Why is the New York Times publishing scurrilous accusations against Planned Parenthood while ignoring the $1.7 billion unregulated antiabortion pregnancy center industry that endangers the lives of American women and girls?
The New York Times published a 3,000-word investigative report recently, claiming to have found “scores of allegations” against Planned Parenthood for misconduct, medical malpractice, mismanagement and labor violations. Released within a month of Trump’s inauguration and published on the front page of the Sunday print edition above the fold, the article appears timed to provide ammunition for the ongoing right-wing attacks on reproductive rights.
The New York Times has piled onto Trump’s executive orders obliterating reproductive rights for many Americans and his pardons of antiabortion terrorists who invaded and blocked reproductive health clinics, Republicans’ baseless lawsuits meant to bankrupt Planned Parenthood, and escalating political attacks from all three branches of the federal government aimed at defunding Planned Parenthood.
Why has the New York Times chosen to deploy their significant investigative journalism resources to target beleaguered Planned Parenthood health centers at this dire political moment, instead of investigating the secretive unregulated $1.7 billion dollar antiabortion pregnancy clinic industry that is eroding access to reproductive healthcare nationwide?
Instead, the New York Times chose to attack Planned Parenthood, while giving a pass to unregulated antiabortion pregnancy clinics (also known as “crisis pregnancy centers”)—which leading medical associations agree:
- Do not but should have regulatory oversight. (AMA, APHA, SAHM)
- Are not required to abide by federal health information privacy laws. (AMA, ACOG)
- Engage in deceptive practices. (AMA, APHA, ACOG)
- Should not receive public funding. (AMA, APHA, ACOG, SAHM)
The New York Times could have investigated how a nationwide network of unregulated religious nonprofits is positioning itself as a provider of reproductive healthcare—while operating free of any of the health, safety, licensing or privacy standards that govern Planned Parenthood health centers and other real medical offices.
The New York Times could have examined how the unregulated antiabortion pregnancy clinic industry uses tax-deductible donations in electoral politics; collects sensitive, private information that they are not legally required to protect; and endangers women’s health by causing delays in accessing legitimate healthcare, spreading medical misinformation and targeting marginalized and vulnerable populations.
By choosing to publish what reads as a hit job on Planned Parenthood at this political moment … the New York Times has done a grave disservice to readers, especially women and girls who need reproductive healthcare.
The New York Times could have explored why “pro-life” pregnancy centers engaged in unlicensed practice of medicine, trafficking of medical disinformation and unguarded collection of sensitive personal health information are increasingly the only resource available to pregnant women and teens, especially in states where abortion care is banned or severely restricted and maternal care deserts are worsening.
Why does the New York Times think it’s more important to investigate Planned Parenthood than to investigate the powerful, dangerous unregulated pregnancy center industry—an industry that aggressively fights any effort to understand its finances, practices or impact?
By choosing to publish what reads as a hit job on Planned Parenthood at this political moment, while failing to devote any resources to investigating the opaque and unregulated antiabortion industry vying to defund and replace Planned Parenthood, the New York Times has done a grave disservice to readers, especially women and girls who need reproductive healthcare.
But even if the New York Times does not want to report on the multibillion-dollar antiabortion pregnancy clinic industry, the New York Times could have written an investigative report on how antiabortion politicians are working overtime to defund Planned Parenthood and “redirect” that public funding to the unregulated pregnancy center industry—despite mounting evidence of widespread financial waste and mismanagement, and unsafe health and safety practices.
Or the New York Times could have reported on how Trump’s recent pardons of antiabortion terrorists and his pledge to stop enforcement of the Freedom to Clinic Entrances Act is now emboldening antiabortion extremists to engage in escalating violence against women’s health clinics, patients and medical personnel.
Here’s a thought: The New York Times could have invested its resources on an investigative report about how Planned Parenthood plays a unique and irreplaceable role in the U.S. healthcare system as the nation’s leading provider of sexual and reproductive healthcare and largest sex educator. They could have pointed out how Planned Parenthood health centers are the only source of healthcare for millions of Americans, and that 76 percent of Planned Parenthood health centers are located in rural or medically underserved areas. They could have explained that the people who face the highest barriers to healthcare due to systemic racism and sexism will be harmed the most if Planned Parenthood is destroyed.
The New York Times could have covered how Planned Parenthood provides medically accurate information and life-saving cancer screenings for millions of women or how they provide affordable contraceptives to women at a time when many states have banned abortion.
In 2022, Planned Parenthood health centers served 2.05 million patients—providing more than 4.6 million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted infections; nearly 213,000 breast exams; nearly 198,000 Pap tests; and nearly 2.3 million birth control services.
What the New York Times reporting does not tell you is that Planned Parenthood Federation of America has rigorous national medical standards and guidelines that it requires their healthcare centers and affiliates to follow. These guidelines are based on the latest science and medical evidence, and are regularly updated in consultation with leading public health experts, researchers and clinicians.
They could have pointed out how Planned Parenthood health centers are the only source of healthcare for millions of Americans, and that 76 percent of Planned Parenthood health centers are located in rural or medically underserved areas.
Surveys of patients and employees show high levels of satisfaction with the organization. In a December 2024 survey of 130,000 patients:
- 94 percent rated their overall experience at Planned Parenthood as good or very good, and 96 percent of respondents agreed that staff treated them with respect and compassion.
- Nine out of 10 patients would recommend Planned Parenthood health centers and care providers to their families and friends.
Similarly, most Planned Parenthood affiliate employees believe their health centers provide high-quality care and service, with scores in line with other large healthcare providers.
These positive reviews come despite the extremely challenging landscape for reproductive healthcare providers, including an increasingly hostile political environment; low reimbursement rates from insurers; rising costs of providing care; lack of state and federal funding for people with the greatest need; and a shortage of providers and clinical staff.
The author of the New York Times feature article maligning Planned Parenthood claims that she values fairness and accuracy, and that she “makes every effort to understand the issues [she] covers from multiple angles.” This makes it all the more surprising that she and the New York Times appear to be entirely clueless about the hostile political context in which Planned Parenthood operates. Maybe the decision to publish this piece is really more about the political context in which legacy newspapers operate today.
