But only if they redefined their concept of “women’s health services” to something that promoted authentic, chaste, covenantal human sexuality designed for both procreative and unitive purposes.

Okay, so I’m listed on LinkedIn in the category of “vice-president,” which is fancy way of saying, “general village helper.” Every now and then, LinkedIn sends everyone in my category a list of jobs available within the category (they think that lateral moves are what people like to do). In the late-spring of 2014, I received the following job notice that LinkedIn thought I would be interested in:



Curious, especially given the media exposure of Planned Parenthood’s long-established practice of selling human body parts – an explicit acknowledgement that the bodies themselves are human – I read the job description.

The position summary stated that the Vice President of Development, Marketing and Communications is responsible, like the title reads, for three really broad and diverse areas.

Concerning development, the job requires the following:

The VP heads a team of development professionals overseeing initiatives and plans for the comprehensive fund development program. The VP is the primary contact and works closely with the President and CEO, Board, and Board Development Committee to move the organizations fund development efforts and results forward. The VP acts as a primary solicitor of major gifts in partnership with the President and CEO, Board Chair and other Board Leadership.

I wondered what this meant in terms of the Planned Parenthood’s search for someone who could assist in finding funds to support its operations in the St. Louis region and Southwest Missouri area given that Planned Parenthood reported a gross income of $1.2961 billion on its 2014-2015 annual report (see page 33), $553.7 million of which came from Government Health Services Grants & Reimbursements. The revenues and expense statements pulled from the national organization’s annual report read as follows:

And their expenses were 1.2373 billion in that period.



That’s a net profit (or an “excess of revenue over expenses”) of $58.8 million dollars ($60.7 million if you add in the other changes in net assets, such as building sales, etc.) for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2015.

Looking at the difference between the beginning of the year assets and the end of year assets, I thought to look back three years for trends. How much excess revenue does Planned Parenthood have to work with each year to advance its mission?

According to the 2013-2014 annual report, the total revenue was 1.3034 billion



With expenses totaling 1.1763 billion



for a net profit of $127.1 million. (Source: Planned Parenthood 2013-2014 Annual Report – https://issuu.com/actionfund/docs/annual_report_final_proof_12.16.14)

According to the 2012-2013 annual report, the total revenue was $1.21 billion



With expenses totaling $1.152 billion



For a net profit of $58.2 million plus $27.5 million, or $85.7 million.

(Source: Planned Parenthood 2012-2013 Annual Report – https://issuu.com/actionfund/docs/ar-fy13_111213_vf_rev3_issuu)

Going back one more year to the 2011-2012 annual report, we find that the total revenues were $1.199 billion.



With expenses totaling $1.111 billion



For a net profit of $87.4 million minus 2.3 million in losses on their net assets, for a total of $85.1 million.

(Source: Planned Parenthood 2011-2012 Annual Report – https://issuu.com/actionfund/docs/ppfa_ar_2012_121812_vf )

To put the years 2011-2014 in perspective, let’s go back one more year to the 2010-2011 Annual Report,



The total revenue was $1.219 billion with total expenses being $1.063 billion for a gross profit of $155.5 billion minus the losses of 5.4 million for a net profit of $151.1 million.



(Source: Planned Parenthood 2011-2012 Annual Financial Report – https://issuu.com/actionfund/docs/ppfa_ar_2011_110112_vf )

So, there’s been fluctuation in the net profits of Planned Parenthood over the past five years that reads as follows:

2010-2011 – Net Profit of $151.1 million

2011-2012 – Net Profit of $85.1 million

2012-2013 – Net Profit of $85.7 million

2013-2014 – Net Profit of $127.1 million

2014-2015 – Net Profit of $60.7 million

Over this same period, with government subsidies remaining steady, the greatest fluctuation in the revenue line items are within the private donations and bequests:

2010-2011 – Private Donations and Bequests of $318.7 million

2011-2012 – Private Donations and Bequests of $307.5 million

2012-2013 – Private Donations and Bequests of $315.4 million

2013-2014 – Private Donations and Bequests of $391.8 million

2014-2015 – Private Donations and Bequests of $353.5 million

The spike in net profits, then, for 2013-2014 directly correlates with the spike in private donations and bequests given that year, and the dip in net profits in 2014-2015 also directly correlates with the dip in private donations and bequests given that year. The explanation is not entirely satisfactory because the $353.5 million raised in 2014-2015 is higher than the trough year of $307.5 million raised in 2011-2012, a year with national net profits were $24.4 million higher.

So, let’s look at two revenue lines that are drawn only by the affiliates – the non-governmental health services revenue (which means people actually paying for the ‘services’ they receive) and the Government Health Services Grants and Reimbursements (which means taxpayer money):

First, the Non-Government Health Services Revenue:

2010-2011 – Non-Government Health Services Revenue of $305.4 million

2011-2012 – Non-Government Health Services Revenue of $311.5 million

2012-2013 – Non-Government Health Services Revenue of $305.0 million

2013-2014 – Non-Government Health Services Revenue of $305.3 million

2014-2015 – Non-Government Health Services Revenue of $309.2 million

In spite of fluctuations in their bottom line, costs haven’t jumped considerably for the consumer base in the past half decade.

