Earlier this summer, we told you of a new 19,000 square foot megaclinic Planned Parenthood Southwest Oregon has planned for Oregon in the Springfield/Oregon area (www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2011/07/another-planned-parenthood-mega-clinic-planned-for-oregon).

Now, thanks to Oregon Right to Life, we have a more details on where Planned Parenthood was planning on getting funding for this project and what local pro-lifers are doing to try to stop the abortion giant from opening a huge new mega-center.

Planned Parenthood plans for the new $8.5 million megaclinic to replace an administrative center and two smaller clinics, one which recently began offering chemical abortions using the abortifacient RU486. The Eugene Register-Guard (10/27/11) reported that Planned Parenthood spokeswoman Sarah Moseley told the newspaper that the Glenwood facility would offer “medication abortions” [meaning RU486 abortions] and “While the agency might eventually offer surgical abortions at the Glenwood facility, there are no immediate plans to do so.”

The new clinic, part of a neighborhood revitalization project, is planned for a new riverfront development area that is both close to nearby colleges and convenient to public transportation.

We knew from media sources that Planned Parenthood had sought a $125,000 community development block grant for a storm water drainage system, with a community development advisory committee already giving initial approval. Now, thanks to Oregon Right to Life and the 10/27/11 follow-up story in the Eugene Register-Guard [www.registerguard.com/web/newslocalnews/27083054-41/grant-parenthood-planned-agency-construction.html.csp], we know a little bit more about that federal grant money Planned Parenthood was seeking and what has become of the project.

An observant Springfield city employee told local pro-lifers that the city had conducted an environmental review on the construction project. This enabled Planned Parenthood to obtain $78,893 in assistance from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for a qualified “medical facility” (Life in Oregon, Sept-Nov, 2011). Whether this represented a pared-down amount from the original $125,000 the Register-Guard said Planned Parenthood was seeking in its April 2, 2011 report, or whether this is simply a corrected figure, we do not know.

As part of the grant review process, groups or persons opposed to the findings of the committee were invited to submit objections by August 5, 2011.

The local pro-life community sprang into action, first collecting and delivering formal objection letters by the deadline and then circulating petitions at local churches opposing construction of the new clinic, according to Life in Oregon.  On September 16, pro-life leaders along with local priests and pastors met with the mayor of Springfield and his staff. They delivered the petitions along with copy of former Planned Parenthood clinic director Abby Johnson’s book, “Unplanned,” detailing the aims and inner workings of the abortion giant.

Nevertheless, less than two weeks later, on September 28, Planned Parenthood held a groundbreaking at the new site, attended by longtime abortion defenders U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-Or.) and Congressman Peter DeFazio (D-Or.), along with about 300 protesters.

When the new clinic will actually be completed is unknown.  Originally, Planned Parenthood said the facility would open sometime in the winter of 2012.

The Register-Guard now reports that Planned Parenthood has decided to turn down the federal grant. Planned Parenthood said that the bid for the storm water drainage project they had accepted did not meet the requirement of the grant that they pay “prevailing wages” to construction workers.  A Planned Parenthood spokesperson denied that the decision had anything to do with local opposition to the project.  Accepting the money would have required that Planned Parenthood reopen the bidding process, possibly raising costs, and construction is already underway.

The Register-Guard spoke to Planned Parenthood and said the organization would simply seek to make up the funding elsewhere, from “reserves, donations, and other grants.”

Though construction of the mega-clinic appears to be moving forward, pro-life efforts have served to expose the agenda of the group and helped make the community more aware of one of the many ways the $1 billion dollar a year corporation tries to use taxpayer money to further its abortion empire.  One can only hope that that exposure will help derail this  deadly project or at least the political careers of those who would support this marketer of death.

And maybe, just maybe, vulnerable young women will find out that there are those in their community who will stand by them in a crisis and offer life-affirming practical alternatives to abortion.  And, unlike Planned Parenthood, even do it for free.