Planned Parenthood in Crisis
On February 15th, 2025, the New York Times (NYT) published an article written by Katie Benner, titled “Botched Care and Tired Staff: Planned Parenthood in Crisis”. The following is a review of that article and an expansion of the questions raised by the Times' research and reporting. To read the article please visit the official site of the New York Times.
The Times’ story begins in Albany, New York, where a young mother of two discovered she was pregnant. She was leaving her boyfriend and chose to go to Planned Parenthood for an abortion. The clinic failed to perform a safe procedure. Twelve weeks later, after a great deal of suffering, the woman delivered a baby that was born alive and then perished. The patient has filed a malpractice suit against Planned Parenthood.
In assembling their article, the New York Times claims to have reviewed clinic documents, legal filings and conducted interviews with over 50 current and former executives, consultants and medical personnel all connected to Planned Parenthood. The article goes on to outline the current operational status of Planned Parenthood across America. The Times defines Planned Parenthood as “synonymous with the fight to preserve abortion rights” but also calls it “the healthcare provider of last resort to millions of the poorest Americans.” The actual number of patients given care on an annual basis nationwide is not provided nor are the numbers of patients receiving specific healthcare services detailed.
According to the Times, “some” clinics are providing deficient care because of low funding. “Many” clinics are facing several challenges including employee turnover because of low wages, outdated medical equipment and plummeting patient counts. In the 1990’s Planned Parenthood was operating with 900 clinics. That number has shrunk to 600 clinics today. Patient counts have fallen by an even greater percentage, but the Times research does not explain whether the declines are non-abortion related services or include abortions.
Independent research of Planned Parenthood revenues from public records raises serious questions regarding the NYT analysis that “the lack of resources is startling.” In 2001 Planned Parenthood Federation of America took in $71 million in revenue and spent roughly $60 million. Their net assets at the end of the year were $61 million. By comparison, the latest federal filings available from PPFA (2022) reveal total net assets of $332 million. Adjusted for inflation, PPFA has accumulated a three-fold increase of net assets over 20 years. With fewer patients and fewer clinics, the question must be raised, what is Planned Parenthood doing with all the money they are holding in the bank and investments? And these numbers do not include the Planned Parenthood “fund-raising boom” of $498 million following the 2022 overturning of Roe v. Wade.
Planned Parenthood is made up of three different entities. Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) is the national non-profit collective that gathers the biggest revenues. Their work is educational, lobbying and political. Planned Parenthood in the states is another set of corporations, each affiliated with the national organization by membership but carrying their own legal status and budgets. There is a third organization called Planned Parenthood Action that functions exclusively in the realm of politics and elections. This group raised nearly $100 million in 2023 for political campaigns. Both Planned Parenthood Federation of America and Planned Parenthood Action have the same Chief Executive Officer.
The actual services to patients are provided by the state organizations. These membership affiliates do get grants from the national organization on a regular basis but the organizational bylaws keep the bulk of the funds at the national level. In the states, the local affiliates get money from Medicaid, insurance companies, patient pay, many forms of state and local government grants and many forms of charitable contributions. In some areas of the country these local clinic operations are doing well. Others are struggling.
In the current legal environment, state legislatures are debating abortion policy and other services regarding “reproductive decisions” provided by Planned Parenthood state affiliates. Based upon state debates and attending laws some clinics will be able to increase services while others will likely face legal restrictions on some abortions and other services.
Here is a critical question not considered in the NYT “Crisis” article. Do clinics earn a profit from abortion procedures and if so how much of the economic survival of the clinics is solely dependent on abortion procedures? The average cost for an abortion quoted by Planned Parenthood Clinics varies between $500 to $2300. If some abortion services are restricted in some of the states, then the abortion procedures (representing the cost to Planned Parenthood) are no longer required. No service provided means no cost for Planned Parenthood. The question then becomes, could the clinic be in a better position to cover the costs of its general operations if it isn't providing abortion services?
If providing abortions is not a key profit center for Planned Parenthood then shouldn’t the clinics be able to survive by offering other services? A full forensic audit of state affiliates would be required to rightly discern the answers to these and many more questions about funding, resources and expenses at the local level, where services are provided.
