Fact-checking Planned Parenthood’s purported percentages

posted at 8:10 pm on January 5, 2012 by Tina Korbe

Didn’t want to let this go by, even though you might have already seen it. According to Planned Parenthood’s end-of-the-year report, the organization refers far fewer women for adoption than they like to claim — and perform far more abortions than they like to tout, too. In a nutshell: Adoption referrals continue to go down, while the number of abortions continue to go up. CNSNews.com reports:

When compared with previous annual reports, the latest one shows an almost steady increase in the number of abortions performed at its clinics: In 2006, Planned Parenthood did 289,750 abortions; in 2007, it did 305,310; in 2009, it did 331,796; and, in 2010, it did 329,445–a small decrease from the previous year.

The annual report for fiscal year 2008-2009 does not include abortion or adoption figures, but a PPFA Fact Sheet posted on its Web site and said to be current as of September 2010, states that 324,008 abortions were performed at Planned Parenthood clinics around the country in 2008.

According to PPFA’s annual report for fiscal year 2007-2008,  in 2007 Planned Parenthood’s “adoption referrals to other agencies” totaled 4,912. In Fiscal Year 2010 that number was 841, a decrease of 82.8 percent.

The PPFA Fact Sheet states that adoption is included in 1 percent of services in 2008 (primary care and “other services” are included in that 1 percent), or 2,405 adoption referrals.

The latest annual report claims that abortion services make up 3 percent of “medical services,” but PPFA states it served 3 million people and performed 329,445 abortions – numbers that show 11 percent of customers received an abortion.

Here, then, is a rebuttal to that oft-repeated talking point that abortions hardly figure into the services Planned Parenthood provides.

Occasionally, folks wonder why I’m passionately pro-life. I tell them it’s because I’m passionately pro-choice. That is, I desperately want young girls to realize that, yes, every woman has a choice — until she doesn’t. Every woman has a choice before she gets pregnant. After she’s pregnant, the choice is gone. She will forever have been a mother, for however brief a time — and no abortion erases that. A woman’s body knows that, even if her mind and heart don’t. Sadly, more often than not, her heart realizes it, too. But where is Planned Parenthood after an abortion? Nowhere to be found. It’s up to organizations like Project Rachel to help women cope with the devastating and undisclosed aftermath of an abortion.

Last year, Planned Parenthood received $487.4 million in taxpayer money — but, as long as abortions account for 11 percent of its services, it doesn’t deserve a dime.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Welp, once Obamacare takes effect their will be no need for Planned parenthood’s medical services. So what then? Just abortions offered by PP?

southernms on January 5, 2012 at 11:23 PM

keep the change on January 5, 2012 at 9:58 PM

anuts on January 5, 2012 at 10:33 PM

What universal “moral code” exists for atheists?

listens2glenn on January 5, 2012 at 11:35 PM

Adoption referrals continue to go down, while the number of abortions continue to go up

Adoption can’t be easily mass produced and takes time to prepare.

Abortion can be easily mass produced and prepares instantly.

Life’s mom prefers the former, Death’s mom the latter.

She will forever have been a mother, for however brief a time — and no abortion erases that.

+infinity

rukiddingme on January 5, 2012 at 11:45 PM

MelonCollie on January 5, 2012 at 8:24 PM

I disagree, the human right to their own life is a federal issue. If the right to live is not a federal issue, what is?
Dollayo on January 5, 2012 at 10:59 PM

The right to life is a federal issue in the same way that the abolition of ‘institutionalized slavery’ is a federal issue.

It’s impossible to be “pro choice” in any and all situations, IF you recognize the ‘developing human form’ as a person.

Situations where genuine medical complications enter the equation are NOT the norm, and should be between mother/father and doctor.
And that’s a situation I wouldn’t wish on anyone, but sadly does happen.

listens2glenn on January 5, 2012 at 11:52 PM

Capital punishment and war are not intrinsically evil.

That there is hypocrisy. What you value should be a universal value, but what others value shouldn’t be? That’s the problem with the anti-abortion crowd, and other religious types. They deride the beliefs of others as misguided, (naturally) and claim that their beliefs are not only objectively true, but that “god” endorses them. That right there is the history of the world in a nutshell.

keep the change on January 6, 2012 at 12:08 AM

I find it interesting that many people who are pro-choice also have strong views in favor of animal rights. I saw a bumper sticker years ago that was quite provocative. It said:

“Be a hero; save a whale. Save a baby, go to jail.”

