'That's how we're making our money' - Shocking details behind abortion industry

Former Planned Parenthood director Abby Johnson joined Glenn on his TV show Thursday to share her experience working for an organization now notorious for being accused of selling baby parts harvested from abortions.

Johnson worked at Planned Parenthood for eight years, receiving employee of the year award in 2008. In April of 2009, she sat at the head table of Planned Parenthood's annual gala, with the winner of Planned Parenthood's most prestigious Margaret Sanger Circle Award - Hillary Clinton.

Describing the experience as being on "cloud nine," Johnson told Glenn at the time, she believed what they were doing at Planned Parenthood was to help promote "reproductive rights."

Her perspective started to change in August of that year, when she looked at a budget showing the quota for abortions was doubled from 2009 to 2010.

"I thought there was a mistake," Johnson said. "Here at Planned Parenthood we say that we want to reduce the number of abortions, so why would they double our quota?"

When Johnson approached her supervisor with the question, she said her supervisor started laughing, saying, "That's how we're making our money." She went on.

"We see that clearly just from the testimony that Cecile Richards gave two days ago, where she said 86% of their non-federal revenue is abortion revenue," Johnson said.

Watch the dialogue below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

ABBY: I saw that they had doubled our quota for abortions. We had a quota that we had to meet every month. I saw that they had doubled it from 2009-2010.

I thought well, that must be a mistake because here at Planned Parenthood we say that we want to reduce the number of abortions, so why would they double our quota? That doesn’t make sense. I said that out loud to my supervisor, and she just started laughing. She said why would we want to reduce the number of abortions? That’s how we’re making our money. We see that clearly just from the testimony that Cecile Richards gave two days ago, where she said 86% of their non-federal revenue is abortion revenue.

GLENN: And the rest of their revenue really is kind of, I mean, because don’t you count a lot of things that are associated with the abortions also, separate from the abortion? Aren’t some of the procedures that you do, there’s the abortion you make all that money, but then there’s all the other things that are surrounding that abortion that also make you money, right?

ABBY: Right. So, like the follow-up appointment, that’s going to make us money. If they come in before for pregnancy verification, that’s going to cost, that’s going to make money for us.

GLENN: Most of it is tied in. If 86% is going right to the abortion, maybe another 5% to 10% is the surrounding services?

ABBY: Well, Planned Parenthood is basically willing to be a loss leader in family planning, in their family planning services. They’re willing to lose money there because they make up for it in the cost of the abortions that they provide.

GLENN: How were they suggesting that you double the amount of abortions?

ABBY: Well, like I said, turning every client visit into a revenue generating visit, not letting a pregnant woman walk out the door without selling her on an abortion. And then we started offering free pregnancy tests. We thought if we offer them free pregnancy tests, we’ll see more pregnant women coming in. Planned Parenthood is marketing to these abortion vulnerable women, and they’re doing a very good job at it.

GLENN: Did you know about the selling of the body parts?

ABBY: Yeah, we did that at our clinic.

GLENN: How did you feel about that?

ABBY: At the time, I felt like well, if there’s money to be made, then we should make it. We made $200 per baby that we sent to the lab.

GLENN: Did the moms know you were making money on their babies?

ABBY: No. They did sign a consent, but they didn’t know that we were being compensated $200.

On the radio program Thursday, Glenn Beck sat down with chief researcher Jason Buttrill to go over two bombshell developments that have recently come to light regarding former Vice President Joe Biden's role in the 2016 dismissal of Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.

"Wow! Two huge stories dropped within about 24 hours of each other," Jason began. He went on to explain that a court ruling in Ukraine has just prompted an "actual criminal investigation against Joe Biden in Ukraine."

This stunning development coincided with the release of leaked phone conversations, which took place in late 2015 and early 2016, allegedly among then-Vice President Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, and Ukraine's former President Petro Poroshenko.

One of the audiotapes seems to confirm allegations of a quid pro quo between Biden and Poroshenko, with the later admitting that he asked Shokin to resign despite having no evidence of him "doing anything wrong" in exchange for a $1 billion loan guarantee.

"Poroshenko said, 'despite the fact that we didn't have any corruption charges on [Shokin], and we don't have any information about him doing something wrong, I asked him to resign,'" Jason explained. "But none of the Western media is pointing this out."

Watch the video below for more details:


Listen to the released audiotapes in full here.

