Download just because you`re pregnant... - NARAL Pro

“JUST
BECAUSE
YOU’RE
PREGNANT...”
LIES,
HALF TRUTHS,
AND MANIPULATION
AT CRISIS PREGNANCY CENTERS
IN MASSACHUSETTS
Table of Contents
1
Introduction
3
CPCs in Massachusetts
5 Inside a CPC
15 The Path to a CPC
18 The Finances of CPCs
19 Conclusion
21 Appendix I: Methodology
22 Appendix II: CPCs Investigated in MA
24 Endnotes
“Just Because You’re Pregnant...” 1
Introduction
Brochure, distributed by a MA CPC
For years, we’ve heard the stories: A woman thinks she might be pregnant. Looking for counseling
about her options and access to appropriate medical care, she stumbles across a “crisis pregnancy
center” (CPC) that advertises free services. Once there, she’s shamed with anti-choice rhetoric,
deceived by medical falsehoods, and delayed in getting health services by CPC staff and volunteers
whose goal is to prevent her from considering abortion, regardless of her circumstances.
At NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts, we believe that every woman deserves to make personal,
private decisions about her pregnancy free of intimidation and coercion. Our mission is to protect
and promote access to the full range of reproductive choices and health care options, including
preventing unintended pregnancy, bearing healthy children, and choosing safe, legal, accessible
abortion.
Based on anecdotal evidence collected in the Commonwealth and research conducted nationally and
in select other states, we were concerned that CPCs in Massachusetts might undermining women’s
timely access to true options counseling and pregnancy-related care. To better understand their
impact, NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts and the Pro-Choice Massachusetts Foundation decided
to take a closer look at these CPCs.
We embarked on an in-depth investigation of crisis pregnancy centers in the summer of 2010 after
the Commonwealth began issuing “Choose Life” license plates, which created a new revenue source
for these anti-choice facilities. Over the course of a year, staff, interns, and trained volunteers worked
to identify and map CPCs, researched their advertising tactics and sources of funding, catalogued
the information on all of their websites, and conducted “mystery client” calls and in-person visits to
24 of the 30 CPCs currently operating across Massachusetts. For more information on methodology,
see Appendix I, p. 21.
The upshot? These facilities undermine the health and well-being of women all across the
Commonwealth. Their goal is to discourage women from considering abortion as a safe and
appropriate option. Their tactics range from outright harmful to rather neglectful to simply biased.
Their impact is to corrupt a pregnant woman’s decision-making process and delay her access to
pregnancy-related care, whether she ultimately chooses abortion, adoption, or parenthood.
2 NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts
Here’s what we found:
1
CPCs outnumber women’s health
care providers three to one. And, location
matters. There are 30 separate locations with
active CPCs, compared with nine
specialty
women’s health providers who publicly advertise
that they offer abortion care.1
Women in
Western Massachusetts have access to six CPCs,
Central Massachusetts has eight, and Southeast
Massachusetts is home to six. In contrast, each of
these regions has only one clinic providing abortion
care. The ratio is somewhat better for women in the
Northeast and Metro Boston, where women in each
area can access three abortion providers compared
to five CPCs.
2
CPCs design their online profiles
and web-based advertising to mislead
women seeking abortion care or nonbiased pregnancy options counseling. On
4
Many CPCs misstate data about
miscarriage and pregnancy complications.
Almost a third of the CPCs visited exaggerated
miscarriage rates in an apparent effort to pressure
our volunteers to get an ultrasound at the CPC or
a related anti-choice facility, or to encourage them
simply to delay making any decision about their
pregnancies. Some went so far as to make the false
claim that an ultrasound can predict if you’re going
to miscarry.
5
CPCs prioritize their anti-choice
agenda over a woman’s decision-making
and health. More than half of our volunteers
reported that they felt pressure not to terminate
the pregnancy during an in-person visit. CPCs
overwhelmingly denied referrals for abortion care,
and some even failed to discuss other options such
as adoption or provide resources for pre-natal care.
Yellowpages.com and Superpages.com, CPCs in
Massachusetts appeared in the top ten results for
five out of six key search terms a woman facing
an unintended pregnancy would likely use in
the summer of 2010 and for three of the six in the
spring of 2011. (The only thing that changed in
between? NARAL Pro-Choice America conducted
a nationwide campaign to challenge these online
phonebooks to change their practices.)
3
CPCs misinform and deceive
women about their health. Three out of
five CPCs visited provided incorrect or misleading
information, as did three out of five of the websites.
The most common medical falsehoods included
linking abortion to breast cancer or severe emotional
or psychological problems, often described as being
akin to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
Almost a third of CPCs visited also severely
overstated the likelihood that having an abortion
would undermine a woman’s future fertility.
Brochure, distributed by a MA CPC
“Just Because You’re Pregnant...” 3
Crisis
Pregnancy
Centers in Massachusetts
Today, there are an estimated 4,000 “crisis pregnancy centers”
(CPCs) nationwide, a network of anti-choice facilities that dates
back to the days before Roe v. Wade.2 Since the decriminalization
of abortion, CPCs have grown in both number and scope, and they
now serve as a central component of the anti-choice movement’s
strategy to restrict and manipulate both the information women
receive when they face an unplanned pregnancy and their access
to the full range of reproductive health services.
According to a comprehensive study conducted by the U.S.
House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform,
CPCs intentionally misinform and mislead women seeking
options counseling, instead providing biased, coercive, or
patently incorrect information about a woman’s health and
pregnancy options, while often refusing to provide information
or referrals for abortion and birth control services.3
Here in Massachusetts, there are
currently 30 separate facilities across the
Commonwealth where CPCs operate and
advertise their services both online and
in print. This makes CPCs three times as
prevalent as the nine women’s health clinics
specializing in reproductive health that
currently advertise abortion care among
their services.4
CPCs are located in every region of the
state, including communities not served by
known women’s health clinics. There are
eight CPCs in Central Massachusetts, while
Western and Southeast Massachusetts are
each home to six CPCs; yet each of these
three regions has only one women’s health
facility providing abortion care. Women
in the Northeast and Metro Boston have
somewhat greater access to comprehensive
care, with a choice of three women’s health
clinics that provide abortion compared with
the five CPCs in each of these two areas.
CPC Locations in Massachusetts
4 NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts
Of the national CPC organizations, CareNet opened the first
CPC in Massachusetts in 1976,5 and Birthright International has
since secured seven locations here. Perhaps most interesting,
Massachusetts is home to several state-based CPC networks,
including one with national significance (see Massachusetts as
an Anti-Choice Breeding Ground).
The largest CPC network, A Woman’s Concern, started in
Dorchester (Boston) in 1993,6 and announced itself with an
advertisement in the Yellow Pages that cost $28,000 at the
time. Since then, it has been expanding its reach, now boasting
five locations (Dorchester, Fall River, Hyannis, Revere, and a
North Shore location under construction).7 Pregnancy Care
Center, the second largest Massachusetts-only network, has
four CPC facilities (in Amesbury, Haverhill, Lawrence, and
Newburyport). An additional fourteen smaller CPCs operate
in communities across the Commonwealth, with no apparent
affiliation with any national or state umbrella organization.
