Issues We Should Debate: Crisis Pregnancy Centers

The frontline in the abortion wars is no longer the Supreme Court. If Roe v. Wade was overturned tomorrow, most states would enact its provisions legislatively. Some might include restrictions on late term abortions, which would be a fine thing, but most abortions are not late term. Crisis pregnancy centers, such as those run by CareNet, have become the new battlefront and it is one where both parties can find common ground if they are willing to say no to their more extreme partisans. Pro-choice forces are highly critical of crisis pregnancy centers. They charge that they try to manipulate women, and deny them accurate information about abortion and its consequences, all in an effort to persuade pregnant women to carry their child to term. They also see these centers as an alternative to the network of Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics that were set up immediately after Roe to ensure access to abortion. People forget that abortion is now an industry, and people will fight to hold on to their livelihoods. Pro-life forces see crisis pregnancy centers as a way to lower the number abortions by reaching out to women who feel they have no economic or social alternative to the "easy" choice to abort. These centers correctly point out that many women suffer from post-abortion trauma, and that carrying a child to term and giving it up for adoption is not an easy choice but it is an heroic one. Most importantly, these centers could be described as "pro-choices," in the plural, because they make sure that a woman knows there are alternatives but they do not deny the legal right of women to have one. Republicans can usefully embrace these centers as expressions of compassion that help women in a difficult situation. Democrats can usefully embrace these centers for making sure a woman knows that she has alternatives. Both parties should ensure that government funding only goes to centers that provide accurate information to women, but they should see these centers as a way to lower the abortion rate in America. That is a goal everyone can embrace. Democrats should stand up to the most radical pro-choice groups that seek to deny government funding, or even to use government regulations to close the crisis pregnancy centers, because the centers state their preference for alternatives to abortion. Women aren’t dumb: they can find their way to a Planned Parenthood clinic if they wanted to. The Church and other groups have a constitutional right, as well as a moral obligation, to reach out to women who are facing a crisis pregnancy, but the Church has no obligation to deny its teachings when it does so. Like the story of the rich young man in the Gospels, if women chose to walk away sad from the offer of help in carrying their child to term, the Church cannot stop them. But, the Church and others concerned about protecting human life have just as strong an obligation to state clearly why they believe abortion is the wrong choice and to offer alternative choices. The dignity of women is in no ways infringed by these crisis pregnancy centers. It is doubtful that any of this will get discussed in the 2008 election. Obama has no interest in discussing anything but the economy and McCain can only win if national security is at the center of the debate. But, the ground is shifting on this important national issue, and staking out a stance now would help the eventual winner to resist the pressure from the extremes after the election. Michael Sean Winters