Acrisis pregnancy center (CPC), sometimes called apregnancy resource center (PRC)[2] or apro-life pregnancy center,[3][4] is a type ofnonprofit organization established byanti-abortion groups primarily to persuade pregnant women not to have anabortion.[5][6][7]: 1
In theUnited States, there are an estimated 2,500 to 4,000 CPCs[8] that qualify asclinics and may also providepregnancy testing,medical ultrasounds, and other services.[9] Many others operate without medical licensing under varying degrees of regulation.[10] For comparison, there were 807abortion clinics in the United States as of 2020.[8][11] Hundreds more CPCs operate outside of the U.S., including in Canada, Latin America, Africa, and Europe.[12][13][14]
CPCs have frequently been found to disseminatefalse medical information about the supposedphysical andmental health risks of abortion.[15][16][17] They sometimes promulgate misinformation about the effectiveness ofcondoms and prevention ofsexually transmitted infections.[18] CPCs are sometimes calledfake abortion clinics by scholars, the media, and supporters ofabortion rights due to deceptive advertising that obscures the centers' anti-abortion agenda.[19][20]
Many CPCs are run byChristian groups that adhere to asocially conservative and anti-abortion viewpoint,[21] and they often operate in affiliation with one of three non-profit organizations:Care Net,Heartbeat International, andBirthright International. In 1993, theNational Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) was formed to provide legal advice to CPCs in the U.S.[6][22][23] During thepresidency of George W. Bush (2001–2009), U.S. CPCs received tens of millions of dollars in federal grants.[24] As of 2015[update], more than half of U.S. state governments helped to fund CPCs directly or through the sale ofChoose Life license plates.[25]
Legal and legislative action regarding CPCs has generally attempted to curbdeceptive advertising,[26] targeting those that imply that they offer abortion services by requiring centers to disclose that they do not offer certain services or possess certain qualifications.[27]
Catholic carpenter Robert Pearson started the first CPC inHonolulu in 1967 after abortion was legalized inHawaii. Pearson said that "a woman who wanted to terminate her pregnancy 'has no right to information that will help her kill her baby'."[28] He formed the Pearson Foundation to help others start their own CPCs, offering detailed instructions for CPC management along with propaganda brochures and images to persuade pregnant women not to get an abortion.[19][29] In 1968, the first Canadian network of centers was established byBirthright Internationa. Alternatives to Abortion, today known asHeartbeat International, was founded in 1971. Christian Action Council founded its first center in Baltimore, Maryland, in 1980. The Christian Action Council would eventually becomeCare Net.[30] The CPC movement began asAmerican Catholic activism, but after the 1973 passage ofRoe v. Wade, interest in establishing CPCs widened to includeAmerican evangelical Christians.[29]
To fulfill their mission of persuading pregnant women to forgo abortions, CPCs advertise and offer pregnancy support services. Among the more common ones are freepregnancy tests,prenatal care, screening forsexually transmitted infections, andadoption referrals. Some offercounseling, includingreligious counseling and post-abortion counseling. Some provide material support, including clothing, maternity housing, food, financial assistance, and other essential supplies. Some offer training in topics such as budgeting, resumé building, andchild rearing.[31][32][33][34] An increasing number of CPCs obtain some form of medical certification to be able to expand their capabilities and marketing—for example, permission to perform sonograms in an attempt to convince women to carry their pregnancies to term.[35] In some jurisdictions, such as Louisiana, CPCs are consideredsafe-haven zones in which parents may surrender custody of newborn infants.[36][better source needed] In 2020, a Texas chain of CPCs began providingcontraceptives to unmarried women, stating that they wanted to help reduce cases ofunintended pregnancy.[37]
CPCs have been widely criticized by supporters of abortion rights for providing misleading and/or graphic information or content to patients to dissuade them from obtaining abortions.[38][39] Their advertising campaigns have been criticized as being carefully designed to reach groups they perceive as being more inclined towards seeking abortion, such as young women, women of color, and those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Often, they place billboards near educational institutions and utilize public transportation and bus shelters for promotion.[40] For example, Care Net's "Urban Initiative" aims explicitly to attract Black and Latina women by advertising on platforms likeBET and drawing parallels between abortion and historical instances of oppression, such asslavery.[41] TheBritish Pregnancy Advisory Service, an independent abortion-providing agency,[42] warned about the lack of regulation on CPCs by theNational Health Service in that young women were dissuaded from abortion without full knowledge of their legal options or the consultation of theirgeneral practitioner.[43] CPCs have focused on what they call "underserved" communities in an attempt to lower the high rates of abortion in communities of color.[44]
Some CPCs conduct freesonograms as a way to dissuade women from abortion.[5][45][46] Proponents say that women who visit CPCs and see theirembryos orfetuses through the use of ultrasound technology tend to decide against abortion, although scientific research suggests mandatory pre-abortion ultrasound has no effect on women's decisions to continue their pregnancy.[47]
Christian organizations likeFocus on the Family and theSouthern Baptist Convention, atheologically andsocially conservativeevangelical denomination and the largest Christian group in the US, have aimed to provide more CPCs with ultrasound equipment machines.[48][49][50]
CPCs have frequently been found to disseminate false medical information.[16][17] In some cases, such information may be based on decades-old studies that have been discredited by more recent research.[21] In others, CPCs may falsely claim to be describing an existingscientific consensus.[17] CPCs' false information is usually about the supposed health risks of abortion, saying, for example, that abortion is much less safe for pregnant women than childbirth when the opposite is true.[15][21][51] In fact, researchers have found that "the complication rate (of abortions) is less than that associated with wisdom tooth extraction, 7 percent, and tonsillectomies, 9 percent."[52] The Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine and the North American Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology characterize the care at these centers as lacking "adherence to medical and ethical practice standards".[53] A joint statement from the Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine and the North American Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology said that CPCs "pose risk by failing to adhere to medical and ethical practice standards".[54]
For example, CPC staffers commonly assert that the chances of gettingbreast cancer increase dramatically after abortion,[7][15][16][21][55][51][56][57][58][59][60][excessive citations] even though major medical bodies, including theNational Cancer Institute,[61] note that there is no link betweenabortion and breast cancer.[21][55][57]
Another common assertion is thatabortion leads to mental health problems. CPC counselors have warned clients of severely negative psychological consequences, including high rates ofdepression, "post-abortion syndrome",post-traumatic stress disorder,suicide,substance abuse, sexual and relationship dysfunction, propensity tochild abuse, and other emotional problems.[5][15][21][55][56][60][62][63][64][excessive citations] These "counselors" are oftenpriests or other religious members—not licensed counselors. "Post-abortion syndrome" has not been validated as a discretepsychiatric condition and is not recognized by theAmerican Psychological Association, theAmerican Psychiatric Association, theAmerican Medical Association, theAmerican College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, or theAmerican Public Health Association.[65][66][67][68][69][70] TheRoyal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists finds no evidence to support an increased likelihood of abuse.[64] In fact, CPCs are known to use disturbing visuals to manipulate pregnant women emotionally.[71]
CPCs may also claim that surgical abortion is a dangerous procedure, with a high risk of perforation or infection and death.[5][21][59][62][63][72] In fact, the risk of complications requiring hospitalization after an abortion is about 2 in 1,000 in the US.[73] These alleged risks are also part of the common assertion that abortion can make future childbearing more difficult or dangerous by increasing the risk of infertility,miscarriages, complications,ectopic pregnancy, or fetal health problems.[15][21][60][62][63][64] These claims are not supported by medical data.[63][64]
CPCs have also been found to disseminate misinformation about birth control methods, in particular the idea thatcontraception and condoms do not work or haveharmful effects.[21][55][72]
