Why Federal Funding for Planned Parenthood Matters

In Kerr v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, the US Supreme Court is poised to decide whether states can bar Medicaid patients from choosing Planned Parenthood as their healthcare provider. A ruling in favor of Planned Parenthood would affirm that federal funding streams – including Medicaid reimbursements and Title X family planning grants – can continue flowing to Planned Parenthood affiliates. This decision has far-reaching implications for public health. Planned Parenthood is a major provider of essential preventive services such as contraception, sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing and treatment, cancer screenings, and prenatal care for millions of Americans, particularly low-income and marginalized patients (Guttmacher Institute, 2025). Protecting access to these services is not only a matter of individual rights, but a critical investment in community health outcomes nationwide.

Reduction in STI Rates

Planned Parenthood plays a critical role in STI prevention and treatment. In 2022-2023 alone, Planned Parenthood clinics provided 4.63 million STI testing and treatment services, including nearly 3.9 million STI tests and over 738,000 HIV tests (Planned Parenthood Federation of America, 2023). Federally funded programs like Title X and Medicaid make these services accessible and affordable. Continued support for Planned Parenthood would likely help curb the spread of STIs by sustaining widespread screening, treatment, and educational outreach.

Evidence shows that when family planning clinics (including Planned Parenthood sites) lose funding or close, STI rates surge. A cohort study in Iowa examined what happened after state funding cuts forced family planning clinic closures in 2017, and the results were alarming. In the year following the closures, the gonorrhea rate in Iowa jumped from 83 to 153.7 cases per 100,000 (Srinivas et al., 2020). Counties that lost clinics had significantly more significant STI increases than those that did not. Similarly, in Indiana, the closure of a rural Planned Parenthood (which was the area’s only HIV testing center) was followed by an HIV outbreak (Clarke, 2017). These examples underscore how vital family planning clinics are to safeguarding public health and preventing the spread of infectious diseases.

By keeping Planned Parenthood health centers open and funded, especially in underserved areas, STI surveillance and prevention would remain robust (Frost et al., 2014). This could mean:

• Earlier detection and treatment of infections like chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, and HIV prevent complications and further transmission. For example, publicly supported family planning services in 2010 averted an estimated 99,000 cases of chlamydia and 16,000 cases of gonorrhea 

• Continued availability of condoms, PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV), vaccines (e.g., HPV vaccination), and risk-reduction counseling through programs that Planned Parenthood participates in. These interventions help lower community STI rates.

• Avoiding the costs of untreated STIs, such as infertility and ectopic pregnancies from untreated chlamydia/gonorrhea, which were estimated to number in the thousands prevented by publicly funded clinics

Lower Rates of Unintended Pregnancies

One of the most apparent benefits of funding Planned Parenthood is the prevention of unintended pregnancies through contraception services. Nearly half of US pregnancies are unintended (Finer & Zolna, 2016), and these unplanned pregnancies are linked to adverse outcomes for women and infants. Planned Parenthood is a leading provider of birth control and family planning counseling, especially for low-income women who might not afford these services out-of-pocket.

Historical data underscore this impact. Publicly funded family planning programs have dramatically reduced unplanned pregnancies nationwide. Research by the Guttmacher Institute found that in 2010, these programs helped women avoid about 2.2 million unintended pregnancies, which would have resulted in 1.1 million unplanned births and 760,000 abortions (Frost et al., 2014). In other words, without publicly funded contraception and related services, unintended pregnancy rates would have been 66% higher (Frost et al., 2014).

By contrast, defunding family planning leads to a rise in unintended pregnancies and births. In Texas, after the state cut its family planning budget and excluded Planned Parenthood in 2011, dozens of clinics closed. In the four years following those cuts, Texas’s teen birth rate spiked by approximately 3.4% (Packham, 2017). The same policy shift led to a 3.1% increase in the teen abortion rate (Gerdts et al., 2016). 

Conversely, continued federal support for Planned Parenthood means:

• Broad availability of effective contraceptives through clinics that often offer the widest range of methods. Nearly all Planned Parenthood sites offer 10 or more contraceptive options 

• Removal of cost barriers for low-income individuals. Medicaid and Title X funding cover contraception for those who might otherwise be unable to afford highly effective methods.

• Counseling and education that empower people to plan their families.

Improved Mental Health and Reduced Suicide Risk

Access to reproductive healthcare is closely tied to mental health. Removing barriers to care can alleviate psychological distress and reduce suicide risk among reproductive-age individuals.

Unintended pregnancy and denied abortion have been associated with mental health strains. A recent systematic review found that unintended pregnancies are significantly linked to higher odds of maternal depression during pregnancy and postpartum (Gipson et al., 2008).

Restrictive reproductive laws have been correlated with higher suicide rates among women of childbearing age. A 2022 study published in JAMA Psychiatry found that states with more restrictive abortion laws experienced a 5% increase in suicides among women ages 20–34 (Stevenson et al., 2022).

