February 25th, 2007
Posted By:
Categories: Articles

This Time Magazine article about crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) entitled “The Grass Roots Abortion War” is causing some buzz in the adoption community. There is mention of “making adoption easier,” as a way of decreasing abortions.

They connected,” nurse Joyce Wilson says, recalling the reaction of the women who saw the filmy image of their fetus onscreen. “They bonded. You could just see it.

One interesting feature about this article is that the writer of this article says that “crisis pregnancy centers in the U.S. that are working to end abortion.” Although this is a fact that many people have suspected for some time, I have not seen it stated so honestly before.


This article is an illuminating look at crisis pregnancy centers in the United States, and clearly shows their powerful reach. As the article clearly illustrates, the majority of the crisis pregnancy centers are all controlled by two companies which serve three-fourths of the crisis pregnancy centers in the U.S.

Both sides of this debate were interviewed, often refuting accusations made by the other side. Whatever you believe about abortion, I think it is clear that many of the tactics used by crisis pregnancy centers are questionable.

Although I support the idea of promoting parenting by providing some support for pregnancy women, I cannot condone the terror tactics and outright lies that some of the CPCs use to further their cause. At least it seems they are dropping the pretense of existing to help a young woman with her decision. This article makes CPCs motives crystal clear.

In my view, it is a sad state of affairs in America how we “help” a young woman in a crisis pregnancy. It seems as though young woman are often not given factual information about any of the alternatives. Pro-lifers exaggerate or lie about the affects of abortion, pro-choicers dismiss the affects of abortion and pro-adoption advocates de-emphasize the harm of adoption to a woman. Parenting gets the least mention among the alternatives and not even this option is truthfully presented.

Finding “help” that fairly and honestly offers information about a young pregnant woman’s choice seems nearly impossible. Some believe that if terror tactics prevent abortions, they are justified. Why can’t we just tell the truth about all three options: parenting, abortion and adoption and let pregnant young women evaluate the information and have true choices? They are the ones who suffer the consequences of any choice they make and deserve unbiased and honest information about their choices.

5 Responses to “Time Magazine Article on Crisis Pregnancy Centers”

  1. hsaxton says:

    To say that all crisis pregnancy centers lie about the effects of abortion suggests that there are no negative affects from abortion. This simply isn’t true. Studies have linked it to everything from breast cancer to PTSD to subsequent infertility and depression issues. (Not to mention the 100% mortality rate of the children involved.)

    I’ve been involved with several over the years (informally, by making donations of baby equipment and so on), and have always been impressed with the compassion and grace extended to clients.

    Crisis pregnancy centers exist because people who believe abortion is wrong want to make sure that no woman ever feels as though she has no other options.

    I admire the fact that these people make a concerted effort to lend a hand, rather than simply feel as though they’ve done their part by simply voting pro-life. Talk is cheap — and all too often a source of harm and misunderstanding rather than healing.

  2. Jan Baker says:

    I believe that abortion does have some negative affects – just not as many as most crisis pregnancy centers suggest. Studies link placing a child for adoption to PTSD, infertility and depression as well, but crisis pregnancy centers do not acknowledge that.

    Most crisis pregnancy centers disguise their purposes and purport to offer women choices, when in reality they want to recognize only their favored choice. If their sole purpose is to prevent abortions, that should be made more obvious. Yet, they pretend to offer “choice.”

    I cannot admire using terror tactics to coerce a woman into any decision -adoption, abortion or parenting.

  3. Opalwench says:

    I went to a CPC during my crisis pregnancy. While their national website touted that they would offer information on all three options, the experience was quite different. Nor did they actually stop to ask me about my situation, instead simply just made a lot of (false) assumptions. The experience still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

  4. crazylittlek says:

    pro-choicers dismiss the affects of abortion

    Except they don’t dismiss the effects. What they do is give women a crash course on statistics. While some women have lingering effects, the overwhelming majority — even those in the “highest risk” categories — feel relieved.

    Think of it this way: everyone, pro-choice and pro-life, agrees that roughly 1/3 of all women in this country have abortions by the age of 45. If abortion really were so traumatic, you’d see very few women holding down jobs, raising children(*), or just getting out of bed in the morning.

    (* The overwhelming majority of women — roughly 4/5, if I remember correctly — who get abortions already have children and/or have children in the future. The fact that a) people on both sides tend to view women who had abortions as permanently childless, b) the fact that pro-lifers who get abortions repeatedly claim “my situation is different because I have kids/plan on having kids,” and c) the overwhelming majority of animal rights people who refuse to kill cockroaches are pro-choice and have an unconventional yet theoretically rock-solid argument for how this harmonizes with their AR positions, makes me suspect that the abortion debate is more about permanently relinquishment of motherhood and nontraditional gender roles than anything else.)

  5. Jan Baker says:

    I have talked to several women who have had abortions, including a few birth mothers. None said that abortion was traumatic for them, but I know that it does affect some women more. Most birth mothers I know believe that adoption had a far more traumatic affect on them than abortion.

    Not saying abortion generally has all the affects that the CPCs claim, but I do believe that in a small minority of women it does affect them.

    I tend to agree that if abortions were that traumatic, they would not be as popular. Adoption is no longer as popular as it once was because it IS traumatic for most.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.