False information about pregnancy and the female body,[63][72] fetal development,[59] the availability of abortion in early pregnancy,[59][63][74] and the rate of postpartum depression among women who carry to term may be provided.[75][better source needed] CPCs may also misinform women about their stage of pregnancy in order to prevent them from seeking an abortion until it is no longer legally possible.[76][77][78] The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have found that CPCs are "often non-medical facilities who have no legal obligation to provide pregnant women with accurate information and are not subject toHIPAA or required by law to maintain client confidentiality."[71] Amixed-methods analysis of persons seeking care from CPCs found that people seek out CPCs for pregnancy confirmation, lack of access to healthcare, and abortions.[79] The patients reported a range of positive and negative experiences, but mostly reported reduced options and some deception.[79]Care Net denounces "any form of deception in its corporate advertising or individual conversations with its clients", though it also says of its promotion of an abortion–breast cancer link that its "role is clearly to include this possible risk when [they] educate clients about all the risks of abortions."[51]
A July 2006 report by RepresentativeHenry Waxman (D-CA) and his minority members' staff in theHouse Committee on Government Reform noted that CPCs had received over $30 million in federal funding since 2001, derived mostly from programs forabstinence-only sex education. For this report, female investigators telephoned CPCs that had received federal funding and posed as pregnant teenagers deciding whether to get an abortion. They found that 20 of the 23 centers (87%) reached provided false or misleading information about the health effects of abortion, particularly about a supposed link between abortion and breast cancer, supposed risks to subsequent fertility, and supposed negative mental health repercussions.[80]
The overwhelming majority of CPCs in the U.S. are run byChristians according to aconservative Christian philosophy.[2][21][81][82] As of 2007[update], two Christian charities, Care Net and Heartbeat International, accounted for 75% of CPCs in the United States.[83] Care Net, the largest CPC network in the United States, is explicitlyevangelistic in nature, and says that its "ultimate aim [...] is to share the love and truth ofJesus Christ in both word and deed"[84] and that its "pregnancy centers are committed to sharing the love of Jesus Christ with every person who walks through their doors."[85] Heartbeat International, one of the largest CPC networks in the United States and also the largest CPC network in the world,[86] runs "Christian crisis-pregnancy centers"[87] and describes itself as a "Christian association of faith-based pregnancy resource centers" whose materials are "consistent with Biblical principles".[2] TheNational Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA), which works with CPCs on legal issues, "strongly believes that sharing the Gospel is an essential part of counseling women in pregnancy help medical clinics".[82] Some CPCs are run by the Catholic Church[7] or by other church groups.[88][89] Unaffiliated CPCs, or CPCs affiliated with other organizations, may provide a religious perspective in their counseling.[27][55][90][91]
In contrast to the overt Christian perspective of most CPC networks,Birthright International has a stated philosophy of non-evangelism.[92] AJewish CPC organization called In Shifra's Arms also exists.[93]
Many CPCs require their staff to be Christian.[94] For example, as a condition of affiliation, Care Net and the Canadian Association of Pregnancy Support Services, the two largest CPC organizations in the United States and Canada, respectively, require each employee and volunteer of a prospective affiliate to comply with a Christianstatement of faith.[15][95][96][97] CPCs unaffiliated with either of these may also require staff to be Christian.[98][97][99][100][101]
Religious activity is sometimes part of a CPC client's experience. Care Net, which "is committed to presenting the gospel of our Lord to women with crisis pregnancies",[97] claims to have effected over 23,000 conversions or restatements of Christian faith.[85] NIFLA "strongly believes that sharing the Gospel is an essential part of counseling women in pregnancy help medical clinics".[82] Some visitors to CPCs report that employees subjected them to unwanted evangelizing.[55][72][102][103]
CPCs outside the United States are also frequently Christian. CareConfidential, the largest umbrella network for CPCs in the United Kingdom, runs "Christian-based pregnancy crisis centres"[104] and is a division of the Christian charity CARE.[105] The Canadian Association of Pregnancy Support Services, a similar network in Canada whose centers may also affiliate with Care Net or Heartbeat International, describes itself as a "Christian charity";[106] its affiliates "adhere firmly to Christianity".[15] The United States-basedHuman Life International runs "Catholic pregnancy centers" in Mexico,[107] and it also provides aid to the Centros de Ayuda para la Mujer, a network of CPCs in Latin America whose philosophy is "in conformity with theMagisterium of the Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church."[108] As in the United States, unaffiliated CPCs may also be run by church groups or are otherwise Christian.
