Thoughts on the NY Times investigation of Planned Parenthood

Writers missed some key aspects of healthcare. Disagreements over funding had been reported before.

I read the recent New York Times investigation into Planned Parenthood, and I had a few thoughts.

First, many problems in the article, such as staffing shortages, exist across the healthcare sector. So are long wait times. I just went to the emergency room for a rabies shot after a bat was in my home. I waited roughly seven hours, which was short by their standards.

Furthermore, the article neglected to mention that the wait times for Planned Parenthood services have increased because of the demand placed on it by out-of-state people coming to get an abortion because it’s not an option for them in the abortion-banned states. That’s the situation all across the abortion care field.

As a journalist, I don’t like the consistent use of anonymous sources when reporting on the reproductive rights movement. The Huffington Post has done it numerous times. What you’re supposed to do as a journalist is use anonymous sources or background information to then track down someone who will go on the record. Or you ask for documents that then show what the person said. If a current employee doesn’t want to talk, then you go through social media to track down ex-employees who may be more willing to talk because they can’t face repercussions.

As a reader, I want to know more about the person who is making the claims. From all I know, it could be a disgruntled employee or someone with an ulterior motive, like operating on behalf of a leader who wants to push Johnson out by creating a public relations crisis and then replacing her with someone who would do what they asked. That kind of back-stabbing is possible and ordinary at the highest level of politics.

Back to the article. Medical malpractice claims are common in any large healthcare organization, in investigations that I’ve done about nonprofit hospitals.

Planned Parenthood President Alexis McGill Johnson appeared on MSNBC to discuss the report. She characterized the article as an irresponsible act of journalism. She said the Trump Administration created a public health crisis that affected all healthcare. Johnson discussed the challenges faced by Planned Parenthood amidst a politicized healthcare environment. She praised the dedication of Planned Parenthood's 600 health centers, which serve 9 million patients annually, and criticized a piece of journalism for misrepresenting their situation.

“The idea that Planned Parenthood is in crisis without the proper context and cherry-picking five anecdotes out of the 9 million services and patients that they see all of the time across this country in annual visits, it just really felt like an unwarranted attack,” Johnson said.

Johnson highlighted the impact of the Trump administration's policies, including inequitable Medicaid reimbursement rates affecting 50% of their patients. She emphasized the importance of political engagement to ensure access to abortion and other critical services, especially in states with restricted abortion laws. Johnson called for support for local Planned Parenthood affiliates and advocacy for reimbursement equity.

Some of the language used in the article seems dated as well. Botched abortion was a term used in articles that documented the hospitalization of a woman before Roe v. Wade. Medical malpractice is generally the term used now for all claims of mistreatment, including abortion.

The pressure to increase patient loads to make more money has been challenging throughout healthcare. It’s also a common accusation against healthcare providers. This is partly what led Planned Parenthood officials and other doctors I’ve spoken with to oppose telehealth medicine because they depend on people coming in for abortion care.

Insofar as the funding choices, I’ve heard from several abortion funds, abortion clinic directors, and grassroots activists that the money should be spent on local abortion care instead of the national fight for abortion rights in political races. In August of last year, several abortion fund directors signed a letter published in the Nation that was called “National Abortion Rights Groups Have the Wrong Priorities for Our Movement.”

The letter described the strategy developed by major leaders as “vague.”

Additionally, there was a focus on shifting priorities to be more immediate. The significant difference was that abortion funds directly address the inability to get an abortion, while national groups are primarily focused on advocating for Democratic candidates. The letter-signers want more of the money donated to those groups to support women who want abortions instead of toward political marketing.

“Now is not the time to put policy advocacy and wealth hoarding over material support,” the letter concluded. “Now is the time to dig deeper into the work that is happening in our communities.”

The signatories criticized the Abortion Access Now campaign, which was a 10-year $100 million plan to restore abortion rights by building support for pro-choice lawmakers. Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and Reproductive Freedom for All joined the effort.

I spoke to several of the leaders who attached their names in a newsletter last summer. Among them was Destini Spaeth, chair of the Prarie Abortion Fund, a North Dakota nonprofit that helps women in the Midwest get abortions. She told me that they had been devastated by this summer’s cuts to financial support those organizations gave to abortion funds.

“It just felt like they were really missing the moment at this time,” Spaeth said.

Leaders of the major groups had said they cut support to those groups because they wouldn’t have been able to make it through the end of the year without doing so.

“There’s no such thing as long-term sustainability when we're in this crisis right now,” Spaeth said. “I think they're focused on this idea of abortion access in a decade. But the truth is, that's not going to benefit anybody who needs an abortion today.”

Another leader I spoke to was Macy Haverda, president of the Wild West Access Fund of Nevada. She echoed much of what Spaeth said. She said that national organizations tend to create many programs and service lines when money comes in, which is not something Haverda feels they should have.

“They could have maybe put some of that back out,” Haverda said. “I think some of them add on these different areas that they could have just given off to another organization. They add in these sorts of organizing service lines. Maybe there are local groups that could have done it better.”

Kris Lawler, co-chair of the Tampa Bay Abortion Fund, also talked with me about signing the letter. One advantage of local funds over national organizations is that their staff is more aware of the unique challenges faced at the local and state levels. Lawler told me that they can then tailor their advocacy and operations.

“We would love to work together,” Lawler said. “We would love to be able to ensure that our local communities aren't forgotten about, that abortion seekers aren't forgotten.”