Call me naive. I always thought Planned Parenthood was subsidized with private donations. In fact, I suspected PP was the one great example of an organization where the left drops their donation dollars.
It turns out I’m right, but not in the way I thought. Whew! For a second there I thought I was seeing Democratic charitable dollars at work! As usual, it turns out to be taxes:
[Planned Parenthood] took home $85 million in “excess of revenue over expenses” (a nifty way of saying profits) and had an operating budget of over $1 billion for the 2007-2008 fiscal year, according to its latest annual report. Included in that budget was $350 million in “government grants and contracts” (an equally nifty way of saying your tax dollars). An increase in the number of abortions performed helped fuel the profits…
Now, with a White House that has promised to funnel unprecedented amounts of taxpayer dollars into the abortion industry, Planned Parenthood has even more reason to rejoice. Despite its political and economic gains, however, the group is still attempting to walk the public relations tightrope by making ample use of lies, damned lies, and statistics…
Maybe Obama views the abortion industry similarly to AGI — too big to fail.
I agree with a lot of this article’s shock at massively-subsidized provider of sixty-two abortions to every one adoption (!), though I do have to defend the role PP plays for young adults. Many college women rely on the organization as a discrete source for information and supplies. PP’s policy of respecting young women and establishing exactly which methods of communication (e.g., “Can we call your house?” and “Will your parents intercept this mail?”) is a godsend to responsible-but-private young people with limited options.
Planned Parenthood also offers a sliding-scale for payment based on the client’s age, income, debt status, and services. Discretion would be impossible without permitting younger women some price forgiveness, but making everyone (including broke teenagers) pay something ensures that even those teens consider what they’re doing, act responsibly, and take both their choices and the consequences thereof seriously. Effectively, PP puts the adage that “if you’re too immature to obtain your own condoms, you’re too immature to engage in the activities that require them” to use by forcing clients to think responsibly about their decisions.
Views on “choice v. life” aside, it’s one thing to subsidize students’ condoms with adults’ hormone profits, but quite another to funnel huge swaths of government money into an “abortion machine.” Whatever happened to Rust v. Sullivan? I thought we decided that on the state level, while people retain their Roe v. Wade right to choose, they do not have a right to the government subsidizing their choice. What a wild play on Federalism that state level “laboratories” have decided that all choice is important, including the choice of those who disagree w/ the “Choice”-ers, while the national level has obliterated even an option out of contributing to that huge 62:1 ratio.
I take serious umbrage w/ this de facto practice that abortion is the kind of public good — hardly “non-rivalrous” or “non-excludable”! — that government should provide.