The mantra of past president of Planned Parenthood Cecile Richards is that Planned Parenthood does “more to prevent unintended pregnancy and the need for abortion than any organization in this country.”
A new study demonstrates that this is an outright lie. Further, both Richards and Planned Parenthood know full-well the reality of the situation because they’ve labored long and hard to achieve the opposite.
Planned Parenthood is responsible for a dramatic increase in abortion, and new data backs up this indictment.
The number of US abortions has been going down for nearly three decades, yet the tally of abortions performed by Planned Parenthood has dramatically increased. They found abortion to be a very lucrative business. As a result, they embarked on an aggressive campaign to control an increasing percentage of the abortion market.
A new study by Drs. James Studnicki and John W. Fisher analyzes abortion statistics over a 20-year time frame and finds some revealing details.
The number of US abortions peaked at 1,608,600 in 1990. Since then there’s been a steady decline spanning nearly 30 years.
Between 1995 and 2014, the number of abortions decreased by 31% (1,359,400 to 926,200). As you would expect, most abortion facilities experienced a considerable decline in the number of abortions performed – a whopping 50.8% fewer (1,225,500 to 602,200).
But the opposite was true at Planned Parenthood facilities. During the same time frame the number of Planned Parenthood abortions increased by a stunning 142% (133,900 to 324,000). Further, their market share of the abortion industry jumped from 10% to 35%.
Compare PP’s market dominance with some of America’s leaders in the sale of goods and services: General Motors (17.3%) in automobile sales, United Health Group (12.3%) in health insurance, Walmart (17.3%) in grocery food and beverage chains, and Southwest Airlines (19.1%) in domestic air travel.
Drs. Studnicki and Fisher examined data provided by PP and the Guttmacher Institute to determine the Planned Parenthood Abortion Inflation Effect (PPAIE). The PPAIE is the estimated annual and cumulative excess abortions PP carries out, which is calculated by comparing PP’s annual abortion numbers with abortions performed at Non-PP facilities.
In other words, what would PP’s abortion numbers look like if they operated like Non-PP facilities?
Beginning with 1995, Drs. Studnicki and Fisher determined the PPAIE by examining the annual increase of PP abortions against the decrease of Non-PP abortions. The difference between these numbers demonstrates PP’s “excess abortions.”
PP’s excess abortions grew steadily each year from 21,000 in 1996 to 258,200 in 2014, nearly 28% of all abortions performed that year.
Their findings show that “Planned Parenthood has had a long-term and accelerating inflationary effect on the incidence and prevalence of abortion in the US.” In layman’s terms, PP’s aggressive effort to expand their abortion services has increased the body count of abortion’s victims by a sobering 3,025,560.
Drs. Studnicki and Fisher cite three major reasons for this increase:
- Planned Parenthood is motivated by financial gain
- Patients aren’t fully informed and delegate their decision to the “supplier”
- Planned Parenthood’s lack of value for human life and their influence on patients’ decisions
Even though the number of unduplicated clients from 1995-2014 shrank by 25%, revenue from the US government in the form of reimbursements and grants increased by a staggering 220%.
PP’s overall profit margin increases resulted in a deliberate shift from providing low-revenue counseling and contraception to high revenue abortion. Their assets increased almost 400% from $310 million to $1.5 billion. Yes, that’s “b” as in billion. This adds a whole new meaning to the term “cash cow.”
In shocking detail, Abby Johnson shows how this played out in her book, Unplanned: The Dramatic True Story of a Former Planned Parenthood Leader’s Eye-Opening Journey Across the Life Line.
As director of a Texas PP facility, she was pressed to increase her abortion revenue. Management had communicated PP’s business model in unmistakable terms: “nonprofit is a tax status, not a business status. You’ve got to find a way to get your abortion numbers up.”
Abby joined PP believing she could take Cecile Richards at face value. When she voiced her concern regarding an abortion quota to management, she was brusquely told, “This is a business, Abby. Get your priorities straight.”
It shouldn’t surprise anyone that as a result of PP’s financial success in abortion revenue, they jettisoned adoption referrals, pre- and post-natal care and a variety of other services. Drs. Studnicki and Fisher conclude that “PP has had a long-term inflationary effect on the incidence and prevalence of abortion in the US.”
Further, they suggest a process is already available that could reign in the abortion industry considering that it performs abortion on demand for any reason throughout pregnancy.
Both the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services (HHS) have served fines to clinics and jail time to individuals found guilty of overutilizing medical services. A prime example is a cardiology group in Florida. HHS statistics demonstrated an overuse of angioplasties, sometimes on patients whose health did not warrant the procedure. In this case fines and a suspension of services were employed to stop the unethical practice.
The challenge before us is that the guidelines for angioplasty are clear, while abortion remains largely available and unregulated. But there is no reason why the logic of overutilization cannot be employed in the case of Planned Parenthood.
PP’s aggressive pro-abortion agenda is demonstrated by their decision to sue President Trump as a preemptive strike to prevent the loss of tax funding through Title X. Considering their rabid loyalty to abortion on demand, the president has ample reason to prevent PP from gorging itself from the government trough.
For the babies and their mothers,