See the home page for an overview of this website, and a list of links to the state/regional pages which have information specific to individual Planned Parenthood centers.
Problem headings as used throughout the site are below. We offer notes on our selection criteria, and an explanation about employee and patient reviews. Each heading has lists of the centers with links to the page where the documentation can be found.
Order: The types of problems relating to medical issues are listed first, and the non-medical problems come afterward. Reviews by staff and patients are explained at the end.
Any lawsuits where we know technical court details but have no information about the content of the dispute are not included.
There are no Planned Parenthood facilities in Mississippi, North Dakota, or Wyoming.
State Inspections
Alabama: Birmingham, Mobile
Arizona: Flagstaff, Glendale, Tempe
Arkansas: Little Rock
California: Antioch, Concord,
California: Orange, Riverside
California: San Jose – Central
California: Thousand Oaks, Ventura
Connecticut: Hartford, New Haven, Norwich, Torrington, Waterbury, West Hartford
Delaware: Wilmington, entire state
Florida: Raton, Fort Meyers, Kissimmee, Naples, Pembroke Pines, Saint Peters, Sarasota, Tampa
Indiana: Bloomington, Indianapolis – Georgetown, Lafayette, Merrillville
Kansas: Overland Park
Louisiana: New Orleans
Maryland – Annapolis and Baltimore
Michigan: Ann Arbor – Power Family, Flint, Kalamazoo
Missouri: Columbia, St. Louis – Reproductive Health
North Carolina: Chapel Hill, Fayetteville, Wilmington, Winston-Salem
Ohio: Akron, Bedford Heights, Cincinnati, Columbus – East
Pennsylvania: Allentown, Harrisburg, Norristown, Philadelphia – Locust, Philadelphia – Far Northeast, Pittsburgh, Warminster, West Chester, York
South Carolina: Columbia
South Dakota: Sioux Falls
Tennessee: Memphis – Midtown
Texas: Austin – South, Dallas – South, Fort Worth – Southwest, Houston – Center for Choice, San Antonio – South, Stafford.
Utah: Salt Lake City – Metro
Virginia: Charlottesville, Richmond, Roanoke
Wisconsin: Milwaukee – Water Street
No state inspections for these types of facility are held in:
Alaska
Colorado
Hawaii
Idaho
Iowa
Maine
Minnesota
Montana
New Hampshire
New Mexico
Rhode Island
Vermont
West Virginia
Inspections are held in New York, but what violations were found and at which location are heavily redacted and therefore not available to the public.
California investigates individual complaints but does not do full health inspections.
Doctor License Revocation
Judicial Rulings
Kansas: Overland Park
Testimony to a Legislature
Connecticut: Bridgeport
These don’t include deaths, which are listed separately. We include only cases since 2000, and only those where details of the allegations are known.
We use the plaintiff’s last name to distinguish them, but the plaintiff’s full name and the name of individual defendants are redacted in the excerpts on our pages. They are of course available in the documents once opened.
California: Pasadena
Colorado: Denver (2 cases)
Connecticut: Danbury, Hartford, New Hartford
Delaware: Wilmington
Illinois – Chicago: Near North Center
Massachusetts: Boston (2 cases), Worcester
Michigan: Ann Arbor
Missouri: St. Louis
Nebraska: Lincoln
New Mexico: Albuquerque
New York: Albany (2 cases), Hempstead (2 cases), Huntington, New Rochelle, Newburgh, Smithtown, Spring Valley, White Plains
New York City: Manhattan (4 cases)
We only report what can be documented by sources who are not Planned Parenthood opponents.
Audio of Calls to Dispatch an Ambulance
Alabama – Mobile
California – Orange (4 cases)
California – Walnut Creek (5 cases)
Colorado – Fort Collins
Delaware – Wilmington (2 cases)
Illinois – Aurora (8 cases), Chicago Near North (16 cases), Fairview Heights, Flossmoor (9 cases), Springfield (2 cases)
Indiana – Indianapolis
Maryland – Annapolis, Baltimore (2 cases), Silver Spring
Michigan – Kalamazoo (2 cases), Traverse City
Missouri – St. Louis (lists of 67 cases)
New York – Hempstead
North Carolina: – Chapel Hill (5 cases)
Ohio – Cincinnati (2 cases), Columbus
Oregon – Salem
Pennsylvania – West Chester
Rhode Island – Providence
South Carolina – Charleston, Columbia
Texas – Austin (2 cases), Houston (7 cases)
Virginia– Virginia Beach (2 cases)
Washington – Everett (2 cases), Lynnwood, Spokane
Wisconsin – Madison
Written Emergency Services Documents
Colorado – Aurora, Denver – Park Hill (formerly Stapleton) (several cases)
Illinois – Chicago – (8 cases)
Michigan – Lansing
Missouri – St. Louis – Reproductive Health Services
Massachusetts: – Boston
Incidents from Written Health Inspection Report Documents
California – Antioch
California – Orange
California: – Thousand Oaks, Ventura
Connecticut – West Hartford
Florida – Tampa
Ohio – Bedford
Pennsylvania – Allentown (2 incidents)
California: (Tran)
California: Hayward – Central (Patterson), Riverside (Goode)
California, Los Angeles – Bixby (Lopez)
Illinois – Chicago (Reaves)
Massachusetts: Worcester (Anonymous)
Michigan: Kalamazoo (Erwin-Sheppard)
Nevada: Las Vegas (Dixon)
New York – New York City: Manhattan (Owens)
Non-reporting of Cases of Abuse of Minors – Which Allowed it to Continue
Alabama: Mobile
Arizona: Phoenix, Tempe
California: (unknown location)
Colorado: Denver
Connecticut: Enfield, West Hartford (Norwich not well documented)
Indiana: Indianapolis
Ohio: Southwest Ohio Affiliate (2 cases)
Washington: city unknown, Bellingham
Cited for Lack of Policy to Report Abuse
Alabama: Birmingham
Pennsylvania: Philadelphia – Locust Street
Sexual Harassment
California: Fresno
California: Mar Monte affiliate
Massachusetts: (one doctor, several centers)
Michigan: Ann Arbor
New York: Rochester
Racial discrimination complaints are covered below under Racism: Employee Legal Complaints.