Then, our tax dollars:

2010-2011 – Government Health Services Grants and Reimbursements of $538.5 million

2011-2012 – Government Health Services Grants and Reimbursements of $542.4 million

2012-2013 – Government Health Services Grants and Reimbursements of $540.6 million

2013-2014 – Government Health Services Grants and Reimbursements of $528.4 million

2014-2015 – Government Health Services Grants and Reimbursements of $553.7 million

We taxpayers gave Planned Parenthood grants and reimbursements of only $528.4 million in 2013-2014, the most recent spike year for private donations and bequests, compared with the $553.7 million we gave them in 2014-2015 when their privation donations and bequests fell $38.3 million. That more than compensated for their $25.3 million shortfall.

Okay, last one – Other Operating Revenues:

2010-2011 – Other Operating Revenues of $56.4 million

2011-2012 – Other Operating Revenues of $36.4 million

2012-2013 – Other Operating Revenues of $49.4 million

2013-2014 – Other Operating Revenues of $77.9 million

2014-2015 – Other Operating Revenues of $79.7 million

Other operating revenues fell by $20 million in 2011-2012, which directly correlates with the significant loss from 2010-2011 of gross income that year but spiked in 2014-2015, which indirectly correlates with the significant loss from 2013-2014 of gross income that year. Whatever Planned Parenthood is doing to raise its other operating revenues these past two fiscal years (selling body parts, etc.), it’s not enough to offset their losses in the 2014-2015 fiscal year.

So, where does a national organization go to increase its bottom line if its government subsidies and earned revenues, both of which are drawn entirely by its affiliates, are fairly static? To private money and other kinds of sales, both of which can be drawn not only by the affiliates but also by the national office.

Now that I understood to some degree the global finances of the operation, I dipped into the level for the St. Louis region to which the ad was directed. The regional financial report for 2013-2014 will be sufficient for what follows (the 2014-2015 annual report for the regional is not available on its site at https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-st-louis-region-southwest-missouri/who-we-are/annual-report at the time of this writing in March 2016):

The total revenues in 2013-2014, the peak year in the past half decade for private donations nationally, for the St. Louis Region and Southwest Missouri were $14,125,926

with total expenses of $10,721,361.



for a net profit of $3,413,565. (That’s the pool of money from which, by the way, Planned Parenthood in this region could afford to split the Vice-President position they were seeking into three positions.) Of that net profit, $1,974,478 of it came from individual and foundation contributions. (Source: Planned Parenthood St. Louis Region and Southwest Missouri 2013-2014 Consolidated Annual Report – https://issuu.com/actionfund/docs/2014-2015_annual_report_final_20mb/1)

Had nobody in the St. Louis Region contributed at all in 2013-2014, Planned Parenthood would have still drawn a net profit of $1,439,087 from its government subsidies, earned income, and “other operating revenue” (baby parts, etc). Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region and Southwest Missouri did not need a development office in 2013-2014 when the ad from LinkedIn made it to my email box.

Unless it gets defunded from its government subsidy, and that fear of defunding has to constantly be in its mind as it approaches each election cycle. Adding up the income received in medicaid, Title X (Federal Family Planning Funds), Family Planning Service Grants, Surgical Service Foundation Funding and Public Policy money, the St. Louis Regional facility drew in $2,860,473 in 2013-2014.

Were the federal funding gone, Planned Parenthood’s regional office in St. Louis’s net profit for that year would have been only $553,092. Still enough to operate (so, it is already self-sustaining and doesn’t need the government subsidies and grants to advance its mission – it charged its patients and their insurance carriers $5,694,248 in 2013-2014 and had that same year miscellaneous earned income of $4,063,013 – so a real business), but not enough to operate comfortably, which means expanding its services and operations.

So, why does the VP of development also have to have control over marketing and communications? Because for a highly controversial entity like Planned Parenthood, development, marketing and communications have to be highly coordinated activities. Here’s the Marketing and Communications description from the ad:

The VP heads the team of Communications and Marketing professionals and is responsible for the organization’s external and internal marketing and communication strategies including the brand written word, creative, organizational collateral, and online and new media tactics. The VP manages the division’s annual media buy and the organization’s earned media and public relations. This position manages division budgets for all corporations and organization’s brand initiatives.

Whoever takes this position of VP of development will also have to think of a way to answer questions like this in his or her appeal to potential donors: Doesn’t Planned Parenthood sell the human body parts to researchers for a profit?

The short answer he or she will provide is that films like these are highly edited and that the actors who created the films were brought to court for trying to buy human body parts from unsuspecting Planned Parenthood managers.

A development agent for Planned Parenthood also has to be able to market its programs and control its communications. They have to be able to argue that they want abortions to be safe, accessible and rare and that abortion services account for only 3% of the total services they provide. Still, that 3% is over a million babies a year.

The development, marketing and communications VP of Planned Parenthood does not have to worry about public opinion concerning vivisections of human persons since the organization already crossed the hump decades ago of public indifference to it. They are vivisections, after all, since the children are alive going in, which is the precise reason for their mothers ordering the “abortion services.”

One wonders, of course, what the Planned Parenthood abortionists expect to find going in when they argue, “Well, it’s not really human.” They consistently find this (my apologies to anyone I may have offended by humanizing a human baby with these images):

What it seems that what they expect to find is this:

(My apologies to anyone I may have offended by animalifying elephants and purpoises with these images.)

Perhaps a simpler image will clarify the truth for them on the meaning of those 3% of services they perform.

That’s all I need, so I will not be applying for the position of Vice-President of Development, Marketing and Communications when it next comes open in the St. Louis and Southwest Missouri Region. I’m happy just where I am, promoting in my own way an end to all abortion and the contraceptive mentality on which these kinds of services were built as the final solution to dealing with the enemy – the human baby. Ultimately, we are our own worst enemy in this business since the next generation we are killing is ourselves.