Skip to main content

Guttmacher Institute

Donate Now

Highlights

  • Roe v. Wade in Peril
  • COVID-19 impact
  • Reproductive Health Impact Study
  • Adding It Up
  • Abortion Worldwide
  • Guttmacher-Lancet Commission
  • U.S. policy resources
  • State policy resources
  • State legislation tracker

Reports

  • Global
  • U.S.

Articles

  • Global research
  • U.S. research
  • Policy analysis
  • Guttmacher Policy Review
  • Op-eds & external blogs

Fact Sheets

  • Global
  • U.S.
  • U.S. State Laws and Policies

Data & Visualizations

  • Data center
  • Infographics
  • Public-use data sets

Peer-Reviewed Journals

  • International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health
  • Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health

Global

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • HIV & STIs
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

U.S.

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • HIV & STIs
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

Our Work By Geography

  • Global
  • Africa
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Latin America & the Caribbean
  • Northern America
  • Oceania

Who We Are

  • About
  • Staff
  • Board
  • Job opportunities
  • History
  • Contact
  • Conflict of Interest Policy

Media

  • Media office
  • News releases

Support Our Work

  • Make a gift today
  • Monthly Giving Circle
  • Donate stock or securites
  • Guttmacher Legacy Circle
  • Financials
  • Annual Report

Awards and Scholarships

  • Darroch Award
  • Richards Scholarship
  • Bixby Fellowship

Search form

Good reproductive health policy starts with credible research

 

Connect With Us

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Twitter
  • Email
Guttmacher Institute

Good reproductive health policy starts with credible research

 

Donate Now

Connect With Us

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Twitter
  • Email

Highlights

  • Roe v. Wade in Peril
  • COVID-19 impact
  • Reproductive Health Impact Study
  • Adding It Up
  • Abortion Worldwide
  • Guttmacher-Lancet Commission
  • U.S. policy resources
  • State policy resources
  • State legislation tracker

Reports

  • Global
  • U.S.

Articles

  • Global research
  • U.S. research
  • Policy analysis
  • Guttmacher Policy Review
  • Op-eds & external blogs

Fact Sheets

  • Global
  • U.S.
  • U.S. State Laws and Policies

Data & Visualizations

  • Data center
  • Infographics
  • Public-use data sets

Peer-Reviewed Journals

  • International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health
  • Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health

Global

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • HIV & STIs
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

U.S.

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • HIV & STIs
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

Our Work By Geography

  • Global
  • Africa
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Latin America & the Caribbean
  • Northern America
  • Oceania

Who We Are

  • About
  • Staff
  • Board
  • Job opportunities
  • History
  • Contact
  • Conflict of Interest Policy

Media

  • Media office
  • News releases

Support Our Work

  • Make a gift today
  • Monthly Giving Circle
  • Donate stock or securites
  • Guttmacher Legacy Circle
  • Financials
  • Annual Report

Awards and Scholarships

  • Darroch Award
  • Richards Scholarship
  • Bixby Fellowship

Search form

As of May 1, 2022 State Laws and Policies

State Family Planning Funding Restrictions

Background

Since the late 1970s, states have attempted to impose abortion-related restrictions on the use of public funds for family planning services. Many of these attacks are rooted in the flawed assertion that funds allocated for family planning services are “fungible” and free up other funds that providers might use to pay for abortion services. In reality, publicly supported family planning providers are generally underfunded, and funding that supports or reimburses for other reproductive health services do not transfer to abortion services. Most early attempts to exclude abortion providers from receiving state funds were struck down by courts that specifically rejected the fungibility argument.

However, in the intervening decades, states have become more successful in enacting public funding restrictions. For example, states have made providers’ eligibility for state funding contingent on meeting certain conditions, such as not offering abortion services, even if such services are provided without the use of state funds. Increasingly, states are seeking to deny funds even to entities that do not provide abortions but offer counseling on or referral for abortion. And a number of states now allocate funds through a priority system that either disadvantages or wholly excludes safety-net health centers affiliated with clinics that provide abortion. These restrictions typically apply to state family planning funds or federal family planning funds that pass through the state treasury.

