Listen to the article
Abortion Providers Choose to Close Primary Care Services Rather Than Halt Abortions
Several abortion providers across the country are shutting down their primary care operations while maintaining abortion services following changes in federal funding regulations, an investigation has found.
The controversial One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed by President Donald Trump, has halted taxpayer dollars from subsidizing abortion providers for a one-year period. As a result, organizations like Planned Parenthood and Maine Family Planning no longer qualify for federal Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements unless they discontinue abortion services.
Rather than ceasing abortion procedures to maintain federal funding for their primary care operations, these organizations have opted to close primary care facilities while continuing to offer abortions.
Maine Family Planning, which operates 18 clinics throughout the state, has announced the closure of its primary care operations. According to their own data, the organization provided primary care to approximately 600 patients in 2024 while performing a similar number of abortions. The group also offers birth control and what they term “gender-affirming” health care, with services including abortions up to 14 weeks.
Nearly a quarter of Maine Family Planning’s funding—approximately $2 million annually—previously came from Medicaid reimbursements, according to the Maine Morning Star. After unsuccessfully suing the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services earlier this year, the organization announced on October 31 that it would discontinue primary care services.
Similar patterns are emerging elsewhere. In California, multiple Planned Parenthood locations are closing primary care facilities while maintaining abortion services.
“Why do these organizations close clinics—but not abortion programs?” questioned Michael McClellan, director of Maine Right to Life. “It’s important to note that when organizations such as Maine Family Planning choose to close primary care offices, that decision rests with them. Federal funding changes simply ensure that taxpayer dollars are not used—directly or indirectly—to promote or perform abortions.”
Pro-life advocates argue these closures reveal abortion providers’ true priorities. Kelsey Pritchard, spokeswoman for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, stated that “primary care services clearly aren’t the priority and it’s no surprise they are on the chopping block.” She added that “policymakers shouldn’t negotiate with entities that play these cruel games—dropping patients’ real health care needs to double down on ending babies’ lives.”
Maine Family Planning did not respond to requests for comment.
Despite these closures, women’s healthcare options remain abundant nationwide. According to a report by the Charlotte Lozier Institute, there are more than 8,800 community health centers providing comprehensive care and women’s health services across the country, compared to just 579 Planned Parenthood centers as of spring 2025.
In Maine specifically, approximately 70 community health centers offer women’s health services, with many located in rural areas. The state hosts 131 Federally Qualified Health Centers—clinics eligible for Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements.
“Maine residents continue to have access to a wide range of health services through community health centers, federally qualified health clinics, and hospital-based practices that provide comprehensive, life-affirming care for women and families,” McClellan explained. “These clinics offer prenatal and postnatal care, cancer screenings, immunizations, and preventive health services—without performing or referring for abortions.”
Pro-life organizations emphasize that support networks extend beyond clinical services. “The pro-life movement in Maine is deeply committed to supporting both women and their children—before, during, and after birth,” McClellan noted. “Through a network of pregnancy resource centers, faith communities, and local service agencies, women can access free pregnancy testing, prenatal support, parenting classes, material assistance, housing help, and referrals for ongoing health care.”
The situation underscores a fundamental disagreement about healthcare priorities, with abortion providers choosing to maintain those services even at the cost of primary care operations, while numerous alternative facilities continue providing comprehensive women’s health services throughout the country without offering abortions.
Verify This Yourself
Use these professional tools to fact-check and investigate claims independently
Reverse Image Search
Check if this image has been used elsewhere or in different contexts
Ask Our AI About This Claim
Get instant answers with web-powered AI analysis
Related Fact-Checks
See what other fact-checkers have said about similar claims
Want More Verification Tools?
Access our full suite of professional disinformation monitoring and investigation tools
6 Comments
This is a complex issue with valid concerns on both sides. It’s concerning that some providers are choosing to prioritize abortion over primary care access, which could negatively impact vulnerable patients. However, the underlying policy changes are also controversial. More nuanced discussion is needed to find ethical solutions that balance these sensitive issues.
It’s troubling to see providers making these difficult choices, which could significantly impact patient access to primary care. While the policy changes are politically contentious, the priority should be ensuring vulnerable populations can still get the basic healthcare they need. I hope stakeholders can find a way to resolve this issue without compromising essential services.
This is a concerning development that could significantly reduce access to essential primary care services, especially for underserved communities. While the policy changes are politically contentious, the priority should be ensuring patients can access the full range of basic healthcare they need. I hope a compromise can be found to maintain funding without forcing providers to choose between primary care and abortion.
This is a complex and sensitive issue without easy solutions. While the policy changes are controversial, it’s concerning that some providers are prioritizing abortion over maintaining primary care access. Patients, especially the most vulnerable, should not be caught in the middle of these political battles. I hope stakeholders can find a way to preserve both reproductive rights and essential primary care services.
I agree, this is a challenging situation with valid concerns on both sides. Patients should not be the ones who suffer as a result of these policy changes. Finding a balanced solution that protects access to the full range of healthcare services will be critical.
It’s troubling that this policy change is leading some providers to close down primary care operations rather than halt abortion services. Patients, especially those in rural or low-income areas, may now face significant barriers accessing basic preventive and routine care. I worry this could exacerbate existing healthcare disparities. A more nuanced approach is needed to uphold ethical standards without compromising essential medical services.