This is Part III of a 3 part series on today’s Wall Street Journal article, “Planned Parenthood hits suburbia.”
See Part I here and Part II here.
Reporter Stephanie Simon accompanied her piece with a blog post at WSJ’s Front Lines. In it she quoted me from a conversation we had on PP’s expansion a couple months ago:

After decades of quiet expansion through a network of small, often somewhat shabby clinics, PP is poised to make a splash.

wsj pp aurora.jpg

With annual revenues topping $1 billion last year, the nonprofit has gone on a building spree, laying out a network of upscale suburban clinics designed to feed into large regional health centers.
PP’s strategy for growth has emboldened its perennial foes in the antiabortion community. Rep. Mike Pence… plans to push legislation this summer to end federal funding of PP. Conservative activists are chiming in, arguing that the group has proved it can do fine without tax dollars.
“They’re a magnificent fundraising machine. They really are,” said Jill Stanek, an antiabortion blogger. “I would think everyday people on the street would stop and think, “Why are we funding this group?'”

(The public money – more than $335 million last year – does not fund abortion; it’s earmarked for family planning and other reproductive care for low-income women.)
PP’s backers respond that the group helps millions of low-income women and teens stay healthy and avoid unwanted pregnancies.
The nonprofit may be adept at seeking new sources of revenue — from more affluent patients, private insurance, even sales of candles, jewelry and $2 condoms. But “anyone who criticizes this as too commercial is, in my view, missing the boat,” said Peter Frumkin, who teaches nonprofit administration at the University of TX. Promoting family planning among all income brackets is “entirely in keeping with their mission,” Mr. Frumkin said. “It’s also in keeping with a trend among nonprofits of seeking out new revenue streams independent of government funding or donations.”
Readers: Do you think tax dollars should continue to be directed to PP to subsidize health care for poorer women? What do you think of the group’s strategy of reaching out to more affluent clients?

I’ll ask the same questions here.
[Photo of PP’s Aurora, IL, abortion mill courtesy of WSJ]

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...