A reader has forwarded me the latest fundraising email she received from Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. As marketing pieces go, it’s sharp, as may be expected from an organization with a $200,000 marketing budget.
Perhaps the marketing types didn’t have time to fact-check the text. Neither did PPNNE’s president/CEO, apparently, who let this whopper go out over her signature:
“New Hampshire stripped our funding.”
That refers to one Executive Council vote last August that denied PPNNE a contract worth $638,000 over two years.
The most recent annual report for PPNNE that I can find covers 2014. That year, PPNNE’s revenue was $20,739,512. Of that, federal/state/local funding (that’s your money) came to $3,824,582.
A $638,000 two-year government contract works out to $319,000 per year. PPNNE in 2014 took in $3.8 million in government funds. If the expected government funding for 2015-2016 stayed level in other respects, loss of the contract represents an 8% reduction in the investment taxpayers are making to PPNNE.
Stripped their funding?
The 2014 annual report also says that there was enough funding to allow $805,413 in public policy spending. $235,796 went straight to the national Planned Parenthood office for “program support.” A million bucks went to development (i.e. fundraising), yielding about $4 million in contributions and bequests. This doesn’t even get into salaries (delving into PPNNE’s IRS form 990 will tell you more about that), which for the annual report are folded into General and Admin expenses.
“Women’s lives are at stake,” frets the CEO in the email. At least public policy and fundraising aren’t at stake.
When you hear politicians running for office saying that they “stand with Planned Parenthood,” ask if they stand by the bogus claim that PPNNE’s been “stripped of funding” in New Hampshire.
By the way, did you notice how the clip from the email smoothly and deceptively lists a contract denial along with criminal activity as one of the things making things “tough” for PP? In case that point might escape a potential donor, this graphic topped the email:
Protest, protests, picket, defunds (sic), …hatchet attack. One of these things is not like the other. Can your reps tell which one?
And how do you like the “protests close in as buffer zone vanishes”? No zone has vanished since none has been set up (as of two days ago, anyway). If you don’t believe me, ask Judge Laplante.
There’s more: as the clip below shows, the fundraising email claims that New Hampshire had sixteen bills this year “that would limit women’s access to reproductive health.”
Based on the bills opposed by PPNNE this year, the organization believes that women’s access to reproductive health is limited when First Amendment rights are asserted (HB 1570), when there is a duty to care for children who survive attempted abortion (HB 1627), and when there’s a ban on trafficking in the body parts of aborted children (HB 1663).
That’s enough to give reproductive health a bad name.
Here’s a screenshot of the email, minus header and hyperlinks: