Crisis Pregnancy Centers Refuse Ultrasounds That Could Save Lives
7.9.25
Click to skip ahead: Minor Hypocrisy looks at the latest conservative moves to target children. Attacks on Data & Privacy has an update from the company that gave Texas cops license plate data to find an abortion patient. In the States has news from Texas, Wisconsin, Michigan, Florida, and more. Attacks on Abortion Pills reports on the latest anti-abortion lobbying efforts. Finally, Care Crisis flags the latest way CPCs are endangering women’s lives. Don’t miss this last section—seriously.
Minor Hypocrisy
Imagine this: A teenager comes home from school one day and informs their parents that they’re pregnant. Before their mom and dad can get a word out in response, the teen hands them a letter from Planned Parenthood. This letter informs the couple in no uncertain terms that if they try to prevent their child from having an abortion, they’ll be breaking the law and sued into oblivion.
How much fun do you think Fox News would have with that one?
But that’s exactly what anti-abortion groups are doing right now: The Justice Foundation’s Center Against Forced Abortions (CAFA) provides legally threatening letters for pregnant teens to print out and disseminate to their parents, boyfriend, guidance counselors, police officers and others. All say basically the same thing: you can’t force me into having an abortion, and if you do, you’ll be breaking the law.
Now—none of us want to see anyone, regardless of their age, forced into abortion. Just like we don’t want to see anyone forced into pregnancy and childbirth! But these letters tell parents that even threatening to ground their child over a pregnancy could be illegal. (Hilariously, CAFA’s website includes a disclaimer stating that the letters shouldn’t be taken as “specific legal advice.”)
Here’s the thing: These letters are in direct conflict with conservatives’ growing ‘parental rights’ rhetoric. Even the Justice Foundation’s own website says they believe parents have the “natural right” to direct their children’s lives. Apparently that right ends, however, when parents make decisions for their children that don’t adhere to the conservative agenda.
After all, it doesn’t make sense that children would need parental consent for a ten-minute abortion, but not for childbirth—which is much riskier and more permanent! Or consider the Louisiana mother arrested on criminal abortion charges: Republicans claim she ‘coerced’ her daughter into ending her pregnancy. But why is it ‘coercion’ to encourage an abortion but not coercion to refuse her one?
That hypocrisy may be on full display at the nation’s highest court before too long. Just last week, the Supreme Court declined to review Montana’s parental consent law—but Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas made clear that they’re eager to hear a different case on the issue. In a two-page statement, the pair wrote that the Court’s decision not to hear the case shouldn’t be read as a “rejection of the argument,” but that Montana’s specific suit was just a “poor vehicle.”
All of which is to say: focusing on minors, ‘parental rights’, and ‘coercion’ are clearly central to conservatives’ anti-abortion agenda. That’s why it’s the perfect time for abortion rights groups and Democrats to go all-in on protecting teens’ rights—not just because it’s the right thing to do, but because it’s an opportunity to take one of their major strategies head-on.
On another note: CAFA also has a letter that women can give to the father of their fetus. That letter says that men who inflict “emotional distress” by breaking up with their partner over a pregnancy “may subject you to both civil and criminal liability.” That’s quite a claim!
Attacks on Data & Privacy
Remember how Texas cops tried to find an abortion patient by using data from an automatic license plate reader (ALPR) that gave them access to over 83,000 cameras across the country? I sure do!
Well, the CEO of that ALPR company, Flock, is pushing back on the reports—claiming that they never ever released data about abortion patients. Except, of course, when they did.
Flock co-founder Garrett Langley wrote in a blog post a few weeks ago that “clickbait-driven reporting and social media rumors” mischaracterized the work his company does. “According to the Sheriff in Johnson County himself, this claim is unequivocally false,” he says. Well if a cop said it, it must be true!
Langley goes onto say that police were simply looking for a woman who they believed might be in trouble after self-managing an abortion. And that “no charges were ever filed against the woman and she was never under criminal investigation.” But that doesn’t really matter, does it?
The point is that cops used license plate data to track an abortion patient. Full stop. Claiming it was for her own good or that she wasn’t arrested, is an ice cold comfort. And honestly? The fact that someone who runs an ALPR company is so eager to take the word of Texas law enforcement on anything abortion-related tells me all I need to know.
In the States
Let’s keep talking about Texas for a moment. Remember how Republicans there have been desperately trying to revive a century-old ban that would allow them to arrest abortion patients?
