A:  Crisis Pregnancy Centers (or CPCs) exist for one purpose and one purpose only: to push an anti-choice agenda upon women’s bodies. While it’s true many women who become pregnant will not necessarily choose abortion, they need to be able to access viable, unbiased medical information regarding their options before they can make this decision.  CPCs work to limit that decision to a small range of options, often to the detriment of the woman’s ability to make an informed choice regarding her own body. 

Crisis Pregnancy Centers also use deceptive tactics to lure vulnerable women into their doors.  They claim to offer “options information” and promise free pregnancy tests and sonograms.  They often have the word “choice” in their name or advertisements to trick women into believing they’re entering a “pro-choice” clinic.  However, their information is one-sided and much of it is medically false.  Most CPCs, in fact, staff no doctors or medical professionals at all.  There is no “choice” within the walls of CPCs… only lies and manipulation.  Read about some experiences with CPCs on ourTestimonials page for examples of these destructive tactics.

Reproductive health clinics, on the other hand, are medical clinics that offer unbiased scientific information regarding contraception, abortion, adoption, and parenting.  Their mission is to inform women of all of their options and help them make the decision that is right for them.  No clinic that provides abortions will ever force a woman to have an abortion against her will, but CPCs will do everything in their power to force women not to have an abortion, even if it was her decision to do so.

Q: Is abortion a safe way to deal with an unplanned pregnancy?

A: Abortion procedures can take two forms: medical andsurgical.  Both procedures are safe when performed by a licensed practitioner, which is why it’s imperative to keep abortion legal and accessible. 

Medical abortions involve two pills: mifepristone and misoprostol.  This is a procedure for women less than 9 weeks pregnant.  Complications are rare and may include allergic reaction to the pills, infection, or heavy bleeding.  Your doctor will give you an information sheet with early warning signs of complications.  Complications with medical abortions are rarely serious.

According to the World Health Organization, surgical abortion is one of the safest surgical procedures in practice.   Complications are rare and similar to those of medical abortions, but these complications are generally detected earlier because the entire abortion is monitored by a doctor.  

Instances of life-threatening complications from abortion are actually lower than with childbirth. While this is a fact that has many times been argued by anti-choice organizations and CPCs, the World Health Organization has found that the real “magnitude of the problem” regarding abortion complications is the lack of access to safe, legal procedures. 

Q: Would making abortions illegal reduce the number of abortions?

A:  No.  In fact, a recent study conducted by the World Health Organization alongside the Guttmacher Institute concluded that “abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not.”

Before the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion throughout the United States, abortions still took place, but they took place illegally and often in unclean and dangerous conditions.  Often women induced their own abortions by ingesting poisonous chemicals or by inserting a sharp object into the uterus (hence the coat hanger symbol that has become an archetypal symbol of the pro-choice movement).  Many women died from these “back ally” or “do it yourself” procedures, and women continue to die or face serious health complications in countries where abortion is illegal.  Women in the United States and other countries with legal abortion who cannot access a clinic for financial or location reasons also continue to face that devastating reality. 

A: This is a widely publicized and widely debated issue that has, unfortunately, been filled with controversy and political agenda.  When such issues become political, it is often the woman, the one whose health and well-being should be considered first and foremost, who has to make the greatest compromise in her own healthcare due to some politicians pretending to “know what’s best.”  Fetal pain was rarely a consideration for women considering abortion before 2005 when anti-choice legislators first introduced the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act.

Some background: in 2005, the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act (S 51/HR 356) was introduced in both congressional houses to “ensure that women seeking an abortion are fully informed regarding the pain experienced by their unborn child.”  After the first twenty weeks of pregnancy, authors of this bill charge, fetuses may be structurally capable of experiencing pain.  The bill proposes creating mandatory a script stating this alleged fact to be presented to women seeking abortions after twenty weeks of pregnancy, and anesthetics must be offered for the procedure to take place.  This script would be drafted by members of Congress, not the healthcare provider a woman has chosen to entrust with her reproductive decisions.   The Act was reintroduced in January of 2007, but it has not gotten further than its referral committee in either case.   

