A prominent pro-life organization, 40 Days for Life, has filed a formal complaint with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) against Planned Parenthood, arguing that the organization should lose its tax-exempt status. The complaint centers around Planned Parenthood’s recent deployment of a mobile van offering abortion drugs and vasectomies at the Democratic National Convention (DNC). 40 Days for Life, alongside the Institute of Law and Justice, contends that this action violates the rules governing tax-exempt organizations, accusing Planned Parenthood of engaging in political activity.
The complaint was filed against two branches of Planned Parenthood: Planned Parenthood Great Rivers and Planned Parenthood Great Rivers – IL. Both organizations have long been at the forefront of providing abortion services and family planning in the Midwest. However, pro-life groups argue that their latest initiative goes beyond healthcare and crosses into political advocacy, a line that they say should cost the organization its 501(c)(3) status.
The controversy erupted earlier this week when Planned Parenthood unveiled its mobile van, which offered free abortion-inducing drugs and vasectomy procedures. The timing and location of the van—parked near the DNC—raised alarms among pro-life advocates, who viewed it as a politically motivated act. The complaint argues that Planned Parenthood used the van to engage in partisan activity by aligning its services with a major political event. By doing so, 40 Days for Life claims, Planned Parenthood breached the neutrality required of tax-exempt organizations under IRS rules.
Shawn Carney, president and CEO of 40 Days for Life, stated that Planned Parenthood’s involvement in political events and its decision to provide free abortion-related services during a high-profile political convention is “a blatant disregard for the legal restrictions placed on tax-exempt organizations.” Carney noted that these actions represent more than just healthcare—they represent an endorsement of the Democratic Party’s stance on abortion.
“The Democratic Party platform consistently supports abortion rights, and for Planned Parenthood to offer free abortions and vasectomies at their convention is a clear message of support,” said Carney. “We believe the IRS should strip them of their tax-exempt status because they are now operating as a political entity, not a charitable organization.”
The IRS complaint filed by 40 Days for Life and the Institute of Law and Justice hinges on the argument that Planned Parenthood’s actions violate the guidelines for 501(c)(3) organizations. Under U.S. tax law, these organizations are prohibited from engaging in political activities that support or oppose any candidate for public office. While Planned Parenthood has consistently maintained that it does not endorse political candidates, its presence at the DNC in this capacity, offering services aligned with a controversial political issue, could be interpreted as indirect political advocacy.
The complaint also raises broader moral concerns. Pro-life advocates like Carney view abortion as the deliberate ending of human life. By setting up a mobile unit to provide abortion pills and vasectomies at a major political event, Planned Parenthood is, according to the complaint, promoting the expansion of abortion services in a way that could be seen as trying to influence the national conversation on abortion—a key issue in many elections.
Supporters of the complaint point to previous IRS decisions where organizations lost their tax-exempt status for engaging in politically charged activities. The pro-life advocates argue that the same rules should apply to Planned Parenthood, especially given its highly publicized involvement in reproductive rights issues.
Planned Parenthood has long defended its tax-exempt status, arguing that it operates as a healthcare provider and not a political organization. In response to the complaint, representatives from Planned Parenthood Great Rivers dismissed the allegations as “baseless” and “politically motivated.” According to their spokesperson, the mobile van was simply an extension of their ongoing efforts to provide reproductive healthcare to underserved communities.
“Planned Parenthood’s mission has always been to provide critical healthcare services to those who need them, especially those who face barriers to care,” said a Planned Parenthood representative. “We do not engage in political endorsements, and our presence at events like the DNC is focused solely on making healthcare accessible.”
Planned Parenthood and its supporters argue that the complaint is part of a larger strategy by pro-life groups to limit access to abortion services. They maintain that their services are crucial, especially in light of recent legal restrictions on abortion in various states. The mobile van, they claim, was an innovative way to bring essential healthcare to people in need.
The debate over Planned Parenthood’s tax-exempt status is not only a legal question but a moral one. At the heart of the pro-life movement’s objection is the belief that abortion is the killing of a human life, and that no organization that promotes or provides abortions should receive tax benefits.
“Taxpayers should not be forced to indirectly support an organization that profits from the destruction of human life,” said Carney. “Planned Parenthood is using its tax-exempt status to fund abortion services, and that’s morally wrong. We will continue to fight for the unborn and for justice in this matter.”
Many pro-life advocates see this complaint as an important step in the broader battle to limit Planned Parenthood’s influence. The organization, which is the largest abortion provider in the country, has long been a target of pro-life activists, who argue that it misrepresents itself as a healthcare provider while primarily focusing on abortion services.
On the other side, pro-choice advocates argue that efforts like this are part of a broader war on women’s rights and healthcare access. They point out that Planned Parenthood provides a wide range of services beyond abortion, including cancer screenings, birth control, and other essential healthcare for women, particularly those in low-income communities. For these advocates, attempts to strip Planned Parenthood of its tax-exempt status are not about legal violations but about an ongoing effort to undermine reproductive rights.
The IRS complaint filed by 40 Days for Life against Planned Parenthood has the potential to escalate the national debate over abortion and the role of tax-exempt organizations in political issues. If the IRS rules in favor of the pro-life group, it could deal a significant financial blow to Planned Parenthood, which relies on its tax-exempt status for much of its funding.
However, the case also raises important questions about the relationship between healthcare and politics. While Planned Parenthood insists that its actions are purely healthcare-related, pro-life advocates see the mobile abortion van as a symbol of the ongoing moral and legal struggle over abortion in America.
As this legal battle unfolds, it will likely serve as a key moment in the broader fight over abortion access in the United States. For now, both sides are preparing for what promises to be a high-stakes fight over the future of Planned Parenthood and its role in American society.
Terry Littlepage 
Brittany Mays