PREGNANCY RESOURCE CENTERS:
On the frontline in the cause for life
By Denise M. Burke
Vice President & Legal Director, Americans United for Life
The life-affirming impact of pregnancy resource centers (also known as “crisis pregnancy centers”) on the women and the communities they serve is already considerable. Each year the reach and influence of pregnancy resource centers grows as more centers open, as public opinion on abortion increasingly shifts to a pro-life ethic, and as pregnancy resource centers receive more favorable attention for their important work. Today, hundreds of pregnancy resource centers operate across the country, serving women with compassion and integrity and offering them positive alternatives to unplanned pregnancies.
Perhaps there is no better indicator of the positive impact that pregnancy resource centers are having by supporting women emotionally and financially, by protecting women from the adverse health consequences of abortion, and by helping to reduce the number of abortions performed each year than the vitriol directed toward these centers by pro-abortion advocacy groups. These groups refer to them as “fake centers” and produce kits for activists to target and expose pregnancy resource centers with negative publicity and protests. Even they, in their zeal to promote abortion-on-demand, cannot ignore the very real and increasingly powerful impact pregnancy resource centers are having on women and on public opinion about abortion.
As the positive outreach of the nation’s pregnancy resource centers has continued to expand, so too have attempts by pro-life legislators around the country to support this important work through specialty vehicle license plate programs and direct taxpayer-funded subsidies.
State of the States:
Where Are We Now?
“Choose Life” License Plates:
Currently, 17 states have “Choose Life” specialty license plate programs where the proceeds benefit pregnancy resource centers and other organizations providing abortion alternatives such as adoption: Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma,1 Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Tennessee.
Of these, eight states (Arkansas, Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Ohio, and Oklahoma) specifically preclude agencies and organizations that counsel or refer for abortions from receiving any proceeds from the program.
Meanwhile, under Kentucky’s program, a voluntary contribution can be made to CPCs in the state when a motorist applies for or renews the specialty plate. However, a motorist can receive the plate without making the contribution.
Since organizations that advocate on behalf of abortion are often specifically excluded from receiving any proceeds from these programs, national abortion advocacy groups along with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have lodged federal constitutional challenges against many of these state license plate programs. The results have been mostly positive, with judges ruling against or dismissing such challenges.2
To date, only one “Choose Life” specialty license plate program has been declared unconstitutional by federal courts. In the litigation surrounding South Carolina’s license plate program, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found that the program violated the First Amendment, failing to provide a forum for opposing views. In 2004, the United States Supreme Court (USSC) refused to review the ruling and the program was ended.
More importantly, challenges to the “Choose Life” license plate programs in Arkansas, Louisiana, Ohio, and Oklahoma have recently been dropped or dismissed. However, the constitutionality of these programs is still subject to ongoing debate and continuing legal challenges as the USSC has yet to weigh in on the debate. In 2006, the Court specifically refused to hear appeals involving the “Choose Life” license plates programs from Louisiana and Tennessee, allowing those programs to remain in effect.
Direct Funding of Pregnancy Resource Centers:
A smaller number of states—including Arizona, California, Florida, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Texas—currently provide direct taxpayer funding of pregnancy resource centers. Typically, this funding comes through appropriation or budget measures and includes specific conditions on the types of organizations that can apply for and receive the funding. Careful attention has been paid to whether or not faith-based pregnancy resource centers, such as CareNet, can participate in the funding without jeopardizing their status and faith-based mission.
Meanwhile, Virginia permits CPC equipment purchases to be free from state taxes.
What Happened in 2007
In 2007, approximately one-third of the states considered measures to provide funding to organizations providing abortion alternatives, principally crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs). This was accomplished through legislation creating “Choose Life” specialty license plate programs or providing direct taxpayer subsidies to CPCs.
“Choose Life” License Plates:
Measures related to “Choose Life” license plates were introduced in at least five states: Arkansas, New Jersey, North Carolina, Texas, and West Virginia. Under this type of legislation, a program is established under which a motorist pays an additional fee for a specially-designed “Choose Life” vehicle license plate and a portion of that fee is designated for CPCs and their programs. Arkansas enacted a measure implementing a new license plate program and directing the proceeds to entities providing abortion alternatives.
Direct Funding of Pregnancy Resource Centers:
More significantly, a number of states enacted or renewed measures providing direct taxpayer funding to organizations providing abortion alternatives. In 2007, these states included Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Texas.
Arizona allocated $20,000 to organizations that provide “medically accurate alternatives-to-abortion services” during pregnancy and for one year following birth. The funds may not be used by organizations that provide abortions or abortion referrals.
Louisiana renewed its funding of CPCs, appropriating $1 million to the Department of Social Services, Office of Family Support to be used to support abortion alternatives. Moreover, the funds cannot go to entities that promote, refer for, or perform abortions.