First they tried it through legislation that Abortion, Every Day revealed as a Trojan Horse bill. Then they pulled the same shit with SB 2880, legislation Republicans say would just further crack down on abortion pills. In reality, these bills were gift-wrapped power-grabs for Attorney General Ken Paxton, who has been itching to use a 1925 ban to target patients and criminalize travel.
SB 2880 stalled in a House committee this year, so now Gov. Greg Abbott is giving anti-abortion lawmakers a second chance in a special session. You can bet that I’ll be keeping a close eye on this one.
And remember, Texas is the canary in the coal mine! If you want to know what conservatives have planned for the whole country, just check out what they’re up to there. In the meantime, learn more about SB 2880 by revisiting our explainer:
Arizona decisively chose to enshrine a right to abortion back in November, passing a ballot measure that protects abortion rights until ‘viability’. So, in May, the ACLU and Center for Reproductive Rights filed a lawsuit to strike state laws that require a 24-hour waiting period, in-person counseling, and ultrasound before someone can access care.
In new court filings this week, Arizona Republican leadership argues that these laws are actually perfectly constitutional. In the filing, Republicans claim that “a modest 24-hour waiting period enhances informed decision-making and fortifies long-term psychological health” for pregnant patients. (?!)
They also argue in favor of the ultrasound and in-person counseling law, claiming that otherwise, someone might take abortion pills at home, or worse, “coerced.”
“The state has a compelling interest in ensuring that a pregnant woman is not coerced into taking an abortion pill by another person, such as a spouse, partner, abuser, or trafficker. The provider lacks the ability to do so if the provider communicates with the patient exclusively through remote means.”
Where do we even begin? First, there’s nothing “modest” about the state forcing someone to delay when they access health care. Second, file this as just the latest in the anti-abortion movement’s push to frame all abortions—especially via pills—as “coercion,” a trend we’ve been following closely at Abortion, Every Day.
No hearing is set for this case yet, but it’s clear that despite the resounding popularity of abortion in Arizona, anti-abortion activists remain as determined as ever to impose their will, anyway.
Across the country in Michigan, meanwhile, a state judge just rejected a lawsuit brought by an advocacy organization to challenge the state’s ban on Medicaid funds for abortion. The judge determined that the organization, YWCA Kalamazoo, doesn’t have standing because “it cannot demonstrate an interest or particularized injury” on the organization’s behalf or its clients—even as the org raised that as taxpayers, they should have a say in where their taxes go.
The Michigan ruling is the latest blow to abortion affordability, between the newly passed federal budget bill’s mandate to defund Planned Parenthood (temporarily blocked in court), and the Supreme Court’s ruling to allow South Carolina to push Planned Parenthood off Medicaid.
Apparently conservatives are not happy about the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s recent decision to strike down a 1849 law that Republicans used as a total abortion ban. Over in the Wall Street Journal, Thomas Brejcha, president of the Thomas More Society, writes that the court “usurped the legislature’s authority to set policy” with their ruling. Excuse me while I find the world’s tiniest violin emoji: 🎻 Maybe if the legislature wasn’t trying to use laws passed before women had the right to vote, we wouldn’t have a problem!
In other news: Remember the Democrat running for governor in Florida with a history of supporting fetal personhood? That candidate, David Jolly, now claims to back Roe. But in a new op ed in the Miami Herald, Anna Hochkammer, executive director of Florida Women’s Freedom Coalition, is raising alarms about Jolly’s candidacy—and his refrain that his “values haven’t changed.”
You’ll want to check out Anna’s run-down on just how extreme Jolly’s past positions were—especially as he still hasn’t publicly explained them!
Finally, let’s talk about how states are handling the potential defunding of Planned Parenthood clinics. Today, Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson announced that the state will backfill the approximately $11 million in federal funding that Planned Parenthood will lose should the spending bills’ ‘defunding’ provision be allowed to stand. (It’s being fought out in court right now.)
The money would be rerouted from Washington’s Health Care Authority if the lawsuit isn’t successful, The Seattle Times reports. Planned Parenthood serves more than 100,000 patients in the state.
But it isn’t only Washington that’s thinking through how to handle the nightmare that is the BBB. Here are a few quick hits about how Planned Parenthood affiliates and their states are handling the legislation:
In Virginia, the organization says the bill could impact nearly 6,000 Medicaid patients in the state;
Wisconsin Public Radio looks at how Planned Parenthood clinics in the state will fare;
Planned Parenthood in Maryland says about a third of their patients rely on the Medicaid program;
Illinois may boost abortion funding if Planned Parenthood needs it, and the group vows to stay open;
And Planned Parenthood in Florida plans to expand care and combine two clinics.