It was back when the law was passed that someone picketing an abortion clinic couldn’t block access to the clinic entrance.

con_in_socal on January 6, 2012 at 12:16 AM

What universal “moral code” exists for atheists?

listens2glenn on January 5, 2012 at 11:35 PM

The golden rule. Treat others as you would like to be treated. That requires no religion, and in fact, it functions better with no religion. And let me say, with respect to the golden rule and abortion, I would not have objected to it in the least. I wouldn’t have known, so I wouldn’t have cared. In fact, up until we are about 1 year old, we are just eating, sh1tting machines, so I wouldn’t have cared even at that point. (you may insert crude joke here) I treat sentient entities with respect. Things without a brain, or without a brain much more advanced than an insect, not so much. I kill plants when I eat them. But plants don’t care. Similarly, a fetus doesn’t know and therefore doesn’t care either.

What makes us human doesn’t just materialize in an instant. It takes years for a human to evolve to something resembling an intelligence life form. The law however gives us full rights at birth. Be happy with that. That’s more than we deserve considering our primitive state at that point.

Just as we evolved from microbes into humans, every human has to first evolve from a microbe-type creature as well. The difference between those two stages is the passage of time. So claiming that time has no bearing and that humans come into existence spontaneously is akin to arguing that life in the primordial sea was intrinsically human, and that killing even a microbe of it would have been “evil”.

keep the change on January 6, 2012 at 12:25 AM

That there is hypocrisy. What you value should be a universal value, but what others value shouldn’t be? That’s the problem with the anti-abortion crowd, and other religious types. They deride the beliefs of others as misguided, (naturally) and claim that their beliefs are not only objectively true, but that “god” endorses them. That right there is the history of the world in a nutshell.

keep the change on January 6, 2012 at 12:08 AM

You are a very confused person. You don’t make any sense whatsoever.

dukecitygirl on January 6, 2012 at 12:26 AM

They deride the beliefs of others as misguided, (naturally) and claim that their beliefs are not only objectively true, but that “god” endorses them. That right there is the history of the world in a nutshell.

keep the change on January 6, 2012 at 12:08 AM

I do not speak for all other christian believers, only myself.

‘Derision’ as I picture it, is a very disingenuos attack on someone. Kind of like school kids ganging-up on one other child, and most of the participants couldn’t tell you why they’re participating other than “following the crowd.”

Myself and others at this blog, genuinely try to argue intellectually, and scientifically for the existence of God.
It’s a subject that is impossible to discuss (argue?) without passions being inflamed.
Inflamed passions lead to flagarant insults, or even the perception of an insult that wasn’t intended.

If we can’t convince you that God is real, then so be it. But we’re not going to stop trying, in every thread that opens the opportunity to argue (discuss?) it. And these abortion threads are prime.

listens2glenn on January 6, 2012 at 12:33 AM

keep the change on January 6, 2012 at 12:25 AM

That there’s the kind of post that I enjoy arguing over, but I’ve GOT to go to bed.
Undoubtedly will catch-up to you another time. Blessings.

listens2glenn on January 6, 2012 at 12:37 AM

What makes us human doesn’t just materialize in an instant. It takes years for a human to evolve to something resembling an intelligence life form. The law however gives us full rights at birth. Be happy with that. That’s more than we deserve considering our primitive state at that point.

keep the change on January 6, 2012 at 12:25 AM

I wish more pro-abortionists were as blunt as you. It’d help weed your kind out of all “acceptable” levels of society.

CanofSand on January 6, 2012 at 3:59 AM

What makes us human doesn’t just materialize in an instant. It takes years for a human to evolve to something resembling an intelligence life form. The law however gives us full rights at birth. Be happy with that. That’s more than we deserve considering our primitive state at that point.

keep the change on January 6, 2012 at 12:25 AM

The constitution doesn’t affirm the rights of life and liberty to only those human beings who resemble an intelligent life form, or only for those at a certain part in their human development. Humans are in a constant state of development from conception to death. There are very old people who’s own minds have degenerated to a state that doesn’t resemble that of an intelligent life form. Shall they lose their right to life also? And if so, who decides these things? Legislatures? judges?? I think NAZIs tried that method once and I’m pretty certain you don’t want to step on that slippery slope.

Dollayo on January 6, 2012 at 4:31 AM

What makes us human
doesn’t just materialize in
an instant. It takes years for
a human to evolve to
something resembling an
intelligence life form. The
law however gives us full
rights at birth. Be happy
with that. That’s more than
we deserve considering our
primitive state at that point.

keep the change on
January 6, 2012 at
12:25 AM

Proving yet again that America’s distrust of atheists is well-founded…..

