Connecticut Gives Millions To Planned Parenthood To Protect ‘Vulnerable’

There was no shortage of irony in Gov. Ned Lamont’s State of the State Address (Feb. 4) when, nearly in the same breath, the Connecticut governor proudly suggested that $10.4 million of additional state funding for Planned Parenthood helps “protect the most vulnerable.”

Apparently, the more than 13,000 abortions reported in Connecticut in 2024 — the last available numbers compiled by the Charlotte Lozier Institute (CLI) — are not considered as such. But what is more vulnerable than an infant in-utero?

However, a closer examination of the abortion-provider’s finances raises serious questions about the state’s budgeting priorities and the imbalanced relationship between nonprofits and state governments in blue states.

In recent years, Connecticut has been a self-proclaimed “safe harbor” for abortion access, and protects abortion until 24 weeks for both in- and out-of-state residents. Gov. Lamont has consistently advocated doing “everything in my power to block laws from being passed that restrict those rights.” Democratic lawmakers even considered codifying abortion in the state constitution after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022.

Aside from legal protections, for the past year, Connecticut has been generous toward Planned Parenthood of Southern New England (PPSNE) — which has 15 locations in Connecticut and Rhode Island — by backfilling anticipated federal budget cuts mostly through a $500 million so-called “emergency” fund. Established after last fall’s government shutdown, the fund was sold to taxpayers as largely providing for SNAP benefits, health care and nutrition programs on which thousands of state residents depend.

PPSNE representatives claimed the emergency funding “will make a meaningful difference,” so the organization can “ensure continued access to reproductive health care for all people in our state” and avoid threatening fiscal cliffs. But the organization’s Connecticut-affiliate is not strapped for cash, as portrayed by Gov. Lamont, Democratic lawmakers, and Planned Parenthood: PPSNE reportedly has a $50 million endowment.

Still, despite the sizable reserves, which, since 2018, has increased by 287% largely from the MacKenzie Scott Foundation, PPSNE has consistently sought and received millions from state taxpayers. Concurrently, with the abortion-provider securing more monies, management salaries have jumped by 88%, according to IRS forms.

In its “The State of Abortion in Connecticut 2025” report, the Connecticut Catholic Conference — the lobbying arm representing the Archdiocese of Hartford and the dioceses of Bridgeport and Norwich — argues PPSNE “misleads” the public by “repeatedly stating that it is operating at a deficit and in need of more state funding,” while lawmakers “ignor[e] the financial facts.”

Connecticut is not the only state funneling taxpayer funding toward Planned Parenthood and its state-based affiliates. California appropriated $140 million to keep facilities operational, while other states — from New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, Maine, Illinois to name a few — have dumped millions into the abortion provider’s coffers. Nationally, Planned Parenthood received nearly $800 million from government reimbursements and grants, according to the organization’s 2023-2024 annual report. These funding sources reportedly account for more than 40% of Planned Parenthood’s revenue.

The $10.4 million in Connecticut may seem like a ‘drop in the bucket’ compared to the entire state budget — which totals nearly $56 billion. And not every taxpayer dollar is directly funding an abortion with millions reimbursing services covered under Medicaid. Nevertheless, Planned Parenthood performed the most abortions nationwide at 402,230 in 2023-2024.

Yet the public funding from Connecticut and other blue states reeks of ideological and political favoritism rather than funding dire emergencies; but public funds should not be utilized to achieve political ends. In Planned Parenthood’s case, abortion violates an individual’s religious conviction of when life begins and ends — which is still a divisive topic among Americans.

Imagine the inverse: if Connecticut financially supported pro-life pregnancy resource centers; no doubt, left-leaning residents would be upset. Perhaps, rightly so — because taxpayer money, entrusted to lawmakers, should benefit all residents through neutral public goods such as roads, sewers, or parks, not ideological causes. Recent events, such as the welfare-fraud scandals involving state and federal programs in predominantly Democrat-led states, emphasize the need for elected officials to wisely scrutinize and appropriate public funds.

In short, should taxpayers be required to fund organizations whose missions many residents fundamentally oppose? For Planned Parenthood, its mission — in part — is to end life through abortion. Many Americans see their work as antithetical to assisting society’s most vulnerable, as opposed to Gov. Lamont’s view.

There are more effective, unifying ways of employing public funds to promote the general welfare and common good than through possible taxpayer-backed abortions, especially for an organization that reportedly has ample resources. And in a nation whose founding principles recognize that all persons are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,” the first being “Life,” Connecticut’s financial support of Planned Parenthood certainly evokes a sense of irony.

Instead, to help the most vulnerable, Connecticut — and other states — should promote civic activism and volunteerism, both which have gradually declined over time, and reconsider restrictive regulatory and tax policies towards nonprofits, including faith-based initiatives. Unleashing the nonprofits sector — while encouraging private donations — could rebuild a waning civil society that, in America’s past, has accomplished incalculable good for the marginalized, sick, suffering, and the unborn.

Public dollars should, therefore, be used where they unite citizens around shared needs — not where they deepen moral division and fiscal doubt.

Andrew Fowler is a writer from Milford, Conn.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.