During this season in which we celebrate perhaps the most widely known “unexpected pregnancy,” we should seek to see the divinity in each woman and the baby she carries. We should work together to consistently offer each of them the respect, love and material support to live a joyful life. This includes valuing the work of those that help children to term and well beyond.
Three economists recently estimated that some 32,000 otherwise abortion-slated babies were born since the Dobbs decision, which held the U.S. Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. Such births, the authors note, will have “long-lasting and profound effects” on “pregnant people,” their “educational investment, employment, earnings, and financial security.”
While stating no policy position on abortion, the authors seem to suggest that ending the lives of babies improves the economic status of their mothers. The idea that terminating a child’s life relieves poverty is so deeply flawed that it would be better considered in the satirical tradition of Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal,” which famously argued that the 18th-century Irish might ease their economic troubles by selling their children as food to rich gentlemen and ladies.
Yet the truth of the matter is easy to miss in the middle of what pro-life advocate Ryan Bangert calls an “infowar” about abortion. Rather than having open debates in the public square about the many legitimate disagreements over policy and philosophy, abortion advocates are increasingly labeling pro-life views as mis- or disinformation, or part of an “infodemic” that must be suppressed.
This is a dangerous trend on many levels. But first, let’s be clear. Women’s expanded opportunities predate Roe, and their rising participation in economic, educational and political life is independent of the ratios and rates of abortion. Such gains are not necessarily evenly distributed, and pregnancy is challenging in the best of circumstances — even more so when finances are limited, and fathers, families and friends are unable or unwilling to offer emotional and material support.
As Feminists for Life puts it: Women deserve better than abortion.
Consistently, many states support alternatives to abortion for women during pregnancy and the first years of a child’s life. And since the 1960s, crisis pregnancy centers or pregnancy resource centers have sought to protect the inherent dignity of both mothers and their babies — while fighting the myth that surprise pregnancies result in “vampire children”: tiny, financially draining, dream-dashing adversaries who “suck the lifeblood out of their parents.”
Without minimizing the challenges pregnancy presents, they help women see that an unplanned pregnancy is not a Sophie’s choice. In fact, it can bring unplanned joy.
Abortion proponents assert that abortion, even when not necessary to preserve the health or life of the mother, is essential health care. But the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists counters that “pregnancy is not a disease, and the killing of human beings in utero is not medical care.”
Like suicide crisis lines, pregnancy resource centers help clients consider lifesaving choices during a crucially difficult time — and yet they have become a central target in the current abortion infowars. Abortion advocates disparage pregnancy resource centers as “fake clinics,” and call for state, federal and corporate power to stamp out the centers.
Pro-choice proponents allege pregnancy resource centers try to “intercept women with unintended pregnancies” in an effort to persuade them that “adoption or parenting is a better option” via alleged “deceptive practices,” which allegations have been refuted directly by the centers as false.
The majority of pregnancy resource centers are part of a ministry or faith-based commitment to serve — a characteristic they don’t hide. Some centers receive government grants directed at nonprofit organizations promoting “childbirth, parenting and alternatives to abortion” and some may qualify for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families under state codes (although recently proposed administrative rules would strip TANF funds from resource centers). Others rely on private donations and grants.
Pregnancy resource centers many on very limited budgets, provide to mostly low-income clients free services, which may include pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, STI testing and/or treatment, prenatal and parenting education classes, and material assistance such as diapers, baby clothing, car seats and strollers. Some centers also help with housing, job training and employment, and financial needs.
Since its founding in the mid-1980s, the Pregnancy Resource Center of Salt Lake City has helped 80,000 lives through education, limited medical services and the provision of material goods. All this, no doubt valued at millions of dollars, has been provided at no charge to the community. The Salt Lake PRC also makes about 5,000 referrals annually to community resources such as WIC, Medicaid, housing, food, shelter, rehab, vocational training or adoption services. It is supported by about 40 area churches, several family foundations and hundreds of individuals, and now also has an office in American Fork to serve Utah County.
All this being said, Secular Pro-Life points out that “you don’t have to be religious to have a problem with killing humans” and encourages “men and women to embrace control over whether they conceive children,” rather than end the lives of the unborn.
Yet ideological diversity is not always accepted in the current national conversation on the topic. Abortion proponents support laws requiring pregnancy resource centers to inform women about the availability of abortion — even though the 930,160 abortions in 2020 suggest that women already have that information. Thankfully, the Supreme Court has upheld pregnancy resource centers’ First Amendment right not to be compelled to “advertise” abortions.
However, efforts continue to be made in some quarters to mandate the information pregnancy resource centers must provide their clients. Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s proposed “Stop Anti-Abortion Disinformation Act” aims to empower the Federal Trade Commission to decide what constitutes “misleading statements related to the provision of abortion services,” and to enforce its truth test with litigation and heavy civil penalties.
Similar “consumer protection” legislation has been enacted in Illinois, Connecticut, Vermont, and in at least two municipalities in Massachusetts. In a challenge to the Connecticut law, a pregnancy resource center alleged that the law’s intent was to prevent a center from “communicating freely with the individuals it serves and with those it wishes to serve, unless (it) agrees to provide abortions, dispense abortifacient drugs, or offer referrals for abortions or abortifacient drugs.”
During litigation, Connecticut’s attorney general admitted being unaware of any women being deceived by a center, so had no basis for enforcing the law.
The lack of incriminating evidence hasn’t stopped other states from proceeding. Despite issuing a December 2022 consumer alert warning the public that “Crisis Pregnancy Centers do NOT provide abortion care… (and) seek to prevent people from accessing comprehensive reproductive health care,” New Jersey’s Division of Consumer Affairs has been unwilling to release to a coalition of pregnancy resource centers any records supporting the factual basis for such an alert, while also claiming that no complaints against the centers exist.
In his preliminary injunction order, Judge Iain D. Johnston characterized Illinois SB1909 as “both stupid and very likely unconstitutional,” arguing that “its own supporter admitted it was unneeded and was unsupported by evidence when challenged.”
“It is likely unconstitutional,” he continued, “because it is a blatant example of government taking the side of whose speech is sanctionable” — calling the bill “viewpoint discrimination prohibited by the First Amendment.” As of Dec. 13, it appears that enforcement of the law will be permanently enjoined.
Meanwhile, some are publicly proposing joint efforts in which pro-life and pro-abortion rights researchers work together to help women. David Reardon has called for a respectful dialogue that would help identify opportunities for collaboration in research related to abortion and mental health. Those dialogues, Ryan Bangert suggests, might include rich questions such as: “Can we come together to provide every new mother with the material resources she needs to thrive? Can we provide life-affirming options, like adoption and quality foster care, for those women who are unable to assume the burdens of motherhood? Will corporations commit to providing expectant mothers with meaningful support like increased pay and more generous maternity leave instead of paying for abortions? And do pregnancy resource centers deserve our support and thanks for the aid they provide to needy women, instead of verbal and even physical attacks?”
Christmas is a season of life. It reminds us of this matchless gift, and the important work of continuing to protect it at each stage.
Camille S. Williams is an attorney practicing in Provo. She’s published articles related to women’s and family issues. The views expressed are her own.