SUPPORTING STATEMENT: In 2022, shortly before the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that overturned Roe v. Wade, Intel Corporation voiced its opinion on the possibility of new abortion restrictions in America. “We believe health-related decisions are among the most personal, and it is important to us that Intel employees have access to safe, timely healthcare,” the Company wrote in a public statement1 at the time. “Our U.S. health care options cover a wide range of medical treatments, including abortion where permitted, as part of our overall family planning benefits and we respect the rights and privacy of our employees to choose what best meets their health needs.”
Despite the language in its regard to Dobbs, however, the Company’s behavior seems to indicate a belief that medical decisions related to abortion ought to involve patients, physicians, and also the opinions of Intel Corporation. Intel remains one of the biggest corporate donors2 to Planned Parenthood—in its statement, Intel pledged to continue to support abortion “where permitted,” indicating that the bounds of healthcare are not in fact moral issues for the Company but conveniently determined entirely by state jurisdiction.
Furthermore, Intel has pledged3 itself to cover costs of “medically necessary transition-related care” for employees and children. The Company has staked out a position on gender dysphoria/confusion which affirms that sufferers can transition to a different sex, both psychologically and physically. Yet an increasing body of scientific evidence shows harms resulting from such “transition” treatments—do the Company’s employees victimized by such treatments deserve healthcare benefits too?
Abortion and gender-related care are indeed deeply “personal” issues—views on such topics are often rooted in an individual’s core belief system, making taking a position on it a potential reputational, legal, and financial liability for a company—yet Intel Corporation has insisted on doing just that.
This positioning is particularly troubling considering the Company’s emphasis on Diversity & Inclusion.4 Does their embrace of ideological diversity extend to all views on contentious issues, or merely the opinions the Company deems to be politically in vogue/convenient to advocate for?
Taking positions on issues the Company admits are “personal” can only serve to alienate consumers, employees, and investors and impact the Company’s bottom line. The Company should instead focus on its fiduciary duty to shareholders, a fiduciary duty likely to be violated by engaging in politically divisive rhetoric and/or actions.

Filed by the American Family Association.