On August 21, 2025, the American debate over abortion rights and reproductive health care funding reached a critical juncture, as new reports and legislative actions revealed stark contradictions and deepening divides in both policy and practice. At the heart of the issue lies the persistent financial strength of Planned Parenthood—even in states with strict abortion restrictions—and a shifting landscape of state and federal funding that is reshaping the resources available to women and families across the country.
According to a report released by the American Life League (ALL) and STOPP’s research team, Planned Parenthood’s annual affiliate income remains robust not only in states that support abortion rights, but also in those considered “pro-life.” The analysis, which scrutinized fiscal year 2022/2023 and 2023/2024 data, found that 11 affiliates operating in abortion-restricted states averaged $41.2 million in income annually. In comparison, 41 affiliates in states with fewer restrictions averaged $43.3 million. The numbers, as highlighted in the ALL press release, suggest "there is hardly a difference between the 81 Planned Parenthood facilities in abortion-restricted states and the 418 facilities in pro-abortion states."
Texas and Florida, both states with their own Planned Parenthood affiliates and some of the most stringent abortion restrictions in the country, emerged as significant contributors to the organization’s bottom line. The report also noted that the affiliate covering the Great Northwest, Hawaii, Alaska, Indiana, and Kentucky operated more facilities in so-called "pro-life" states (14) than in those with fewer restrictions (4), earning $85,439,932 in fiscal year 2022/2023 alone.
Despite legislative efforts to curtail abortion access, the report concluded that "America has no truly 'pro-life' states," as all states allow for abortions early in pregnancy and maintain exceptions in many cases. Florida, for instance, permits exceptions beyond its six-week "heartbeat law," including a new provision for victims of human trafficking. The findings have fueled calls from anti-abortion advocates to outlaw abortion in all cases and to defund Planned Parenthood entirely, arguing that incremental restrictions and continued funding represent setbacks in their campaign to "defend all human beings," as ALL’s summary put it.
Meanwhile, the shifting sands of funding are being felt acutely in Ohio, where Governor Mike DeWine and Lt. Governor Jim Tressel announced nearly $20 million in grants over the next two years through the Ohio Parenting and Pregnancy Program. The grants, administered by the Ohio Department of Children and Youth, are aimed at improving infant health outcomes through "prenatal education, parenting classes, case management, referrals, and material assistance tailored to the needs of local communities." Among the 21 recipients are several religiously affiliated groups and pregnancy resource centers, all of which are required by law to promote "childbirth, parenting and alternatives to abortion" and are explicitly prohibited from engaging in abortion-related activities.
This funding boost comes even as the Department of Children and Youth faces its own budget cuts, including millions of dollars slashed from "infant vitality" programs. Ohio’s infant mortality rate stood at 6.5 per 1,000 live births in 2024—a slight improvement over the previous year—but the state still received a D+ for its preterm birth rate, ranking 32nd nationally. The March of Dimes Report Card also highlighted a troubling disparity: the infant mortality rate for Black individuals was nearly twice the overall state rate.
Not everyone is convinced that the state’s current approach addresses these challenges. Critics point to the exclusion of established women’s health providers like Planned Parenthood from funding, arguing that it undermines efforts to reduce infant and maternal mortality. Erica Wilson-Domer, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio, emphasized that "federal funds have never paid for abortion services but supported other essential health care services, including contraception and well visits." She warned that recent federal and state cuts, coupled with new legislative proposals, threaten to "completely exacerbate this crisis" by removing access to vital health services for low-income and underinsured patients.
The pressure on Planned Parenthood affiliates has already led to significant consequences. The Greater Ohio affiliate reported a $10 million annual funding loss due to federal cuts and Medicaid defunding, resulting in staffing reductions announced on August 4, 2025. Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region has closed clinics in Springfield and Hamilton—neither of which provided abortion services—citing the impact of federal funding reductions. Wilson-Domer stressed that "without a reduction in force, PPGOH could cease to exist, leaving over 50,000 patients without access to birth control, gender affirming care, abortion, and a myriad of other essential health care services."
Abortion rights advocates, such as the group Abortion Forward, argue that the state’s focus on funding "unproven, deceptive programs instead of real providers with a track record of success" does not prioritize the well-being of children or families. Jaime Miracle, the group’s deputy director, urged Ohio to "invest in improvements to prenatal care, home visiting programs with a proven track record of success, and respect and support people seeking abortion care."
At the same time, the anti-abortion movement is ramping up its messaging in the public sphere. In Waco, Texas, Pro-Life Waco recently installed family-themed billboards promoting the importance of both mothers and fathers in a child’s life. The billboards, strategically placed on Waco Drive near East Waco, sparked controversy almost immediately. A local woman objected to the campaign, arguing that the billboards were "racist because of the location in a neighborhood with so many people of color," "harmful to children in homes without a father," "compelled adults to discuss abortion with children," and "disrespected one-parent families."
Supporters of the billboards, however, defended their message. Debbie Juhlke, CEO of the Embrace Life Initiative in Austin, wrote, "The images and message on this billboard celebrate the beauty of family and highlight the importance of both mothers and fathers in a child’s life. For many women in crisis, the presence of a father can make the difference in the choice for life. Rather than excluding or shaming, the message invites our community to honor life, value family bonds, and consider the life-affirming choices available." Dr. Lisa Muller Muñoz, a board member behind the campaign’s vision, added, "For too long, fathers have been forgotten. They too suffer, often believing they have no say, no right to the life they helped create. The baby has a mother AND a father! Showing love and support for the father as well as the mother is important in encouraging unity in the decision for life for the baby they created, regardless of the circumstances. Love family, choose life!"
These debates—over funding, messaging, and the very definition of "pro-life"—are playing out against a backdrop of shifting laws, persistent disparities in health outcomes, and a nation still deeply divided on the issue of reproductive rights. As states like Louisiana prepare to close the last of their Planned Parenthood facilities by September 30, 2025, and as lawsuits over federal funding restrictions wind through the courts, the future of reproductive health care in America remains as contested as ever. The choices made in legislatures, boardrooms, and at the community level will shape the health and lives of millions for years to come.