CPCs often locate near reproductive health facilities, and some
follow these women’s health clinics from location to location.
For more than half of the abortion providers in Massachusetts,
a CPC is located nearby – within a ten-mile distance, or, if
located in Boston, within a two-mile walking distance.8
Most notably, Problem Pregnancy of Worcester was originally
located in the same building, on the same floor, and used
the same acronym as the Planned Parenthood clinic. (Their
“PP” logo was so similar to Planned Parenthood’s that a state
court found them to be infringing on Planned Parenthood’s
trademark, and Problem Pregnancy was forced to change
its logo.9) Planned Parenthood has since moved from that
building, but Problem Pregnancy followed, relocating directly
across the street.
Massachusetts
as an
Anti-Choice
Breeding Ground
While Massachusetts is often perceived
to be a bastion of liberal politics, it has
also served as a laboratory for antichoice strategies that have a national
impact.
For example, Massachusetts is home
to the Gerard Health Foundation,
a private charity based in Natick.
With $1,295,000 in assets in 2009,45
Gerard – and its founder Raymond
Ruddy – serves as a major funder of
anti-choice initiatives on the more
extreme end of the political spectrum.
This includes long-standing, entrenched
organizations such as Focus on the
Family, whose founder, James Dobson,
became one of the nation’s “most
influential evangelical leader(s)” with
strong ties to the Reagan and Bush
Administrations,46 and new start-ups
such as Lila Rose’s organization, Live
Action,47 whose most recent claim to
fame includes conducting an undercover
“sting” at Planned Parenthood clinics
and releasing doctored footage in an
effort to discredit the organization.48
Furthermore, Gerard has given at
least $900,000 to support A Woman’s
Concern here in Massachusetts,
“a Dorchester-based sponsor of
abstinence-only
sex
education
programs and antiabortion crisis
pregnancy centers.”49
Since 2002,
A Woman’s Concern has received
millions in federal funds to support
“Just Because You’re Pregnant...” 5
Inside a Crisis
Pregnancy Center
and distribute Healthy Futures,
its
abstinence-only-until-marriage
programs, in Massachusetts and
nationwide.50 The program, which
has been taught in Greater Boston
and Lowell schools,51 states that its
mission is to “promote the critical
message of sexual abstinence outside
of a faithful, lifelong relationship.”52
Our investigation found that in Massachusetts – like in other
states – CPCs often seek to undermine a woman’s ability to
choose from the full range of health care options when facing
the prospect of a pregnancy. Our volunteers found that
CPCs utilize three main strategies to deter a woman from
considering or seeking an abortion:
Delay support and deny options and
referrals for pregnancy-related care
Spread medical falsehoods
Sensationalize abortion and use anti-choice
rhetoric to shame or pressure
Raymond Ruddy
A Woman’s Concern has also served
as the launching pad for high-level
anti-choice government officials, most
notably Erik Kerouack, their former
medical director, who was appointed
by President Bush as Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Population Affairs within
the Department of Health and
Human Services to lead the nation’s
family-planning program – despite his
avowedly anti-contraception views.53
Meanwhile, Gerard provided a soft
landing for former Bush Administration
official, Claude Allen, who served
as a top domestic policy advisor to
President Bush until his arrest for theft
in an apparent phony refund scheme.54
Allen is currently a Vice President at
the Foundation.
Many of these tactics – particularly the medical
misinformation and the sensationalized, extreme rhetoric
– are echoed on the CPC websites and in materials women
receive at their facilities.
Our volunteers reported difficulties making appointments
and, once they reached a CPC, they were often encouraged
to schedule a follow-up “appointment” and/or to take their
time making any decisions about what to do – tactics that
would likely delay appropriate medical care related to a
woman’s pregnancy.
Our volunteers were given false and misleading information
about pregnancy, the physical and mental health impact
of abortion, and the effectiveness and appropriateness of
using contraception. Yet only just under one-third (31%) of
the unlicensed CPCs contacted – by phone or in person –
disclosed that they were not medical facilities.
In addition to bogus health claims, volunteers were
subjected to biased information about abortion procedures
and fetal development that, while not technically false, was
sensationalized and presented out of context in an effort to
reinforce the CPCs’ anti-choice agenda.
6 NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts
Delaying Support & Denying Options
While CPCs present themselves as a service to help
pregnant women in need, many failed to answer their
phones or respond to messages in a timely fashion.
Overall, roughly one-third of the CPCs we attempted
to contact failed to answer or were slow to respond,
including seven that volunteers ultimately visited.
When volunteers connected with the CPC, the
intake person on the phone would often schedule an
appointment for many days away, if not as long as a
week later. This lack of responsiveness and tendency
to delay stands in stark contrast to the traditional
practices at women’s health providers.
This delay tactic also wastes vital time during which
a pregnant woman might otherwise be obtaining
options counseling, securing a prenatal care visit, or
scheduling an abortion – if not obtaining the care itself.
Delaying prenatal care can have an adverse effect on
both mother and child, with maternal mortality 3 to 4
times higher in women who receive no prenatal care
and infant mortality 6 times higher.10 Further, while
complications from surgical abortion are rare,11 they
nonetheless increase as the pregnancy progresses, as
does the cost of the procedure; abortions after the first
trimester are also generally less accessible.12
“You don’t need
money to raise a
child, just time and
love.”
-CPC Counselor
Both on the phone and in person, women often received incomplete and biased counseling
and insufficient referrals – a practice not in keeping with standards of care for women may be
pregnant. Of the CPCs contacted in person or through in-depth phone calls, more than one
quarter (27%) offered no information on adoption, one-sixth (16%) offered no information –
misleading or otherwise – on abortion, and one in 10 (10%) offered no counseling of any kind.
The vast majority (83%) either refused outright to provide a referral for abortion services or
made volunteers so uncomfortable that they felt they couldn’t ask for one. Yet 39% failed to
disclose up front that they were a “pro-life” facility or that they would not provide such referrals.
The advice some CPCs offered on pregnancy and parenting matters was also suspect. One
volunteer was told, “you don’t need money to raise a child, just time and love.” Another
volunteer who told the CPC that she had been drinking heavily throughout her pregnancy was
informed that “new studies prove alcohol is not too harmful to a fetus.” Although light to
moderate drinking in pregnancy is being considered safer, heavy drinking – more than one or
two glasses once or twice a week – has consistently been shown to be damaging to a pregnancy.13
“Just Because You’re Pregnant...” 7
Pregnancy Testing
One of the most common services that a CPC offers is a free pregnancy test, which was offered
at every one of the in-person visits and suggested during all of the in-depth phone calls. Without
exception, the CPCs gave our volunteers pregnancy tests similar to those currently available over
the counter at most grocery stores and drug stores. In one instance, a volunteer was given a generic
brand, over-the-counter test that had been opened and was already expired. While over-the-counter
tests are relatively accurate (up to 99% effective a week after a missed period), medical experts
agree that a woman who suspects she is pregnant should visit a health care provider to confirm the
results – whether positive or negative.14 By remaining vague in their advertising about the type of
pregnancy tests available, CPCs may leave the impression that they provide the blood test that is
more sensitive than what a woman can purchase on her own – thereby increasing the time it takes
her to obtain appropriate care at a legitimate health care provider.
