Formation and Growth of Crisis Pregnancy Centers

Formation and Growth of Crisis Pregnancy Centers

For many young women, unprepared pregnancy could be confusing and overwhelming. Abortion is often their first decision that comes to mind. Some may seek information online or visit healthcare clinics for advice that acts to their best interests. Today, more people can easily access abortion services at a relatively small cost, either in reputable hospitals or in quack areas. The Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPC) was established to counsel women with unwanted pregnancies against procuring abortions, and other pregnancy-related information. The Christian organization is pro-life and aims at rescuing as many babies as possible, some whom they refer to adoption areas if the mother decides not to keep the baby. They advocate for adoption or parenting as better alternatives to abortion (Bryant and Swartz 270). However, they are famed for dispensing false information about the health risks of abortion, to scare away the to-be mother from making such a decision. They operate under the motto “We Inform. You decide.” Their operations are legal but highly unethical from the way they deceptively conduct their activities. Various critics have opposed CPC’s decision to use dubious means to prevent women from procuring an abortion.

History of Crisis Pregnancy Centers

The first CPC was opened in 1967 by Robert Pearson in Hawaii, to raise awareness about the evils of abortion. In the educative sessions, women were shown bloody videos of fetuses and pictures of dead women covered in sheets. Those who attended the meetings were given pregnancy testing its, and a manual that advocated for pro-life (Stacey 2). In his 1984 manual “How to start and operate your own pro-life outreach crisis pregnancy centre”, Pearson authored false information, which continues to characterize CPCs in the world today. Other organizations such as Focus on Family, The Care Net, and the National Institute of Family Life Advocates offered their support to the CPCs, resulting in expansions in the 1980s and 1990s. By early 2000s, there were 2300 pregnancy centres in the U.S, offering a wide range of services from ultrasound, education and support of pregnant women, maternity homes, and free baby items for the newborn babies.

The CPC centres are often located near hospitals and abortion clinics and offer lucrative pregnancy deals. Inside their premises, they carry pro-life messages such as, “life is beautiful” and portraits of Jesus (Shah). They are pro-choice activists where pregnant women are lobbied to carry pregnancies to term. Critics describe their deceptive manner as predatory. They masquerade as a licensed medical clinic for abortions and other medical-related problems, which makes it easy to acquire customers. Although they have no licensed doctors, their staff adorn medical garbs to create the impression that they are medical practitioners. They use great advertising techniques on billboards to lure more women into their clinics. Interestingly, their advertising techniques have been successful, resulting in the opening of more clinics. By 2017, there were over 3000 centres around the U.S, a number way higher than the 1800 abortion centres available within the country (Basset).

The Pearson Pro-Life Manual

Robert Pearson authored the 93-page manual titled “How To Start and Operate Your Own Pro-Life Outreach Crisis Pregnancy Center” to help his staff deceptively answer their clients’ questions. Staff are advised not to tell the clients the truth about pregnancy and contraceptives (Stacey 3). As a staunch Christian, Pearson believed that by saving a woman from procuring an abortion, he was fighting Satan. Clients who seek answers from making a telephone call are deceived into coming into the clinic, as it is easier to change their minds in physical interaction. Revealing their pro-life stand would discourage them from visiting the clinic. Among the provisions of the manual is that clients should not be told if they are pregnant or not. Instead, staff should tell them the test results are either positive or negative. Many women who seek abortion services have preconceived decisions, and therefore, Pearson felt that they had no right to information that will help her mission to succeed.

Various quarters have described it as a way of misleading consumers. They present themselves like a pregnancy testing centre, and the client only finds out the truth once they get into the clinics. Their advertising techniques contradict what they do. For instance, one of their highway billboards reads, “Pregnant? Scared? We Offer Confidential counselling.” Such a message is luring enough to woo a woman with an unwanted pregnancy into their clinic. Pearson’s mission was to reduce abortions as much as possible, even when one had to use dubious means to convince the pregnant girl. Instead of telling the clients the full range of reproductive health, they present to them the idea that abortion leads to suicide and drug abuse, birth control causes hair and memory loss, and also breast cancer (Basset). They also keep up with their clients by giving them random calls aimed at “checking up on them”, until they have entirely changed their decisions.

CPC Funding

CPCs get their funding from Non-Governmental institutions and also from some taxpayer money. They are eligible for government funding as they promote maternal healthcare to women. For instance, Pennsylvania funded them with over $30 million between 2012 and 2017, in support of Real Alternatives, a pregnancy centre network (Bassett). A further 29 states fund CPCs through the sale of “Choose Life” number plates. Although their ethicality has been criticized, it shows that the government is in support of their activities. Also, with the help from the Care Center, Family Life Advocates, and other Christian organizations that support their purpose, CPCs have been able to stand and expand significantly.

From a legal, ethical, and medical perspective, questions have been raised about their ethicality. There have been many unsuccessful legal actions which have been taken CPC, arguing that they do not disclose the required reproductive information (Bryant and Swartz 272) A Californian law has challenged that CPCs should disclose all facts to pregnant women, as it is unethical not to do so. In response, CPC argues that the law is interfering with First Amendment right, which allows citizens free speech (Bassett). The CPC representative believes that there is overwhelming information on reproductive health and therefore, CPCs should not be held blamed for their pro-life decisions. The abortion-rights debate has been on the court corridors for long, and the CPC case would open new argument on the topic.

CPC operates under volunteer healthcare professionals, from nurses, ultrasound technicians, and physicians. There are also lay volunteers without licenses, who work in conjunction with the professionals to provide quality services (Bryant and Swartz 274). Ethically, CPCs have a right to exist as they offer valuable help to pregnant women. Despite the perceived misleading information, they offer women material and emotional support throughout the pregnancy at affordable costs.

CPCs are a fundamental part of American life, as evidenced by their rapid growth in the past few decades. Although their manifesto remains controversial, they are playing a significant role in pro-life activism, and also in enabling maternal healthcare. Therefore, despite the negative criticism, their role remains indispensable.