Nom de Boom on January 6, 2012 at 5:36 AM

What makes us human doesn’t just materialize in an instant. It takes years for a human to evolve to something resembling an intelligence life form. The law however gives us full rights at birth. Be happy with that. That’s more than we deserve considering our primitive state at that point. – keep the change on January 6, 2012 at 12:25 AM

So infants should be killed if their parents don’t like their children or people who deemed not sufficiently “human” or defective should be scheduled to be terminated by authorities? The latter sounds a like like the programs that were begun before the “Final Solution” was implemented in 1942

SC.Charlie on January 6, 2012 at 7:11 AM

What makes us human doesn’t just materialize in an instant. It takes years for a human to evolve to something resembling an intelligence life form…
 
Just as we evolved from microbes into humans, every human has to first evolve from a microbe-type creature as well…
 
keep the change on January 6, 2012 at 12:25 AM

 
Without a working knowledge of evolution vs. development, I can see how you’d be easily swayed towards whichever social convenience resonates with your lifestyle. “Yes we can”, right?
 
And to think that your vote counts the same as mine.

rogerb on January 6, 2012 at 7:18 AM

I question the 11% figure. Does 3 million people served mean 3 million individuals or 3 milliom visits? The 11% could be 22% or even higher depending on the definition of people served.

vegasguy on January 6, 2012 at 10:56 AM

That’s the problem with the anti-abortion crowd, and other religious types. They deride the beliefs of others as misguided, (naturally) and claim that their beliefs are not only objectively true, but that “god” endorses them.

In my estimation, this argument takes two stances – one where the innocent are protected and the guilty are punished, and one where the guilty are protected and the innocent are punished – and assumes it is the height of hypocrisy not to draw a moral equivalence between the two.

I for one will be content and unashamed to favor protecting the innocent.

The difference between those two stages is the passage of time.

Oh, that and the fact that one is a single lifespan of a single human being whose DNA undergoes no significant changes, and the other is a process that spans countless generations in which the only “change” exhibited by any one life is not even within itself, but in the genes it passes on to its progeny, and therefore that life will never be anything other than what it is.

Other than that, yeah, it’s exactly the same thing. /s

The Schaef on January 6, 2012 at 11:18 AM

That there is hypocrisy. What you value should be a universal value, but what others value shouldn’t be? That’s the problem with the anti-abortion crowd, and other religious types. They deride the beliefs of others as misguided, (naturally) and claim that their beliefs are not only objectively true, but that “god” endorses them. That right there is the history of the world in a nutshell.

keep the change on January 6, 2012 at 12:08 AM

And that’s so different from what atheists do? There’s claim that a god supports their belief, but Reason, certainly does.

Besides, objectively, there is no inherent evil in war, as we sometimes take up arms for no other reason than to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Can you find a similar selfless benefit to abortion? I suppose giving me a time machine and sending me to Hitler’s pregnant mother would be one, but even then I’d have to be assured that no other person would take his place and that there was no other way to change his story for good.

Esthier on January 6, 2012 at 11:31 AM

What universal “moral code” exists for atheists?

listens2glenn on January 5, 2012 at 11:35 PM

As an aethiest (and a former Catholic, having attended Catholic schools and studied Biblical studies), this statement always offends me. It supposes that a human is too stupid or incapable of simple reasoned thought that comes up with the simple moral code inherent in any religion of “The Golden Rule”, murder is bad, theft is unjust, etc.

I don’t need an enlightened and omnipotent being to tell me that murder is wrong. It seems self explanitory by simply asking myself, “Would I like someone to kill me?” The obvious answer is no, and it takes no great leap of reason to then assume I probably should not do so to another human being.

If such enlightenment was required for humans to figure out that murder was wrong, what the heck did the Jews do before Moses came down from Mount Sinai? They must have just been killing each other and stealing from each other left and right, and then wondering what was wrong with their society. They weren’t? Oh, so maybe they figured out that those probably were bad ideas before they were specifically told so?

gravityman on January 6, 2012 at 12:10 PM

How do they sleep at night? I know several women that are trying to get pregnant and would love to adopt, it is very difficult to do. So very sad.

Tell me about it. The unavailability of babies in the US and the availability of babies overseas is one of the (if not the) biggest reasons why international adoption is so huge. Would Mrs. Crazy Legs and I be going overseas to adopt if we could get a baby here without waiting for years? Probably not.

Planned Parenthood is pure evil. Over and above the fact that abortion shouldn’t have been shoved down everyone’s throats in the first place (should be a States rights issue), the fact that they obviously deliberately push women into abortions and away from adoption, and take our tax money on top of it makes their very existance something abhorrant.

crazy_legs on January 6, 2012 at 12:32 PM

Humans are in a constant state of development from conception to death. There are very old people who’s own minds have degenerated to a state that doesn’t resemble that of an intelligent life form. Shall they lose their right to life also? And if so, who decides these things? Legislatures? judges?? I think NAZIs tried that method once and I’m pretty certain you don’t want to step on that slippery slope.

Dollayo on January 6, 2012 at 4:31 AM

Hey get with the program! Our exalted Democrat leaders already made clear that under Obamacare it will be overpaid government bureaucrats and bean counters who get to make those decisions.

in_awe on January 6, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Comment pages: 1 2