Pursuant to the Missouri Alternatives to Abortion Services Program, Missouri appropriated $1.7 million dollars to promote alternatives to abortion for women at or below 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Level. Specifically, the measure allocates funds for services and counseling to assist a woman in carrying her pregnancy to term, in caring for her dependant child, or in placing her child for adoption. Funded services will be available during pregnancy and for up to one year after childbirth and can include prenatal care, medical and mental health care, drug and alcohol testing and treatment, adoption assistance, child care, and other services relating to pregnancy and parenting. None of the funds allocated can be used to fund family planning services or organizations that perform, induce, or refer for abortions.
North Dakota enacted a measure funding alternatives-to-abortion services and related public education activities, while Ohio allocated $150,000 over the next two years to a Choose Life fund and Oklahoma directed the Department of Health to disburse $40,000 to an alternatives-to-abortion fund.
Pennsylvania enacted two measures allocating $4,655,000 to abortion alternative programs. The measure specifically prohibits the organizations receiving the funds from performing abortions or providing abortion counseling and requires the recipients to maintain a strict separation from organizations providing abortion services. Similarly, Texas renewed $2.5 million in funding for abortion alternative programs. The measure also strengthened restrictions on family planning funds by requiring organizations to maintain strict separation from abortion providers.
Limitations on/Attempted Regulation of Pregnancy Resource Centers:
In an ominous development, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Texas, and West Virginia considered measures directly attacking or seeking to regulate CPCs. This reflected a 50% increase in such efforts over 2006.
New Jersey considered a measure that, in practice, could be interpreted (by some, especially abortion advocates) as prohibiting the sale of ultrasound equipment to some CPCs. Meanwhile, New York considered a measure to require CPCs to disclose to clients that they will not provide abortion or birth control services; that they are not a licensed medical provider; that pregnancy tests are self-administered and may be purchased over-the-counter; and that they are not “medical facilities.” Moreover, the measure would require that the requisite notice be given during the initial client communication or contact.
In the most direct and insidious attack on the mission of CPCs, Oregon, at the behest of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Oregon and NARAL Pro-Choice Oregon, considered a measure establishing and funding a study committee to “review the policies and procedures” of state CPCs. The legislation then proposed that Oregon fund a “study commission” that would seek to confirm its premise: CPCs are “fake clinics” that intentionally lie to and mislead women. Although the legislation was handily defeated by an educational campaign lead by national and local CPC supporters, it is, arguably, a new and provocative tactic being pursued by abortion advocates to close down CPCs and to short-circuit meaningful debate about abortion and its negative impact on women. Sadly, Oregon was not the only state in 2007 to target CPCs with legislation rooted in pro-abortion rhetoric and bias.
In recent years, Texas has been a great supporter of CPCs, allocating millions to support their mission. However, in 2007 some in the Texas legislature sought to subject CPCs to unnecessary state oversight, introducing five measures to regulate CPCs. The most reasonable of these measures simply delineated minimum standards for personnel, equipment, records, and management of CPCs, while the most onerous required state licensing and oversight for all CPCs.
Of more concern, three of the measures either directly or indirectly adopted the notion that CPCs provide inaccurate or misleading information to women and sought to specifically require that CPCs provide “medically and factually accurate” information and avoid “false advertising.” Fortunately, these measures received little attention from most legislators and the public, but one can only imagine the outrage that would have resulted had the legislation instead asserted that abortion clinics were providing false or misleading information.
Finally, in West Virginia, three measures regulating CPCs were considered. One simply required that all CPCs institute a “quality assurance” program. However, two other pieces of legislation were more problematic, accepting as valid the pro-abortion argument that CPCs are coercive and provide inaccurate information to women. These sought to ensure that “prolife, antichoice, faith based, or abstinence only” centers provide clients with “full disclosure” about reproductive health options, contraception, and methods of abortion. One measure also specifically stated that nothing in the legislation should be “construed or interpreted to condone, permit, allow or endorse any form of coercion for a girl or woman regarding any means of contraception, abortion, childbirth, or child care.”
What to Do in 2008
In 2008, there is likely to be increased legislative activity seeking to fund the work of pregnancy resource centers and other organizations providing women with positive alternatives to abortion:
· The substantial majority of states do not provide direct funding or subsidies to the important work of pregnancy resource centers. It is critical that such measures are introduced and debated. States should consider both options: direct funding and funding through specialty license plates.
· At the very least, legislators should introduce and pass resolutions commending the work of pregnancy resource centers.
· Legislators should vigorously oppose measures seeking to eliminate or encumber the services being provided by pregnancy resource centers.
Endnotes
1 Oklahoma also has a “Respect Life Support Adoption” license plate program. The proceeds from this program provide direct support to families considering adoption.
2 For more information on the constitutionality of “Choose Life” license plate programs, please see “Choose Life” License Plates: Funding the Cause for Life in this volume.