Hot! Letters to the Editor Sent: New York Times, February, 2025

To the Editor: NYT

I don’t understand how reported increases in infant mortality and morbidity rates can be “unexpected” in most states with abortion bans post Dobbs. As outlined in “After Abortion Bans, Infant Mortality and Births Increased, Research Finds,” the same economically disadvantaged people historically undergoing abortions, instead gave birth to children. Dr. Harrison said it best “these ‘excess’ children who were born would have been killed by induced abortions.” 

Poverty has long been recognized as the fiercest driver of abortion as well as infant mortality and morbidity.

What can be rightly considered ‘unexpected’ is the decrease in infant mortality rates in 4 of the 14 states with abortion bans, evaluated by the JAMA studies, Belluck’s article discusses.  While JAMA researchers say expanded abortion access in neighboring states is “most likely” responsible for the decrease, other potential reasons are largely overlooked. Namely, did these 4 states both restrict abortion and enhance support for poor pregnant mothers? And if so, to what extent?

As a feminist, committed to protecting human life from conception to natural death, I join the call for improved “support systems and funding for pregnant women and infants,” echoed in Belluck’s piece. 

All human beings are worth our time and attention.

Michele Sterlace-Accorsi, JD, LLM

Feminists Choosing Life of New York, Inc., Executive Director

---

To the Editor: NYT

I am one of many sidewalk advocates for life in Rochester, NY and you've brought to light what we know, Planned Parenthood puts abortion first.  (Feb. 16 Planned Parenthood in Crisis)

As advocates we lovingly offer support to women entering Planned Parenthood.

One mother, well into her second trimester, left Planned Parenthood and came to us for help.  She decided against abortion.  Without her knowledge or consent Planned Parenthood gave her name and number to a local late term abortionist who badgered her repeatedly to arrange an abortion.  Upset, she finally had to block their number.

Fortunately for Planned Parenthood, the underserved population doesn't tend to complain, they just disappear.

Planned Parenthood aggressively promotes abortion at the expense of the health and wellbeing of the women they claim to serve. 

Dorothy Hayes

---

To the Editor: NYT

It is clear, as shown in the NYT article Botched Care and Tired Staff: Planned Parenthood in Crisis, Planned Parenthood’s primary motive is to make money through abortions, rather than to care for women’s health. According to your article,  PP of Northern California ended its prenatal care program in 2023 due to a $379,000 expense shortfall despite; 1. Receiving a $1.3 M county contract for prenatal healthcare delivery 2. Another $275 million gift given to National and affiliates 3. National office spending $40 million on political campaigns in 2023 and according to PPNoCal’s 2024 annual report, prenatal program ended despite 4. spending over $60M in operating expenses and 5. Opening a new, expanded center that can offer abortion services.  I wonder if the prenatal patients having to go elsewhere agree with the CEO’s characterization of it being a “necessary decision”.

Amy Crossed, Feminists Choosing Life of New York, Board Director

---

To the Editor: NYT 

Thanks for covering Planned Parenthood on Feb 15.  Brighton, NY where we live opened a new Planned Parenthood in Fall of 2024 and many residents, including myself, fought its' opening. Ms. Benner’s article confirms our feelings and findings. You say the normal appointment is 10-15 minutes and then later talk about the 12- and 13-year-olds getting abortion “sometimes because a family member impregnated them.”    Is Planned Parenthood asking the right question to protect these children from the abuse and rape (after all they are too young to consent) and reporting it to the proper authorities? Sadly, the obvious answer is NO. The same goes for impregnated sex trafficked victims, many young, which this article failed to reference -- there is a strong correlation between abortion and sex trafficking.   The article references a California clinic that cancelled prenatal care – no surprise there.  If there is even a PP clinic somewhere else that provides prenatal care it is a miniscule fraction. Another takeaway is the financial strains on Planned Parenthood Federation, a non-profit. The Director is compensated almost $900 million and other top executives including their development executive make over $500,000.  Seriously!  What women do not realize is that all the “services” Planned Parenthood provides, other than abortion, can be obtained at most community health clinics in a much safer way. Abortion is what sustains PP financially and while they are focusing on profits, they are jeopardizing women’s health and safety.

Jessica C. Shanahan, MA, MS

Brighton Residents Against Violence (BRAVE)

---

To the Editor: NYT

For years, Planned Parenthood has downplayed the role abortion plays in their financial stability.  Proponents often make the dubious claim that abortion is only 3% of the services they provide.  However the NYT’s article  “Botched Care and Tired Staff: Planned Parenthood in Crisis,” reveals that abortion services are integral to Planned Parenthood’s ability to operate, as funding abortion politics has been admittedly prioritized over funding patient care.  If Planned Parenthood is financially motivated by whether or not individual patients choose abortion, they cannot possibly be relied upon to provide neutral guidance in discussing abortion choice with patients.  Taxpayer funding should only go to health care providers who are not financially incentivized by their patient’s abortion choice.

Cecelia Lester, Feminists Choosing Life of New York, President.

*LTE submitted, but not published.