Title X Funding Change Will Give Planned Parenthood at Least $60+ Million in Additional Funding

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced today that it is taking concrete steps to reverse the Title X policy put in place by the former administration that will likely return at least $60+ million to abortion mill Planned Parenthood.

During the Trump administration, HHS instituted a policy called Protect Life Rule, and it required abortion providers to separate their abortion business from their health care clinic if they wanted to continue receiving Title X funding, which covers birth control and other reproductive health care but not abortion. Planned Parenthood, as the nation’s largest abortion provider, declined this specific funding at the time.

Now, the HHS, which is being led by pro-abortion politician Xavier Becerra, is rolling back those changes and looking to return at least $60 million or more in funding to Planned Parenthood.

In an official press release, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said, “HHS proposes to revise the Title X rules to strengthen the program and ensure access to equitable, affordable, client-centered, quality family planning services for all clients, especially for low-income clients. Advancing equity for all, including people of color and others who have been historically underserved, marginalized, and adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality, is a priority for the Department.”

Across the country, pro-abortion groups and politicians voiced their support.

“Great News!” Planned Parenthood Action began on a Twitter thread. “The Biden-Harris admin just proposed ending the Title X gag rule! This dangerous policy undermines the only federal program dedicated to providing sexual and reproductive health care to people with low incomes.

“Ending this gag rule is HUGE! Why? The gag rule was designed to block access to @PPFA and other providers, creating barriers to reproductive health care, especially for those facing systemic barriers: people in rural areas, and Black, Latino, and Indigenous communities.”

Senator Patty Murry tweeted, “Reversing the Trump-Pence #TitleX gag rule is a game-changer for the millions of patients whose access to health care was threatened by their dangerous rule—and will help ensure patients can get the care they need from the providers they trust.”

The president of Planned Parenthood Alexis McGill Johnson wrote, “Thank you @POTUS @VP @SecBecerra!! Title X should have never become a political football to begin with, and it should never be used to deny people care again. Let’s end this discriminatory policy and restore access to essential sexual + reproductive health care. #RightfullyOurs.”

However, who was really denying health care? Was it the former administration, or was it pro-abortion businesses that were unwilling to bend at all in their practices in order to continue treating patients?

For example, the abortion business could have designated certain centers as just abortion mills while providing health care at other locations. This would allow them to work within the regulations by separating health care services and abortions.

It could have also stopped performing abortions and worked on increasing its health care capacity while it waited for the regulations to change. But it didn’t.

Instead, the abortion business blames the former administration for supposedly denying women care and for the loss of at least two abortion clinics in Ohio because of the loss of Title X funding, despite having at least $2 billion in assets to offset the loss of a paltry $60 million.

Here’s the thing about Planned Parenthood, it doesn’t want to use its billions in assets to help women receive quality health care. Over the years, it’s become clear that having a war chest to fight against pro-life legislation is more important than providing health care to women in need, so it prefers to saddle the American public with the bill.

Americans will have the opportunity to speak into this change starting on April 15, when HHS will allow public comments on the proposed rule.