"The amazing thing, I think as I close the door, is that they still come.  After hearing all that terrible propaganda and lies and being shown the inaccurate pictures by the places calling themselves some version of a pregnancy counseling center, they still come.  They are desperate to end an unwanted pregnancy."
- Dr. Susan Wicklund, from her book This Common Secret, reflecting on the patients that come to her clinic after visiting a CPC

• A 2006 report on federally-funded CPCs prepared for Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) reports 87% of investigated crisis pregnancy centers provided false or misleading information about abortion, information that can be easily rebuked by sound medical research.  In addition to this report, we have found similar information on most CPC websites listed on this site, federally-funded or not:

• They claim induced abortion increases one's risk for developing breast cancer.  This claim, often backed up by "research" performed by other anti-choice organizations, has been refuted by the National Cancer Institute, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Lancet Journal of Oncology. 
  
  
• They claim having an induced abortion causes complications in future pregnancies.  While many studies have concluded this is not true, the claim is often supported by research from the early 1970s before abortion was even legal in the United States.  A closer look reveals some of these studies were performed in order to investigate the effects of illegal and unsafe abortions.
  
  
• The single most commonly purported "side-effect" of abortion is a form of depression called "post abortion stress syndrome" or "post abortion syndrome," a condition not recognized by the American Psychological Association or the American Psychiatric Association.
  

• They give out pamphlets featuring graphic images of aborted fetuses or show disturbing videos.  Often these pamphlets and videos are medically inaccurate or overly hyped in order to shock women away from choosing abortion.
   
• Many provide little to no assistance for pregnant women planning on becoming single mothers, or women who have revoked consent for adoption.  No CPC we have investigated gave out any information about WIC or other programs designed to help single mothers.  CPCs have been described to us by community activists as "adoption rings."

• They use irresponsible rhetoric to augment the emotional after-effects of abortion, often skewing language or fabricating research to make abortion seem more dangerous.
  
  
• They claim emergency contraception (which can prevent pregnancy when taken within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse) causes "early abortions," a scientifically inaccurate claim.  They also refer to a fertilized egg as a "life."  Emergency contraception, also known as the "morning after pill," prevents pregnancy by either delaying ovulation or by thickening the mucus around the uterus to make implantation less likely. 

• Pregnancy, as defined by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and recognized by the vast majority of the medical community, begins when a fertilized egg implants into the uterine wall.  This usually occurs a few days after fertilization from sexual intercourse, and a pregnancy is completely undetectable before this point.  In fact, it may take several days for a sperm to unite with an egg.  From this information, we gather that many CPCs are claiming "life" somehow begins before pregnancy.
• Between 30% and 70% of fertilized eggs naturally fail to implant. 
  
• No research has shown that emergency contraception has any affect on an established pregnancy.
  
• Declaring this very safe method of back-up contraception to be an "abortifacient" is not only medically inaccurate and irresponsible, it also may present moral obstacles for women who want to prevent pregnancy but are personally opposed to abortion, thus causing more unplanned pregnancies.
  

• They make false claims about when abortion is available.  For example, the Greensboro Pregnancy Care Center claims the safe (and less expensive) manual vacuum aspiration procedure can only be done up to 7 weeks since last menstrual period (LMP), when it can in fact be performed until 12 weeks LMP. 

• No comprehensive information is given about pregnancy prevention; in fact, many CPCs warn of "dangerous side-effects" associated with contraceptive use.  Some go so far as to claim hormonal contraception (the Pill, NuvaRing, OrthoEvra, etc) somehow increases your risk of contracting a sexually transmitted disease.
  

• Many CPCs encourage pregnant women to "wait and see" if they miscarry, a clear attempt at delaying decision making until the fetus is past the gestational limits for abortion.  In addition, some CPCs estimate gestation from ultrasound to be far past actual gestation in order to confuse the pregnant woman and restrict her options.
  

• CPCs often claim that abortion clinics will perform an abortion on a woman that isn't even pregnant for money, or that abortion doctors are only there to make a profit.  This claim is easily refuted by the fact that clinics charge on average nearly $100 less than the actual cost of the procedure.  Most doctors have to spend huge amounts of money to hire personal security guards to protect against anti-choice violence.  Given by the chronic conditions of underfunded clinics and under paid doctors (not to mention strict medical ethics standards), it is highly unlikely a doctor would perform an abortion procedure on a woman that did not need one.

• They nearly always refer to an embryo or fetus as a "baby" and a pregnancy as a "life," thus pre-framing a woman's thought process with bias and inaccuracy.

• Most give very little information about their services or reproductive health on their websites.  Instead, potential clients are instructed to "make an appointment" with additional questions without any disclaimer that the CPC will not be giving accurate information.

 

 

 

 

This is a screen shot from the ACPC Women's Clinic's "Roadmap to Choice," a feature available on their website.  After a woman answers a series of obvious questions, she is prompted to "schedule a medical consultation" to find out more.  ACPC is another CPC that offers false and misleading information about abortion risks, procedures, and after-effects.  

 

This is another example of the common "shock and lure" tactic used by CPCs: they mention that abortion can have "serious risks," but give very little information unless an appointment is scheduled.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is another screen shot from the ACPC Women's Clinic website.  The claim that using hormonal birth control increases a woman's risk of contracting an STD is backed up with a link to the Center for Disease Control.  However, a quick look at the CDC website reveals ACPC is not taking into account cause and effect: the CDC recognizes that the real problem is that women are not well informed enough to know that hormonal birth control (the Pill, etc) does not protect against STDs, thus reducing the rate of condom usage in women on the Pill.  While this is an unfortunate fact, the ACPC Women's Clinic is hardly helping with such limited information available.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another troubling screen shot from ACPC Women's Clinic.  The highlighted text reads: "Women who have an untreated STI (like Chlamydia or Gonorrhea) are up to 25% more likely to develop Pelvic Inflamatory [sic] Disease (PID) following an abortion procedure."

 

Unfortunately, the CDC fact sheet linked in the citation at the bottom of the page lacks any information about any connection between PID and abortion, or pelvic inflammatory disease at all for that matter.  

 

Additionally, all clinics provide a full lab workup for abortion patients prior to their procedure, and will treat the STD appropriately.  We can, however, see yet another clear use of "shock and lure" tactics here, as readers are encouraged to make an appointment for an STD test with the CPC, where they will likely be given far more than they signed up for.

This is a screen shot from the Pregnancy Test Center in Oxford, MS. First of all, Carol Everett's testimony has been disputed for inconsistencies and a lack of proof that she was, in fact, ever involved in clinic duties other than administration.