Trump's sneak attack on reproductive rights
The president is threatening Planned Parenthood's federal funding. Here's how they should fight back.


Even the most pro-choice Americans who insist that women should have unfettered control over their bodies might be willing to concede that it is not incumbent on the government to actually pay for their abortions. So is it really so terrible that President Trump is trying to prevent Planned Parenthood from using federal dollars to perform abortions?
Yes — because he wants to control the organization, not just defund its abortion services.
Planned Parenthood has been in the crosshairs of pro-life conservatives because it is the nation's largest abortion provider — although that's only a part of what it does. In fact, it is a full-service family planning nonprofit that offers a range of health-care services to women that include prenatal care, cancer detection, screening for sexually transmitted diseases, and contraception. But its large abortion business — it performs about 330,000, or 40 percent of total abortions, each year — has invited constant attacks from conservatives. These attacks reached a fevered pitch a few years ago after the "expose" by the Center for Medical Progress, an anti-abortion outfit, which tried to cast Planned Parenthood as a soulless organization that eagerly and actively harvested fetal organs for sale. President Trump campaigned on a promise to defund Planned Parenthood and, true to his word, last week he announced a plan to do just that.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
Planned Parenthood has two sources of federal funding that add up to about 40 percent of its $1.3 billion budget: Medicaid and Title X, a 1970s federal program that subsidizes family planning services for low-income women. It gets roughly $430 million from Medicaid and about $70 million from Title X. Federal law already bars the organization from diverting any of its government money toward abortion. And to satisfy that requirement, it has maintained entirely separate bank accounts, separate tax ID numbers, separate articles of incorporation, separate insurance policies — separate everything — for its abortion services. But pro-life conservatives have long argued that this is not enough because money is fungible, so every federal dollar to Planned Parenthood for one purpose simply ends up freeing its other dollars for abortion activity.
That is a misplaced concern for the simple reason that Planned Parenthood raises more than enough private funds to cover its abortion services. Indeed, if each abortion costs $1,500 — a rather steep price — that would add up to $450 million, which is well below the $780 million it gets from private donations through corporations and individual donors.
But that is not stopping President Trump from attacking Planned Parenthood's federal funding. He can't do much about its Medicaid money because that requires congressional action. But Title X funding is under his control, and he wants to reinstate a discarded Reagan-era rule and make this money conditional not on "mere bookkeeping separation" but a physical separation of abortion and other services. This means that Planned Parenthood would have to construct entirely separate facilities for its abortion and non-abortion services. It wouldn't be able to house them in the same clinic.
Obviously, this would be tremendously expensive for Planned Parenthood. It will undermine the nonprofit's ability to perform abortions.
That's the point. After all, this will have no effect on the existing fungibility issue. It is not an effort to ensure that federal dollars don't go toward abortions — they already don't. Instead, it is an effort to hold federal dollars hostage in order to control how Planned Parenthood spends its private funds. It is an attempt to force a more expensive business model on the outfit and undermine it financially.
This won't hurt just Planned Parenthood. It would hurt untold numbers of Americans women, especially low-income ones given that there are many underserved counties where Planned Parenthood is the sole safety-net family planning center that offers emergency contraceptives and other services.
All of this will save taxpayers not one single dime, because President Trump didn't cut overall Title X spending, despite threatening to do so. Instead, his plan is to divert any potential savings from Planned Parenthood to more abstinence preaching as part of family planning, regardless of whether that is effective or not.
The solution for Planned Parenthood may be to voluntarily eschew Title X grants. At $70 million, they constitute a relatively small part of its overall $1.3 billion budget, but open it up to government control. Planned Parenthood would likely be able to make up for this funding loss with increased private donations (an increase of about 9 percent would do it) — and save itself from a world of political attacks. In fact, it can turn Trump's political attack on it as a rallying cry to raise more private funds.
President Trump is acting in bad faith to appease his faith-based constituency. But his attempt isn't the first and it won't be the last — until Planned Parenthood simply walks away.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Shikha Dalmia is a visiting fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University studying the rise of populist authoritarianism. She is a Bloomberg View contributor and a columnist at the Washington Examiner, and she also writes regularly for The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, and numerous other publications. She considers herself to be a progressive libertarian and an agnostic with Buddhist longings and a Sufi soul.
-
5 hilariously sparse cartoons about further DOGE cuts
Cartoons Artists take on free audits, report cards, and more
By The Week US Published
-
Following the Tea Horse Road in China
The Week Recommends This network of roads and trails served as vital trading routes
By The Week UK Published
-
Crossword: March 30, 2025
The Week's daily crossword
By The Week Staff Published
-
The JFK files: the truth at last?
In The Spotlight More than 64,000 previously classified documents relating the 1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy have been released by the Trump administration
By The Week Staff Published
-
'Seriously, not literally': how should the world take Donald Trump?
Today's big question White House rhetoric and reality look likely to become increasingly blurred
By Sorcha Bradley, The Week UK Published
-
Will Trump's 'madman' strategy pay off?
Today's Big Question Incoming US president likes to seem unpredictable but, this time round, world leaders could be wise to his playbook
By Sorcha Bradley, The Week UK Published
-
Democrats vs. Republicans: who are the billionaires backing?
The Explainer Younger tech titans join 'boys' club throwing money and support' behind President Trump, while older plutocrats quietly rebuke new administration
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
US election: where things stand with one week to go
The Explainer Harris' lead in the polls has been narrowing in Trump's favour, but her campaign remains 'cautiously optimistic'
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
Is Trump okay?
Today's Big Question Former president's mental fitness and alleged cognitive decline firmly back in the spotlight after 'bizarre' town hall event
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
The life and times of Kamala Harris
The Explainer The vice-president is narrowly leading the race to become the next US president. How did she get to where she is now?
By The Week UK Published
-
Will 'weirdly civil' VP debate move dial in US election?
Today's Big Question 'Diametrically opposed' candidates showed 'a lot of commonality' on some issues, but offered competing visions for America's future and democracy
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published