New AUL report on systemic Planned Parenthood malfeasance provides blueprint for Congressional hearings
The momentum for defunding Planned Parenthood at the state level is about to go national.
Today Americans United for Life is releasing the report, “The Case for Investigating Planned Parenthood,” which analyzes the scandal-ridden abortion provider that taxpayers support with over $363 million annually.
AUL’s report, following years of legal research of more than 20 years of records, documents the known and alleged abuses by Planned Parenthood, including the misuse of federal health care and family planning funds, failure to report criminal child sexual abuse, failure to comply with parental involvement laws, assisting those in engaged in prostitution and/or sex trafficking, and dangerous misuse of the abortion drug RU-486.
While other investigations have dealt with PP on a case-by-case, clinic-by-clinic, and state-by-state basis, this is the first comprehensive report/investigation to demonstrate systemic, organization-wide fraud and abuse that Planned Parenthood Federation of America, not local affiliates, must answer for.
Before other organizations have been defunded, they have often been investigated to determine if they deserve the continued generosity of the American taxpayer. The AUL report provides the foundation for deciding whether to fund Planned Parenthood at the state and federal levels.
“Americans United for Life is calling for a Congressional investigation and hearings into the nation’s largest abortion provider,” said AUL President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest in a press release. “This report provides the intellectual foundation for an investigation of Planned Parenthood as well as revealing gaps in the information available to the American taxpayer….”
Read AUL’s talking points on its report here.
More from the Washington Times last night:
Planned Parenthood gets $363 million a year from taxpayers, added Mrs. Yoest. “ACORN wasn’t getting that much money and yet we had hearings to look into how they were spending our money,” she said, referring to the now-defunct community activist group that was investigated and officially defunded by Congress over its shady activities….
There have been scattered reports of “known and alleged” abuses by Planned Parenthood, but nothing that “meticulously documented” this information until now, she said.For instance, regarding Medicaid fraud in Planned Parenthood, one might think it is just in California, but it is in other states too, she said. “When you start seeing a pattern like this, you just absolutely have to ask, ‘How pervasive is this?’ “
Mrs. Yoest said the data contests Planned Parenthood’s statements, such as its claim that abortion services are 3 percent of their business. “Their own documents show that 12 percent of their patients receive abortions,” and AUL estimates that 37 percent of Planned Parenthood’s income from clinics comes from abortion services, she said.
In addition, she said, as Planned Parenthood’s public funding has increased, “so has their abortion business.”
[Photo via the Washington Times]
Jill,
Excellent summary of the AUL document. Thanks for sharing it.
2 likes
The AUL creating a document citing lists of alleged bad practices by PP. Well what a surprise.
“the first comprehensive report/investigation to demonstrate systemic, organization-wide fraud and abuse” – I think you mean claim, not demonstrate.
“The AUL report provides the foundation for deciding whether to fund Planned Parenthood at the state and federal levels” – no it doesn’t. It provides a biased submission from an NGO.
“This report provides the intellectual foundation for an investigation of Planned Parenthood as well as revealing gaps in the information available to the American taxpayer….” – it’s a proposal by a lobby group!
0 likes
Wait . . . Reality, have you read the report?
If not, you haven’t demonstrated that they’re only claiming such & such — you’re only claiming that.
And if you haven’t evaluated the report, you have no warrant for claiming “no it doesn’t,” either. So to your gratuitous claims add idle speculation.
Wow. Score -1 for consistent application of your own logic.
LOL — hilariously, I don’t need to read the report myself to utterly enervate your logic. No, it’s so much simpler than your task should you wish to substantiate your remarks.
Meanwhile, since you apparently don’t like lobby groups, let’s disenfranchise the PP lobby. Let’s doubt everything they say, since they’re “biased.”
Let’s ensure that women wanting abortions are subjected to several hours of information suggesting adoption — since, after all, they’re biased and you can’t trust biased folk.
Also, let’s not let prosecutors bring cases in court. They’re biased.
And let’s not let defense lawyers argue in court. They’re paid to represent their client, so obviously they have a conflict of interest.
And anyone who wins in court is suspect, because they were biased the whole time. How convenient that the outcome just happens to match their bias.
Geez.
Reality, who the DEUCE do you imagine would bring bad info to light if there was any? Do you seriously propose some standard whereby those who care enough to identify problems in any given area of reality are automatically suspect because they’re biased? How would you differentiate them from people who are biased precisely because they actually found bad stuff?
Your own a priori defensiveness here shows that YOU certainly couldn’t be trusted to find problems. Your remark demonstrates doubt that any exist!
You’re so eager to dis pro-life that you don’t think even a moment before posting such a lamely thought-out remark.
Apply a categorical imperative to the principle you’re putting in play, Reality. See where it gets you. I’ve only given you a sample.
2 likes
Lift your sightline rasqual.
I had a quick read of parts of it and found it mostly said “PP is committing this huge horrific thing because we found a few possible instances of something which wasn’t actually quite so huge or horrific”.
It does not “provide(s) the foundation for deciding” – it is a submission from an interested party. The decision will be made based on a number of submissions, from various interested parties.
Where did I say I don’t like lobby groups?
What I was actually expresssing was that, contrary to the way the piece is worded, all AUL’s stuff is ‘submissions’ constructed by an interested party, not by the decision makers.
So, far from trying to dismiss lobby groups, all I did was express that this tome is just a submission, not a government report or outcome of judicial investigation.
Geez.
Like I said, lift your sightline.
0 likes
Analogically, an indictment is issued when a grand jury finds evidence that warrant the charges.
The charges and evidence are the basis for action by the grand jury. They are, indeed, the foundation and if they do not demonstrate anything, there will be no indictment.
You may disagree that the report demonstrates anything, or will be the foundation for anything. But I dare say you have no warrant for that claim. You certainly haven’t demonstrated any such warrant.
Whether the report will prove to be a sufficient demonstration to provoke action (and thus be a foundation for such action) is an a posteriori matter, and has nothing to do with the source’s bias.
3 likes
rasqual, if a number of interested parties submit papers claiming that blue is green, and a number of other interested parties submit papers saying green is green then they will be perused, scanned, investigated, whatever.
The outcome from that inquiry will be the foundation for anything which then takes place.
The AUL document is a submission, not a foundation. You said it yourself – “Whether the report will prove to be a sufficient demonstration to provoke action (and thus be a foundation for such action)”.
0 likes
I confess–when I say things, I indeed do so myself. ;-)
2 likes