Planned Parenthood Received $453,000,000 in Government Funding in 2013

Forty-five percent of Planned Parenthood’s 2013 budget, or $453,000,000, came from direct government funding.

In addition, another 25%, or $305,000,o00, came from “non-government health services revenue.” I can’t say definitively, but based on my years of dealing with government budgets, I imagine that a good bit of this “health services revenue” is actually indirect government funding in the form of pass through monies.

Does that make it clear why the head of Planned Parenthood campaigned so assiduously for President Obama?

Planned Parenthood has become a quasi government agency. Anybody who takes $453,000,000 in government funding in a single year is not a private organization. I would include a fair number of corporations in this same boat.

The government trough has become big business for a lot of big businesses, and the enterprise of trading on “women’s health” is no exception. That is why this organization pushes dangerous chemical birth control, like depo provera and the morning after pill, on unsuspecting women. Unlike the completely safe barrier methods of birth control, women have to keep coming back to Planned Parenthood to get their dose of hormones.

These hormones are powerful. They bathe every cell in a woman’s body in a bath of artificial hormones. In the case of the morning after pill, this is a high dosage, which, if the woman uses it repeatedly, must have a multiplier effect. With birth control, the constant exposure of women’s entire bodies to dosages of artificial hormones can go on for decades.

In the meantime, women have to go back and get their scripts. Every visit is a Ka-Ching! for Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood lobbies aggressively all over the country to allow abortions to be performed by personnel other than doctors. They are fanatic about blocking requirements that abortion clinics conform to the same regulations that are applied to all other surgical centers. I don’t think this is because they are supporting “women’s health.” I think it’s a better, more profitable, business model for them.

It is not an indictment of the regulations that so many abortion clinics in Texas had to close because they could not comply with the legal requirement that they function as normal surgical centers. It is an indictment of the clinics.

Planned Parenthood has made the practice of prescribing the most dangerous forms of birth control and selling abortion into a big, government-funded enterprise. They’ve managed to spin this with their claims that “women’s health” equals dosing women with these dangerous forms of chemical birth control and allowing any abortion at any time for any reason.

Four hundred, fifty-three million tax payer dollars say that this is government policy, right up there with roads, national defense and education.

It’s your money. Is this how you want it spent?

From the Susan B Anthony List:

 

 

  • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

    Henry Hyde, God bless his soul, must be turning over in his grave. How does this get passed the Hyde Amendment?

    For those that don’t know the Hyde Amendment, here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment

    • SisterCynthia

      Abiding by the law doesn’t seem to be something bureaucrats worry about these days. Finding loopholes, outright lying about your breaking the law to do what you want, those things seem to be standard procedure. :p

      • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

        I know. I have never in my life been so disappointed in our government. And if people think it’s partesan, I respond by saying I never felt this way when Clinton was president.

    • Geena Safire

      None of the Planned Parenthood income from abortion services comes from federal funds.

      • hamiltonr

        This is a facile position if I ever saw one. You’re talking about two columns in a spreadsheet. It’s all the same spreadsheet.

      • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

        That’s the talking point, but it’s not true. Money coming in is fungible.

  • SisterCynthia

    That is more money than I had any idea they were getting. No wonder they have the cash to lobby in elections around the country!

    • Geena Safire

      Their money for lobbying comes only from private sources. They only receive government money for providing health services.

      • hamiltonr

        From what I know — and I know quite a lot — this is basically true, at least on the local level. However, it doesn’t address the massive amount of government funding for what is essentially a sectarian viewpoint that is being taught as if it was education to our children in the public schools. This is government-financed social engineering by propagandizing our young people.

      • FW Ken

        Money is fungible. One source funds one activity, which leaves another source free to fund another activity.

  • FW Ken

    Ann Richards is the only politician on who’s campaign I ever worked. She was pro-choice, but a very honest, astute, and effective politician. It irks me that head daughter is head of what amounts to a mafia family.

    By the way, PP closed their abortion factory here in Fort Worth, strange that it was in the hospital district, really accessible to 5 hospitals. The other clinics are open. Ironically, they opened a new abortion factory in southwest Fort Worth in November, but apparently didn’t think to meet surgical standards.

    • peggy-o

      Ken I loved and admired Ann Richards and was heartbroken when she lost to Bush. I wasn’t prolife then and have wondered did she govern in some ways that would bother me now. Her daughter is troubling. This is so very destructive to women and families.

      • FW Ken

        People forgot that Ann didn’t win in 1990 – Clayton Williams lost. George Bush was the sacrificial lamb in ’94. The truth is that she was a rotten campaigner, but good at every office she held. I lived in Austin when she was county commissioner. That’s when I became a fan.

  • Bill S

    OK. I admit that this sounds terrible. The births that PP prevents are all unwanted. The prospect of having that many unwanted children added to the population has got to be a scary thought to the government. It is not politically correct but nonetheless true that we can’t afford to provide for their needs, which would be many. It would be more than public schools and welfare could keep up with. It would sink this country.

    • FW Ken

      Bill, it’s the lack of a heritage that kills economies. Check out the Chinese.

      • Bill S

        China suffers from overpopulation. What do you expect them to do?

        • FW Ken

          Ok, I’ll be more explicit: research shows that people with children earn more, on average. They have incentive. One of the problems with social security today is that 40 million people who should be in their prime earning (and tax-paying years) aren’t here. China is learning this, as their next generation is not there to support the seniors. That’s not counting the social disruption of having a large surplus of males. We are not, of course, as prone to sex-bases abortion in this country.

          All in all, it’s very arguable that abortion is a highly costly social policy for other reasons. Once you devalue human life of any kind, it generally coarsens human relations. I’m old enough to remember then people generally treated each other better.

