The National Institute for Reproductive Health is committed to assisting advocates in addressing the deceptive practices of anti-abortion pregnancy centers. Anti-abortion pregnancy centers are anti-choice organizations that often pose as women’s health clinics, but their real aim is to dissuade pregnant women from choosing abortion. Extensive national research, as well as reports conducted in states such as California, Maryland, New York, and Texas, has revealed that anti-abortion pregnancy centers regularly use deceptive and manipulative tactics to achieve this goal.
Spurred by these investigative reports and resulting pro-choice advocacy, several localities have taken action to protect consumers from the fraudulent practices of anti-abortion pregnancy centers by passing legislation or resolutions. Although some of these ordinances are no longer enforced following legal challenges, advocates in several cities have been successful in regulating these dangerous centers. NIRH stands with localities around the country as they fight to protect their communities’ rights to unbiased medical information and comprehensive reproductive health care, including abortion.
- The state of California passed a law regulating health care providers and anti-abortion pregnancy centers in 2015, the Reproductive FACT Act. Although several anti-abortion pregnancy centers in northern California have filed a lawsuit, claiming that the law is unconstitutional, the court has allowed the law to go into effect during the litigation. Rewire covered the latest court decision allowing the enforcement of the law.
- In Northern California, anti-abortion pregnancy centers have sued local officials who are responsible for the law’s enforcement in an attempt to coerce them into not enforcing the Reproductive FACT Act. This targeting of local officials is a unique tactic in anti-choice advocates’ fight against the law. Read more at Lost Coast Outpost.
- Read more about the options for regulating anti-abortion pregnancy centers at Slate.
- Read NARAL Pro-Choice California Foundation’s CPC report.
- Read the San Francisco ordinance.
- The New York Times covered the introduction of the bill, and Huffington Post covered its initial passage.
SF Gate covered the 2015 federal court decision to uphold the ordinance
- Read NARAL Pro-Choice Texas Foundation’s 2009 and 2014 investigations into anti-abortion pregnancy centers.
- Rewire covered the 2010 ordinance, and Burnt Orange Report covered the 2012 revision.
- Read the revised 2012
- View the 2010 and 2012 City Council meetings.
- The Austin Chronicle covered the federal court ruling and the history of the ordinance.
- Read NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland’s CPC report.
- Read the Baltimore ordinance and the Montgomery County ordinance.
- View the 2010 Montgomery County Council meeting when the ordinance was passed.
- Rewire covered the history of the Baltimore case following the Fourth Circuit’s 2013 ruling.
NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland’s timeline of the litigation on the ordinances
- Read NARAL Pro-Choice New York’s investigation into CPCs.
- Read the New York ordinance.
- In 2011, New York Civil Liberties Union filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the New York ordinance.
- Read a summary of the court cases surrounding the ordinance in the National Partnership for Women and Families’ Repro Health Watch.
- Read about the Supreme Court decision not to hear an appeal to the Second Circuit Court’s ruling in
- Read our , one of the young women who went undercover for the investigation.
- Read NARAL Pro-Choice Wisconsin Foundation’s investigation into CPCs.
- Read the Dane County ordinance.
- NARAL Pro-Choice Wisconsin released a statement praising the ordinance.