“Reproductive and bodily autonomy are, in fact, guaranteed under a panoply of human rights under international law, including the rights to life, liberty, security of person, health, privacy, nondiscrimination and to be free from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
The rights to freedom of movement, religion, conscience or belief, and to seek, receive and impart information also underlie individuals’ ability to exercise reproductive and bodily autonomy. While Roe v. Wade grounded abortion within a concept of privacy, human rights offers a far more expansive view.”
- Jaime M. Gher & Elise Keppler of the Global Justice Center, Ms. magazine
Attacks on Abortion Pills
With use of abortion pills—particularly via telemedicine—on the rise, top anti-abortion organizations are doubling and tripling down on trying to get them banned. And they’re pushing increasingly unhinged narratives to frame the medication as dangerous.
This week, a coalition of six anti-abortion groups framing themselves as medical organizations wrote a letter to Trump’s Health and Human Services Department— calling on it to review the supposed risks associated with mifepristone and reinstate previous restrictions loosened by the Biden administration.
Specifically, the groups—led by, you guessed it, the American Association of Pro-Life OB/GYNs (AAPLOG)—want Trump and RFK Jr. to ban telemedicine access to abortion pills. We know why: Just last month, we learned that telemedicine access to the pills now accounts for one in four abortions.
The bogus letter cites a slew of junk science that purports abortion pills are unsafe and should be effectively banned—honing in on the ‘research’ from the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) that Abortion, Every Day debunked back in April.
Per usual, these anti-abortion organizations are framing their call for restrictions as a move to protect women. “Women deserve to know the true risk of serious adverse events and medical emergencies after using mifepristone,” they write.
But do you remember the “serious adverse events” they’re talking about? Out of the 94,605 patients the EPPC says were seriously harmed by abortion pills, 40,960 simply visited an emergency room. Not treated at the emergency room, but visited.
Still, the extremist organizations publishing and citing these reports continue to present themselves as medical professionals and ‘researchers’—regardless of their bad data (and worse morals). The idea is to lend the anti-abortion movement as much medical and scientific credibility as possible. That way, Fox News can run headlines like this one: “Medical groups urge Kennedy, FDA to reexamine broad approval of abortion drugs”
They’d never mention that these ‘medical groups’ think women should be denied life-saving abortions.
Care Crisis
This is terrifying: Crisis pregnancy centers are being warned away from providing ultrasounds for ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages—and not just because it’s legally dangerous. The anti-abortion groups are being cautioned against ultrasounds for certain kinds of pregnancies because the testing could tip women off to the fact that they need abortions.
NBC News has obtained audio of the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA)—a massive anti-abortion organization that provides resources and training for CPCs—telling the fake clinic workers that ectopic pregnancies are “the greatest medical and legal risk for clinics.”
That’s probably because ectopic pregnancies require abortion care—aka real, actual health care, something that CPCs notoriously do not provide. NIFLA’s advice appears to be a response to a 2023 lawsuit against a Massachusetts CPC that failed to diagnose an ectopic pregnancy. The woman later required emergency life-saving surgery for a ruptured fallopian tube.
But NIFLA isn’t just warning fake clinics away from ultrasounds for ectopic pregnancies because of the legal risk—but because it could lead to patients getting abortions. In fact, the group has previously advised its members to avoid offering prenatal screening services to people who show “symptoms of an ectopic pregnancy or miscarriage,” which could lead to them seeking emergency abortion care.
This isn’t an isolated case: Another major anti-abortion CPC conglomerate, Heartbeat International, offers an audio training program hosted by the extremist Dr. Christina Francis, president of AAPLOG. Here’s what she said:
“Abnormal early ultrasound findings are now being used to justify elective abortions and so now, more than ever, it's important that prolife healthcare professionals be accurate in our understanding and communications about these conditions.”
This falls into a familiar pattern: As horror story after horror story emerges about people forced to seek emergency abortions for dangerous, nonviable pregnancies, anti-abortion activists and lawmakers are increasingly targeting the prenatal tests that detect those pregnancies in the first place.
Tell me again how they’re ‘pro-life’.
It’s often said—and can’t be said enough—that CPCs are the anti-abortion movement’s ultimate organizing tool. Whether it’s spreading vile disinformation, surveilling people seeking abortions, or serving as testing grounds for new strategies to stop as many abortions as possible—regardless of the risk to pregnant people’s lives.
That’s why we’ll have much, much more soon on CPCs, and their strategy of posing as credible medical facilities while actively endangering pregnant patients.
Women need to vote out every gop. Why they didn't in the last election I will never fathom.
Conservatives: Parental rights!*
*for me and not for thee