Congress must defund Planned Parenthood
I am a mother of three, including my son Cole, who was born with Down syndrome. I am also a former congresswoman who served Eastern Washington for 20 years. In these capacities, I have lived the profound joy and responsibility of nurturing life.
When Cole was born, doctors told me his condition might limit him, but his boundless spirit has taught me that every life is a gift brimming with potential. This conviction, rooted in faith and family, drove my work in Congress. It also fuels my call today for Congress to defund Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider and the second-largest distributor of transition-inducing cross-sex hormones to children.
Taxpayer dollars should not bankroll an organization that ends lives and pushes harmful, irreversible treatments on vulnerable children who are too young to consent. This is even more true at a time when our nation is grappling with a $36 trillion debt.
Planned Parenthood, shaped by its founder Margaret Sanger's eugenics-driven vision, has long masked its true aims. Sanger, who in 1923 called the poor, disabled, and people of color 'human weeds,' sought to eliminate those she deemed inferior.
Today, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and Planned Parenthood Global hide behind the pretext of caring for poor women, but their actions tell a different story. They falsely claim that unless their organization receives Medicaid dollars, women will lose medical care. They also perpetuate the myth that abortion comprises only 3 percent of their services.
In truth, abortion dominates their business model. According to their 2021-2022 annual report, Planned Parenthood for America performed 374,155 abortions — over 1,000 daily —making it the nation's leading abortion provider. Since 1973, Planned Parenthood has ended more than 8 million lives in this manner.
This is not healthcare — it is the systematic termination of human potential on an unimaginable scale.
The harm extends beyond abortion itself. A 2023 study in BMC Psychiatry found that women post-abortion face a 34 percent higher risk of depression and anxiety, with many enduring long-term distress. A 2023 study in Issues in Law & Medicine documented physical complications like infertility and chronic pain. Planned Parenthood dismisses these harms, leaving women to face the consequences alone.
As a mother, I have seen the stark difference between such abandonment and genuine support. My experience with Cole, navigating a world that sometimes undervalues those with disabilities, has shown me the power of choosing life and the need for care that uplifts, not destroys.
Equally alarming is Planned Parenthood's role as the second-largest provider of cross-sex hormones for so-called 'gender-affirming care,' according to a 2023 Senate report by Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.). With 41 of 49 affiliates offering puberty blockers, estrogen, and testosterone, their 2021-2022 report noted a 1,400 percent spike in 'Other Procedures' — including gender transition services — from 17,791 to 256,550 in a year.
These treatments, given to children as young as 12, lack long-term safety data, according to a 2022 Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism study, and can cause irreversible damage such as infertility, stunted growth, depression, blood clots, and cancer.
Across Europe, countries such as the United Kingdom, Sweden, Finland, Norway, and Denmark have sharply restricted these treatments for minors, with the U.K. indefinitely limiting puberty blockers to clinical trials in 2024 due to insufficient evidence of safety, and others allowing hormones only in exceptional cases or research settings.
As a mother, I am heartbroken that Planned Parenthood pushes such experimental treatments on vulnerable children, often bypassing parental consent, just as so many nations are pulling back and moving in a better direction.
Fiscally, subsidies to Planned Parenthood are indefensible. In 2021-2022, they received $670.4 million in taxpayer funds, siphoned from such programs as Title X, despite the Hyde Amendment's restrictions on funding abortions. These dollars, as I argued in Congress, free up resources for Planned Parenthood to run its abortion and hormone programs.
Over the last five years, Planned Parenthood's national office funneled $899 million to affiliates for legal battles and political campaigns, including $40 million in 2024 to back pro-abortion Democrats, according to a 2025 New York Times report.
As former chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, I fought to ensure that taxpayer funds were spent responsibly, prioritizing families over ideology. Planned Parenthood's $2 billion in annual revenue is proof that it can survive without taxpayer support. Forcing taxpayers to fund an organization that so many find morally bankrupt undermines the values of millions.
Defunding Planned Parenthood would merely redirect resources to federally qualified health centers, which serve more than 30 million patients annually with comprehensive care — mammograms, prenatal support and mental health services, among other things — without abortion or experimental treatments, according to the Health Resources and Services Administration.
These centers embody the kind of care I championed in Congress, as when I voted for the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act and spoke out against bills designed to funnel money to Planned Parenthood.
As Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy noted in their November 20, 2024, Wall Street Journal op-ed, the Department of Government Efficiency aims to cut more than $500 billion in unauthorized spending, citing Planned Parenthood's funding as a prime target. Recent Supreme Court rulings such as West Virginia v. EPA (2022) and Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), affirm that agencies cannot impose policies without clear congressional approval — a principle that applies to PPFA's bloated funding.
Before retiring in December 2024, I stood on the House floor, as I did in 2020 at a pro-life hearing, saying, 'Abortion doesn't bring hope or healing. There is a despair that has come over our country.'
My journey with Cole has shown me the beauty of embracing life's challenges instead of erasing them.
Defunding Planned Parenthood is about reclaiming moral clarity and fiscal responsibility, investing in care that respects the dignity of every human person — born and unborn. Congress must act now to honor the constitutional promise of life and protect our children from harm. As a mother and former congresswoman, I urge my former colleagues to defund Planned Parenthood and choose hope.
Cathy McMorris Rodgers represented Washington's Fifth Congressional District in Congress from 2005 to 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
33 minutes ago
- USA Today
Senate debates Trump's major tax, Medicaid, border bill after dramatic vote: Live updates
Hours of debate will be followed by likely hours of voting on what could be dozens of amendments. WASHINGTON – The Senate begins its marathon debate about President Donald Trump's package of legislative priorities as Republicans try to thread the needle for tax cuts, Medicaid reforms and border security funding with a narrow majority. The debate comes after a dramatic 51-49 vote June 28 that was held open for more than three and a half hours while a handful of Republican senators negotiated with Senate leaders, Trump and Vice President JD Vance. The victory meant the bill cleared a key hurdle for the success of Trump's domestic agenda for tax cuts and border security. Trump has urged Congress to complete the measure by July 4. After the vote, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-New York, forced Senate clerks to read the entire 940-page bill rather than customarily waiving that chore. The debate that could last 20 hours before senators begin voting on what is expected to be dozens of amendments in a process nicknamed a "vote-a-rama" that could hours longer. Majority Leader John Thune, R-South Dakota, has said he is uncertain whether enough Republicans will support the final version of their bill to send it back to the House. "We'll find out," Thune said. Here is what has happened so far: Which Republicans voted against Trump's bill? The president blasts GOP lawmakers Trump took to his Truth Social platform to criticize the GOP lawmakers who voted against moving his major tax bill forward – Tillis and Paul. "Numerous people have come forward wanting to run in the Primary against 'Senator Thom' Tillis. I will be meeting with them over the coming weeks, looking for someone who will properly represent the Great People of North Carolina and, so importantly, the United States of America," Trump said. Trump had a shorter message for Paul, a longtime GOP lawmaker from Kentucky: "Did Rand Paul Vote 'NO' again tonight? What's wrong with this guy???" GOP senators raise – and some resolve – concerns about bill Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Thom Tillis of North Carolina were the only Republican votes against debating the bill as written. Paul, who golfed with Trump that afternoon, opposed the bill's spending levels. Tillis voiced concerns about Medicaid cuts costing his state tens of billions of dollars. Trump threatened to find a Republican primary opponent for Tillis in 2026. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, initially voted no on starting the debate. But he flipped his vote at the last minute rather than force a tie that Vice President JD Vance was on hand to break. GOP Sens. Mike Lee of Utah, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming and Rick Scott of Florida were the last to vote, each saying yes after hours of talks with leadership. Along the way, Lee withdrew a contentious provision that Sen. Tim Sheehy, R-Montana, threatened to oppose the legislation over. − Bart Jansen Elon Musk called bill 'political suicide' for hurting jobs, economy Billionaire Elon Musk, Trump's former adviser on cutting government spending, fired off another set of attacks against the president's legislative package for potentially killing millions of jobs. Musk had quieted his harsh criticism of Trump and the legislation the week after his departure from government May 30. But he blasted the bill again as the Senate prepared to debate it. 'The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country!' Musk said June 28 on social media. 