The national debate between anti-abortion and abortion rights groups involving faith-based pregnancy counselors covered new ground last week, when Austin, Texas’ city council voted into law a measure that requires certain Crisis Pregnancy Centers that do not provide information on abortion or comprehensive birth control to post signs stating so.
Some critics of these centers argue that federally funded CPCs, sometimes called Pregnancy Resource Centers, are intentionally deceptive about their faith-based motives because this might jeopardize access to clientele and public money. Advocates of the centers believe they provide women with the full range of implications regarding abortion, including “life-affirming” options.
Congress first broached the subject in 2006 in a document prepared by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.). During an investigation of pregnancy resource centers that had received federal grants, 20 of the 23 investigated centers provided misleading information about the health effects of abortion, Waxman wrote in the report. Cited medical misinformation provided by the centers included staff telling women that abortion will increase their risk of breast cancer, could dramatically impact their future fertility, and may cause severe mental health problems.
“Since 2001, pregnancy resource centers have received over $30 million in federal funding,” Waxman wrote. “The vast majority of pregnancy resource centers contacted for this report, however, provided false or misleading information about the health risks of an abortion.”
Michele Stranger Hunter, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Oregon, doubted that CPCs in Oregon have access to government money.
“I can’t imagine that happening here in Oregon,” she said. “We really have a fantastic state-funded family planning program. There’s a compliance officer whose job it is to go out and maintain standards.”
She said her number-one concern with CPCs and the abortion debate in general is that pregnant women seeking assistance have access to credible information and all available resources. She praised family planning services in the state for fulfilling this role.
Stranger Hunter also expressed some concern about reports she had heard from women who had visited the CPCs in the state.
“Some of the centers require that they have an ultrasound,” she said. “It’s unusual, and it’s a very good method to dissuade women who are considering abortion.”
Larry Gadbaugh, who heads five Pregnancy Resource Centers in Portland, concurred with Stranger Hunter in regard to federal and state money affecting CPCs, saying his agency is a faith-based operation with no public funding.
“We have nothing to hide and we’re not trying to,” he said. “There are 2,300 (CPCs) across the country. I can’t speak for all of them, but to the best of my knowledge they operate similarly to us.”
Gadbaugh said that even though he holds personal beliefs about abortion, politicizing the subject only draws attention away from the needs of pregnant women.
“I think (abortion is) one of, if not the most, divisive topic,” he said. “Because it deals with freedom of choice, it’s very personal and very public at the same time … Our mission is to provide information and education to women, addressing the full implications of the choices they make.”
He adamantly defended anti-abortion CPCs as honest organizations, devoid of pressure or manipulation in their mission, pointing out that his agency is listed under “abortion alternatives” in the phone book.
“Yes, we are convinced that every baby deserves a chance to be born,” he said, “but we don’t cram it down anyone’s throat.”
[email protected]