An office room showing two chairs for the article "Problems with Crisis Pregnancy Centers: Studies and Observations"

Problems with Crisis Pregnancy Centers: Studies and Observations

The emergence of thousands of crisis pregnancy centers or CPCs across the United States since the first center was opened in Honolulu in 1967 should have been a welcome development in advancing reproductive health by providing women with alternative options and helping them make informed decisions. There are also centers operating in Africa, Canada, Latin America, and Europe. However, based on documented observations and actual studies, a considerable number of these CPCs have questionable practices and promote misleading health-related claims.

Examining Crisis Pregnancy Centers: Pressing Issues and Notable Criticisms According to Studies and Observations

Background

The first CPC opened in Honolulu in 1967 by Roman Catholic carpenter Robert Pearson after abortion was legalized in Hawaii. He believed that a woman who wants to terminate her pregnancy must also be provided with relevant information or resources that might change her mind. Pearson also established a foundation to help others start their own crisis pregnancy center. The first network of centers opened in Canada in 1968. Several networks followed.

A crisis pregnancy center or CPC is supposed to be a health-related center designed to provide pregnant women with resources, support, and even clinical services. However, even from the onset, most of these centers are established as part of the anti-abortion agenda of the greater pro-life movement of various religious and conservative organizations. These centers are also known as pregnancy resource centers and pro-life pregnancy centers.

There are about 2500 to 4000 CPCs in the U.S. that qualify as medical clinics. These clinics provide pregnancy testing, sonograms or ultrasound, testing for sexually transmitted infections, abortion education, adoption support, and parenting education. There is a handful of centers that provide specific post-abortion support and social support. However, in most cases, many CPCs operate outside relevant medical and other relevant regulations.

Interest in establishing CPCs widened after the 1973 passage of Roe v. Wade. An overwhelming number of these centers in the U.S. are run by Christian groups. Two Christian charities, Care Net and Heartbeat International, accounted for about 75 percent of all CPCs in the U.S. Their centers operate through an overtly Christian perspective. Birthright International is one of the few networks that run their centers under the philosophy of non-evangelism.

Criticisms

One of the main issues with CPCs is that they employ misleading advertising. Critics often refer to them as false abortion clinics because of their deceptive practices aimed at deterring pregnant women from seeking abortions through advertisements that suggest they offer abortion services or unbiased counseling. Furthermore, in the United States, many of these centers are strategically located near legitimate abortion clinics to intercept patients.

These centers are also often found to disseminate false medical information. Researchers A. G. Bryant and E. E. Levi performed a secondary data analysis of a secret shopper survey performed by a nonprofit organization. The survey collected data through phone calls and site visits. Results showed that most of these centers provide inaccurate information regarding the risk of abortion in their attempt to stigmatize the procedure and intimidate women.

Researchers K. S. Desai et al. also analyzed 470,000 web pages from 1,825 CPC websites between September 2023 and March 2024. Findings revealed that 30 percent of the crisis pregnancy centers promoted and offered abortion pill reversal. This is an unscientific and unethical process that involves administering high doses of progesterone aimed at reversing the progesterone-blocking effects of the first medication used in a medication abortion.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists made a list of all the known misleading practices of these centers. These range from overstating the risks of abortion to using emotional manipulation and shaming to dissuade pregnant women. It also underscored the fact that CPCs are often non-medical facilities that have no legal obligation to provide pregnant people with accurate and scientific information and are not subject to relevant regulations.

Resolving the Issues with Crisis Pregnancy Centers: Expert Recommendations and Policy Implications

K. S. Desai et al. highlighted the need for relevant government agencies to enforce consumer safety measures to ensure that crisis pregnancy centers meet medical best practices. It is also important to incorporate the activities of these centers into broader public health monitoring and regulatory frameworks. They also encourage other medical associations and advocacy groups to increase their scrutiny of medical claims or unproven treatments like abortion pill reversal.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists underscored the need for policymakers to take steps to address the harmful practices of CPCs. It argued that government funding should only go to legitimate health care organizations that provide comprehensive, medically accurate, and nondirective counseling and referrals. State-sanctioned CPC referrals should also be outlawed because these prevent people seeking abortion care from getting the best services.

FURTHER READINGS AND REFERENCES

  • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. n.d. “Crisis Pregnancy Centers: Issue Brief.” Advocacy. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Available online
  • Bryant, A. G. and Levi, E. E. 2012. “Abortion Misinformation From Crisis Pregnancy Centers in North Carolina.” Contraception. 86(6): 752-756. Elsevier BV. DOI: 1016/j.contraception.2012.06.001
  • Desai, K. S., Keene, H., Dredze, M., Smith, D. M., and Ayers, J. W. 2024. “Characterizing Services Advertised on Crisis Pregnancy Center Websites.” JAMA Internal Medicine. American Medical Association. DOI: 1001/jamainternmed.2024.6440