The Miscarriage Myth
By far the most troubling tactics were the insidious
misuse of miscarriage rates and the lure of free
ultrasounds, particularly given that a woman
may be unfamiliar with the data and diagnostics
related to pregnancy. In nearly every case, the
volunteer reported being or was identified by the
counselor as between 6 and 10 weeks pregnant.
While the miscarriage rate after the 6th week of
pregnancy is only 8%,15 more than one in four
(27%) of the CPCs contacted gave misleadingly
high miscarriage rates – for instance, making
claims such as “most pregnancies are not viable”
and “50% of pregnancies end in miscarriage.”16
Myth: “most pregnancies are
not viable”
Fact: Early in pregnancy,
there is a 25% chance of
miscarriage that drops to 8%
after the 6th week.57
Our volunteers concluded that the CPCs used the incorrect miscarriage data to delay abortion
decisions in two ways. First, in every instance when an incorrect miscarriage rate was mentioned,
the CPC tried to convince our volunteer to schedule an ultrasound appointment days or weeks into
the future. One volunteer reported that she heard that “the ultrasound can tell me if the pregnancy is
viable, so it will help me decide what to do next.” Second, the CPCs seemed to suggest that planning
on a miscarriage is an acceptable way to deal with an unintended pregnancy. Our volunteers were
told, for example, “just because you are pregnant, doesn’t mean you’ll stay pregnant,” or that the
“good news” about her positive pregnancy test is that the miscarriage rate is so high.
Sometimes CPCs recommended that volunteers wait to make a decision until after the ultrasound, so
they could avoid going through the “stress of an abortion” if they were going to miscarry anyway,
which one CPC described as a “much easier way to lose a child.” The purpose of this misrepresentation
seems clear: if a woman who is leaning toward abortion believes she has an unreasonably high
chance that her pregnancy is not viable, she may delay seeking care in the largely vain hope that she
will miscarry. Another consequence, however, is that she will delay necessary pre-natal care, causing
adverse health consequences both for herself and for her child, should she decide to continue the
pregnancy.17
8 NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts
Spreading Medical Falsehoods
Mental Health
Myth: Abortion causes “post
abortion syndrome” or post
traumatic stress disorder.
Fact: Although some
women do experience
sadness, grief, and feelings of
loss after an abortion, there
is no evidence to support
the claim that mental health
issues are caused by an
abortion or that a woman
is more likely to have
mental health issues after an
abortion than if she chooses
to carry the pregnancy to
term.58
Future Fertility
The most common false claim CPCs made was that having an
abortion causes many women severe psychological harm and
future mental health problems, despite recent findings by the
American Psychological Association to the contrary.18
More than half (55%) of the CPCs contacted told our volunteers
that having an abortion would or could lead to negative mental
health effects. These included statements that abortion would
or could cause depression, PTSD, and “post-abortion regret,”
or even lead to drug and alcohol abuse or promiscuity. As one
volunteer was told, “Many women who choose abortion later
have ‘what those soldiers have when they come home.’” When
our volunteer asked “PTSD?”, the CPC volunteer responded,
“Yeah that’s it.”
Another volunteer described her experience as follows: “[The
counselor] discussed ‘post-abortion syndrome’ and severe
depression. She talked about women who are never able to
get pregnant again and then every time they see a child on the
street who would be the age of their child if they hadn’t had an
abortion – they just can’t take it.”
The website analysis elicited similar results, with more than
half (54%) of the websites asserting that women who have had
an abortion report emotional and/or psychological trauma or
experience “post abortion stress” or PTSD-related problems. The
pamphlets that CPCs distributed also focused on this alleged
negative health effect of abortion, with half (50%) of the CPCs
handing out one or more pamphlets that falsely describe the
mental health risks of abortion.
One third (33%) of CPCs informed our volunteers that abortion may cause
infertility and/or ectopic pregnancy in the future. In fact, a video shown to
one of our volunteers even claimed that “most women” are infertile after an
abortion. Our volunteers were told that many women have trouble getting
pregnant afterwards “because sometimes there is scar tissue that stops the
egg from being able to implant,” and “to keep in mind that this could be your
only child.”
An even greater proportion (46%) of the CPC websites link abortion with a risk
of future infertility, and more than a third (38%) gave incorrect information
about ectopic pregnancy after an abortion. Nearly one in three (31%) of the
websites stated that women are more likely to have a premature delivery
in a future pregnancy if they have had an abortion. Half (50%) of the CPCs
that were visited distributed one or more pamphlets that incorrectly linked
abortion with risks to future pregnancies.
Myth: Abortion causes
future infertility or
pregnancy complications.
Fact: Abortion does not
increase the risk of major
pregancny complications
during future pregnancies or
deliveries.55
“Just Because You’re Pregnant...” 9
Breast Cancer
One in five (20%) CPCs echoed the common anti-choice falsehood that
abortion causes an increased risk of breast cancer. One explanation
for this increased risk was that “the milk ducts start to form and then
are cut off in their development so [they develop] cancer easier.”
While CPCs stated an increased risk of anywhere from 20% to 50%,
one CPC went so far as to tell our volunteer that “breast cancer had
increased in [my] generation because of the pill and will increase for
[yours] because of the pill and abortion. . . . Abortion increases your
risk of breast cancer by 100%.”
On their websites, CPCs perpetuate this breast cancer myth in greater
numbers. Nearly half (46%) of the websites state that there is a 50%
increased risk of developing breast cancer after one abortion. They
distribute medically inaccurate pamphlets at a similar rate, with
half (50%) of CPCs giving out one or more pamphlets that stated an
increased risk of breast cancer.
Brochure, distributed by a MA CPC
Myth: “. . . Abortion increases
your risk of breast cancer by
100%.”
Fact: The scientfic community
agrees that abortion does not
increase a woman’s risk of
breast cancer.56
10 NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts
Contraception and Sexually Transmitted Infections
CPCs’ medical misinformation is not limited to
pregnancy and abortion, as demonstrated by
the medically inaccurate information nearly one
in three (30%) provided about contraceptives or
sexually transmitted infections (STIs, also called
STDs). One volunteer was told that she “must
have wanted a baby to be using condoms as birth
control.”