'Utterly insane and destructive. It gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future.' Musk added another post warning the GOP of the electoral risks if they vote for the Trump-backed legislation that is not polling well with Republicans. −Bart Jansen What's in the Senate version of Trump's bill? The largest provisions in the legislation would extend expiring tax cuts and create a few new ones, and a dramatic increasing in spending on border security. The heart of the legislation would extend Trump's 2017 tax cuts which are set to expire at end of the year. Republicans have said defeat of the measure would lead to a $4 trillion tax hike over the next decade. New tax deductions Trump campaigned on would apply to tips for employees such as waiters through 2028 and for overtime pay. The Senate capped the deduction at $25,000 and weakened the break for individuals with income above $150,000. For border security, the bill would increase funding about $150 billion for the Department of Homeland Security. The bill authorizes $45 billion for new detention centers as Trump ramps up arrests and $27 billion for a mass deportation campaign. A crucial provision would increase the amount the country can borrow by $5 trillion. The country's debt is already approaching $37 trillion and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has warned the current limit on borrowing will be reached in Rand Paul of Kentucky, a Republican holdout on the bill, said he wouldn't vote for the bill unless the debt limit gets a separate vote. But Republican leaders want to keep the unpopular vote within the overall package. −Bart Jansen
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Trump megabill narrowly advances in Senate despite two GOP defections
Senate Republicans on Saturday narrowly voted to advance a sprawling 1,000-page bill to enact President Trump's agenda, despite the opposition of two GOP lawmakers. The vote was 51-49. Two Republicans voted against advancing the package: Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who opposes a provision to raise the debt limit by $5 trillion and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who says the legislation would cost his state $38.9 trillion in federal Medicaid funding. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) changed his 'no' vote to 'aye,' and holdout Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah), Rick Scott (R-Fla.) and Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) also voted yes to advance the bill. The bill had suffered several significant setbacks in the days and hours before coming to the floor, at times appearing to be on shaky ground. The vote itself was also full of drama. Signs of trouble started to pop up 50 minutes after the vote opened when three GOP senators who had expressed misgivings about the bill — Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Lee and Scott — still hadn't showed up on the Senate floor. Three other Republican senators, Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and Johnson, announced well in advance of the vote that they would oppose the motion to proceed and could not support the bill in its current form. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) stood along the back wall of the chamber — appearing somewhat nervous — waiting for his missing colleagues to arrive on the floor. Thune was surrounded by members of his leadership team, including Senate GOP Whip John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), the deputy whip, and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), as he shifted his weight from foot to foot. When Murkowski finally appeared on the floor, she was quickly surrounded by Thune, Barrasso, Graham and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), who barraged her on all sides with points and interjections. Then Murkowski walked away from the leadership group and sat down next to Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Bill Cassidy (R-La.) to have a quiet tête-à-tête. Murkowski eventually voted in favor of advancing the measure, but the vote remained open. Almost three hours after the vote began, Johnson, Lee, Scott and Lummis walked out of Thune's office with Vice President Vance and headed to the Senate floor to cast the final votes to advance the bill. Earlier in the week, perhaps the most notable setback was a ruling by the Senate parliamentarian earlier this week that a cap on health care provider taxes, which is projected to save billions of dollars in federal Medicaid spending, violated the Senate's Byrd Rule. GOP leaders were able to rewrite that provision for it to remain in the bill. And the legislation appeared in danger moments before vote when Sen. Tim Sheehy, a freshman Republican from Montana, threatened to vote against the motion to proceed if the bill included a provision championed by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) directing the Interior Department to sell millions of acres of public lands. Sheehy agreed at the last minute to vote for the legislation after GOP leaders promised he would get a vote on an amendment to strip the language forcing the sale of public lands from the bill. In the end, Thune pulled off a major victory by moving the legislation a big step closer to final passage. Thune hailed the legislation Saturday as a 'once-in-a-generation opportunity to deliver legislation to create a safer, stronger and more prosperous America.' He cited $160 billion to secure the borders and beef up immigration enforcement and $150 billion to increase the Pentagon's budget, as well as an array of new tax cuts in addition to the extension of Trump's expiring 2017 tax cuts. He pointed to the bill's elimination of taxes on tips and taxes on overtime pay for hourly workers as well as language allowing people to deduct auto loan interest when they buy a new car made in the United States. President Trump has set a July 4 deadline for Congress to get the bill to his desk. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) blasted his Republican colleagues for unveiling the 940-page Senate substitute amendment late Friday night, giving senators only a few hours to review the legislation before the vote. 'Hard to believe, this bill is worse, even worse than any draft we've seen thus far. It's worse on health care. It's worse on [the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.] It's worse on the deficit,' he said. Schumer slammed Republicans for advancing the bill before having an official budgetary estimate from the Congressional Budget Office. 