Crisis Pregnancy Centers

Crisis pregnancy centers, often referred to as limited service pregnancy centers or pregnancy resource centers, are non-profit health clinics that intentionally mislead pregnant people about their reproductive health-care choices in order to prevent them from obtaining abortions.

There are over 3,500 crisis pregnancy centers in operation across the country. CPCs are almost entirely backed by anti-choice organizations, including: Care Net, Heartbeat International, and the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA).

CPCs employ a variety of deceptive tactics in order to discourage pregnant people from choosing to obtain an abortion. They routinely trick patients seeking abortion into entering their facilities by looking like an abortion clinic, opening next door to one, or running misleading abortion ads on Google. Once a pregnant person visits these clinics, CPC representatives deceive patients by making false claims about the physical and mental risks of abortion and providing false information about contraceptives. CPC representatives will also engage in emotional manipulation by showing graphic videos, providing baby items, or by using terms such as “baby” and “killing” when referring to the fetus and abortion.

In 2009, Baltimore became the first city to enact an ordinance requiring limited-service pregnancy centers to post signs in their waiting rooms indicating that such centers do not provide or make referrals for abortion or birth-control services. A similar ordinance was passed in Montgomery County, Maryland, requiring centers to post signs indicating the lack of licensed medical providers on staff. Both ordinances were later blocked by federal courts. Similar local ordinances in Texas and New York have also been blocked and/or revised in court.

In 2015, California passed the Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency (FACT) Act. The law requires crisis pregnancy centers to disclose to patients that their facilities do not offer comprehensive reproductive care, including contraception and abortion. The law requires the state’s licensed pregnancy centers to display a brief statement with a number to call for access to free and low-cost birth control and abortion care. Additionally, facilities without medical licenses are required to post a notice saying they have neither a license nor licensed providers on staff.

The conservative law firm Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), challenged the law on behalf of NIFLA, arguing the law violates their First Amendment free speech and religious exercise rights. Both the lower court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of the disclosures, holding they fell within the state’s broad power to regulate medical providers to protect patients. ADF and NIFLA appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to take up the challenge. In a 5-4 decision on June 26, 2018, the justices sided with the CPCs and ruled that the California law likely violated the First Amendment, and the case was sent back to the lower courts for reconsideration.

In 2017, Hawaii enacted a law requiring anti-abortion clinics inform pregnant people of the availability of comprehensive family planning services. Once again, ADF and NIFLA filed a lawsuit against the state, arguing the law violates their free speech and religious exercise rights. That same year, ADF sued the state of Illinois, in federal and state court, after a new law was enacted requiring pregnancy centers to provide referrals for abortion services. All cases are currently pending.

Examples of pro-CPC state legislation (last updated September 12, 2018)

Legislation supporting crisis pregnancy centers typically come in two forms: resolutions commending the work of CPCs, and laws seeking to increase state and federal funding of CPCs (at the expense of actual reproductive health clinics).

Enacting proclamations honoring CPCs around the country may seem harmless, but this strategy lends legitimacy and government approval to CPCs despite their deceptive tactics. Such resolutions typically contain language commending the work of CPCs; acknowledging the so-called contributions they make to women’s reproductive health; encouraging federal and state funding for CPCs; and denouncing reproductive rights organizations that work to expose their deceptive tactics. This type of resolution is based on model legislation drafted by the Americans United for Life (AUL).

Laws seeking to increase state and federal funding of crisis pregnancy centers come in various forms. Some laws attempt to increase funding of CPCs through the state’s budget; while other laws create grant programs for entities that promote pregnancy and parenting services as alternatives to abortion. Other laws attempt to divert tax dollars from federal programs, like the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.

According to an analysis by Rewire, in this fiscal year alone, CPCs in 14 states (Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin) will receive over $40 million in taxpayer dollars.

Finally, many states fund CPCs through the issuance of “Choose Life” license plates. According to Guttmacher, 32 states allow the production of “Choose Life” license plates; 17 of the states donate a portion of the proceeds raised to specific anti-choice organizations or crisis pregnancy centers; and 10 states specifically prohibit any funds raised from being distributed to organizations that provide abortion services, counseling, referrals or advertising.

Laws