Use code GLENN to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multiplatform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

A recently declassified email, written by former National Security Adviser Susan Rice and sent herself on the day of President Donald Trump's inauguration, reveals the players involved in the origins of the Trump-Russia probe and "unmasking" of then-incoming National Security Adviser, Gen. Michael Flynn.

Rice's email details a meeting in the Oval Office on Jan 5, 2017, which included herself, former FBI Director James Comey, former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, former Vice President Joe Biden, and former President Barack Obama. Acting Director of National Intelligence, Richard Grenell, fully declassified the email recently amid President Trump's repeated references to "Obamagate" and claims that Obama "used his last weeks in office to target incoming officials and sabotage the new administration."

On Glenn Beck's Wednesday night special, Glenn broke down the details of Rice's email and discussed what they reveal about the Obama administration officials involved in the Russia investigation's origins.

Watch the video clip below:

Fellow BlazeTV host, Mark Levin, joined Glenn Beck on his exclusive Friday episode of "GlennTV" to discuss why the declassified list of Obama administration officials who were aware of the details of Gen. Michael Flynn's wiretapped phone calls are so significant.

Glenn argued that Obama built a covert bureaucracy to "transform America" for a long time to come, and Gen. Flynn was targeted because he happened to know "where the bodies were buried", making him a threat to Obama's "secret legacy."

Levin agreed, noting the "shocking extent of the police state tactics" by the Obama administration. He recalled several scandalous happenings during Obama's "scandal free presidency," which nobody seems to remember.

Watch the video below for more:


Use code GLENN to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Colleges and universities should be home to a lively and open debate about questions both current and timeless, independent from a political bias or rules that stifle speech. Unfortunately for students, speaking out about personal beliefs or challenging political dogma can be a dangerous undertaking. I experienced this firsthand as an undergraduate, and I'm fighting that trend now as an adjunct professor.

In 2013, Glenn Beck was one of the most listened to radio personalities in the world. For a college senior with hopes of working on policy and media, a job working for Glenn was a ticket to big things. I needed a foot in the door and hoped to tap into the alumni network at the small liberal arts school where I was an undergrad. When I met with a career services specialist in early March 2013 about possible alumni connections to Glenn Beck, she disdainfully told me: "Why would you want to work for someone like him?" That was the beginning and end of our conversation.

I was floored by her response, and sent an email to the school complaining that her behavior was inappropriate. Her personal opinions, political or otherwise, I argued, shouldn't play a role in the decision to help students.

That isn't the kind of response a student should hear when seeking guidance and help in kick starting their career. Regardless of the position, a career specialist or professors' opinion or belief shouldn't be a factor in whether the student deserves access to the alumni network and schools' resources.

Now, seven years later, I work full time for a law firm and part time as an adjunct teaching business to undergraduate students. The culture at colleges and universities seems to have gotten even worse, unfortunately, since I was an undergrad.

College is a time to explore, dream big and challenge assumptions.

I never want to see a student told they shouldn't pursue their goals, regardless of their personal or political beliefs. College is a time to explore, dream big and challenge assumptions. I never got access to the alumni network or schools' resources from the career services office.

Lucky for students in 2020, there are several legal organizations that help students protect their rights when an issue goes beyond what can be handled by an undergraduate facing tremendous pressure from a powerful academic institution. Organizations like Speech First and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), for instance, are resources I wish I knew about at the time.

When I experienced mistreatment from my college, I spoke up and challenged the behavior by emailing the administration and explaining what happened. I received a letter from the career services specialist apologizing for the "unprofessional comment."

What she described in that apology as a "momentary lapse of good judgement" was anything but momentary. It was indicative of the larger battle for ideas that has been happening on college campuses across the country. In the past seven years, the pressure, mistreatment and oppression of free expression have only increased. Even right now, some are raising concerns that campus administrations are using the COVID-19 pandemic to limit free speech even further. Social distancing guidelines and crowd size may both be used to limit or refuse controversial speakers.

Students often feel pressure to conform to a college or university's wishes. If they don't, they could be expelled, fail a class or experience other retribution. The college holds all the cards. On most campuses, the burden of proof for guilt in student conduct hearings is "more likely than not," making it very difficult for students to stand up for their rights without legal help.

As an adjunct professor, every student who comes to me for help in finding purpose gets my full support and my active help — even if the students' goals run counter to mine. But I have learned something crucial in my time in this role: It's not the job of an educator to dictate a student's purpose in life. I'm meant to help them achieve their dreams, no matter what.

Conner Drigotas is the Director of Communications and Development at a national law firm and is a Young Voices contributor.