'They're afraid to show how badly this will increases the deficit,' he said. 'Future generations will be saddled with trillions in debt.' A preliminary analysis by the Congressional Budget Office circulated by Senate Finance Committee Democrats Saturday estimates the bill will cut Medicaid by $930 billion, far more substantially than the legislation passed last month by the House. Tillis cited the impact on Medicaid as the reason he voted 'no' on the motion to proceed and plans to vote 'no' on final passage. 'I cannot support this bill in its current form. It would result in tens of billions of dollars in lost funding for North Carolina, including our hospitals and rural communities,' he said in a statement. 'This will force the state to make painful decisions like eliminating Medicaid coverage for hundreds of thousands in the expansion population, and even reducing critical services for those in the traditional Medicaid population,' he warned. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), a critical swing vote, said she voted to advance the legislation out of 'deference' to the GOP leader but warned that doesn't mean she will vote 'yes' on final passage. She said that Senate negotiators improved the legislation before releasing it Friday but added that she wants to make additional changes. 'Generally, I give deference to the majority leader's power to bring bills to the Senate floor. Does not in any way predict how I'm going to vote on final passage,' Collins told reporters. 'That's going to depend on whether the bill is substantially changed,' she said. 'There are some very good changes that have been made in the latest version but I want to see further changes and I will be filing a number of amendments.' Former senior White House advisor Elon Musk blasted the Senate bill on social media shortly before the vote, calling it full of 'handouts to industries of the past,' referring to the oil, gas and coal industries. 'The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country! Utterly insane and destructive. It gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future,' he wrote on X, the social media platform he owns. Schumer told Democratic senators before the vote that he would force the clerks to read the entire 1,000-page bill on the Senate floor, which is estimated to take up to 12 hours and delay the start of debate and the start of a marathon series of amendment votes, known as a vote-a-rama. It's unclear whether Republican senators will keep the Senate in session overnight Saturday into Sunday morning to have the bill read aloud on the floor, an exhausting process for the Senate floor staff. An overnight reading of the bill would leave the clerks and floor staff weary before senators are scheduled to hold 20 hours of debate on the legislation and then launch into a multi-hour vote-a-rama.
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
House GOP leadership discussing new ways to limit classified information on Capitol Hill
House Republican leadership is actively discussing new ways to restrict the classified information that all lawmakers can receive, after the White House indicated it will limit intelligence sharing with Congress going forward. Democrats are warning that would threaten their ability to do their jobs, and some Republicans also say they would be against further restrictions. The conversations happening at the House leadership level have so far revolved around who should be allowed to access the most sensitive information, lawmakers involved in the discussions told CNN. The Trump administration is planning to limit what it shares with Congress, a senior White House official told CNN on Wednesday. That comes after CNN reported that, according to an early US intelligence assessment that was described by seven people briefed on it, the US military strikes on three of Iran's nuclear facilities did not destroy the core components of the country's nuclear program and likely only set it back by months. 'We're looking into that,' House Speaker Mike Johnson told CNN, when asked what ways he is looking to limit classified information coming to Congress in the future. 'It's a real problem.' Johnson did not rule out eliminating classified briefings for the entire House, which House and Senate lawmakers received last week on Iran, as a potential option. 'It probably affects what we are able to be told because there are real risks to that. So, it's unfortunate. It effects how the institution works, and that's a problem so we got to address it,' Johnson said. House Homeland Security Committee Chair Mark Green confirmed to CNN that 'there's a debate' among House GOP leadership over how to institute new restrictions. Green said some of the ideas include restricting classified information to just key committee chairman and the 'Gang of Eight,' which is made up of the congressional leaders from each party and the top Republican and Democrat on the House and Senate intelligence committees. House Intelligence Committee Chair Rick Crawford told CNN on Thursday he is already taking 'proactive steps' to manage classified information on Capitol Hill, without divulging specifics. In response to restrictions under consideration, one Republican lawmaker who does not serve on the Intelligence Committee and whom CNN granted anonymity to speak freely said, 'I would personally resist loudly if my access was limited.' There are limits to what Republicans can do to implement new stipulations on classified information sharing. US law requires the intelligence community 'keep the congressional intelligence committees fully and currently informed of all intelligence activities, including any significant anticipated intelligence activity.' The potential to limit the sharing of classified information will most likely impact rank-and-file lawmakers who don't sit on relevant committees of jurisdiction, setting up a situation where the majority of Congress would potentially be left in the dark on key matters of national security unless they were explicitly told. The White House on Thursday declined to say how it would be limiting the classified information it shares with Congress or how it would respond to lawmakers who maintain their oversight duties necessitate access to the information. 