News,  Politics

Planned Parenthood’s problems have to do with facts that are not in dispute

I watched a good bit of the testimony that Cecile Richards offered to Congress yesterday, but I suspect that most Americans did not. Most Americans will view news reports about the hearings if they hear anything at all. That means that most Americans are going to be woefully under-informed about what happened yesterday. So let me give you the bottom line about what came out in the hearings.

1. Planned Parenthood harvests organs from aborted babies and gives those organs to researchers in exchange for money. Planned Parenthood disputes the claim that they “profit” from this exchange, but they do not dispute that the exchange happens. They provide the baby parts, and the researchers (or middle men) give them money for the parts. That is the bottom line confirmed again by yesterday’s hearings, and no one disputes those facts.

2. Planned Parenthood’s revenues exceed their expenses by $127 million dollars. This exchange between Representative Mick Mulvaney and Cecile Richards is particularly revealing:

Cecile Richards says that Planned Parenthood doesn’t profit from its work. And maybe in some technical, legal sense that is true. But most Americans know what it means that an organization’s revenues exceed expenses by $127 million dollars.

Congress may want to haggle over whether we should call this situation “profit” or “reinvestment.” They may want to argue with Richards about whether the exchange of baby parts for money is a “sale” or a “reimbursement.” But these are just arguments about nomenclature that at the end of the day conceal the reality of the undisputed facts.

Planned Parenthood kills over 300,000 unborn human beings every year. Planned Parenthood receives money in exchange for providing baby parts to researchers. Planned Parenthood’s revenues exceed expenses by $127 million dollars. American taxpayers are funding about 40% of the annual budget of our nation’s leading abortion provider.

Those are the facts, and they are not in dispute. And the undisputed facts should be enough to scandalize every conscience that confronts them.


  • Michael Sweet

    I must sadly agree with The Federalist. The Republican leadership has demonstrated incompetence and in some cases apathy in this situation. I feel that we were given an exceptional opportunity to oppose Planned Parenthood, and this opportunity is slipping away.

  • buddyglass

    Re: the funding, this is mostly Medicaid payments, right, for services that aren’t related to abortion?

    Re: selling baby parts, they do get reimbursed, but the assertion is that they’re only reimbursed for the additional cost they incur in order to harvest and transport the organs instead of disposing of them as medical waste.

    That claim may in fact be false, but if it’s true then they’re not “selling” organs.

    If someone says they want to give me a piano, but that they need to be reimbursed for the cost of having it moved out of their house and shipped to me, and I reimburse them for those costs, I haven’t “bought” the piano from them, nor did they “sell” it to me.

    Again, the original claim (about the reimbursements only covering cost) may be false.

    • David Powell

      Your piano analogy falls apart in Party 1 did not obtain the piano in the first place with it in mind to give it to Party 2. This is not an exchange of one party’s used goods for a paltry sum. PP’s whole purpose in killing the baby (quite frankly) was to harvest the organs for sale and “research.” Yes, it is killing for money. And, yes, our culture is signing off on this right now. And, yes, there will be Wrath in store one day for perpetrators of this garbage.

      • buddyglass

        I think their purpose in killing babies is in meeting the needs of women who want to kill their babies. Because they support the right of women to do this.

        For instance, if it suddenly became illegal for PP to accept reimbursement for organs harvested from aborted fetuses I don’t think they’d suddenly quit performing abortions altogether. Which they would do if the “whole purpose in killing the baby was to harvest the organs”.

        • David Powell

          The killing is done in the way it is for the sake of having something to sell, to increase profits.. They would make less money out of it simply by killing the babies. They kill and then “harvest” for increase in profit. And they are defending the sale of the parts, not just the killing itself. The whole industry survives by the use of euphemistic language. And so it’s not “sale for profit;” it is an “exchange in expectation of a compensatory donation.” It’s not “murdering a baby in his mother’s womb;” it’s an “abortion.” In fact, it’s not a “baby in utero;” it’s a “fetus.” How stupid do they really think we are? Seriously. Apart from euphemism–if masses actually saw, or heard, or understood what was really going on, I cannot believe that more than 10% of the country could possibly put up with it. “Disgusting” is not a strong enough word. And “evil” is not a strong enough word for the people operating in this sphere.