Most crisis pregnancy centers are affiliated with several majoranti-abortion organizations in the United States; these areCare Net,Heartbeat International,Birthright International, andNational Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA).[22] A CPC may be affiliated with more than one network. US-based Care Net and Heartbeat International are the world's two largest CPC networks with about 3,000 associated centers between them in the United States and abroad.[109][110] Italy, for example, has more than 400 CPCs associated with Heartbeat International, the largest number outside the U.S.[111] The largest UK organisations areCareConfidential and LIFE, while the largest Canadian one is the Canadian Association of Pregnancy Support Services (CAPSS).Human Life International, aCatholic group opposed to abortion, also runs CPCs outside the United States.
CPCs have been criticized for deceptive advertising. Some falsely advertise abortion services, attracting clients who wish to have an abortion.[6][27][112][113] In the 1980s, investigative reporters from theArizona Republic, theSan Francisco Chronicle and CBS News, among others, filed stories about CPCs attracting women by offering free pregnancy tests but then presenting them with religious arguments and scare tactics against abortion.[114] CPCs may intentionally locate near, and look like, abortion clinics;[5][55] critics have also objected to CPCs' use of rhetoric and advertising language similar to those of abortion providers, such as "Plan Your Parenthood" or a directory listing under "abortion services" or "clinics". These, they say, may mislead pregnant women seeking abortion into contacting a CPC.[5][88][55][115] In particular, the advertising approach of the Pearson Foundation, which assists local groups establishing CPCs, has been criticized by some other anti-abortion groups, includingBirthright International, another CPC operator.[72] The foundation recommends that a center seek out women who want abortions through "neutral" advertising, and refuse to answer questions that would reveal that they provide neither abortion services nor referrals to abortion services.[72] Pearson, identified by some as the founder of the first CPC, said that a woman "has no right to information" that will allow her to have an abortion.[102] In Ireland, whenabortion was illegal except in circumstances where pregnancy endangered the mother's life and women oftenwent to the United Kingdom to end their pregnancies, "rogue" CPCs, in contrast to government sponsored pregnancy centers, might falsely give the impression in their advertising that they referred women to Britain for abortions or otherwise provided information for women seeking to travel for abortion.[116][117]
CPCs also use the Internet as a means of advertising. Some usesearch engine optimization to get their websites closer to the top of search results[118] or bid against abortion providers to appear at the top of sponsored link sections on Google and Yahoo.[21]Heartbeat International, a Christian association that runs 1,800 crisis pregnancy centers, recommends that CPCs use two websites, one fundraising website that describes an anti-abortion mission to secure donors, and another website that purports to provide medical information to attract women seeking contraception, counseling, or abortion.[119]
In August 2022, after a group of 21 Democratic senators criticizedGoogle for displaying CPCs alongside abortion clinics in search and map results when users searched for abortion services, Google stated that they will now clearly demarcate whether a clinic "Provides abortions" or, when Google is unable to verify that the clinic provides abortions: "Might not provide abortions".[120][121][122][123][124]Yelp stated that it will use new labels to differentiate CPCs into separate categories from clinics which provide abortions.[124][125]
Much legal and legislative action around CPCs has attempted to rein in deceptive advertising by CPCs seeking to give the impression that they provide abortions or other women's health services.