'This administration wants to ensure that classified intelligence is not ending up in irresponsible hands, and that people who have the privilege of viewing this top-secret classified information are being responsible with it,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters at a briefing. 'And unfortunately, clearly, someone who had their hands on this — and it was a very few people, very few number of people in our government who saw this report … that person was irresponsible with it,' Leavitt added, referring to the early Defense Intelligence Agency assessment. CIA Director John Ratcliffe has said that 'a body of credible intelligence' indicated Iran's nuclear program was 'severely damaged' by the US strikes and that 'several key Iranian nuclear facilities were destroyed and would have to be rebuilt over the course of years.' While it was not clear whether Ratcliffe was offering an official agency assessment or his view of the intelligence, it's not unusual for intelligence agencies to disagree when making a judgment call about how to interpret raw reporting. The analysis of the damage to the sites and the impact of the strikes on Iran's nuclear ambitions is also ongoing, and could change as more intelligence becomes available. While Democrats have condemned the leak, they have warned Republicans against taking any steps to restrict classified information. The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Jim Himes, said in a statement to CNN that it is 'unacceptable for the administration to use unsubstantiated speculation about the source of a leak to justify cutting off Congress from classified intelligence reporting, particularly when over a million people within the Executive Branch have clearance to access classified top-secret reporting.' Democratic Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the highest-ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said intelligence is already limited on Capitol Hill and restricting it further could inhibit lawmakers from being able to do their jobs. 'If you don't have information then you are moving against a democratic process and you're constraining government. Government is not operable if you don't have the information you need to vote,' she told CNN. The active discussion has forced Republican lawmakers to confront the precedent they want to set going forward and how comfortable they are with the possibility of taking themselves out of the information sharing equation under a Democratic presidency in the future. GOP Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, who serves on the House Intelligence Committee, told CNN 'of course' he is worried about the precedent being set if classified information is further restricted to lawmakers on Capitol Hill, but added, 'I worry about leaks too.' For members who don't sit on the key intelligence committees, like GOP Rep. David Valadao, there is a concern over what it would mean to be in the dark. 'The thing that we deal with in Congress is we never know what we don't know,' Valadao told CNN. GOP Rep. French Hill, another House Intelligence Committee member, told CNN he would prefer that Johnson and his team focus on enforcing the current restrictions around intelligence sharing, rather than creating new ones. 'We have significant rules now,' Hill said. The discussion over restricting access to information sharing has also created opportunities for Democrats to argue that the details the Trump administration has shared about the US strikes on Iran are being politicized and cannot necessarily be trusted. That dynamic was on full display on Thursday when Senate Republicans and Democrats emerged from an hourlong administration briefing on the US strikes with conflicting accounts of what the briefers said. A significant number of Republicans, however, say restricting the access lawmakers have to classified information is a good thing because they argue many cannot be trusted. House Ethics Committee Chair Michael Guest, who supports limiting classified information to just key party leadership and intelligence committee leaders, said, 'I believe there's a lot of the information, as far as rank-and-file members, that when we receive it, it very quickly finds a way to leak its way out into the public.' 'I wouldn't tell any member of Congress anything classified if you didn't want people to know,' GOP Rep. Tony Gonzales, who spent 20 years serving in the military, told CNN. 'The really sensitive stuff, there's no need to know. All of the other details, it comes out so fast.' Fitzpatrick shared that briefers have come before the House Intelligence Committee and shared they are afraid to be fully honest because they don't trust Congress' ability to protect classified information. 'That's a problem,' Fitzpatrick added. Rather than cutting all members off from classified information, GOP Rep. Austin Scott, another member of the House Intelligence Committee, said lawmakers should go through a background check to understand the gravity of the material they would be seeing. 'The fact that by virtue of being elected to Congress you get to see classified and hear classified information, I think those days have long passed,' Scott told CNN.
