A rift is growing among pro-lifers online.

The center of the division is Live Action, a prominent anti-abortion non-profit, that is facing accusations from some in pro-life circles of using its donations towards ineffectual efforts.

The fight comes after the founder of the organization, Lila Rose, called out GOP vice presidential candidate Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) for not backing a national abortion ban.

But Rose is no stranger to controversy.

She previously stoked a flurry of headlines for a viral video secretly recorded in a Planned Parenthood in which she pretended to be an underage girl wanting an abortion, seeking advice on how she could avoid the clinic’s mandatory reporting policies that, in California, would have required Planned Parenthood to report Rose’s fictitious boyfriend for statutory rape.

Separately, Live Action fell into the spotlight in 2011 after releasing hidden camera footage from Planned Parenthood in which a fake pimp (often misidentified as James O’Keefe) approached clinics about procuring services for his supposed sex workers.

Rose said that “proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Planned Parenthood intentionally breaks state and federal laws and covers up the abuse of the young girls it claims to serve.”

But this time, the controversy stems from people in her own camp—furious over the non-profit’s 2022 tax filings, which show the it using only about $25,000 of its contributions on grants “to domestic organizations.”

In 2022, the group’s IRS Form 990 shows $13.5 million in revenue, while dropping $3.8 million on salaries—$271,000 of which is Rose’s pay—as well as about $10 million on other expenses.

According to its tax filing, of its $13.9 million expenses, $11.4 million went to publishing “daily pro-life educational content,” producing “in-depth reports on the abortion industry,” and running Live Action News.

“Live Action researches and produces in-depth reports on the abortion industry and presents them to the media and public officials; educates media and public officials on the need for changes in public policy; provides supporters with activism opportunities; and partners with other organizations to host special events and presentations,” reads one $5 million item listed in the expenses.

But the Form 990 has left some conservative activists roiling—in particular conservative journalist Ashley St. Clair—who blasted the organization for not spending more on things like diapers for expecting and new mothers.

“You could theoretically buy 56 million diapers with the $14 million in revenue wasted at Lila Rose’s ‘pro life’ org,” St. Clair argued on Monday. “With her $271,000 salary, you could buy a million diapers a year. But please tell me how much good their galas & Facebook ads are doing!”

St. Clair separately pledged to donate her X monetization checks for the rest of the year to a crisis pregnancy center if Rose offered to explain Live Action’s spending during a live X Space.

“They are not very pro-life from what I can see,” she continued. “$14 million in revenue and just $10-25k in grants. Surely diapers + blankets are more important than your fancy galas and ads!”

In an email to the Daily Dot, Live Action disputed the claims, saying it “works hard to be a good steward of every dollar donated” and its total fundraising and administration expenses amount to less than 18% of its entire budget.

The organization also pushed back on criticism about its fundraising galas, saying that “everyone who is involved in modern fundraising efforts—or any kind of enterprise for that matter—knows you need to spend money to make money.”

“Live Action hosts a gala to raise funds for our mission to change hearts and minds on abortion,” it said. “Those costs are included in our public disclosures and count towards our fundraising efforts. Live Action’s annual fundraising gala is underwritten by ticket sales and sponsorships, and we rely on our fundraising gala to help support the lifesaving work of Live Action.”

St. Clair’s criticism followed Rose rebuking Vance for expressing opposition to a nationwide abortion ban and criticizing President Donald Trump for not taking a pro-life stance.

In an interview, Vance said the party was satisfied with the overturning of Roe v. Wade and that states were free to set abortion policy as they pleased.

“If you don’t stand for pro-life principles, you don’t get pro-life votes” Rose responded.

“They know they make more money when opposition is in office,” St. Clair argued, and claimed Rose’s comments amount to “voter suppression.”

The organization also previously came under fire from another conservative, Mike Cernovich, in April, who similarly criticized their lack of funding for “pregnancy resource centers.”

