Skip to main content

Crisis Pregnancy Centers

I'm glad to be back from my long winter break. I hope you have enjoyed the holiday season and are ready to start discussing reproductive politics again.

I don't know if you came across this article in The New York Times on pregnancy centers (sometimes called "crisis pregnancy centers" or CPCs). It does a nice (and fairly sympathetic) job of describing the work of CPCs, which exist primarily to dissuade women from having abortions.

CPCs are run by pro-life activists. They advertise in billboards, in phone books, and on the Internet in a way that tries to reach women before they would contact or go to an abortion clinic (or an organization that offers abortion as one option or service of many, like Planned Parenthood). Just as an experiment, imagine you are a pregnant women thinking about having an abortion or considering other options (like adoption) and looking for information. Do a pretend search on the Internet. There is a very good chance that among the many results, right near the top, will be a link to a CPC (or "women's care center" or a similarly named organization). It will not necessarily be clear that you are being directed to a pro-life organization.

In towns with an abortion clinic, CPCs will often set up shop right next to the clinic, and use "sidewalk counselors" to try to persuade women entering the abortion clinic to go to the CPC instead.

People who work at CPCs use four basic tactics to dissuade women from having abortions:
  1. They provide an ultrasound examination to emphasize the humanity of the fetus.
  2. They provide information on alternatives to abortion, such as adoption. 
  3. They use standard pro-life talking points about the dangers of abortion, such as a post-abortion regret, links between abortion and breast cancer, medical complications from the abortion procedure, etc. 
  4. They offer to provide help to pregnant women through their pregnancy and possibly beyond (diapers and formula, for example). 
Pro-life activists fall into different camps, with different philosophies about how best to fight abortion. People who work at CPCs see themselves on the front lines, making concrete changes to women's lives and preventing abortions one at a time. 

In recent years, some state legislators have attempted to require pregnant women to receive their pre-abortion counseling from a CPC (rather than receive government-mandated counseling from a person at the abortion clinic itself). That kind of law has not passed yet, I believe, and it would almost certainly be unconstitutional. Some CPCs have also received government funding, in part because some offer abstinence-based birth control counseling. Most recently, CPCs have been in the news because pro-choice state legislators have attempted to require CPCs to more clearly disclose that a) they are pro-life organizations, and b) they do not provide abortion as one of their services. This legislation has run into opposition not just from pro-lifers but also free speech advocates. 

Links:

Article in The New York Times (January 4, 2013): Pregnancy Centers Gain Influence in Anti-Abortion Arena

For an excellent description of the various wings of the pro-life movement in the United States, read the following 2008 book by Professor Ziad Munson: The Making of Pro-Life Activists: How Social Movement Mobilization Works

Unpublished report by Professors Ziad Munson and Christopher  P. Scheitle on CPCs and their place in the pro-life universe (June 16, 2009): Crisis Pregnancy Centers: The Remaking of the Abortion Debate

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Medically necessary abortions: The battle of the experts

Apparently, Representative Joe Walsh is not entirely alone! The assertion that an abortion is never medically necessary has been floating around in the pro-life universe for at least a little while. We are now witnessing a battle of the experts. One the one side is Joe Walsh and friends. Walsh himself released a pdf document with quotations from several doctors-- including some historically prominent pro-choice doctors, like Alan Guttmacher-- making the 'never medically necessary' claim seem quite reasonable. Also on Walsh's side are several doctors  who particpated in a recent "International Symposium on Maternal Health" in Dublin. Ireland, despite a European Court of Human Rights ruling in 1992 , has a total ban on abortion. Irish pro-lifers want the country's politicians to resist pressure to implement even a life exception, so the question of medical necessity is directly relevant there. The "Dublin Declaration," released after the S...

A Catholic EU health commissioner

The European Union Parliament approved a controversial choice for their top health official: The European Parliament backed a devout Catholic as EU health commissioner on Wednesday, brushing off critics who fear the Maltese politician could row back on EU policies on stem cell research, abortion and gay rights. Greens, Liberals and Socialists in the European Parliament had said they would vote against Tonio Borg, a former foreign and justice minister in Malta, saying his beliefs could influence EU policy. As commissioner, Borg's remit would include access to healthcare and contraception and the control of sexually transmitted diseases. Borg, who was in Malta on the day of the vote according to an EU Commission official, told EU lawmakers before the vote that his personal views wou...

Four ways the presidential election could change reproductive politics

Setting aside all of the claims and counterclaims of the candidates and all related white noise, there are four concrete ways that the 2012 presidential election could cause policy changes on abortion, contraception, and family planning. If Barack Obama is reelected, little will change. If Mitt Romney is elected, I predict the following: The contraceptive mandate, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, would be withdrawn.  Barriers to defunding Planned Parenthood could be removed. As it is now, federal courts are stopping the complete defunding of the organization (i.e., withdrawing all federal funding) due to their interpretation of federal legislative language. With Romney as president, that language could be modified (assuming the changes could get past a Democratic Senate). The composition of the federal judiciary, particularly the United States Supreme Court, would be modified through appointments. If, say, Stephen Breyer or Ruth Bader Goldberg retired, ...