By contrast, supporting clinics like Planned Parenthood helps maintain access to abortion (where legal), contraception, and counseling, potentially mitigating some of the circumstances that can lead to such despair.

Improved Maternal Health Outcomes

The United States faces a maternal health crisis, with maternal mortality rates that far exceed those of other high-income countries. In recent years, US maternal mortality has climbed, with rates reaching over 30 per 100,000 at its peak in 2021. Crucially, research indicates many of these deaths are preventable.

Continuing federal support for Planned Parenthood could help improve maternal health by preventing high-risk pregnancies, providing prenatal and preventive care, and serving as an access point for low-income women.

Better Infant Health Outcomes

By reducing unintended pregnancies and improving prenatal care, continued support for Planned Parenthood would also benefit infant mortality and morbidity indicators. The US infant mortality rate remains about 5.4 to 5.6 deaths per 1,000 live births (CDC, 2024).

Unintended pregnancies are more likely to result in preterm and low birth-weight infants (Gipson et al., 2008). By preventing unintended pregnancies or enabling women to delay pregnancy, we expect healthier birth outcomes. Planned Parenthood often provides direct prenatal services or referrals to obstetric providers.

Reducing Health Disparities in Underserved Populations

Marginalized communities – including people with low incomes, people of color, young people, and rural residents – disproportionately rely on publicly funded clinics. A ruling affirming Planned Parenthood’s funding would have an outsized benefit for these groups.

Planned Parenthood serves a patient population that is largely low-income and racially diverse (Guttmacher Institute, 2025). Continued funding ensures that people who face systemic barriers can get the care they need from a provider they trust. Medicaid enrollees, who are disproportionately people of color, benefit from expanded access.

Savings in Overall Healthcare Costs

Investing in preventive reproductive healthcare yields significant savings to the healthcare system. Continued federal funding for Planned Parenthood and similar providers is cost-effective. A study in Milbank Quarterly estimated that family planning services generated about $13.6 billion in net public savings in 2010, saving $7.09 for every $1 spent (Frost et al., 2014).

Call to Action

An affirmative decision in Kerr v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic to preserve federal funding for Planned Parenthood affiliates would carry significant public health benefits. Planned Parenthood has long been a cornerstone of preventive care for millions, and federal support is integral to its capacity to serve vulnerable populations.

As the Supreme Court deliberates on this pivotal case, we urge policymakers, advocates, and community members to stand up for continued access to essential reproductive healthcare. Contact your elected officials, share this information, and support organizations working on the front lines of reproductive justice. The health and well-being of millions depend on preserving access to the full spectrum of care Planned Parenthood provides.

References

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2024, September 16). Infant mortality. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.cdc.gov/maternal-infant-health/infant-mortality/index.html

Finer, L. B., & Zolna, M. R. (2016). Declines in unintended pregnancy in the United States, 2008–2011. New England Journal of Medicine, 374(9), 843-852.

Frost, J. J., Sonfield, A., Zolna, M. R., & Finer, L. B. (2014). Return on investment: A fuller assessment of the benefits and cost savings of the US publicly funded family planning program. The Milbank Quarterly, 92(4), 667–720.

Gerdts, C., Fuentes, L., Grossman, D., White, K., Keefe-Oates, B., Baum, S., & Potter, J. E. (2016). Impact of clinic closures on women obtaining abortion services in Texas. American Journal of Public Health, 106(5), 857–864.

Gipson, J. D., Koenig, M. A., & Hindin, M. J. (2008). The effects of unintended pregnancy on infant, child, and parental health: A review of the literature. Studies in Family Planning, 39(1), 18–38.

Guttmacher Institute. (2025). What’s at stake in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic. https://www.guttmacher.org

Packham, A. (2017). Family planning funding cuts and teen childbearing. Journal of Health Economics, 55, 168–185.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America. (2023). Annual report 2022–2023. https://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/facts-figures/annual-report

Clarke, B. (2017, March 14). How cutting Planned Parenthood led to one of America's biggest HIV outbreaks. Indy100. https://www.indy100.com/news/mike-pence-indiana-hiv-outbreak-planned-parenthood-needle-exchange-7628001

Srinivas, M. L., Yang, E., Tang, W., & Tucker, J. (2020). Impact of defunding family planning health centers on gonorrhea and chlamydia cases in Iowa: A spatiotemporal analysis. Open Forum Infectious Diseases, 7(Supplement_1), S768. https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofaa439.1715

Stevenson, A. J., Flores, L. C., & Roberts, S. C. M. (2022). Association between state-level abortion restrictions and suicide rates among women of reproductive age. JAMA Psychiatry, 79(9), 915–922.

Texas Health and Human Services Commission. (2013). Impact of Medicaid cuts on birth-related costs. https://www.hhs.texas.gov