{"id":165747,"date":"2017-05-13T09:11:19","date_gmt":"2017-05-13T13:11:19","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=165747"},"modified":"2017-05-12T14:10:17","modified_gmt":"2017-05-12T18:10:17","slug":"abortion-groups-used-sources-gov-report-planned-parenthood","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/abortion-groups-used-sources-gov-report-planned-parenthood\/","title":{"rendered":"Government report uses data from biased Planned Parenthood-affiliated sources"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

A new Live Action News analysis of the\u00a0April 2017 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report comparing Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs — a term used interchangeably with health centers or community health centers) with Planned Parenthood centers (PPAHCs), has concluded that many of the CRS sources were pro-abortion organizations, such as\u00a0Guttmacher, the journal Contraception<\/em>, the National Abortion Federation (NAF), and Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards.<\/p>\n

\"\"

PPFA versus FQHC per CRS (April 2017)<\/p><\/div>\n

In summary, it should be noted that in this analysis, Live Action News is not attempting to dispute the details of the report, (although some points may be disputable), but to show that a large amount of the information published in the CRS report originated from pro-abortion organizations who support Planned Parenthood and its\u00a0agenda.<\/p>\n

The report<\/a>, entitled, “Factors Related to the Use of Planned Parenthood Affiliated Health Centers (PPAHCs) and Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs)” is being quoted by the media and politicians on both sides of the defund Planned Parenthood battle. In this analysis, Live Action News will review several sources of the data outlined in the footnotes of the CRS report.<\/p>\n

\"\"

National Abortion Federation listed as a\u00a0CRS report source<\/p><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"

Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards listed as a CRS report source<\/p><\/div>\n

While several footnotes indicate that Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) was a source for CRS, sourcing certain PPFA documents is reasonable, as Planned Parenthood is the object of the report. However,\u00a0the fact that CRS quoted from a study<\/a>\u00a0commissioned by PPFA is concerning.<\/p>\n

According to CRS, Planned Parenthood Federation of America\u00a0studied whether FQHCs would be unable to “absorb additional Medicaid family planning patients in the event that Medicaid reimbursements were no longer available to PPAHCs in Wisconsin.” CRS quotes the Planned Parenthood commissioned study as concluding (surprise, surprise — see footnote #93) that “nearly half of the alternative providers likely did not have the capacity to absorb new PPAHC patients.”<\/p>\n

Despite FQHCs outnumbering Planned Parenthood centers by the thousands<\/em>, \u00a0Planned Parenthood and its supporters like to suggest<\/a> that an organization responsible<\/a>\u00a0for nearly 35\u00a0percent of abortions nationally are the only ones able to care for the needs of the 2.5 million patients they serve. This was the same fear that plagued Democrats<\/a> when they passed the Affordable Care Act, yet they argued that the system would be more than able to handle that influx.<\/p>\n

What CRS failed to detail fully (although they mention Planned Parenthood’s decrease in some services) is that while many of Planned Parenthood’s patients and services are decreasing<\/a>, abortions have increased 27 percent\u00a0at the organization since\u00a02004<\/a>.\u00a0At the same time,\u00a0taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood doubled over a decade ($272.7 million in 2004<\/a> to $553.7 million in 2014<\/a>).<\/p>\n

While Planned Parenthood has lost<\/a> half a million patients since 2011, federal health centers increased<\/a>\u00a0their patient load by over 2 million by 2015, providing<\/a> care to 24,295,946 people.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

GUTTMACHER<\/strong><\/p>\n

A generous amount of the CRS report can be attributed to data obtained from Guttmacher, a pro-abortion organization which, as recently as 2005, was still referred to as a\u00a0“special affiliate<\/a>” of\u00a0Planned Parenthood.<\/p>\n

A\u00a01998\u00a0General Accounting Office (GAO) report described<\/a> Guttmacher this way:<\/p>\n

\"GAO-Guttmacher-special-affiliate-Planned-Parenthoodf-700x212\"<\/p>\n

Four years later, a\u00a02003\u00a0General Accounting Office report<\/a>\u00a0also referred to the Guttmacher Institute as an affiliate of Planned Parenthood, admitting that Guttmacher was “originally a division” of Planned Parenthood:<\/p>\n

The Alan Guttmacher Institute was originally a division of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America<\/strong> and became an independent nonprofit corporation in 1977 with offices in New York City and Washington, D. C. It remains an affiliate of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America<\/strong>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Planned Parenthood referred<\/a> to the Guttmacher as a “special affiliate” in\u00a01998<\/a>, 1999<\/a>, 2001<\/a>, 2002<\/a>, 2003<\/a>, 2004<\/a> and 2005<\/a> \u2013 where on page 15, PPFA references the Guttmacher Institute as a \u201cspecial affiliate to which PPFA supplies some support<\/em>\u2026” — in other words, funding.\u00a0But the money between Planned Parenthood and Guttmacher flows both ways.\u00a0Guttmacher<\/a>\u00a0(also funded<\/a> by the taxpayer<\/a>) has given millions of dollars to Planned Parenthood<\/a>\u00a0over the years.<\/p>\n

For this reason, it is incredibly concerning that\u00a0CRS uses data obtained by Guttmacher.<\/p>\n

Below are footnote numbers of where\u00a0CRS referenced Guttmacher data:<\/p>\n