Leaving this economic riddle on the table, the Times story turned back to allegations against Planned Parenthood regarding the quality of care. Each of the stories from different parts of the country are deeply troubling. The least dangerous is also the most ironic. According to the Times, in 2024 a Planned Parenthood Clinic in Omaha, Nebraska had a plumbing problem. Human waste from a clogged toilet seeped into a clinic recovery room for two days. Employees tried to seal off the door and block the leak. The stench caused patients to vomit. The irony is that this event occurred in Omaha, Nebraska. This is the home of the mega-billionaire investor Warren Buffet. Mr. Buffet is also one of the largest donors to pro-abortion efforts in the United States.
It appears Planned Parenthood was not highly cooperative in commenting on the record for this NYT article. They cited medical privacy concerns as well as litigation issues. Their spokespeople called the specific evidence of failed quality care “anecdotal” and based upon disgruntled employees. The Times pressed back on these dismissals citing multiple specific examples from former Planned Parenthood employees.
The Times also presented a discussion of how the rich affiliates in some states are being asked to help smaller affiliates. A presentation was made by Planned Parenthood executives and supporters on how a reformed business plan could solve the problems of quality care, staffing and retention. Such efforts were launched in 2019 in New York. The idea was to create a consolidated model called Planned Parenthood of Greater New York where well-funded clinics would ally with struggling clinics. It did not go well. Several of the CEO’s of the big clinics balked at the deal and the attending salary cuts and quit. In 2024 Planned Parenthood of Greater New York was still facing personnel cuts and closed locations.
With clinics struggling at “crisis” levels another question on funding becomes obvious. Why doesn’t the national organization (PPFA) share some of their $332 million in retained assets with their state affiliates? The NYT article makes it clear that local clinics take directives from PPFA even including orders regarding how many minutes clinicians should spend with each patient. There is clearly a direct connection between PPFA and the state organizations. So why is there such a division of resources for patient care?
The Times obtained an “internal document” from the office of Ms. McGill Johnson, the head of PPFA indicating that this funding question is under consideration. The Times investigation exposes this funding question for Planned Parenthood. It centers around priorities. For decades PPFA leaders have prioritized the national political debate over resources for clinics. For 50 years under Roe v. Wade abortion was legal in all 50 states yet PPFA built a business model that prioritized political battles over clinic resources. In 2022, Roe v. Wade was overturned and states began to rethink and reconstruct state laws on abortion. That process is a long way from final resolution. Some states have laws more restrictive than the Roe-era rulings of the Court. Some states have eliminated restrictions altogether, mirroring the Roe-era rulings. Yet in 2023 there were more abortions performed in America than the last year under Roe.
Who would have expected such an outcome at this moment in history? The Times does not engage in this bigger conversation at any level. Their article looks at the crisis at the front door of Planned Parenthood clinics. It is clear however, that what is happening inside those clinics is a direct result of how Planned Parenthood as an organization has prioritized and implemented strategies and funding over the past 50 years. For example, the charter of PPFA as a non-profit organization, does not include providing medical services. Yet PPFA can dictate patient appointment times to their independent incorporated member clinics in the states. These entities are all operating under the name Planned Parenthood and all sharing the same motto, “Care. No Matter What.”
The Times article mentioned Obamacare as a possible cause of the growing Planned Parenthood crisis. Medicaid patients now have other places to get non-abortion related services. Covid was also mentioned as a challenge that drove paying patients away. But nowhere in this article was the single biggest change in the abortion industry mentioned. With no reason given, the Times did not cover the impact of the abortion pills that are now available in many facilities across the nation and online. These pills are often prescribed by telehealth appointments further reducing the need for direct clinic services. In the past several years the number of chemical abortions by these pills has reached 60% of all abortions.
The Times article concluded with a remarkable disclosure. The Times reported that “many” associated with Planned Parenthood are not willing to speak out for fear of damaging “the mission.” Is that because looking into the real-world problems at abortion clinics might prove damaging to Planned Parenthood’s ability to raise funds in both the charitable and government sectors? Full disclosure might well fuel opponents of Planned Parenthood, so silence is the standard for fear of imperiling “the mission.”
And what is that mission? Is it abortion on demand? Is it escape from legal accountability by enshrining Planned Parenthood’s agenda into state constitutions? Is it continuing in the non-profit sector as a dominant well-funded organization? Is it to remain the largest abortion provider in the United States? Or is it to provide “Care. No Matter What”?
If the Times hoped to touch on this subject and walk away, they may be in for a surprise. Looking into the reality of how Planned Parenthood operates and why it does so is a massive and historic undertaking. So far, the Times effort has created far more questions than answers.