The latest wave of policy threats to family planning funding emerged in the summer of 2015 with the public release of a series of deceptive videos seeking to discredit Planned Parenthood. Since then, several states have attempted to prohibit abortion providers generally, or Planned Parenthood affiliates specifically, from receiving any public funds that pass through the state treasury, including federal grants such as Title X funding.

Some states have gone so far as to end their joint state-federal Medicaid family planning expansion programs in favor of entirely state-funded “spin-off” programs. These state-funded programs cover many of the same services as the Medicaid family planning expansions, but exclude providers that offer abortion services.

Other states are now seeking to prevent safety-net health centers from receiving other types of public funds intended to address a wide range of public health concerns, such as infant mortality, STIs, breast and cervical cancer, and domestic and sexual violence.

Visit our state legislation tracker for policy activity on all sexual and reproductive health topics.

Highlights

  • 18 states have abortion-related restrictions on the allocation of public funds. Typically the restrictions prohibit abortion providers or their affiliates from receiving family planning funds, but some restrictions apply to a wider set of entities and some apply to a wider array of funding streams.
  • 8 states specifically restrict the allocation of federal Title X family planning funds to exclude certain types of providers.
    • 2 states prohibit Title X funds from going to any entity that provides abortions.
    • 1 state prohibits Title X funds from going to any entity that contracts or is affiliated with an abortion provider.
    • 1 state prohibits state family planning funds from going to any entity that counsels on or refers for abortion.
    • 2 states prohibit Title X funds from going to any private providers focused on reproductive health.
    • 4 states have priority systems for distributing Title X funds that disadvantage or effectively exclude private reproductive health–focused providers.
  • 16 states restrict the allocation of state family planning funds.
    • 12 states prohibit state family planning funds from going to any entity that provides abortions.
    • 6 states prohibit state family planning funds from going to any entity that contracts or is affiliated with an abortion provider.
    • 5 states prohibit state family planning funds from going to any entity that counsels on or refers for abortion.
    • 3 states prohibit state family planning funds from going to any private reproductive health–focused providers.
    • 3 states have priority systems for distributing state family planning funds that disadvantage or effectively exclude reproductive health–focused providers.
  • 1 state prohibits Medicaid from reimbursing Planned Parenthood for services.
  • 3 states restrict organizational participation in their Medicaid “spin-off” programs for family planning services.
    • 3 states prohibit the allocation of funds from Medicaid “spin-off” family planning programs from going to any entity that provides abortions.
    • 3 states prohibit funds from Medicaid “spin-off” family planning programs from going to any entity that contracts or is affiliated with an abortion provider.
  • 13 states restrict the allocation of other federal and state funds, such as funds for STI testing and treatment and sex education.
    • 11 states prohibit other federal and state funds from going to any entity that provides abortions.
    • 7 states prohibit other federal and state funds from going to any entity that contracts or is affiliated with an abortion provider.
    • 4 states prohibit other federal and state funds from going to any entity that counsels on or refers for abortion.
    • 2 states prohibit other federal and state funds from going to any private reproductive health–focused providers.
    • 1 state has a priority system for distributing other federal and state funds that effectively excludes reproductive health–focused providers.
Printer-friendly version

For more information

  • Public Policy Office

    202-296-4012
    [email protected]

Topic

United States

  • Abortion: State Policies on Abortion
  • Contraception: State Policies on Contraception

Geography

  • Northern America: United States
    • Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming

Related Content

Policy Analysis

Beyond Preventing Unplanned Pregnancy: The Broader Benefits of Publicly Funded Family Planning Services

Guttmacher Policy Review
Report

Moving Forward: Family Planning in the Era of Health Reform

Policy Analysis

More than a Pack of Pills: The Many Components and Health Benefits of Quality Family Planning

Guttmacher Policy Review
Report

Public Funding for Family Planning, Sterilization and Abortion Services, FY 1980 – 2010

Policy Analysis

Going the Extra Mile: The Difference Title X Makes

Guttmacher Policy Review
Policy Analysis

The State of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights In the State of Texas: A Cautionary Tale

Guttmacher Policy Review
Policy Analysis

Still Needed: The Family Planning Safety Net Under Health Reform

Guttmacher Policy Review
Report

Public Costs from Unintended Pregnancies and the Role of Public Insurance Programs in Paying for Pregnancy-Related Care: National and State Estimates for 2010

Restrictions on Family Planning and Other Types of Public Funds*

State

Bars funds to:

Gives lowest priority to private reproductive health–focused providers when distributing family planning funds

Planned Parenthood

Abortion providers

Entities that contract or are affiliated with an abortion provider

Entities that counsel or refer for  abortion

Private reproductive health–focused providers

Restrictions on Title X funds (8 states)

Arizona†​

       

 

 

Kansas

       

X‡

 

Kentucky

 

 

     

X

Louisiana

 

▽

▽

     

Nebraska

 

X

 

X

   

Ohio

         

X

Oklahoma

       

X‡

 

South Carolina

         

X

Tennessee

         

X

Wisconsin

 

X†

X†

     

TOTAL

 

2

1

1

2

4

Restrictions on state family planning funds (15 states)

Arizona

 

X

X

     

Arkansas

 

X

X

X

   

Colorado

 

X

       

Indiana

 

X

       

Iowa

 

X

X

     

Kentucky

 

 

   

X

 

Louisiana

 

▽

▽

     

Michigan

 

X

 

X

   

Missouri

 

X

X

X

X

 

 

New Hampshire

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

North Carolina

 

X

       

Ohio

 

XΨ

 

XΨ

   

Oklahoma

       

X‡

 

South Carolina

         

X

Tennessee

         

X

Texas

 

X

X

   

X

Wisconsin

 

X

X

X

   

TOTAL

 

12

6

5

3

3

Restrictions on Medicaid participation (1 state)

Alabama

▼

         

Arizona

 

▼

       

Arkansas

X

         

Florida

 

▼

       

Indiana

 

▼

       

Kansas

▽

         

Louisiana

▽

▽

       

Mississippi

 

▼

▼

     

Texas

▽

 

▽

     

TOTAL

1

         

Established Medicaid spin-off program for family planning services (3 states)

Iowa

 

X

X

     

Missouri

 

X

X

     

Texas

 

X

X

     

TOTAL

 

3

3

     

Restrictions on other types of public funds (13 states)

Arizona

 

X

X

     

Arkansas

 

X

X

X

   

Idaho

 

X

X

 

   

Indiana

 

X

       

Kentucky

 

 

   

X

 

Louisiana

 

▽

▽

     

Mississippi

 

X

X

     

Missouri

 

X

X

     

Nebraska

 

X

 

X

   

North Carolina

 

X

       

Ohio

 

X

 

X

   

Oklahoma

       

X‡

 

Texas

 

X

X

   

X

Wisconsin

 

X

X

X

   

TOTAL

 

11

7

4

2

1

▽ Temporarily enjoined by court order; policy not in effect.

▼ Permanently enjoined by court order; policy not in effect.

* Other public funds include funding for services such as breast and cervical cancer screening, STI testing and treatment, and sex education.

† Title X funds administered by Wisconsin are subject to restrictions on and abortion providers and affiliates. These restrictions do not apply to Title X funds administered by independent agencies. Arizona has a similar law that requires the state to apply for Title X funds and if granted, excludes private reproductive health–focused providers from receiving the funds. Wisconsin also limits Medicaid reimbursement for prescription drugs to the acquisition cost and limits the dispensing fee, which reduces the amount providers can receive for services.

‡ Private reproductive health–focused providers are excluded through a priority system.

Ψ In Ohio, a law prohibits the allocation of family planning funds to organizations that provide abortions, counseling or referrals, unless those activities are physically and financially separate from family planning services. 

 

Get updates on policy issues and more

Guttmacher Institute
Reproductive rights are under attack. Will you help us fight back with facts?
Donate Now
Follow Guttmacher:

Connect With Us

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn

Footer Menu

  • Privacy Policy
© 2022 Guttmacher Institute. The Guttmacher Institute is registered as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization under the tax identification number 13-2890727. Contributions are tax deductible to the fullest extent allowable.

Get Our Updates