Lawsuits against a number of CPCs have determined that they engaged in false advertising and required them to change their methods, or led to settlements where they agreed to do so. CPCs that advertised that they provided abortion services were forbidden from doing so[27][112][126] or obliged to affirmatively tell clients that they did not do so.[27][51] In some instances, CPCs were prohibited from using names similar to nearby medical clinics that provided abortions,[126] from providing pregnancy tests,[27][51] or from advertising pregnancy tests as "free" if they were conditional upon hearing a presentation or counseling.[51] In one of these cases, the CPC argued that they did not receive money from clients and were therefore not subject to regulations on commercial speech, but the court ruled that they were not exempt because they aimed to provide services rather than exchange ideas.[126]
Several ordinances requiring CPCs to post signs disclosing that they do not provide abortions, birth control, referrals for either, and sometimes other medical services have been enjoined, with courts finding that such "compelled speech" violates the centers' rights.[127][128][129] In December 2009, Baltimore, Maryland was the first local government to introduce and pass a CPC ordinance—Ordinance 09-252, "Limited Service Pregnancy Centers—Disclaimers".[130]Austin, Texas, amended its law requiring centers to disclose that they do not offer abortion or birth control services to instead require them to disclose whether they do offer medical services under the direction of a licensed health care provider.[131] A bill in Oregon would require its CPCs, currently unregulated, to disclose whether or not they provide these services, and bar them from releasing health information collected from clients without the clients' consent.[132][133][134] In San Francisco, rather than compelling any speech, the city ordinance is framed as a false advertising law which allows courts to fine CPCs up to $500 every time they falsely imply in an advertisement that they offer abortion services.[135] The law's constitutionality was upheld in federal court, with a judge dismissing a lawsuit from a CPC that had been identified by the city attorney as advertising deceptively.[136][137]
California's 2015Reproductive FACT Act requires CPCs without medical licenses to post signs saying that they are not licensed medical facilities and have no medical professionals providing or supervising services; CPCs must also let clients know about the state's public programs for reproductive health care.[138][139] The law was challenged inNational Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, argued at the Supreme Court on March 20, 2018, with the Court required to decide whether or not the disclosures required by the California Reproductive FACT Act violated the free speech clause of the First Amendment.[140] The Court ruled on June 26, 2018, in a 5–4 decision that the notices required by the FACT Act violate the First Amendment by targeting speakers rather than speech.[141]
On March 30, 2006,Rep.Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and eleven co-sponsors first introduced a bill called the "Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women's Services Act", which would have required theFederal Trade Commission to "promulgate rules prohibiting [...] persons from advertising with the intent to deceptively create the impression that such persons provide abortion services" and "enforce violations of such rules as unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices."[142][143] Maloney and her colleagues have re-introduced the bill in several Congresses,[58][144] most recently in May 2013, in the113th Congress.[145]
In 2002, after an investigation and subpoenas of a number of New York State CPCs alleged to be engaged in deceptive business practices,[146] then-New York Attorney GeneralEliot Spitzer's office worked out an agreement with one of the CPCs in question, intended to be used as a model, which sets out practices including informing clients that the center does not provide abortion or birth control, that it is not a licensed medical facility, and that the pregnancy tests it provides are over-the-counter.[147]
In theUnited Kingdom, theAdvertising Standards Authority mandated in 2013 that the Central London Women's Centre must stop using "misleading" and "irresponsible" advertisements implying that it offered abortion services.[56]
 | This section needs to beupdated. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information.(October 2015) |