Another CPC counselor claimed that our
volunteer “had to have an STD test before
abortion, otherwise D&C could cause [an
untreated STD] to spread.” Although most
websites steered clear of these topics, nearly one
in six (15%) still made inaccurate statements
about emergency contraception and, through
various pamphlets, one in five CPCs (22%) gave
misleading information about contraceptives
or STIs. Additionally, one-third (33%) used
materials promoting abstinence-only rather
than a comprehesive approach to preventing
pregnancy and disease.
“. . .breast cancer had
increased in [my]
generation because
of the pill and will
increase for [yours]
because of the pill
and abortion. . .“
-CPC Counselor
Brochure, distributed by a MA CPC
Brochure, distributed by a MA CPC
“Just Because You’re Pregnant...” 11
Sensationalizing Abortion Care and Shaming Women
with Anti-Choice Rhetoric
Abortion Procedures and Risks
More than half (55%) of CPCs discussed during an in-person visit how abortions are performed,
often using inaccurate, sensationalized, and/or unnecessarily graphic terms. One CPC said “they’ll
have to open the cervix . . . with metal rods they put in a few days before” (false information italicized),
continuing on to say that they “take the pieces
of the baby out.” In another instance, a CPC
described an abortion procedure by stating that
the doctors would “deliver it part way, kill the
baby, and then cut it into pieces and take it out.”
A third volunteer reported that the CPC told her a
medical abortion “was dangerous.”
Nearly one in three (30%) CPCs discussed
medical complications associated with abortions,
frequently mischaracterizing the risks. Women
were told that, if they had an abortion, the doctors
could accidentally puncture their uterus or colon,
they would experience hemorrhaging or heavy
bleeding, the procedure could cause scarring or
scar tissue or lead to infection, and/or that they
could die. Nearly three in four (70%) CPCs handed
out pamphlets that emphasized these risks, the
most common being a brochure titled Before
You Decide – which describes heavy bleeding,
infection, incomplete abortion, sepsis, dangers of
anesthesia, damage to the cervix, scarring of the
uterine lining, perforation of the uterus, damage
to the internal organs, and death as possible risks
without indicating their relative likelihood.
Brochure, distributed by a MA CPC
“[The counselor] talked about women
who are never able to get pregnant again
and then every time they see a child on the
street who would be the age of their child
if they hadn’t had an abortion – they just
can’t take it.”
- Study Volunteer
12 NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts
While these are all potential risks of abortion,
CPCs present these complications to a woman
considering abortion as though these rare
outcomes are common occurrences. At one CPC,
our volunteer was told only that she could die
during an abortion. Stating this without noting,
for instance, that only one in a million abortions
before eight weeks results in death,19 may lead a
woman to assume the risk is significantly greater
than it actually is. That, in turn, undermines her
ability to make an informed choice about her
options. Emphasizing complications that occur
in less than one percent of abortions – such as
heavy
bleeding, infection, or scarring that require
hospitalization (occurring in only 0.3%)20 is
similarly misleading. CPCs also failed to provide
information – much less give equal weight – to
the risks of continuing a pregnancy, including
both the medical complications and the mental
health impact, which are significantly higher
than the risks of abortion.21 In fact, none of
our volunteers reported being told about the
process of giving birth, potential risks during
pregnancy or childbirth, or the potential for
post-partum depression (which occurs among
10% of women).22
Framing in Religious Terms
Two out of three CPCs visited had a
“religious influence,” according to volunteers.
The counseling often incorporated a religious
element – whether or not the volunteers
indicated they had religious beliefs relevant
to their decision-making. In those instances,
CPCs stressed God’s influence in events,
telling our volunteers that “God created
[your] baby for a purpose,” “God wasn’t
sleeping when this child was conceived,” and
“God doesn’t approve of abortions.” In one
case, a volunteer who identified as not being
particularly religious was encouraged to take
a bible, read it, and “accept the Lord into her
life.”
Brochure, distributed by a MA CPC
“Just Because You’re Pregnant...” 13
Brochure, distributed by a MA CPC
Nearly two-thirds (61%) of the CPCs discussed
fetal development during the visit – of those,
the vast majority (81%) provided misleading
information.
Fetal Development
Another related tactic CPCs used was to mislead a woman about the degree of fetal development at
her stage of pregnancy or to use terminology that equates a developing fetus to a child that is already
born. Nearly two-thirds (61%) of the CPCs discussed fetal development during the visit – of those,
the vast majority (81%) provided misleading information and nearly half (45%) relied on models or
depictions that portray the fetus as a miniature
fully-formed baby that is simply a larger size
in each successive week.
Furthermore, nearly three-quarters (72%)
of the CPCs distributed pamphlets that
sensationalized fetal development using
skewed benchmarks and misleading graphics.
Some were given dolls or other items to take
home that represented the current size of their
fetus. In many instances, CPCs presented
technically accurate information, but they
couched the discussion of fetal development
in language that implied abortion would be
inappropriate, wrong, or immoral.
Lapel Pin, distributed by a MA CPC
14 NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts
“I left so confused and feeling awful. I can’t stop thinking
about how that would have been a terrible way to find
out you’re pregnant.”
- Study Volunteer
Pressure
One of the most troubling findings of our CPC investigation was hearing from more than half (60%)
of our volunteers who received any “counseling” during an in-person visit that they felt pressure
not to choose abortion. Many of our volunteers reported being disturbed by their visit, with one
describing it as an “intense experience, nerve racking, emotional. [I] can’t imagine that being your
only option, to go to one of these places.” Another said, “I left so confused and feeling awful. I can’t
stop thinking about how that would have been a terrible way to find out you’re pregnant.”
Attempts to sensationalize abortion
care and shame women with antichoice rhetoric can take a troubling
toll on women. Characterizing
abortions as unsafe or dirty has been
shown to have a stigmatizing effect
on both women and the procedure,
and frames women as victims.23
Personifying a fetus further allows
the abortion to be equated with
murder, turning the decision
to terminate a pregnancy into a
shameful choice.24 These anti-choice
tactics cause a woman’s decisionmaking to be more difficult, and
for particularly vulnerable groups
of women, who are less likely to
have the support they need to rise
above the resulting shame, may
create a barrier to choosing what is
best for their own health and family
circumstances.25
Brochure, distributed by a MA CPC
“Just Because You’re Pregnant...” 15
The Path to a Crisis Pregnancy Center
CPCs in Massachusetts use a variety
of misleading and ambiguous
advertising tactics to draw women
who believe they might be pregnant
into their centers. One of the more
traditional methods is Option Line,
a “helpline” established in 2003
by two of the largest national CPC
chains, CareNet and Heartbeat
International. Option Line sponsors
billboard campaigns advertising a
toll-free number that employs 25
phone consultants who are available
24 hours a day to direct women to
CPCs in their area.26 From 2003
to 2009, an estimated one million
women had contacted Option
Line, and the organization reports
that its website receives more than
46,000 unique users each month.27
CPCs are also branching out into
newer advertising tactics, spending
thousands of dollars each month to
purchase online search terms and
online phone book listings28 to
reach women who are increasingly
turning to the Internet for health
information
and
resources.29
Further, in marketing themselves,
CPCs emphasize the availability
of free pregnancy tests and
ultrasounds in an effort to appeal
to young women and low-income
women who have lesser access to
affordable care.30
Brochure, distributed by a MA CPC
Myth: Abortion is
dangerous.
