Abortion is only 4% of planned parenthood's services
Executive summary
Planned Parenthood’s own reporting and independent summaries show that abortions represent a small share — roughly 3–5% — of the total discrete "services" the organization reports providing, a figure driven by how "services" are counted and by changes in non‑abortion care volumes (Planned Parenthood reported 392,715 abortions and 9.13 million discrete services in its 2023 Annual Report [1]; independent summaries put the share in the low single digits [2] [3]). That percentage is accurate only within the constraints of the datasets and definitions used, and different analysts emphasize different measures to make contrasting political points [4] [5].
1. What the 4% claim is actually measuring
The "4% of services" framing compares the number of abortions to the total number of discrete services Planned Parenthood reports — for example, the 2023 summary that lists roughly 9.13 million discrete services and about 392,715 abortions produces a share in the low single digits when divided [1]; similarly, public data aggregators and media summaries report abortion as around 3% of services or in the low single digits depending on the year and rounding [2] [3]. These are "service counts," not patient counts, so one patient can account for multiple services (explained in Planned Parenthood materials and reflected in the annual report format) [6] [7].
2. Why that percentage can shift and be misleading
Service counts lag in publication and Planned Parenthood and outside analysts note timing issues and year‑to‑year shifts: the organization’s 2022–23 service data cover earlier fiscal periods, and outside groups have highlighted declines in some non‑abortion services and increases in abortion counts, which raises the abortion share even if absolute abortion numbers change modestly [4] [5] [6]. Moreover, counting "services" (for example, one STI test and one contraception visit each count separately) makes preventive and diagnostic work numerically dominant — Statista and Planned Parenthood data show STI testing/treatment and contraception make up large shares of services, with STI services reported as roughly half of medical services in 2022–23 [3] [8].
3. How different actors use the statistic
Advocates and critics both use the low‑percentage finding to support opposing messages: opponents of abortion funding point to the small share to argue funding disproportionately supports non‑abortion care, while critics of Planned Parenthood (including some research from the Lozier Institute) highlight trends such as rising abortion totals and declining contraceptive services to argue the organization’s focus has shifted — both claims cite the same reports but interpret trends differently [4] [5]. External context matters: government reimbursements form a significant portion of revenue and are tied to non‑abortion services, a fact emphasized by watchdogs and fiscal summaries (over 40% of revenue from government reimbursements and grants per USAFacts) [2].
4. What the numbers don’t answer
Raw service‑share percentages do not show why patients seek care, the clinical complexity or resource intensity of procedures, nor the public‑health role of preventive services; Planned Parenthood’s fact sheets and annual report stress education, contraception, and STI work alongside abortion care but acknowledge reporting limitations and lagged data [7] [6]. Independent analyses note service declines in some areas (contraception down in some year‑to‑year comparisons per Lozier and Statista summaries), but these sources vary in scope and agenda and the annual reports themselves are the primary source for precise counts [4] [5] [3].
5. Bottom line — a cautious verdict
The statement "abortion is only 4% of Planned Parenthood’s services" is broadly supportable as a snapshot when using Planned Parenthood’s discrete service counts and recent annual totals, but it is incomplete without context about counting methods, timing, changing service volumes, revenue sources, and the differing aims of organizations analyzing those numbers [1] [6] [2] [4]. Readers should treat the percentage as a descriptive accounting metric, not a full measure of clinical importance, financial impact, or political justification; the underlying public documents and competing fact sheets make clear both the numeric basis and the limits of that framing [6] [4].