Crisis Pregnancy Centers

Crisis pregnancy centers are a unique piece of the anti-abortion movement. They are faith-based, nonprofit organizations that pose as health providers by offering free pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, and counseling. But their sole purpose is to dissuade people from terminating their pregnancies. Crisis pregnancy centers do not have to protect the client’s confidentiality since they don’t fall under HIPAA regulations. There are reports that some anti-abortion center workers tell clients that an abortion will leave them depressed, bulimic, and at risk for infertility. This is not true.

Pregnancy crisis centers outnumber abortion clinics 3 to 1 in America. Further, 25 states, such as Florida, Louisiana, and North Dakota, have policies supporting these centers. Since the Dobbs Supreme Court decision, state funding for anti-abortion centers has increased.

Kavita Vinekar and colleagues called crisis pregnancy centers and abortion clinics anonymously to understand patient access to care. Researchers called 445 pregnancy centers and abortion clinics pretending to seek a test to confirm that they were pregnant. Centers were 5.7 times more likely to offer free pregnancy testing compared to abortion clinics. Additionally, 68.5% of anti-abortion centers provided same-day appointments for testing compared to 37.2% of abortion clinics. Anti-abortion centers seem more accessible to a woman seeking quick and affordable pregnancy testing.

Offering effective emotional care while providing women with medically accurate and accessible pregnancy options remains vital in the post-Dobbs era.

In a separate study, Kendra Hutchens conducted 29 in-depth interviews with clients of two crisis pregnancy centers in the Western U.S. to evaluate clients’ experiences and perspectives. Hutchens found that clients favored the anti-abortion centers compared to clinical health care providers due to the attentive and emotional care they received. While clients recognized that centers did not offer adequate material support like a medical clinic would, they appreciated the interpersonal interactions. Further, clients noted that prior negative experiences with the U.S. health care system, such as sexism, racism, and lack of financial resources, led them to value emotional care more highly. Hutchens concludes that this is a powerful way for crisis pregnancy centers to legitimize themselves to clients.

State and federal support to promote reproductive health care and dissuade women from using crisis centers is necessary. In June 2024, Massachusetts launched a $1 million campaign to create public awareness of these centers’ harms. It is the first state-funded movement in the nation to bring attention to anti-abortion centers, setting an example of how states can work to protect their citizens from these centers.

Crisis pregnancy centers offer easy access to care, free services, and more emotional support. As Hutchens notes, these centers also fail to provide comprehensive reproductive health care but remain popular and influential. To improve women’s access to comprehensive reproductive health care settings, Vinekar and colleagues call for improved access to pregnancy testing (preserving women’s treatment options is even more important now that many states have banned abortions very early in pregnancy). Offering effective emotional care while providing women with medically accurate and accessible pregnancy options remains vital in the post-Dobbs era.