Fact: A complication
serious enough that it
requires hospitalization
occurs in less than 0.3% of
all abortion procedures59
and of procedures done
in the first 13 weeks of
pregnancy, 97% of women
report no complications
whatsoever.60 There is a
0.0006% risk of death in
surgical abortions, caused
generally by adverse
reactions to anesthesia,
embolism, infection, or
uncontrollable bleeding.61
The risk of death in
pregnancy and childbirth is
ten times greater.62
16 NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts
Traditional Advertising
In the fall and winter of 2010, Option Line ran an advertising campaign in the Greater Boston area,
including billboards in communities such as the lower-income neighborhoods of Roxbury and
Mattapan. Advertisements also appeared on trains and bus shelters throughout the city’s public
transportation system. Both featured a young woman with the tag line “Pregnant? Scared? Need
Help?” and the number and website for Option Line. When a woman would call or visit the website,
she was immediately referred to a CPC operating in her area.
Example of an Option Line Billboard
Online Advertising
NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts surveyed the online versions of Yellow Pages and Super Pages,
using six search terms a woman might use if she thought she might be pregnant and seeking information about her options, including abortion. Those terms were: “abortion services,” “abortion clinics,” “abortion providers,” “family planning centers,” “birth control information & services,” and
“birth control.” In June of 2010, at least one CPC showed up in the top ten results in five of these six
key search terms. When the same search was repeated in February of 2011, after NARAL Pro-Choice
America’s campaign challenging Yellow Pages and Super Pages to change their practices, at least one
CPC still appeared in the top ten results of three of the six key search terms.
These findings are not an accident. The prominent positioning of CPCs in these searches is often
due to “sponsored results,” which require an organization to create a profile and spend $63 to $182
dollars per month for a priority listing on yellowpages.com31 or $99 to $299 a month on superpages.com.32 These profiles allow organizations to list which services they provide and, in the case of
CPCs, many of them include “abortion services” or “abortion referrals.” In our investigation, none of
the CPCs that advertised those services provided either abortion services or abortion referrals when
we visited them.
“Just Because You’re Pregnant...” 17
Screen shot of a Yellow Pages online ad
18 NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts
The Finances of Crisis Pregnancy Centers
Most of the CPC activities in Massachusetts require little overhead and few expenses, so most of
these facilities can set up shop with limited financial support. Even for the largest operations, the
most significant operating expenses are compensation (if they have employees rather than being
staffed entirely by volunteers) and occupancy (largely rent and related costs). Program expenses,
including advertising, printing, and the cost of pregnancy tests, tend to be modest for all CPCs,
except those large chains that are linked with national organizations. Thus, by renting small spaces
or using donated space, and relying on volunteer hours, CPCs can thrive on very small annual
revenues. There are three main sources of funding available to these anti-choice entities: federal and
state grants, state-collected revenues, and private donations.
Across the country, many CPCs receive federal
funds from various government programs,
many of them designed largely to support
abstinence-only sexuality education.33 While
the Commonwealth does not currently accept
any federal funding for these purposes, at
least one CPC chain – A Woman’s Concern –
has historically received a direct federal grant
to operate its abstinence-only-until-marriage
education program.34 State governments also
frequently fund CPCs directly, but although
Massachusetts has not created a similar
dedicated funding stream, in 2010, it became one of 23 states that now allow the sale of specialty
“Choose Life” license plates35 designed as a conduit for funding local CPCs.
From June 2010 through April 2011, the Registry of Motor Vehicles distributed approximately 2,000
plates, which raised roughly $80,00036 for Massachusetts Choose Life (MCL), an affiliate of the
national Choose Life organization. MCL, which receives the proceeds from the license plates, has
sole discretion in determining how those funds will be distributed and states that it provides the
funds to “pregnancy crisis centers.” According to MCL’s website, the organization “will have a grant
process whereby eligible organizations can apply for funds . . . [that] will ensure that the agencies are
non-governmental, not-for-profit agencies not involved in abortion services in any way who offer
free counseling and services to women with a crisis pregnancy.”37 Their website features a list of 46
of these “pregnancy care organizations,” but have not yet disclosed which – if any – have received
the state-collected funding or how much MCL has given them.38 (Our investigation focused on the
30 CPC organizations still open and actively operating in Massachusetts, most of which appeared on
MCL’s list.) While the license plate program is still in its infancy, more established programs in other
states have already raised millions to support CPCs.39
CPCs in Massachusetts appear to rely heavily on individual donations, including funds raised
through events. A small number appear also to receive support from foundations known to fund a
broad range of anti-choice activities and organizations (see Massachusetts as an Anti-Choice Breeding
Ground p. 4-5) and religious organizations and their affiliates. Perhaps as a result of these operational
and funding parameters, CPCs in Massachusetts range greatly in size and scope. The largest, A
Woman’s Concern – which claims to have six facilities around the state – reported revenues of $1.3
million in 2009 (down from an apparent high of $2 million in 2007).40 The other multi-center entity,
Pregnancy Care Center, reported just over $368,000 in revenues,41 and the stand-alone facility –
Friends of the Unborn – also reported revenues close to that figure ($351,000) that same year.42 An
additional four anti-choice facilities investigated had budgets clustered between $80,000-$180,000,43
while three others reported revenues of less than $25,000 in 2008.44 Fourteen do not appear to have
filed recently with the Internal Revenue Service, likely because their budgets are so small.
“Just Because You’re Pregnant...” 19
Conclusion
NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts and the Pro-Choice Massachusetts Foundation believe that
a woman facing an unintended pregnancy has a right to accurate, unbiased, and comprehensive
information about the full range of her reproductive health options. When facing the prospect of
pregnancy, a woman deserves to receive information that is based on medical fact, not anti-choice
ideology masking as options counseling. Moreover, because continuing a pregnancy has significant
impact on a woman’s health and life, she should not be delayed or deterred from obtaining true
options counseling and appropriate medical care.
Unfortunately, our research shows the opposite to be true at crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) in the
Commonwealth. By delaying women’s decisions, misinforming them about the risks, and shaming
women’s choices, the vast majority of these facilities in Massachusetts deny women access to the
timely, appropriate counseling and medical services they need and deserve, including both abortion
and pre-natal care.
We encourage policymakers, public health officials, social service agencies, health care providers,
community organizations, and concerned citizens to use this report to familiarize themselves and
their colleagues with CPCs’ deceptive practices. We recognize that there may be many opportunities
to work together to counter the harmful effect CPCs may have on the health and well-being of
women in the Commonwealth. Chief among them is to do more to educate the public about their
reproductive health, pregnancy options, and the resources that can aid them in preventing or
terminating a pregnancy, carrying a pregnancy to term, or parenting a healthy child.