Supporters of this Act (and as seen in many CPC informational materials) declare a fetus can feel pain during abortion because of its “reflex” away from medical tools seen in a particular video of an abortion.  However, in an August, 2005 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, researchers concluded that “it was unlikely that a fetus experienced pain in the same manner as an adult human prior to twenty-nine weeks of gestation.”  It also stated that it was unlikely that the “reflex response of the fetus was equal to our psychological and physiological perception of pain” [1].  The article also suggested that giving fetuses anesthetics may increase complications for the woman, not to mention add to the overall cost of the procedure.  The number of providers would most likely shrink as well.  Still, the way the script would be worded, a woman’s refusal of fetal anesthesia would seem like an almost barbaric decision, leaving her open to further guilt from the anti-choice camp.

What’s more, women already have the freedom to discuss issues surrounding fetal pain with their healthcare provider should that be a concern.  We don’t need politicians telling us what our concerns should be.  Providers don’t need mandatory scripts and unfounded medical decisions made for them.   If you are considering abortion and are concerned about fetal pain, talk to your provider and she/he will be happy to discuss the issue with you based on her/his professional opinion. 

Q: But isn’t abortion murder?

A: This is an issue that varies from person to person.  Because of varying religious and moral beliefs, there is no definitive answer to this question.  But that’s hardly what CPCs are about.  When a woman becomes pregnant, the fate of her fetus and her body should be her decision and her decision only, and that decision should be well-informed.   The problem with Crisis Pregnancy Centers is that they’ve already made that decision for you once you walk through their doors.  Regardless of your personal beliefs about abortion, CPCs will do everything in their power to make sure you ascribe to their beliefs, not yours. 

Because of the differences in opinion on this matter, it is important to be informed and be able to access unbiased information.  Real reproductive health and family planning clinics will help you make the best decision depending on your beliefs and desires without trying to force you to follow an agenda. 

Q: I’ve heard abortion can cause breast cancer, sterility, and depression.  Is this true?

A: No accredited study has shown a definitive link between breast cancer or sterility and abortion. These are myths created by incomplete studies and perpetuated by anti-choice groups such as the Eagle Forum and the Culture of Life Foundation.  However, thorough studies and expert statements by the National Cancer Institute and the Mayo Clinic have concluded that there is no link between abortion and either breast cancer or infertility. 

The abortion – depression link is a decidedly hairier issue.  While a study by the British Medical Journal determined there was no viable link between depression and abortion, there are many factors in place that can cause psychological and emotional stress for women who have had abortions.  One major factor is the guilt and stigma created and perpetuated by anti-choice groups and CPCs.  If women are repeatedly being told abortion is bad, then of course they are more likely to feel bad about having an abortion.  However, it’s not likely this guilt and depression would happen if there was no outside social stigma regarding her decisions.  That is why it’s important for women to follow their own convictions regarding their reproductive destinies, and following one’s own convictions requires access to as much unbiased information as possible. 

The anti-choice camp, however, has created a fake psychological condition to describe the depression women will apparently get following an abortion:  Post Abortion Stress Syndrome, or PASS.  PASS is a made-up term used to further demonize abortion; it is not recognized by the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, or any medical organization for that matter. PASS would be better described as postpartum depression after an abortion.  Postpartum depression is a common condition that results from the drastic change in hormone levels between the time a woman is pregnant and within 24 hours after she gives birth (which causes a drop in estrogen and progesterone levels).  This is possible following an abortion or miscarriage as well; after all, the same drop in hormone levels between “pregnant” and “no longer pregnant” does happen. 

[1] Perrucci, Alissa. “The Politics of Fetal Pain.” In Abortion Under Attack: Women on the challenges facing choice, edited by Krista Jacob, 137-142. Emeryville, CA: Seal Press, 2006.