Lattes & Legislation

You should know a few important details about crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) since there is likely one near you. As of 2019, there were approximately 2,700 CPCs across the United States. By 2020, that number had risen to 3,000, according to the Charlotte Lozier Institute (2024). Although CPCs present themselves as supportive resources for individuals facing unplanned pregnancies, they ultimately do more harm than good. This harm stems from their dissemination of medically inaccurate information, manipulative tactics that undermine informed decision-making, and their failure to provide comprehensive reproductive health care, all while benefiting from their status as faith-based, non-profit organizations. These centers capitalize on vulnerable individuals by offering limited services that align with their anti-abortion agenda rather than the full spectrum of reproductive health care. Near the end, we will examine solutions to address these problems.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) is the leading professional organization for OBGYNs, consisting of 60,000 members worldwide at various career stages (ACOG 2025). ACOG defines CPCs as “certain facilities that represent themselves as legitimate reproductive health care clinics providing care for pregnant people but aim to dissuade people from accessing certain types of reproductive health care, including abortion care and even contraceptive options” (ACOG 2022). It is worth noting that ACOG’s article on CPCs was published only four months after the United States Supreme Court’s landmark Dobbs v.Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision in June 2022, which overturned decades of federal protections for abortion rights.

The Dobbs decision is one of three critical Supreme Court cases shaping reproductive health in the U.S., alongside Roe v. Wade in 1973 and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992. While those cases upheld the constitutional right to abortion, the Dobbs ruling explicitly overturned these precedents, ending federal protections and leaving abortion regulation to individual states. This shift has increased reliance on CPCs for those seeking pregnancy-related services, despite their significant shortcomings.

Award winning writer Jessica Valenti wrote the book Abortion: Our Bodies, Their Lies, and the Truths We Use to Win. The Washington Post called her “one of the most successful and visible feminists of her generation.” According to her book, conservative legislators launched a massive expansion of crisis pregnancy centers. In Tennessee, there was an increase from $3 million during Roe to $20 million post-Roe going to these centers in that state. Other anti-choice states had similar numbers (Valenti 2024).

Without federal protections for abortion, this left many states falling back on laws, some as old as 150 years old. “West Virginia has a state law on the books dating back to the 1800s making performing or obtaining an abortion a felony, punishable by up to a decade in prison,” writes CBS News (2022). They’re not just taking away our right to choose to keep a healthy pregnancy, but they are banning all abortions, which are sometimes used to treat a multitude of pregnancy complications. Sometimes, without abortion, women die.

Last year, the National Abortion Federation (NAF), released a statement on the tragic deaths of Candi Miller and Amber Thurman in Georgia. “These women died because of Georgia’s medically unnecessary abortion ban,” Brittany Fonteno, President & CEO of NAF wrote in September. They were the first reported deaths after the overturning of Roe v Wade. “I fear they will not be the last,” Fonteno warned. These women died because they did not receive abortion care in a timely fashion.

Not too far away, three women have died so far under Texas’ abortion ban, at the time of writing. Naveah Crain (18), Josseli Barnica (28), and Hope Ngumezi (35) all died in Texas because of complications in their pregnancies that required abortion care, but because of Texas law, doctors were too afraid to act in time to save their patients (The Texas Tribune 2024).

Crain went to the ER twice in 12 hours, but during her third visit to the ER, she died. “It may have been possible to save both the teenager and her fetus if she had been admitted earlier for close monitoring and continuous treatment,” doctors said about Crain’s case after reviewing 800 pages of her medical records. These doctors concluded that there were two options: deliver early in the hospital (which was well-equipped for an such an early neonate) or ending the pregnancy to save Crain. By the time that doctors had Crain’s mother sign a release for an “unplanned dilation and curettage,” they decided it was now too risky to operate, according toCrain’s medical records (Presser 2024).

The article from The Texas Tribune about Barnica says it all: A woman died after being told it would be a ‘crime’ to intervene in her miscarriage at a Texas Hospital. More than a dozen medical experts told ProPublica that “they should have offered to speed up delivery or empty her uterus to stave off a deadly infection,” referring to Barnica. “Doctors have hesitated to provide care under threat of prosecution, prison time, and professional ruin,” the article explains (Jaramillo 2024).

The Texas Tribune also reported on Ngemezi’s care in Houston. More than a dozen doctors reviewed the case of the 35-year-old’s death and determined that it was preventable.Some of them said “it raises serious questions about how abortion bans are pressuring doctors to diverge from the standard of care.” The medical experts also said that “it was clear [Ngemezi] needed an emergency D&C” (Presser 2024).

Moreover, CPCs contribute to a broader agenda that undermines public health. By spreading misinformation about contraceptive methods and exaggerating the risks of abortion, CPCs contribute to stigma and confusion surrounding reproductive health care. This stigmatization has real-world consequences, leading some individuals to delay or forgo medical care altogether. CPCs also undermine trust in legitimate medical providers by painting abortion providers as unethical or dangerous. CPCs exploit their non-profit status and faith-based branding to garner public trust. They often position themselves as neutral, compassionate organizations to disguise their true agenda. This rhetoric can be especially harmful to marginalized populations, including low-income individuals and people of color, who already face significant barriers to accessing reproductive health care. Many of these individuals turn to CPCs because they lack other affordable options, only to be met with judgment andmisinformation (Valenti 2024).