Sexual harassment complaints are covered above under Sexual Abuse: Sexual Harassment.
Neither are double listed here.
Unionization
Affiliates:
Central & Western New York
Northern New England (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont)
North Central States (Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, South Dakota)
Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains (Colorado, New Mexico, Southern Nevada)
Western Pennsylvania
States and cities:
Texas: Austin
Pregnancy/Family and Medical Leave
Florida: Miami, Sarasota
New York: New Rochelle, White Plains
Employee Charges Wrongful Termination for Whistleblowing
Arizona: Glendale and Phoenix (same case)
California: Chula Vista
California: Mar Monte affiliate
Texas: Austin and Fort Worth (same case)
Unsafe Working Conditions / OSHA / Workers Injury
Delaware: Wilmington
Florida: Tallahassee
Ohio: Columbus
New York: Rochester
Texas: Fort Worth
Discrimination against Disability
Illinois – Chicago: Chicago Loop
Indiana: Indianapolis
Washington: Yakima
Job Loss Without Notice
Tennessee, Nashville
Employees Complain as a Group
Individual Employee Legal Complaints
Missouri: St. Louis
Texas: Houston
Employee Complaints Reported by Others
Indiana: Indianapolis
=======================================================================
Patient and Employee Reviews Report on Racism
(a listing of the reviews on this website that report impressions of racism)
California – Chico, Chula Vista, Coachella, El Cajon, Escondido, Fresno-Family First
California – Gilroy, Moreno Valley, Orange, Riverside
California – San Bernardino, Santa Barbara, Thousand Oaks, Seaside, Watsonville
California – San Diego (2 cases), San Jose, Los Angeles.
Allegations in lawsuits by former employees of financial abuses in California and Iowa aren’t included because courts ultimately dismissed the cases.
Overbilling the Government
New York – Hudson Peconic Affiliate
Pennsylvania – Western Pennsylvania Affiliate
Texas and Louisiana – Gulf Coast Affiliate
Lack of Legally Required Transparency
Financial Ethics Report: Employee and Patent Reviews
This report will be posted here upon completion.
Individual reviews give the voice of experience of workers and patients. On the one hand, they can’t be independently verified and are clearly not objective the way a health inspection might be. On the other hand, they give the real-world experience on the day-to-day operations that the inspector never considers.
Almost all of the centers covered include reviews, so no list is given here.
Selection Criteria
- We’re interested in content that explains problems. Therefore, we don’t include positive reviews, nor negative ratings that don’t explain why.
- We didn’t include complaints about waits that are less than an hour, since this is common to the medical field and not noteworthy for Planned Parenthood in particular. We do include complaints about excessively long wait times, or wait times combined with other problems.
- We didn’t include complaints about the following of proper Covid precautions. For this, Planned Parenthood personnel were doing their jobs well.
- We didn’t include complaints that didn’t discuss someone’s experience as a patient, someone who accompanied a patient, or as a staff member or volunteer.
Sources
Employee reviews are all from Indeed.com. These only specify cities and not individual centers. They include the date of posting.
Patient reviews come primarily from Google and Yelp, which are general consumer review sites, and from DocAsap, which is a medical-themed site. These are always for individual centers only. We also have a few complaints lodged with the Better Business Bureau which are treated the same as reviews.
While other reviews include the date of posting. Google reviews give the amount of time that has passed since the review, which of course changes as time passes. Therefore, for Google only we give the date they were accessed so readers can get an approximate time the review was actually posted.
Positive and Negative Reviews
We include links to the full set of reviews for each location for those interested in a fuller assessment, not just problems. However, it’s in the nature of reviews alone that they cannot give an entirely full assessment:
- People who have a negative experience may be more motivated to write a review than people who have an ordinary one.
- Some Planned Parenthood centers follow the custom of many businesses by encouraging people to write positive reviews, and they’re more likely to refrain from doing so if the patient’s experience was negative.
- The reviews therefore have a self-selection bias in both directions. Additionally, they’re few enough in number that they aren’t a large enough sample size to make an overall assessment. Only a proper study with a larger and stratified random sample of the patients could do that. We’re currently unaware of any such study conducted for any center or set of centers.
Report
We have treated the thousands of reviews as qualitative data, pulling out themes and specifying which reviews fit with each theme. The report will be published when it is completed.