Nationally in the US, over $60 million in federal funds were given to crisis pregnancy centers, much of it coming from funding forabstinence-only sex education provided under the conservativeGeorge W. Bush administration.[24] Sincethe fall ofRoe v. Wade in 2022, anti-abortion facilities brought in at least $1.4 billion in revenue, with $344 million of that coming from the government.[148] At least 16 states have agreed to send more than $250 million towards "alternative-to-abortion" programs from 2023 through 2025.[148] The number of centers receiving grants is on the rise, as grant amounts increased from $97 million in 2019 to 21 centers in 2022, receiving $344 million in federal grants.[148] These grants included theFEMA-funded Emergency Food and Shelter Program and theTemporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).[148] By using these grants to support CPCs, funds are diverted away from the intended beneficiaries of TANF, thereby reducing the financial and structural assistance available to low-income families.[8] Almost immediately after theSupreme Court overturnedRoe v. Wade, 38Republican legislators inWisconsin sent a letter toGovernorTony Evers demanding that he provide $10 million in FederalARPA funding to crisis pregnancy centers.[149]
The proceeds from the sale ofChoose Lifelicense plates are also used to support CPCs or other organizations explicitly opposed to abortion in 34 states.[150] Of those 34 states, 19 of the states donate a portion of the proceeds raised to specific antichoice organizations or CPCs, 18 donate a portion of the proceeds to agencies or organizations that provide adoption assistance, counseling, training or advertising, one uses the funds raised by the plates to pay for roads and road repairs and 10 states specifically prohibit the allocation of funds raised by the sale of "Choose Life" license plates to agencies or organizations that provide abortion services, counseling, referrals or advertising.[150] Motorists in these states can request these plates and pay between $25 and $70 on top of standard fees for the plate.[150] A portion of the fee is used by the state to fund adoption support organizations and crisis pregnancy centers.[151] In July 2013, then-Governor of Rhode IslandLincoln Chafee vetoed a bill for the license plates, saying that, in his opinion, it violated theseparation of church and state.[152]
Since 2010, at least 13 U.S. states have subsidized crisis pregnancy centers.[153][154] These included Florida, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, Indiana, Ohio, North Carolina, Georgia, Oklahoma, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Texas.[154] They have funneled $495 million to CPCs.[154] Efforts are led by anti-abortionRepublicans. Some notable examples of the extent of these subsidies after the overturning ofRoe v. Wade include Florida's increase from $4.5 million to $25 million and Tennessee's from $3 million to $20 million in state funding between 2022 and 2023.[153]
Under thefirst Trump administration, CPCs were encouraged to apply forTitle X funding, which is intended to go to organisations offeringfamily planning services. Funding provided through Title X for family planning services has historically been off-limits for abortion services.[8] Healthcare organizations likePlanned Parenthood, receive Title X funding for services like contraception, breast cancer andcervical cancer screening, and testing for sexually transmitted infections, while separate, non-Title X funds are allocated for abortion services.[8] Most CPCs struggled to qualify because offeringhormonal birth control, which many CPCs oppose, is a requirement to receive the grants. One CPC organisation,The Obria Group, was awarded millions in grants in 2019 after promising to provide those services in some clinics, despite not currently offering them.[155][156][157] In 2019, alterations to Title X, commonly referred to as the "domestic gag rule," further tightened regulations, forbidding Title X providers from offering comprehensive pregnancy counseling or referring patients for abortion services.[8] This prohibition meant that clients could not rely on their healthcare providers for accurate and thorough information regarding abortion. Although these changes were reversed as of November 2021, they prompted many grantees, including Planned Parenthood, which previously served about 40% of Title X-dependent patients for family planning services, to withdraw.[8] Consequently, six states were temporarily left without Title X-funded services. This illustrates how political opposition to abortion can directly impede access to comprehensive reproductive healthcare services.[8] Title X funding is available in all 50 states as of 2024, with varying budgets.[158]
South Dakota enacted a law in 2011 that would have required consultation at a crisis pregnancy center as a precondition to obtaining an abortion. The law, which was to take effect in July 2011, also would have established a three-day waiting period, the longest in the country.[159] In June 2011, JudgeKaren Schreier issued a preliminary injunction blocking the law from going into effect, writing that the provisions "constitute a substantial obstacle to a woman's decision to obtain an abortion because they force a woman against her will to disclose her decision to undergo an abortion to a pregnancy help center employee before she can undergo an abortion."[160] Although the law remained enjoined, the state later enacted another law which excluded weekends and holidays from the 72-hour waiting period mandated for a person seeking an abortion, potentially extending the wait for the procedure to six days, so that only days when CPCs were already open would count as part of the period.[161] In some cases, judges responsible for grantingjudicial bypasses to minors have required them to go to a CPC for counseling before having an abortion.[162]