W h e n f a c i ng the prospect of
p re g n a n c y, a woman deser ves to
re c e i ve i n fo r m ation that is based on
m e d i c a l f a c t , n ot anti-choice ideolog y
m a s k i n g a s options counseling..
“Just Because You’re Pregnant...” 21
APPENDIX
Appendix I: Methodology
The list of organizations identified on the Massachusetts Choose Life website and several web-based
searches for pregnancy-related organizations served as the basis to determine the number and
location of CPCs currently operating in Massachusetts. For the purposes of this research, a facility
was deemed to be a CPC if it was a center or clinic which (1) purports to provide education and
counseling services and pregnancy-related services such as pregnancy tests and ultrasounds, (2)
provides misleading, incomplete, or proven-to-be-false information related to sexuality, abortion,
abortion-related risks, and birth control, and (3) will not perform abortions or provide abortion
referrals.
Those facilities still in operation were then mapped against the locations of clinics and private
practices specializing in reproductive health care – including abortion care – who publicly advertise
their services. Online Yellow Pages and Super Pages were surveyed twice -- in the summer of 2010 and
again in winter of 2010/11 – using six key search terms women seeking pregnancy or family planning
options would likely use to find providers. Those terms were: “abortion services,” “abortion clinics,”
“abortion providers,” “family planning centers,” “birth control information & services,” and “birth
control.”
In the summer of 2010, a trained volunteer catalogued and conducted a content analysis of all of the
information provided on the websites of 27 of the 30 active CPCs in the Commonwealth (13 websites
in total); we revisited the sites again in the fall of 2010 and winter of 2010/11. A volunteer with
specialized finance background reviewed federal tax returns (IRS-990s), where publicly available
through Guidestar.org, and used other online sources – including CPCs own websites – to determine
the revenues and sources of funding in the winter of 2010/11.
Finally, in the spring of 2011, trained volunteers made direct contact with 24 of the 30 active CPCs
through 20 in-person visits (typically in pairs) and 15 in-depth phone conversations, cataloguing
what they were told, how they were treated, and which resources they were provided.
22 NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts
Appendix II: CPCs Investigated in Massachusetts
Name
Address
Phone
Website
A Woman’s Concern
103 Broadway
Revere, MA 02151
1855 Dorchester Ave.
Dorchester, MA 02124
(866) 435-7292
(781) 284-8747
(866) 435-7292
(617) 825-0838
www.awomansconcern.org
484 Highland Ave.
Fall River, MA 02720
48 Camp St. #6
Hyannis, MA 02601
466 Main St.
PO Box 344
Greenfield, MA 01302
(866) 435-7292
(508) 646-2665
www.awomansconcern.org
(866) 435-7292
(508) 790-3076
www.awomansconcern.org
(413) 774-6010
www.alternativespregnancycenter.
org
A Woman’s Concern
A Woman’s Concern
A Woman’s Concern
Alternatives
Pregnancy Center
www.awomansconcern.org
Birthright
International
79A Main St.
(508) 620-0657
Framingham, MA 01702
www.birthright.org
Birthright
International
233 N. Pleasant St.
Amherst, MA 01002
(413) 549-1906
www.birthright.org
Birthright
International
320 Gifford St.
Falmouth, MA 02540
(508) 457-0680
www.birthright.org
Birthright
International
277 Main St.
(508) 481-2055
Marlborough, MA 01752
www.birthright.org
Birthright
International
78 Broadway
Taunton, MA 02780
(508) 822-2921
www.birthright.org
Birthright
International
398 County St.
(508) 996-6744
New Bedford, MA 02740
www.birthright.org
Care Net
326 Nichols Rd. #13
Fitchburg, MA 01420
(978) 342-4244 www.carenetfitchburg.net
1-800-395-HELP
Compassion
Pregnancy Center
70 Highland St.
Worcester, MA 01609
(508) 438-0144
Daybreak
101 Tremont St. #514
Boston, MA 02108
2 High St.
Clinton, MA 01510
(617) 742-9170 www.daybreakinc.org
1-888-9-OPTION
(978) 365-9817 www.firstconcern.net
(888) 657-1773
First Concern
www.compassionpregnancycenter.
org
“Just Because You’re Pregnant...” 23
Friends of the
Unborn
Heartbeat Pregnancy
Help Center
PO Box 692246
(617) 786-7903
Quincy, MA 02269
(888) 761-8538
113 Winn St.
(781) 229-7887
Burlington, MA 01803
Liferight of North
Adams
57 Main St, # 208
(413) 664-4106
North Adams, MA 01247
www.pccnortheast.org
Pregnancy Care
Center
496 Main St.
Haverhill, MA 01830
(978) 373-5700
1-866-254-4440
www.pccnortheast.org
Pregnancy Care
Center
140 Main St.
Amesbury, MA 01913
(978) 388-7960
1-866-254-4440
www.pccnortheast.org
Pregnancy Care
Center
11 Hale St.
(978) 914-0036
Newburyport, MA 01950
www.pccnortheast.org
Pregnancy Care
Center
124 Ames St.
Lawrence, MA 01841
(978) 686-5124
www.pccnortheast.org
Pregnancy Care
Center
704 Sumner Ave.
Springfield, MA 01108
(413) 732-2006
Pregnancy Help
Brighton Marine Health Center
(617) 782-5151;
77 Warren St. #251
(888) 771-3914
Brighton, MA 02135
www.pregnancyhelpboston.org
Pregnancy Help
5 Wilson St.
Natick, MA 01760
2 Park Ave.
Stoughton, MA 02072
www.pregnancyhelpboston.org
Pregnancy Services
(508) 651-0753
www.friendsoftheunborn.org
www.pregnancyma.com
(781) 344-5900
Pregnancy Support
Services
74 North St.
Pittsfield, MA 01201
(413) 443-7351
Problem Pregnancy
of North Quabbin
105 Main St.
Athol, MA 01331
(978) 249-4300
www.problempregnancy.org
Problem Pregnancy
of Worcester, Inc.
495 Pleasant St.
Worcester, MA 01609
(888) 310-7217
www.problempregnancy.org
Your Life Matters
Pregnancy Health
Center
176 Main St.
Southbridge, MA
01550
(508) 764-6404;
(888) 764-6404
www.ylmphc.org
24 NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts
Endnotes
1 For the purposes of this report, the term “clinic” encompasses licensed clinics and private physician practices specializing
in reproductive health services, including abortion care, in Massachusetts. According to separate research conducted by
NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts and the Pro-Choice Massachusetts Foundation, in the summer of 2011, there were 11
such facilities operating in the Commonwealth, only 9 of whom make it known to the general public that the scope of their
services includes abortion care. For more information, see NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts, Access to Abortion Care in
Massachusetts, October, 2011, available at: http://www.prochoicemass.org/media/2011abortion.shtml
2 Lin V and Dailard C, “Crisis Pregnancy Centers Seek To Increase Political Clout, Secure Government Subsidy,” Guttmacher
Report on Public Policy, 2 (2002).
