This just out, Planned Parenthood's 2006-07 annual report, for the reporting period July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007.

I'm linking to it post-haste, fyi. The biggest news is PP for the 1st time made over $1 BILLION in 1 reporting year, $1,017,900,000 to be exact. Last year it made $902 million....

The Congressional Pro-Life Caucus also noted these findings:

An increase in the number of provided abortions from 264,943 in 2005 to 289,650 in 2006.

A doubling of "excess of revenue over expenses" funds from $55.7 million in 2005 to $112 million in 2006.

Acknowledged receipt of over $336 million in government grants and contracts. (Note: the report does not indicate that the government grants and contracts are all from the Federal Government, the exact amount received from each of the Federal, State, and local governments as well as any reimbursements or other payments is not known.)

Click to enlarge:

Add your findings from the report in the comments section.

[HT: Congressional Pro-Life Caucus]

No dount - the consolidation that's been going on is a long term expansion.

How can they call themselves a non-profit?

How can they call themselves a non-profit?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at March 28, 2008 10:57 AM

Because they meet the legal specifications for non-profit status. Duh.

How can they call themselves a non-profit?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at March 28, 2008 10:57 AM

They don't have shareholders who share in any excess revenue over expenses.

It's cool that you highlight its revenue, not it's net profit. Because a company is totally worth only its gross product, not including expenses, right?

How can they call themselves a non-profit?

That was a totally incomprehensibly stupid thing to say - of course they are non-profit because they meet the legal statutes of the articles of incorporation. Of course they don't have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. How ignorant of me.

Like the colleges and universities, it has been less about distribution of wealth to individuals via shares and more about expanding the country club-like atmosphere via the accumulation of excessive assets, liquid or otherwise to the organization and it's related trusts.

I should said: it's a non-profit with a profit-driven motivation.

Considering that it's competition is for-profit abortuaries, the fairness field isn't exactly level. But that's what I get for not typing a more comprehensive post.

I'll now go and beat myself silly with IRS manuals to make atonement.

I'll now go and beat myself silly with IRS manuals to make atonement.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at March 28, 2008 12:40 PM

Heh. Don't give yourself a concussion. Those things are heavy.

OK, all you smart people. What's the difference between a 'non profit' and 'not for profit' outfit?

For profit means the leftover money goes to the shareholders at the end of the year. Non-profit means the money stays within the organization.

Last year, adoptions weren't even mentioned. This year they mention that previous year's "missing" number of 2,413 and it's suspicious. Why? Exactly 3... THREE... less adoptions than the unreported year. And look back at the 2005 year's adoptions. 1,414. Compare that to the missing 2006 number and you have exactly 1000 more.... +1.

That's some suspicious number crunching.

qawrezj