| This section needs to beupdated. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information.(July 2018) |
InIreland, centres not affiliated with the government exist that attempt to persuade women not to have an abortion. These have been reported to "use manipulation and alarmist information",[116][163] including false medical information,[60] and have been called "rogue agencies".[59][116][164] The termcrisis pregnancy is used by abortion-rights agencies like theIrish Family Planning Association.[165]
In September 2018, theEighth Amendment, stating that the law recognizes the rights of the unborn, was removed from the Constitution.[166] Five years after the repeal of Ireland's extreme abortion ban, the rule remained only up to twelve weeks for termination; anytime after must be accompanied by extreme circumstances.[167]
The government's Crisis Pregnancy Programme (formerly Crisis Pregnancy Agency) funds crisis pregnancy initiatives and is in turn reimbursed by theHealth Service Executive.[168] Nevertheless, crisis pregnancy counseling grants, provided through a campaign called "Positive Options", are only awarded to centres that offer non-directive and medically accurate counselling that discusses all possible options, including travelling abroad for abortion.[116] Government-sponsored centres' efforts to reduce the number of women who opt for abortion consist primarily of the provision of "services and supports which make other options more attractive."[168] A survey by the CPP found that 4 in 46 women surveyed encountered a "rogue agency" when seeking counseling.[169] TheDepartment of Health does not regulate the anti-abortion agencies, since the 1995 Abortion Information Act, which establishes that Irish women have a right to know about abortion services abroad and which regulates providers of information, does not apply to centres that do not provide information on abortion.[117][170]
Some CPCs have been damaged or destroyed in several types of incidents, with some directly attributed to criminal action and others spurring further investigation. On 1 February 2019, a CPC inCulpeper, Virginia, was vandalized withspray painted phrases that included "'fake,' 'you hate women,' and other vulgarities", spurring a police investigation.[171] An arson attack against aPeoria, Illinois, CPC on 3 May 2021 caused $250,000 in damages. This attack came shortly after the declassification of aDepartment of Homeland Security document that categorized both anti-abortion and pro-abortion rights "extremists" as "domestic violent extremist groups".[172]
In the month following the May 2022 publication of aleaked draft opinion in theDobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization U.S. Supreme Court case, several instances of violence against crisis pregnancy centers were reported by the Department of Homeland Security. The DHS issued a memo following the ruling's official release in June that cited these incidents as the basis for warning of potential violence extending "for weeks" following the overturn ofRoe v. Wade while simultaneously affirming that "freedom of speech and right to peacefully protest are fundamental Constitutional rights."[173] On 25 June, several days following the ruling's release, a fire at aLongmont, Colorado, Christian pregnancy center caused "fire and heavy smoke damage" with no injuries. Graffiti at the scene read "If abortions aren't safe, neither are you." The fire has been investigated with FBI assistance as an arson attack.[174] Employees of the center accused "pro-abortion" militant organizationJane's Revenge of starting the fire.[175]
Additional suspected incidents of arson against crisis pregnancy centers and anti-abortion groups had been reported before the ruling was announced. In May, Jane's Revenge had claimed responsibility for an arson attack against aMadison, Wisconsin, "Judeo-Christian" anti-abortion office.[176] Following the Madison attack, two firefighters were injured responding to a suspected arson attack at aBuffalo, New York-area Christian pregnancy center in early June.[177] A few days later, theATF andOregon authorities investigated a fire "suspicious in nature" that damaged a Christian pregnancy center inGresham on 10 June.[178] "'Thousands' of dollars" of damage to aSouthfield, Michigan, CPC on 16 September was attributed to Jane's Revenge.[179]Catholic News Agency reported that there were 82 total instances of abortion-rights-related vandalism, theft, and arson between early May and 22 July 2022. Of these, 50 were against pregnancy centers.[180] In January 2023, the FBI announced they were offering a $25,000 reward for providing "information leading to the identification, arrest, and conviction of the suspect(s)" in the attacks, while a CPC operator announced it would hireprivate investigators.[181]
It's right across the street from Planned Parenthood, an abortion clinic. Which is another reason why they came here; they always like to be as close as they can to an abortion facility.
Crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) are nonprofit organizations that present themselves as healthcare clinics while providing counseling explicitly intended to discourage and limit access to abortion. These facilities engage in purposefully manipulative and deceptive practices that spread misinformation on sexual health and abortion.
The Crossroads facility is one of thousands of "crisis pregnancy centers" that have appeared all over the US as a controversial part of the ongoing fight over women's reproductive rights. Known as "fake clinics" by pro-choice activists, and coined pregnancy resource centers by anti-abortion supporters, they are accused of posing as medical centers aimed at helping pregnant women, or even looking like abortion clinics.
The establishment of "fake abortion clinics" poses a great threat to women's ability to make free and informed procreative decisions. Such clinics intentionally deceive pregnant women into believing that they provide a full range of women's health services when, in reality, they provide only a pregnancy test, accompanied by intense anti-abortion propaganda.
Fake abortion clinics that try to trick pregnant women in states where abortion is now banned and are searching online for termination options were given an unprecedented boost after Roe v Wade was overturned earlier this year, campaigners argue. Research shows that thousands of clinics posing as health centers offering abortions are ideological pro-life hubs that aim to pressure and shame pregnant women into abandoning their termination plans.
A "fake clinic," also known as a crisis pregnancy center, is a clinic that advertises services similar to an abortion clinic, but with a different agenda. Instead of performing abortion services, the staff talks women through their options but ultimately attempts to discourage them from having an abortion. Fake clinics are often set up close to abortion clinics, according to Planned Parenthood, and advertise a range of services such as STD testing, but more often than not do not provide any substantive health care services. Although not outwardly offering abortion services, the clinics will advertise solutions for unintended pregnancies, pregnancy consultation and post-abortion care.
A Massachusetts health clinic is posing as an abortion provider to deliberately deceive women into not terminating pregnancies, a pro-choice group claims. The Attleboro Women's Health Center does not provide abortions, but rather uses underhanded tactics in attempts to prevent them, according to the Campaign for Accountability, which filed a complaint on Thursday with the state's attorney general. The health center's website prominently features headings on the "abortion pill" and "surgical abortion," includes extensive information on both pregnancy-terminating methods and offers the option of making an appointment at the top of the page. The site even includes price estimates for abortion procedures and advertises free abortion consultations. Users have to scour the site to find out that it actually does "not offer, recommend or refer for abortions or abortifacients."
NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia released the findings of a decade-long study examining the strategies of "fake" abortion clinics known as "crisis pregnancy centers." The study identified 59 "fake clinics" throughout the Commonwealth, compared to only 16 licensed abortion providers. "Fake clinics" are not-for-profit centers that often advertise free pregnancy tests and other services to people facing unplanned pregnancies while "deceptively promoting an anti-abortion, anti-reproductive rights agenda."
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link){{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)The lawmakers said in the letter that 37 percent of Google Maps results and 11 percent of search results for "abortion clinics near me" and "abortion pill" in states with abortion trigger bans were for anti-abortion clinics. A Google spokesperson told The Hill that the company has been working for months to find more useful ways to display results that show the specific services that businesses offer.
It's well-reported that crisis pregnancy centers do not offer abortion services, and it's been shown that many provide misleading information in an attempt to steer people seeking abortion care to other options," wrote Malik. "With this new consumer notice we're aiming to further protect consumers from the potential of being misled or confused.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)