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) was enacted by Congress in 1986. It requires Medicare-participating hospitals to provide stabilizing care for individuals regardless of their ability to pay, including active labor. After Dobbs, the Department of Health and Human Services issued guidance to hospitals, reminding them to comply with EMTALA. This resulted in lawsuits in multiple states, Moyle v United States, Idaho v United States, and Texas v Becerra.

Women and medical professionals also began filing lawsuits, in response to restrictive abortion laws. One of the earliest cases was Cox v. Texas, where the plaintiff, Kate Cox, sought a temporary injunction to block the state’s abortion ban. Cox urgently needed an abortion due to serious risks to her health, life, and future fertility. Her case was especially compelling: she had underlying health conditions, had already undergone two C-sections, and her pregnancy was diagnosed with Trisomy 18, a fatal condition. During this lawsuit, Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton sent letters to three Texas hospitals threatening them with penalties if they allowed an abortion to be performed on Ms. Cox, after a judge in Texas issued a TRO (temporary restraining order) against AG Paxton and his office. Paxton’s actions are reflective of the broader political climate in Texas, where abortion has become a deeply contentious issue, and officials often feel compelled to assert their positions strongly to remain politically viable. Such aggressive and unwavering actions against a single woman, whom he is duty-bound to protect and serve, are utterly unconscionable. However, these actions are not surprising coming from AG Paxton, who federal prosecutors are investigating for obstruction of justice, retaliation against witnesses, bribery, and honest services wire fraud, according to The Texas Tribune (Despart 2024).

Another significant case in Texas, Zurawski v. Texas, involved 22 plaintiffs, including women denied abortions under the state’s laws and medical professionals unable to provide what they deemed necessary care. Similar legal challenges emerged across the country. For instance, in Blackmon v. Tennessee, plaintiffs contested the state’s total abortion ban as it applied to emergency medical conditions. Meanwhile, Adkins v. Idaho sought to clarify and broaden the medical exceptions in Idaho’s abortion bans to ensure that doctors can perform lifesaving and health-preserving care legally and without waiting for the pregnant patient to be near death.

CPCs often use deceptive practices to attract individuals seeking medical care. Many CPCs advertise online and in local directories using keywords like “abortion” or “pregnancy help,” positioning themselves as medical clinics when they often lack the credentials to providemedical services. CPC staff frequently wear lab coats and use medical jargon to create the illusion of legitimacy. However, most staff and volunteers lack medical training. According to the Charlotte Lozier Institute’s 2019 findings, only 25% of paid staff and 12% of volunteers at CPCs were licensed medical professionals. Combined, this means less than 15% of their total workforce has medical licensing, raising serious concerns about the quality of care provided.

Carly Polcyn from the University of Toledo, and others published and editorial in theNational Library of Medicine about “the prevalence of crisis pregnancy centers, their false claims, and the real harm they cause necessitate public education about their unethical practices.”This editorial defines CPCs as “non-medical institutions designed to deceive women seeking comprehensive pregnancy care.” They cited a study in North Carolina where 254 websites representing 348 CPCs were evaluated. The results? Eighty percent (80%) were found to provide at least one false or misleading piece of information.

Adding to these concerns, CPCs are not bound by federal privacy laws such as HIPAA. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) protects individual health information while enabling necessary access to it (Pub. L. 104-191). Without such safeguards, CPCs pose privacy and security risks to those who rely on them for support. Personal information collected during visits, such as sexual and reproductive health histories, is often used to shame or intimidate clients into continuing pregnancies.

Beyond privacy issues, CPCs promote unproven and dangerous practices. For instance, “abortion pill reversal,” a procedure advertised by 11% of CPCs in 2019 (Charlotte Lozier Institute), is widely regarded as scientifically unsubstantiated and potentially harmful. ACOG has publicly condemned this procedure, emphasizing the lack of reliable evidence to support its safety or efficacy. Later in this paper, we will hear about a CPC in Massachusetts that offers it on their website.

CPCs also benefit financially from their non-profit status under IRS Code 501(c), exempting them from federal tax liability (Suozzo et al.). While they operate under the guise of altruism, their reliance on volunteer labor—79% of staff—suggests their motivations extend beyond mere financial profit. These centers have received millions in state and federal funding, often funneled through programs promoting abstinence-only sex education. This type of education has been proven ineffective. A study by Kohler and others found that abstinence-only education does not reduce the likelihood of adolescents aged 15-19 engaging in sexual activity. Comprehensive sex education, by contrast, has been shown to delay the onset of sexual activity and reduce rates of unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections. (Kohler, Pamela K et al).