A pro-life organization raised $13,000,000. I’m reviewing the Form 990.How much do you guess it sent to pregnancy resource centers and other direct charity to pregnant and expecting mothers?— Cernovich () April 11, 2024

Other commenters were quick to echo St. Clair’s frustrations, with one person writing that the lack of spending on grants “sounds like someone’s got a fancy lifestyle to maintain.”

“We call it the ‘Pro-Life Industrial Complex,’” quipped someone else.

Right-wing commentator Ian Miles Cheong weighed in as well, saying: “Can you imagine how effective the pro-life movement would be if the money being directed towards them actually went towards the cause instead of extravagant parties that benefit no one but the people who go to those parties?”

Rose spoke to the uproar over her criticism in a live-streamed podcast episode Tuesday night.

After noting that Live Action itself is non-partisan and does not support particular candidates due to its 501(c)(3) status, she argued that embracing pro-life rhetoric would help—not hurt—Trump’s campaign and defended her criticism in a personal capacity. (Live Action reiterated to the Daily Dot that Rose’s comments about Vance were made in her personal capacity as well.)

“Candidates are still shape-shifting in many ways. Positions are being shifted and changed,” Rose said. “I urge all pro-lifers to come out right now and say: ‘President Trump, stand for life. President Trump, if you want the pro-life vote, fight for life. That’s not called voter suppression my friends, that’s called voter encouragement.”

But even prior to Rose’s live-streamed comments, it was clear that the pro-life crowd was far from united in turning against Live Action.

“Live Action is not a Crisis Pregnancy Center,” wrote one person. “They are an awareness and research advocacy organization, they exist to inform and build awareness about being prolife and the messaging.”

“It’s honestly a misrepresentation of the organization. They seek to change people’s minds about abortion,” replied another X user. “That is the purpose of the org. You can disagree with how they do that, but it’s disingenuous to call them grifters bc they don’t do some other thing.”

Others defended Rose by pointing to her consistency in her stance when criticizing Trump.

“Feel free to disagree with [Lila Rose], but if you’re accusing the person who isn’t abandoning her principles and has been remarkably consistent in her principles of grifting, you don’t actually know what a grift is,” concluded Erick Erickson.

Another flagged the expenses listed in Form 990 as a rebuttal to critics’ claims about Live Action’s spending on fancy galas.

“So I get that it’s cool to say bullshit about prolifers for clicks nowadays because our chooser nominee wants a scapegoat now that he’s down vs the California communist but ‘galas’ are not one of LiveAction’s top three expense items,” one person wrote.

So I get that it's cool to say bullshit about prolifers for clicks nowadays because our chooser nominee wants a scapegoat now that he's down vs the California communist but "galas" are not one of LiveAction's top three expense items https://t.co/lnNg7QSvqB pic.twitter.com/JjPBcpx9OY— Perpetuities () August 27, 2024

Stated someone else: “If you look closely at Live Action’s 990, you see that the bulk of their expenses are for salaries (they have over 50 employees) and producing video content, which is literally their mission. There’s nothing particularly controversial about it.

He continued: “One could criticize how much they pay their top employees (all above $150k/year), or how much they pay to produce their content, but they are not throwing away millions to support a ‘lavish’ lifestyle.”

In its comments to the Daily Dot, Live Action echoed that point, saying that providing financial grants to other organizations is not its mission or purpose, though it does make its educational resources available to every pro-life organization in the world.

“Live Action admires the work of our allies in pregnancy resource centers who provide direct service to children and families including distributing material aid like diapers and baby formula,” the organization said. “Live Action’s mission is to save lives by changing hearts and minds on abortion. Along with reaching millions of people each month with proven, mind-changing content, we are thankful to partner with direct service providers across the nation to do so.”

Internet culture is chaotic—but we’ll break it down for you in one daily email. Sign up for the Daily Dot’s web_crawlr newsletter here. You’ll get the best (and worst) of the internet straight into your inbox.