          • Bill S

            You’re against abortion. Of course you are going to point out the down side. The surplus of males in China is a down side. We don’t know if that is worse than out of control increases in population. Thinking that people treat others worse since abortion became legal is just the way you choose to see things. It is unsubstantiated.

      • Geena Safire

        The Chinese per capital GDP has increase one hundred fold in a very short period. What is your concern about their economy?

    • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

      So it’s better to be dead that unwanted???? If all your family and friends left you, I would assume you wouldn’t want to be killed. Why do you assume the child would prefer death over being an orphan?

      • Bill S

        Why do you assume the child would prefer death over being an orphan?

        What makes you think that a fetus would have a preference one way or the other?

        • hamiltonr

          And how does this line of argument give you the right to kill anyone Bill, much less to consign an entire class of people to death? These are human beings and you are advocating that their lives are worthless and may be taken at any time for any reason.

          What, exactly, justifies you in speaking so assiduously for killing other people?

          • Bill S

            I think that the person with the most rights is the woman and not the fetus. I think it is wrong to try to deny the woman of her right to decide what is going to happen in her own body. What more needs to be said?

            • hamiltonr

              Even if it means killing a child? You are talking about killing a child.

              Isn’t there something else that would help women more than giving this dubious “right” to murder their own child?

              Using abortion as an “answer” to misogyny is not an answer to misogyny. It is a way of enabling misogyny to continue and leave women saddled with a new and horrific “choice” of murdering their child. It might be better to do something about misogyny in the first place.

              Can you think of any solutions for the way women are treated that don’t involve forcing them to chose between accepting discrimination, violence, rape and such or murdering their own baby? How about ending the discrimination, violence rape, etc?

              • Bill S

                You say “killing a child” to make abortion sound a lot worse than it necessarily has to sound. It is the lesser evil when compared to what an unwanted pregnancy can do to a woman’s life.

                • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

                  I’m just going to shake my head and let that stand on its own.

            • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

              Let me try to get this through to you. There is a balance of rights going on here. On one side is the inconvenience of nine months of pregnacy, and really when it comes down to it, it’s the last five months that are really inconvenient. On the other side is the LIFE of the child. If you can’t see that the scale of justice tips in favor of the LIFE of the child over five months of inconvenience then you got to look at your moral development. The life and death of the child does not equate to a few months of inconvenience.
              Plus, you’re inconsistent. You don’t even know your own argument. First you argue the child is not really a human by your dehumanizing (“what makes you think the fetus has a preference?”) justification. Now you abandon that argument by justifying it as a woman’s perogative over her body , no matter what the issue. You’re grapsing at straws and just iterating talking points.

              • Bill S

                Five months of inconvenience and that’s it? First of all, that is enough. And secondly, it’s not your call.

              • Sus_1

                I am not saying abortion is the answer. However, an unwanted pregnancy is much more than a 5 month inconvenience. You are completely dismissing a girl or woman’s life and feelings when you say a pregnancy is just an inconvenience.

                A pregnancy has life long consequences whether it’s taken to term, lost due to medical reasons or aborted. Many of the consequences are happy but many can be very unhappy and life ruining.

                Again, I’m not saying abortion is the answer.

                • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

                  Ok, add feelings onto the scales of justice and still it tips on the side of LIFE of the child. Come on? Feelings over life?

                  • Sus_1

                    I agree. The life is important. I care about the mother’s life and the baby’s life. If the mother’s life is a mess, then the child’s life is a mess.

                    You can’t say it’s just about the baby’s life. It’s two lives, three if the dad is around and really many more lives depending on the situation.

                    If I got pregnant today, I’d be very unhappy but we’d get it together and it would end up being a blessed event. Not everyone is equipped to do that.

                    We can’t just say no abortions because that isn’t solving anything. We have to solve the problems of why abortions happen. Because religious beliefs aren’t cutting it.

                    • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

                      I don’t see aborton as a religious issue. It’s a life as any adult is a life. I dont consider the laws against murder as religious. Do you? And I agree, we need better support sstems for yong pregnant women.

        • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

          Disgusting. I’m not arguing with that. Even atheists should have a heart.
          http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/1909/atheist_secular_and_prolife.aspx

          • Bill S

            I do have a heart and therefore leave it up to the woman. I don’t want to see a woman throw away her future because of a mistake she might have made.

            • hamiltonr

              Does your heart extend to a baby that is torn apart and flushed down the drain?

              • Bill S

                A ruined life for the woman does not have the graphic imagery that you use to make abortion appear to be much worse. You want the woman to listen to a heartbeat or view an ultrasound before having an abortion. That’s just playing on emotions and motherly instincts. I think Obama said something about not wanting his daughters to have to pay for a mistake that they may make. I feel the same about my ex girlfriend and other women who get pregnant by mistake or rape.

      • Geena Safire

        Having known many children who grew up unwanted, and having cried with their grief or suffered from their resulting sociopathy, I would absolutely, unequivocally prefer to not live than to grow up unwanted.

        • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

          Easier said than done, but even if it’s true at least you ould have had a choice. The baby doesn’t get asked.

  • Oswald Carnes

    “It’s your money. Is this how you want it spent?”
    Yes.

  • George.a.da.Jungle

    This is simply unspeakable. I knew PP was big government-subsidized business, but the scale boggles me.

  • Geena Safire

    It is not surprising that Planned Parenthood provides little prenatal services. Prenatal care is provided mainly by specialists in that type of care. Planned Parenthood was never intended to be in that business, but for people who want to, you know, plan their parenthood, which involves sex education and family planning services.

    • FW Ken

      Actually, Planned Parenthood was designed to implement the eugenics program of its era… you know… on those people.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X