3 In 2006, the United States House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform conducted a study that
investigated CPCs that received any form of federal funding under the Bush Administration and reached three major
conclusions: 1) the Centers provided misinformation about the link between abortion and breast cancer 2) the Centers
provided misinformation about future fertility and abortion and 3) the Centers provided misinformation on the mental
health effects of abortion. Over the telephone, women were informed that an abortion “could destroy [their] chances of
ever having children again” and that they may experience a “downward spiral where they lose friends and family members.”
The websites of these CPCs espoused statistics for similar inaccurate claims – stating that most women experienced a 50%
or greater risk of breast cancer following abortion or that 2-5% of women are left sterile after the procedure. The report
notes that President Bush supported this spread of false information when his Administration edited the National Cancer
Institute website to suggest that the link between breast cancer and abortion was an unresolved scientific question. (Rep.
Henry A. Waxman, False and Misleading Health Information Provided by Federally Funded Pregnancy Resource Centers, United
States House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform -- Minority Staff Special Investigations Division (July,
2006), available at: http://www.chsourcebook.com/articles/waxman2.pdf.)
4 See note 1 (above). NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts, Access to Abortion Care in Massachusetts, October, 2011, available
at: http://www.prochoicemass.org/media/2011abortion.shtml
5 Friends of Care Net Fitchburg, History of Care Net Fitchburg, http://www.friendsofcarenetfitchburg.org/history.html
(last accessed August 2011.)
6 A Woman’s Concern, Our History, http://www.friendsofawomansconcern.org/aboutus/ourhistory/tabid/659/Default.
aspx (last accessed August 2011.)
7 Id.
8 Sophie Lyons, Crisis Pregnancy Centers in Massachusetts: Ethics of False and Misleading Information, NARAL Pro-Choice
Massachusetts (2010).
9 Planned Parenthood Federation of America v. Problem Pregnancy of Worcester, Inc., 398 Mass. 480, (1986).
10 The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Healthy Women 2008, Special Edition April 27-May 3 is Cover
the Uninsured Week, April 2008, available at http://www.acog.org/acog_districts/dist_notice.cfm?recno=1&bulletin=2612.
11 Dudley S and Kruse B, “Facts: Safety of Abortion,” National Abortion Federation, December 2006, available at http://
www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/safety_of_abortion.html.
12 Bitler M and Zavodny M, The effect of abortion restrictions on the timing of abortions, Journal of Health Economics, 2001,
20(6):1011–1032.
13 BBC News, Mothers-to-be ‘can drink alcohol’, Oct 11, 2007, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7039249.stm
14 Mayo Clinic staff, “Home Pregnancy Tests: Can you trust the results?” October 30, 2010, MayoClinic.com available at
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/home-pregnancy-tests/PR00100.
15 Wang , et.al., Conception, early pregnancy loss, and time to clinical pregnancy: a population-based prospective study, 79 Fertility
and Sterility 577–84 (2003).
16 This last statement is a prime example of the ways in which CPCs will take accepted medical facts and mischaracterize
and distort them. In this case, 50% is not a miscarriage rate, but rather the proportion of fertilized eggs lost before or
during implantation (typically within two weeks of fertilization, so early in the pregnancy that the woman may not even
know fertilization occurred). Center for Reproductive Health , “Contraception: How it Works,” University of California/San
Francisco Medical Center, available at http://coe.ucsf.edu/ivf/conception.html#imp (last accessed October 2011).
17 The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Healthy Women 2008, Special Edition April 27-May 3 is Cover
the Uninsured Week, April 2008, available at http://www.acog.org/acog_districts/dist_notice.cfm?recno=1&bulletin=2612
“Just Because You’re Pregnant...” 25
18 In 2008, the APA Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion evaluated all of the empirical, peer-reviewed studies on
this subject since 1989. They concluded that while “it is clear that some women do experience sadness, grief, and feelings
of loss following termination of a pregnancy, and some experience clinically significant disorders, including depression and
anxiety . . . the TFMHA reviewed no evidence sufficient to support the claim that an observed association between abortion
history and mental health was caused by the abortion per se, as opposed to other factors.” The Task Force further noted that
perceptions of stigma, secrecy, and lack of social support for the abortion; prior mental health problems and low self esteem;
and the degree to which a woman was invested in her pregnancy are “predictive of more negative psychological responses
following first-trimester abortion.” APA Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion, Report of the APA Task Force on Mental
Health and Abortion, 2008, http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/abortion/index.aspx
19 Guttmacher Institute, Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States, January 2011, http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/
fb_induced_abortion.html.
20 Id.
21 Henshaw SK, “Unintended pregnancy and abortion: a public health perspective”, in: Paul M et al., eds., A Clinician’s Guide
to Medical and Surgical Abortion, New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1999, pp. 11–22.
22 The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, “Postpartum Depression”, January 2009, http://www.acog.
org/publications/patient_education/bp091.cfm
23 Norris, et. al., “Abortion Stigma: A Reconceptualization of Constituents, Causes, and Consequences”, Women’s Health
Issues. 2011 May-Jun;21(3 Suppl):S49-54, available at: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/Abortion-Stigma.pdf
24 Id.
25 Id.
26 Option Line, About Option Line, http://www.optionline.org/about/(last accessed August 2011.)
27 Id.
28 Entsminger K, Building a Successful Internet Advertising Campaign for Your Pregnancy Center 2006, available at: http://www.
care-net.org/publications/cot/internetadvertising.pdf.
29 Fox S and Fallows D, Internet Health Resources, Pew Internet and American Life Project, July 16, 2003, http://www.
pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2003/PIP_Health_Report_July_2003.pdf.pdf.
30 The Truth About Crisis Pregnancy Centers, NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation, January 2010, available at http://
www.prochoiceamerica.org/media/fact-sheets/abortion-cpcs.pdf
31 AT&T Advertising Solutions, Internet Solutions/Internet Listings, http://adsolutions.att.com/advertising/internetlistings (last accessed August 2011.)
32 Supermedia, Business Listings, Compare Prices, http://www.supermedia.com/business-listings/compare-businesslisting-options (last accessed August 2011.)
33 Lin V and Dailard C, “Crisis Pregnancy Centers Seek To Increase Political Clout, Secure Government Subsidy,”
Guttmacher Report on Public Policy, 2 (2002).
34 A Woman’s Concern, Our History, http://www.friendsofawomansconcern.org/aboutus/ourhistory/tabid/659/Default.
aspx (last accessed August 2011.)
35 Guttmacher Institute, “‘Choose Life’ License Plates,” State Policies in Brief, August 1, 2011, http://www.guttmacher.org/
statecenter/spibs/spib_CLLP.pdf
36 Massachusetts Choose Life, Homepage, http://www.machoose-life.org/ (last accessed August 2011.)
37 Massachusetts Choose Life, Frequently Asked Questions, http://www.machoose-life.org/cl_faqs.htm (last accessed August
2011.)
