Planned Parenthood likes to claim it is “a trusted healthcare provider”, that abortion is a tiny part of what it does, and that it “is creating a healthier world for everyone”.
Of course everyone includes only those fortunate enough to have actually breached the womb in one piece. Otherwise, your health is irrelevant. But that’s another topic for another time.
Today’s topic is the law – specifically, the fact that in order to present the strongest case possible, parties in legal disputes frequently have to reveal information they don’t typically broadcast to the rest of the world.
Such is the case with Planned Parenthood and its attempt to invalidate The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. In addition to other restrictions, that act – signed into law by Iowa Governor Terry Branstad on Friday – bans abortion after 20 weeks, and requires a 3-day waiting period.
The act went in to effect immediately, and before the ink was dry on Branstad’s signature, the State Supreme Court had imposed a temporary injunction on the waiting period provision. The court is set to begin considering today (Monday) whether that injunction will be lifted or made permanent. The high court intervened after an initial injunction request was denied by a District Court judge.
The remaining provisions of the law seem to be safe, at least for now.
The most interesting aspects of this story are in the details. Very few people will ever actually read the action filed by Planned Parenthood to stop this law – but it truly is a MUST READ, because in that action Planned Parenthood reveals information that runs contrary to its public image.
See, in order to prove that it actually has a dog in this hunt – which is Georgian for “has legal standing to seek an injunction” – Planned Parenthood has to show that it is adversely affected by this new law. Here’s how it makes that case:
- “[Planned Parenthood of the Heartland] provides medication and surgical abortion at two health centers in Iowa … and medication abortion at six additional Iowa health centers”.
- “Over the past year (April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017), PPH provided over 2,100 medication abortions and over 1,200 surgical abortions in Iowa.”
- “PPH would have to add staff or extend hours … And it certainly could not absorb the additional cost without charging patients more for an abortion.” The rub here for PPH is that 3-day waiting period, which would require a patient make a second clinic visit before obtaining an abortion.
Now think for a moment about what Planned Parenthood is saying here. First, they admit that they actually provide abortions, not just referrals for abortion. Second, they admit to having performed 3,300 abortions in Iowa in a year. That’s more than the number who died in the 9-11 terror attacks and nearly as many as at Pearl Harbor. Considering that there were an estimated 4,000 total abortions in Iowa during that year, Planned Parenthood itself was directly responsible for more than 80% of them.
Those facts alone are enough to contradict what PP would have us believe. But the most telling point is the last one, for it is in that point that PP’s true motives come to the fore. Remember that the purpose of including this point in the suit is to provide evidence that Planned Parenthood will be adversely affected by the law in question. To that end, PP claims that “it certainly could not absorb the additional cost without charging patients more for an abortion.”
Why is that point so telling? Because here we have a supposedly non-profit entity – one which receives hundreds of millions of dollars (yes that’s HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS) from federal taxpayers each year – claiming that it cannot absorb the additional costs associated with having patients in this one state come back for a second visit prior to obtaining an abortion.
This is the same non-profit entity which in FY2013 showed $278 million in net assets or fund balances – an increase of $43 million over the prior year. In fact, that 2013 tax information shows a number of other bothersome little facts that PP would probably prefer the average American didn’t know.
– $200 million invested in securities
– Endowment fund balance of $101 million
– An “annual gala” which resulted in a $226,000 loss
– A $5400 grant to the Congressional Black Caucus
– A $12,500 grant to the National Association of Black Journalists
– A $4.5 million grant to Planned Parenthood Action Fund – which works during elections to “promote political candidates” – as well as another $22 million in other disbursements to PPAF
– A grant of more than $728,000 to Planned Parenthood of the Heartland – the group which operates the Iowa clinics
– Total salary for President Cecile Richards of more than a half-million dollars, and retirement contributions totaling nearly $100,000
And this is the organization – or its parent, at least – that cannot absorb the additional costs associated with requiring patients to return for a second visit before undergoing an abortion.
As a side note, one must wonder if PP would apply the same logic to pre-surgical consults for other more innocuous procedures such as gall bladder removal or tonsillectomy.
The truth is that Planned Parenthood knows a huge number of women who abort experience a macabre form of buyer’s remorse, and that given 72 hours to consider what they’re about to do, many will not return for the procedure. And as noted in this action, that would result in lost time and revenue.
And that is something that Planned Parenthood simply cannot allow.