This story is one of many emerging from so-called
“crisis pregnancy centers” (CPCs), a growing network of anti-abortion
facilities throughout the U.S. whose sole purpose is to prevent pregnant
women from obtaining abortions. CPCs have been in existence since the
Supreme Court made abortion legal with its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.
But the clinics are now seeking to enhance their credibility and
effectiveness by attracting funds from a wide range of federal and state
programs such as abstinence-only initiatives, “Choose Life” license
plates and discretionary state funds. Some states are even
re-appropriating funds to directly support these centers.
“The fact that federal, state and local governments are subsidizing
the anti-abortion agenda of crisis pregnancy centers sets a terrible
precedent for women,” said Priscilla Smith, acting
director of the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy’s (CRLP) domestic
program. “The government needs to get out of the business of sponsoring
groups that mislead and lie to women about their reproductive
choices.”
Ideology not Medicine
Although a few CPCs provide women with unbiased information about
abortion, most serve the sole purpose of promoting an anti-abortion
agenda.
In many states, the centers outnumber legitimate abortion providers by
ten to one. Anti-abortion groups boast that CPCs in the U.S. now exceed
4,000.
The success of CPCs in luring women to their facilities is due, in
part, to their stealth tactics. In telephone books and ads, they promote
themselves as women’s health clinics that offer the full range of
reproductive health services from pregnancy testing to information on
abortion.
They use deceptive names such as “Women’s Resource Center,” “First
Resort,” “Abortion Alternatives” or “Emergency Pregnancy Services.”
Sometimes, they can even be found on the same street or floor as an
abortion clinic.
“I suppose there was some sense that women were to some degree
misled into believing this was an abortion clinic,” said Reverend
David Trosch, an anti-abortion activist, in a 1995 article in
Mademoiselle. “We’re concerned with innocent human life in the
womb. The rationale is to get [women] in there so we can convince them not
to have an abortion.”
But what pregnant women can expect when they enter these centers is far
from unbiased counseling. CPC counselors regularly claim that abortion
increases a woman’s risk of breast cancer –- a claim that neither the National Cancer
Institute or the American Cancer Society have concluded exists. CPCs
also try to scare women by referring to a “post-abortion syndrome,”
another claim with no medical basis that the centers often rely on to
dissuade women from choosing abortion.
Other centers have told women that an abortion leads to sterility and
permanent psychological damage. Some CPCs have even been charged with
misrepresenting the results of pregnancy tests in an effort to prevent
women from obtaining an abortion.
In recent years, CPCs have begun purchasing ultrasound equipment to
pressure women into carrying their pregnancy to term. Anti-abortion
members of Congress have also supported the efforts of CPCs to acquire
ultrasound equipment. In February 2002, Representative Cliff Stearns
(R-FL) and Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY) introduced bills authorizing the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to provide $3 million
in grants to nonprofit organizations, such as CPCs, seeking to purchase
ultrasound equipment (S.1984, H.R. 3686).
In 1993, Ohio Attorney General Lee Fisher was the first to charge CPCs
with false advertising when he identified five centers that called
themselves medical clinics though they provided no medical services and
were not staffed by medical personnel. In January 2002, New York Attorney
General Elliot Spitzer followed suit and subpoenaed documents from nine
CPCs under investigation for false advertising. So far, only one of the
centers has agreed to disclose that it does not provide contraceptives,
abortion services or referrals.
Meanwhile, some 200 CPCs have transformed themselves into full-blown
medical clinics, according to the National Institute of Family and Life
Advocates, an anti-abortion group that helps CPCs become medical clinics.
“Choose Life” License Plate Funds
Beyond their deceptive tactics, CPCs are inching towards legitimacy by
increasing their share of federal and state funds. One of the most
successful fundraising platforms for CPCs is the “Choose Life” license
plate program adopted in several states. Motorists purchase the license
plates and proceeds are funneled into CPCs across the state. The “Choose
Life” scheme prohibits funds raised by the program from being distributed
to groups that provide or counsel for abortion services.
