymous

    Let us continue to pray that the good people of New Hampshire (and around the country) will reject the message Planned Parenthood’s media blitz will send.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=689125810 David Nisbet

    Can the Councillor sue for libel and all that fun stuff?