{"id":323097,"date":"2024-12-15T15:28:51","date_gmt":"2024-12-15T21:28:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=323097"},"modified":"2024-12-14T02:00:26","modified_gmt":"2024-12-14T08:00:26","slug":"planned-parenthood-report-smearing-nj-prcs-unfounded","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/planned-parenthood-report-smearing-nj-prcs-unfounded\/","title":{"rendered":"Group says Planned Parenthood report attempting to smear New Jersey pregnancy centers is ‘unfounded’"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

Planned Parenthood Action Fund of New Jersey (PPAFNJ) released a report<\/a> last year attacking pregnancy resource centers, as the governor works to shut the centers down. Now, a pro-life group has released its own report to set the record straight.<\/p>\n

The Charlotte Lozier Institute responded<\/a> to the misinformation from Planned Parenthood with a report of their own, stating that Planned Parenthood’s report was “riddled with speculative claims, unfounded assertions, incomplete research, and flawed reasoning.” They argued that Planned Parenthood performed no credible analysis, and instead, worked only to discredit pregnancy resource centers (PRCs) through a smear campaign.<\/p>\n

Planned Parenthood’s lies<\/h3>\n

The Lozier Institute cited numerous issues with the claims made by Planned Parenthood. One issue was that the Planned Parenthood report generalized information based on a single report about a single pregnancy center \u2014 one that wasn’t even in<\/em> New Jersey.<\/p>\n

“The PPAFNJ report contains numerous misleading accusations. One such example is the assertion that ‘[pregnancy centers] have a history of providing incorrect ultrasound dating, leading a client to believe they are earlier or later in their pregnancies than they actually are.’ The report supports this assertion with only one citation, referencing a single article from The New York Times. However, this New York Times article focuses on a specific pregnancy center organization located in Texas, which has no presence whatsoever in New Jersey. Additionally, the article focused on only a small number of problematic cases that do not represent the full scope of the services rendered by or overall quality of the organization.”<\/p>\n

Lozier also pointed out that Planned Parenthood “inappropriately inflates the number of pregnancy centers by including pregnancy center locations no longer open, adoption agencies, maternity homes that are not pregnancy centers, prayer ministries, and general social service agencies.”<\/p>\n

The Lozier report authors remarked, “Merely taking a pro-life stance on abortion does not make a charity a ‘pregnancy center,'” and noted that of the 59 organizations listed by Planned Parenthood, only 47 were verified as being open.<\/p>\n

Planned Parenthood also complained about how there are more PRCs than abortion facilities in operation.<\/p>\n

“[T]he Report ignores the reasons behind the popularity of pregnancy centers in New Jersey. Individuals gravitate towards organizations that effectively fulfill their needs and desires. Pregnancy centers excel in providing tangible assistance and essential services to those navigating unintended pregnancies. While Planned Parenthood has not published its client satisfaction rate, pregnancy centers nationwide boast an impressive 97.4% client satisfaction rate, surpassing that of other reputable entities. Furthermore, in stark contrast to the Planned Parenthood facilities in New Jersey, which amassed a collective profit of $17,642,176 through client charges for their services, New Jersey pregnancy centers offer all their services completely free of charge, in 2022 totaling an estimated $3.7 million in services and materials, making New Jersey pregnancy centers more desirable.”<\/p>\n

This is an issue that goes far beyond just New Jersey; Planned Parenthood has long been outnumbered<\/a> by thousands of legitimate health care providers, ranging from PRCs to federally-qualified health centers (FQHCs). Combined, these centers outnumber Planned Parenthood 14 to 1.<\/p>\n

Planned Parenthood also cited just one peer-reviewed source in their argument that PRCs promote misinformation, which the Lozier Institute said “involved a secondary data analysis of research conducted by an unnamed pro-abortion group.” Furthermore, this specific study was concerning PRCs in North Carolina, not<\/em> New Jersey, and even then, the study’s \u201csecret shoppers\u201d only visited 19 of the 122 PRCs in the state.<\/p>\n