38 Massachusetts Choose Life, Pregnancy Care Organizations, http://www.machoose-life.org/cl_pregnancycare.htm (last
accessed August 2011.)
39 Choose Life It Matters!, Newsletter, available at: http://www.choose-life.org/newsletter.php (last accessed August 2011.)
40 A Woman’s Concern Inc., Form 990, Internal Revenue Service, available at http://www2.guidestar.org/organizations/223196616/a-womans-concern.aspx
41 Pregnancy Care Center of the Merrimack Valley Inc, Form 990, Internal Revenue Service, available at http://www2.
guidestar.org/organizations/22-2630861/pregnancy-care-center-merrimack-valley.aspx
42
Friends of the Unborn, Inc., Form 990, Internal Revenue Services, available at http://www2.guidestar.org/
organizations/04-2932613/friends-unborn-incorporated.aspx
26 NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts
43 Care Net Pregnancy Resource Center Of North Central Massachusetts Inc., Form 990, Internal Revenue Service,
available at http://www2.guidestar.org/organizations/04-2597799/care-net-pregnancy-resource-center-north-centralmassachusetts.aspx. Daybreak Inc., Form 990, Internal Revenue Service, available at http://www2.guidestar.org/
organizations/22-2474290/daybreak.asp. First Concern Pregnancy Resource Center Inc., Form 990, Internal Revenue
Service, available at http://www2.guidestar.org/organizations/04-3091048/first-concern-pregnancy-resource-center.aspx.
Compassion Pregnancy Center of Worcester Inc., Form 990, Internal Revenue Service, available at http://www2.guidestar.
org/organizations/04-3532986/compassion-pregnancy-center-worcester.aspx.
44 Alternatives A Crisis Pregnancy Center, Form 990, Internal Revenue Services, available at http://www2.guidestar.org/
organizations/01-2930736/alternatives-a-crisis-pregnancy-center.aspx, Heartbeat Crisis Pregnancy Center, Form 990,
Internal Revenue Services, available at http://www2.guidestar.org/organizations/04-3220314/heartbeat-crisis-pregnancycenter.aspx , and Liferight of North Adams Inc., Form 990, Internal Revenue Services, available at http://www2.guidestar.
org/organizations/04-2622657/liferight-north-adams.aspx
45 Gerard Health Foundation LLC, Form 990, Internal Revenue Service, available at http://www2.guidestar.org/
organizations/04-3580039/gerard-health-foundation-llc.aspx
46 See, e.g., Michael Crowley, “The Right’s New Kingmaker,” Nov. 12, 2004, Slate.com http://www.slate.com/id/2109621/
and Focus on the Family, “About Us: Our Founder,” http://www.focusonthefamily.com/about_us/james-dobson.aspx (last
accessed August 2011.)
47 Life Prizes, “2008 Life Prizes Awards Ceremony Speeches,” http://www.lifeprizes.org/life-prizes-ceremony.asp (“Life
Prizes is an initiative of the Gerard Health Foundation,” http://www.lifeprizes.org/about-life-prizes.asp). (Last accessed
August 2011.)
48 Anemona Hartocollis, “Latest Hidden Video by Abortion Foes Shows Bronx Clinic of Planned Parenthood,” New York
Times, Feb. 8, 2011.
49 Irene Sege, “Conservative causes get Bay State patron,” Boston Globe, Oct. 31, 2008.
50 Healthy Futures, “Media Advisory: $1.5M Grant Award by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to
Healthy Futures to Expand Sexual Health Education,” January 28, 2004, available at: http://www.healthy-futures.
org/docs/$1.5M%20Grant%20Award%20by%20the%20U.S.%20Department%20of%20Health%20and%20Human%20
Services%20to%20Healthy%20Futures%20to%20Expand%20Sexual%20Health%20Education.pdf (hereinafter “Healthy
Futures Media Advisory”).
51 Healthy Futures, “News Release: Healthy Futures Program Teaches Abstinence in Boston-Area Schools,” Jan. 28, 2004,
available at http://www.healthy-futures.org/docs/Healthy%20Futures%20Program%20Teaches%20Abstinence%20in%20
Boston-Area%20Schools.pdf
52 See Healthy Futures Media Advisory, Jan. 28, 2004.
53 Schaffer A, “The Family Un-Planner,” Slate.com, Nov. 21, 2006, http://www.slate.com/id/2154249/.
54 Fletcher M and Partlow J, “Arrest of Ex-Bush Aide Shocks Associates,” Washington Post, March 12, 2006, http://www.
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/11/AR2006031101358.html.
55 Hogue C et al., The Effects of Induced Abortion on Subsequent Reproduction, 4 Epidemiological Reviews 66, 67, 88-9
(1982).
56 National Cancer Institute, Abortion, Miscarriage, and Breast Cancer Risk, Apr 2003 at http://www.cancer.gov/
cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage
57 Wang , et.al., Conception, early pregnancy loss, and time to clinical pregnancy: a population-based prospective study, 79 Fertility
and Sterility 577–84 (2003).
58 The American Psychological Association, Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion, Report of the APA Task Force on
Mental Health and Abortion, 2008, http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/abortion/index.aspx
59 Guttmacher Institute, Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States, January 2011, http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/
fb_induced_abortion.html.
60 National Abortion Federation, Abortion Fact: Safety of Abortion, http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/
safety_of_abortion.html (last accessed August 2011.)
61 Id.
62 Id.
“Just Because You’re Pregnant...” 27
Acknowledgements
“Just Because You’re Pregnant...”: Lies, Half Truths, and Manipulation at Crisis Preganncy Centers in
Massachusetts was authored by staff at NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts and the Pro-Choice
Massachusetts Foundation with help from our interns Sophie Lyons and Jennifer Robertson. The
report was designed by Brita Lund.
We would like to thank NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia for their help in setting up our study,
and NARAL Pro-Choice America for supporting our work. Special thanks to the GAIN Access
Committee, Emily Polak, and Charles Glovsky for their invaluable contributions.
This report would not have been possible without the help of all of our amazing volunteers who
conducted and contributed to the undercover investigation of CPCs. We are incredibly grateful for
all of your work, enthusiasm, and dedication to women’s access to reproductive health.
Contact Us
For more information about the report please contact:
Rose MacKenzie
Director of Policy & Community Engagement
NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts
15 Court Square, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02108-2524
Phone: 617-556-8800 x18
Fax: 617-338-2532
Email: [email protected]
For more information about NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts please visit our website at
www.prochoicemass.org.
NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts Mission
To develop and sustain a grassroots constituency that uses the political process to guarantee every
woman the right to make personal decisions regarding the full range of reproductive choices,
including preventing unintended pregnancy, bearing healthy children, and choosing safe, legal,
and accessible abortion.