Anti-abortion advocates have established “Choose Life” schemes in
six states: Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma and South
Carolina. Alabama is planning to print the plates once 1,000 motorists
have signed up. At least 13 other states are considering legislation to
create similar programs.
CRLP has challenged the constitutionality of laws governing “Choose
Life” programs in Florida and
Louisiana. Florida is the only state that has begun to distribute these
funds. So far, the state has raised $1 million for CPCs through the
“Choose Life” program. A number of counties in Florida have designated
CPCs or Catholic Charities to oversee distribution of the funds.
Many of the CPCs in the area continue to deceive women. For example,
the Brandon Crisis Pregnancy Center in Florida, which has received “Choose
Life” funds, says that it offers “information on abortion, alternatives to
abortion.” And Pregnancy Resources, Inc., the lead agency for distributing
“Choose Life” funds in Florida’s Brevard County, claims to provide
“Information on Abortion, Adoption, and Alternatives.” Neither center,
however, provides information on how to obtain abortion services.
The Abstinence-only Money Pit and Direct State Funding
Last July, HHS dispersed $17.1 million in grants for community-based abstinence-only
education. These grants support programs that, among other
restrictions, ban any discussion of contraceptives.
Among the 49 organizations and local health departments that received
these grants, at least five were listed as CPCs on anti-abortion websites.
In sum, CPCs received more than $1.8 million of the total amount
distributed by HHS. The grants will be used to support abstinence-only
education programs over a three-year period.
CPCs have also become eligible for money through the Special Projects
of Regional and National Significance (SPRANS), a federal program that
funds abstinence-only education programs, and other specialized federal
programs. In 2001, CPCs received $3 million of the $20 million in SPRANS
funds for abstinence-only education programs, according to the National
Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL).
Federal support for abstinence-only education may increase in 2003 if
the Bush administration has its way. The administration wants to increase
federal spending for local abstinence-only education grants from their
2002 level of $40 million to $73 million in 2003.
Beyond the well-oiled coffers of state and federal anti-choice
programs, states are also pouring funds directly into CPCs. Pennsylvania
takes half of every dollar designated for women’s health services—roughly
$4 million annually—and distributes it to CPCs, according to the
Pennsylvania chapter of NARAL. Missouri and Delaware also support CPCs.
The Alan Guttmacher Institute estimates that in 2000, Missouri allocated
$1 million in state funds to CPCs, including money received from
settlements with tobacco companies.
In June, the Louisiana state legislature passed an amendment to the
state’s budget to move $1.5 million away from education programs for
incarcerated parents to the state’s Department of Social Services for the
purpose of supporting “abortion alternative services administered by
pregnancy crisis centers.”
Pro-choice Movement Answers Back
The pro-choice movement has been able to expose CPCs for misleading
women about reproductive choice and the services they provide.
In 1994, a California trial court prohibited San Diego Pregnancy
Services from presenting itself as a medical facility that provides
pregnancy testing services or abortion counseling. The Center was
prohibited from listing itself in phone directories under “abortion
service providers” or “family planning information.”
That decision also required the center to tell women that it does not
perform abortions, provide abortion referrals, distribute birth control,
or provide written pregnancy verifications. The center is now obligated to
state that its volunteers counsel from a Biblical, “anti-abortion
perspective.”
In 1987, an injunction was issued against three CPCs in New York to
prohibit them from advertising in the phone directory as “Clinics,”
“Medical Services,” or “Abortion Services.” The injunction also required
the CPCs to “state in advertisements that they are abortion alternative
organizations that provide only natural family planning methods.”
In 1999, the California chapter of NARAL exposed First Resort, a CPC,
which deceived medical providers at HMO Kaiser Permanente into referring
women to them who were seeking abortion counseling.
In addition to legal challenges, many pro-choice activists are also
working to ensure that any CPCs receiving state or federal funds be
required to provide women with accurate information about abortion.
Worldwide