Much Of How Planned Parenthood Uses Federal Funds Is “Morally Reprehensible”

By Keith Plunkett | October 25th, 2018 at 12:42 am

BY: Keith Plunkett / Editor

Keith Plunkett is a Policy Consultant, Editor, Writer, Founder and Publisher of MississippiPEP.com. http://mississippipep.com/profilegrid_blogs/keith-plunkett/

Filed Under: Abortion, Chris McDaniel, Cindy Hyde-Smith, Commentary, Contributor, Elections, Feature Stories, Federal Government, Immorality, Keith Plunkett, Mississippi PEP, Opinion, Politics, Pro-life, Progressivism, Spending, US Congress

The “morally reprehensible” actions surrounding funding of Planned Parenthood extends to a Republican held Congress, too many of whom pay lip-service to pro-life voters during elections, quickly forgetting their “campaign positioning” when the opportunity to stand behind such promises actually means something. 


US Senate candidate Chris McDaniel on Wednesday renewed his commitment to defunding Planned Parenthood if elected on November 6. McDaniel, who was joined by members of Pro-Life Mississippi at a press conference in front of the state’s only abortion clinic, called on both his major opponents in the race to take a strong stance on the issue.

“For reasons that can still not be explained, (Congress is) still funding Planned Parenthood,” McDaniel said. “We are calling for an immediate defunding of Planned Parenthood.”

Interim US Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith voted for an Omnibus spending package on August 23 that renewed funding for the controversial non-profit group. She cast her vote despite Planned Parenthood having previously announced in April that the organizations political arm, Planned Parenthood Votes, would join several other progressive groups to spend $30 million influencing the upcoming mid-term elections. 

Hyde-Smith’s vote for funding Planned Parenthood also came only two-weeks after the group announced the launch of a six figure ad campaign to defeat President Donald Trump’s nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the US Supreme Court.

The reasons Planned Parenthood gave for launching the campaign against Kavanaugh? His purported support for overturning Roe V. Wade, the ruling that legalized abortion, and opened the door for the eventual rulings that loosened restrictions toward abortion as an “on-demand” service. 

These actions in and of themselves warrant defunding as it reveals the groups primary focus of abortion, a focus they try to downplay each time the federal funds they receive are at risk. 

Planned Parenthood has claimed for years that abortions make up only 3-percent of the services they provide, but these claims have been soundly refuted many times.

Rich Lowry provided great analogies in a New York Post article in 2015, illustrating how the organization manipulates the numbers to reach this figure and downplays the role played in performing abortions across the country. 

“The 3 percent figure is an artifice and a dodge, but even taking it on its own terms, it’s not much of a defense,” Lowry wrote. “Only Planned Parenthood would think saying that they only kill babies 3 percent of the time is something to brag about.”

How much credit would we give someone for saying he only drives drunk 3 percent of the time, or only cheats on business trips 3 percent of the time, or only hits his wife during 3 percent of domestic disputes?

The 3 percent factoid is crafted to obscure the reality of Planned Parenthood’s business.

The group performs about 330,000 abortions a year, or roughly 30 percent of all the abortions in the country. By its own accounting in its 2013-2014 annual report, it provides about as many abortions as Pap tests (380,000). The group does more breast exams and provides more breast-care services (490,000), but not by that much.

The 3 percent figure is derived by counting abortion as just another service like much less consequential services.

So abortion is considered a service no different than a pregnancy test (1.1 million), even though a box with two pregnancy tests can be procured from the local drugstore for less than $10.

By Planned Parenthood’s math, a woman who gets an abortion but also a pregnancy test, an STD test and some contraceptives has received four services, and only 25 percent of them are abortion. This is a little like performing an abortion and giving a woman an aspirin, and saying only half of what you do is abortion.

Such cracked reasoning could be used to obscure the purpose of any organization.

The sponsors of the New York City Marathon could count each small cup of water they hand out (some 2 million cups, compared with 45,000 runners) and say they are mainly in the hydration business. 

Or Major League Baseball teams could say that they sell about 20 million hot dogs and play 2,430 games in a season, so baseball is only .012 percent of what they do.

Supporters of Planned Parenthood want to use its health services as leverage to preserve its abortions, as if you can’t get one without the other.

Of course, this is nonsense.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides free or low-cost breast and cervical cancer screenings — without aborting babies. State health departments provide free cancer screenings — without aborting babies. Community health centers provide a range of medical services — without aborting babies.

These organizations are genuinely committed to women’s health, with no ideological commitment to abortion.

Planned Parenthood’s twisted conception of “reproductive health” doesn’t extend to the baby that has been reproduced. All you need to know about its priorities is that it only provides 19,000 “prenatal services,” which means that it performs roughly 17 times more abortions.

Despite the numbers in 2015, and maybe especially because of the way Planned Parenthood keeps much of this data away from public scrutiny today, a question remains after the 2018 federal spending bill handed them, yet again, more money:

Why on earth is a spending package passed by a Republican controlled Congress funding Planned Parenthood, when the organization has made it clear that they will use funds to target pro-life Republican candidates in the current election cycle?

Regardless of the position one holds on abortion, funding at least warrants concern over the fiscal irresponsibility of such a decision. Of course, the fact that a large number of taxpayers take exception with abortion being defined in a list of services as “reproductive health” should be the primary focus. A sting of several of Planned Parenthood’s providers in 2015 showed how the organization profits from the sale of discarded embryos. Moral concerns are only heightened by the cavalier attitude and lack of respect Planned Parenthood shows towards the most innocent of human lives. 

McDaniel alluded to these concerns in the press conference saying, “Taxpayers should not be forced to have to pay for something he or she finds morally reprehensible.”

Not the least of these “morally reprehensible” actions extends to a Republican held Congress, too many of whom pay lip-service to pro-life voters during elections, quickly forgetting their “campaign positioning” when the opportunity to stand behind it actually means something. 


RELATED: