Crisis Pregnancy Centers Gain Protections as Abortion Access Shrinks

Across the United States, a growing number of state legislatures are advancing legislation aimed at increasing protections for crisis pregnancy centers, organizations that offer alternatives to abortion. These centers, which often operate with a faith-based mission, provide services like counseling, ultrasounds, and material support for pregnant individuals. The push for increased legal safeguards comes as these centers face scrutiny and, in some instances, attacks following the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and as they increasingly fill gaps in maternity care access.

The core of the recent legislative efforts centers on the “CARE Act,” or Center Autonomy and Rights of Expression Act, a model bill drafted by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal advocacy group. This legislation seeks to prohibit state and local governments from compelling crisis pregnancy centers to perform or refer for abortions, or to provide information about contraception. It also establishes a legal pathway for these centers to sue if they believe their rights are being violated. Wyoming recently passed a version of the CARE Act, with similar bills gaining traction in Kansas and Oklahoma, and a version signed into law in Montana in 2025.

A Shifting Landscape of Reproductive Healthcare

The rise in legislative support for crisis pregnancy centers reflects a broader trend in several states to bolster alternatives to abortion. This is particularly evident in states where abortion access has been restricted or eliminated following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The Alliance Defending Freedom, which played a key role in the Dobbs case, has been actively promoting the CARE Act as a means of protecting the centers’ religious freedom and ability to operate without government interference. The organization argues that these centers provide vital support to pregnant individuals and should not be forced to participate in services that conflict with their beliefs.

However, the increased protections for crisis pregnancy centers have drawn criticism from abortion rights advocates and healthcare professionals. Concerns center on the accuracy of information provided by some centers, the potential for misleading advertising, and the lack of medical licensing and oversight. Opponents argue that some centers present themselves as comprehensive healthcare providers while lacking the qualifications to offer medical care, and that they may discourage individuals from seeking evidence-based reproductive healthcare services. A 2024 report by researchers at the University of Georgia identified over 2,500 crisis pregnancy centers operating nationwide, compared to 753 clinics providing abortions.

Concerns Over Information and Regulation

The debate over crisis pregnancy centers also highlights a broader discussion about the regulation of healthcare facilities and the role of faith-based organizations in providing healthcare services. Some states have attempted to regulate these centers by requiring them to disclose their affiliations and the scope of services they offer. However, these efforts have often faced legal challenges, with centers arguing that such regulations violate their First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court has sided with crisis pregnancy centers in several cases, finding that attempts to regulate their speech or compel them to provide information about abortion violate their constitutional rights.

Adding to the complexity, some centers have faced scrutiny over their handling of patient data and compliance with privacy regulations like HIPAA. In 2024, a watchdog group requested investigations by attorneys general in five states to determine whether centers were misleading patients about data privacy protections.

Funding and the Role of Alternatives

Since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, crisis pregnancy centers have seen an increase in funding from both private donors and state governments. At least 19 states have allocated funds to “life-affirming” organizations, including these centers, and six states now divert a portion of their federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funding to support them. Between 2017 and 2023, crisis pregnancy centers received an estimated $429 million in federal funding. The Charlotte Lozier Institute, a research organization affiliated with the anti-abortion nonprofit SBA Pro-Life America, has suggested that these centers can help fill the gap left by the closure of some abortion clinics.

However, critics argue that directing public funds to organizations that actively discourage abortion raises ethical concerns and may divert resources from comprehensive reproductive healthcare services. Julie Burkhart, the president and founder of Wellspring Health Access, the only abortion clinic in Wyoming, noted that her clinic was targeted in an arson attack in 2022, and emphasized the importance of continued access to qualified reproductive healthcare, including abortion.

Looking Ahead: Legal Battles and Evolving Access

The legal landscape surrounding crisis pregnancy centers is likely to remain contested. The Supreme Court is currently considering a case that could determine whether states can subpoena these organizations for donor and internal information. The outcome of this case, along with ongoing legislative efforts in various states, will shape the future of these centers and their role in the broader reproductive healthcare system.

As access to abortion remains restricted in many parts of the country, crisis pregnancy centers are poised to play an increasingly prominent role in the lives of pregnant individuals. Understanding their services, funding, and legal protections is crucial for navigating the evolving landscape of reproductive healthcare and ensuring that individuals have access to accurate information and comprehensive care.