ACOG wasn’t the only professional organization to denounce crisis pregnancy centers. The Society for Adolescent Health & Medicine and the North American Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology (NASPAG) published a joint statement in the Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology in December 2019. “CPCs pose risk by failing to adhere to medical and ethical practice standards,” they warned. They also pointed out the fact that there are three times more crisis pregnancy centers than abortion care providers in the United States. The American Medical Association (AMA) also spoke out against crisis pregnancy centers, saying, “these centers endanger women by misinterpreting and misrepresenting medical evidence” (2018). They also said that despite being protected by the First Amendment, “their propagation of misinformation should be regarded as an ethical violation that undermines women’s health.” Dr.Amy G. Bryant and Dr. Jonas J. Swartz, authors of the policy page featured in the AMA Journal of Ethics, referenced over 30 sources to substantiate their claims.

In a direct example of negligence, a CPC in Worchester, Massachusetts, named Clearway Clinic, allegedly failed to diagnose an ectopic pregnancy, causing a life-threatening emergency for an anonymous woman who filed a lawsuit against the clinic. Ectopic pregnancies are those that form outside of the uterus, often attached to another organ, and do not result in a live birth. Dr. Amy Addante commented on the case saying that typically ectopic pregnancies should be terminated “as soon as possible.” The Clearway Clinic denies any wrongdoing and cites patient privacy laws as the reason for not commenting on the case. The article from NBC also cited the same 2018 AMA publication mentioned in the last paragraph. On Clearway’s website, it says they do pre-abortion consultations and even abortion pill reversal, which we established earlier was an unsubstantiated, dangerous procedure according to medical professionals (McShane 2023). At the time of writing, if you visit the front page of The Clearway Clinic website (clearwayclinic.com), it lists those two services in bold letters.

The Carlisle Family Life Center, located in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, operates as a crisis pregnancy center. According to its website and 2023 tax filings, the center offers free urine pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, and what it describes as “positive alternatives to abortion.” Notably, the phrase “positive alternatives to abortion” appears only in its tax documents, not on its website, suggesting an effort to obscure its true purpose. While the center publicly claims to be non-religious, it acknowledges receiving donations from several local churches. Inside the facility, religious doctrine is prominently displayed on the wood-paneled walls, alongside advertisements for adoption agencies and other services. Locally, the center is widely recognized for shaming individuals for premarital sex, unplanned pregnancies, and poverty, reinforcing its hidden agenda of discouraging abortion through moral and religious pressure. They did not return a request for comment.

Crisis pregnancy centers are typically protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution. However, their current operations raise significant concerns about potential violations of the Free Exercise Clause. These concerns stem from the substantial government funding they receive, which enables them to promote misleading narratives and obscure their overtly religious intentions. Notably, Christianity is the only religion that explicitly opposes abortion. In Engel v. Vitale, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that school-sponsored Christian prayer in public schools violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Similarly, allocating government funds to a covertly religious organization would clearly contravene the Establishment Clause.

There are some government officials catching on to the disingenuous activities of crisis pregnancy centers. New York state Attorney General Letitia James sued an anti-abortion group and 11 NY CPCs for promoting the dangerous procedure CPCs call “abortion pill reversal.” In a press release published May 6, 2024, AG James refers to ACOG’s statement that so-called “abortion pill reversal” is “not backed by science and does not meet clinical standards.” Even go so far as to mention the “only clinical trial conducts to evaluate APR had to be halted due to concerns about patient safety.” The press release continued saying that AG James alleges that making false claims about APR to convince pregnant people to get treatment constitutes fraud, deceptive business practices, and false advertising under NY state law. AG James said specifically “Heartbeat International and the other crisis pregnancy center defendants are spreading dangerous misinformation by advertising ‘abortion reversals’ without any medical and scientific proof.”

The purpose of this paper was to shed light on the alarming and largely unregulated actions of crisis pregnancy centers, which target some of the most vulnerable populations. However, there is hope for change. America has the tools to address the challenges posed by these organizations. Public awareness campaigns led by reputable organizations such as ACOG, NASPAG, AMA, and similar groups should focus on providing accurate, evidence-based information about pregnancy, abortion, and contraceptives. These initiatives, rather than the dangerously misleading and faith-based organizations, deserve substantial funding to ensure individuals have access to trustworthy and comprehensive reproductive health education. After all, comprehensive reproductive healthcare has proven to have better outcomes for American teens and young adults.

In conclusion, crisis pregnancy centers pose a significant public health concern. They spread misinformation, employ manipulative tactics, and lack the medical oversight necessary to provide safe and effective care. While benefiting from non-profit tax exemptions and government funding, CPCs prioritize their anti-abortion agenda over the well-being of those they claim to serve. Their practices not only jeopardize individual health outcomes but also erode public trust in reproductive health care. By understanding their operations and impact, individuals can make informed decisions and advocate for policies that prioritize evidence-based, comprehensive reproductive health care. Educating communities about the realities of CPCs is an essential step in ensuring that all individuals have access to accurate, nonjudgmental medical information and services. Allowing these facilities to operate not only jeopardizes the health and well-being of young people but also drains our government of funding that could go to more deserving, medically accurate, and scientifically backed causes and organizations.

---

---