          • Ian Shaw

            There’s not a word in the English language to describe the cosmic level of terribleness that is occurring. Perhaps in the Greek….Denny?

          • buddyglass

            “The killing is done in the way it is for the sake of having something to sell, to increase profits..”

            The method, maybe. but you said “the whole point in killing the baby” was to harvest parts. That’s not the whole point in killing the baby. If they weren’t able to harvest parts they’d still be killing babies.

            “And they are defending the sale of the parts, not just the killing itself.”

            They’re not defending the sale of parts at all. They’re defending being reimbursed for the cost of harvesting and transporting the parts. Now it may be that the reimbursements exceed the actual cost of harvesting and transportation, in which case they’re actually profiting. But their claim, at least, is that that isn’t happening.

            • Gus Nelson

              Buddyglass: Seriously? Your argument is essentially well, it’s okay to “get reimbursed” for what we’re doing since it’s not actually “selling” the parts. Do you really buy this or are you simply trying to be provocative?

              • buddyglass

                “Your argument is essentially well, it’s okay to ‘get reimbursed'”

                My argument is simply that if their claims are accurate when it comes to their costs relative to the reimbursement then they’re not actually “selling” the organs. I’m not saying anything is “okay”.

                • Andrew Votipka

                  But usually when I get reimbursed for something I don’t start the conversation by saying, “I don’t want to throw a price out first, because I don’t want to get low balled.” Or, “if we price them as a package we make less than if we do each body part individually.” Or “I want a lambourgini.” (I’m paraphrasing on all but the last one, but the point is that the language used by the PP workers is much closer to what you’d hear in a bartering situation than what you’d see when you fill out your mileage form for work)

                  • Steven McCarthy

                    Couldn’t his point be as simple as a desire to be truthful and accurate? That is a moral duty after all, including when confronting others.

  • James Stanton

    Good post, Denny. I think you summed it up well.

    I wonder what the hearing is supposed to accomplish. It seems this won’t lead anywhere legally but is more aimed at highlighting the essence of what PP does and perhaps hopefully preventing federal dollars going to PP’s activities. That’s a worthy goal.

    In the business sense profit is either 1) distributed to shareholders or 2) reinvested in the firm’s operations. The latter likely applies to PP but this does not mean that it is PP’s activities (like sale/donation of fetal tissue) that create this profit. It’s probably more likely that PP receives more in government aid and donations than it simply spends annually.

  • James Stanton

    Seems I was quite off on PP’s funding sources. I just saw that tweet that PP get’s 88% of its revenue from performing abortions. That’s astounding.

  • Ian Shaw


    Do you think that these hearings and questioning sessions actually produce fruit in the long run? I’m not saying they’re pointless, just a bit skeptical. Call it a slight of cynicism for being a millennial, but unless she’s carted off to jail on the spot, or shortly thereafter, I don’t see a result from this, or any other hearings like this (IRS, Benghazzi, etc.).

    Even if they got all of Congress to agree to pull funding, I don’t think Richards would be punished at all. After all, she makes $600k per year. Unless she’s a complete and absolute idiot (judgment withstanding), even if she were to resign, she’s not hurting and another head would take her place (heil Hydra).

    The videos that came out will probably do more good by influencing more women not to get abortions, than it will in finding a way to shut down PP. Just my $.02 (for the record I think PP is deplorable and it’s sickening that they will hide behind gynecological exams and pseudo breast cancer screenings-as they don’t offer mammograms- when the bulk of their revenue comes from intentionally killing a child.

    I pray that they will come to repent for what they have done in the name of “women’s health care”

    ‘Broken teeth, a shattered jaw
    Ten to one, behold my God
    Wicked sons of Heaven’s loss
    Raise your own inverted cross
    Kings of earth, iron first
    Serve the sacred you dismissed
    Stand before your final day
    Choke on every line you pray’

    “Arise, O Lord! Deliver me, O my God! Strike all my enemies on the jaw; break the teeth of the wicked.” – Psalms 3:7

  • brettcody76

    Thank you Denny for your clear presentation of the facts! Richards continued reminder to congress of how PP has been “very cooperative” is such rhetorical gymnastics! Richards CLEARLY was not cooperative in the video above! She was avoiding the obvious answer. You won’t see that footage on many news networks.

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.