Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 144–145 | Cite as

Crisis Pregnancy Centers: Faith Centers Operating in Bad Faith

  • Sonya BorreroEmail author
  • Susan Frietsche
  • Christine Dehlendorf

On June 26, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its long-awaited ruling on a California law that required licensed crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) to post information about affordable abortion and contraception services offered by the state. The California law also required unlicensed CPCs to disclose that they were not licensed medical clinics.1 In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that both provisions of the law violated the clinics’ free speech rights under the First Amendment.2 Antiabortion advocates celebrated the decision, as CPCs are designed to intercept women with unintended or “crisis” pregnancies and dissuade them from undergoing abortion,3 and California’s law interfered with this mission.

The moral and legal aspects of abortion have always been hotly contested, and both sides of the ideological divide are entitled to promote their perspective. Crisis pregnancy centers, also known as “pregnancy resource centers” or “pregnancy support centers,” are...


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


  1. 1.
    Assembly Bill No. 775 Chapter 700. Reproductive Fact Act. Available at: Accessed August 6 2018.
  2. 2.
    Supreme Court of the United States. National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, v. Becerra. No. 16–1140. Available at: Accessed August 8 2018.
  3. 3.
    Increasing access to abortion. Committee Opinion No. 613. American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;124:1060–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kimport K, Dockray PJ, Dodson S. What women seek from a pregnancy resource center. Contraception. 2016;94:168–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bryant AG, Swartz JJ. Why crisis pregnancy centers are legal but unethical. AMA J Ethics. 2018;20:269–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    American Public Health Association. Regulating disclosure of services and sponsorship of crisis pregnancy centers. Available at: Accessed August 8 2018.
  7. 7.
    The New York Times. Pregnancy centers gain influence in anti-abortion arena. Available at: Accessed August 8 2018.
  8. 8.
    Bryant AG, Subasri N, Bryant-Comstock K, Levi EE. Crisis pregnancy center websites: Information, misinformation and disinformation. Contraception. 2014;90:605–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tsevat D, Miracle J, Gallo M. Evaluation of services at crisis pregnancy centers in Ohio [abstract]. Contraception. 2016;94:391–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    United States House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform. False and misleading health information provided by federally funded pregnancy resource centers. Available at: Accessed August 8 2018.
  11. 11.
    Bryant AG, Levi EE. Abortion misinformation from crisis pregnancy centers in North Carolina. Contraception. 2012;86:752–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dehlendorf C, Harris L. Disparities in Abortion Rates: A Public Health Approach. Am J Publuc Health. 2013;103:1772–1779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rosen JD. The public health risks of crisis pregnancy centers. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2012;44:202–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    National Abortion Rights Action League. Crisis Pregnancy Center Lie: The insidious threat to reproductive freedom. Available at: Accessed August 8 2018.
  15. 15.
    Ahmed A. Informed Decision Making and Abortion: Crisis pregnancy centers, informed consent, and the first amendment. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. 2015;Spring 2015:51–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    The General Assembly of Pennsylvania. General Appropriation Act of 2004. House Bill No. 2579; Session of 2004. Available at: Accessed August 8 2018.

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine (This is a U.S. government work and not under copyright protection in the U.S.; foreign copyright protection may apply) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sonya Borrero
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Susan Frietsche
    • 4
  • Christine Dehlendorf
    • 5
  1. 1.Division of General Internal MedicineUniversity of Pittsburgh School of MedicinePittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Center for Health Equity, Research, and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare SystemPittsburghUSA
  3. 3.Center for Research on Health Care University of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  4. 4.Women’s Law ProjectPittsburghUSA
  5. 5.Department of Family Community MedicineUniversity of California San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations