Last week, women's health advocates celebrated the resignation of Eric Keroack from his position as deputy assistant secretary for population affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services. Keroack's job was to oversee $280 million in Title X funds, intended to "provide access to contraceptive supplies and information to all who want and need them, with priority given to low-income persons" - which was problematic, given that Keroack is not only anti-choice, but serves as the director of an organization that opposes contraception on the grounds that it is "demeaning to women."
Opposition to contraception isn't Keroack's only questionable view. He has compared premarital sex to heroin addiction, opposes comprehensive sexual health education, and argues that women who have sex outside of marriage use up their supply of the hormone oxytocin, making it more difficult for them to sustain long-term intimate relationships.
Keroack is resigning in light of investigations into his private medical practice by the Massachusetts Office of Medicaid. While his resignation is certainly worth celebrating, it's worth noting that he is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to radical anti-choice zealots employed by the Bush administration, nominated to the courts, and funded by federal monies. The Keroack resignation should also draw our attention to another well-funded anti-choice phenomenon: Crisis pregnancy centers.
Crisis pregnancy centers - CPCs for short - are a relatively new part of the anti-choice movement. There are 2,300 of them nationwide, compared to 1,819 abortion providers, and they receive upwards of $130 million in federal funding. Keroack is the director of one such center, A Woman's Concern, in Massachusetts. It is this organization which states that "A Woman's Concern is persuaded that the crass commercialization and distribution of birth control is demeaning to women, degrading of human sexuality and adverse to human health and happiness." A Woman's Concern has received $1.5 million in federal grants.
CPCs sound great on their face. They purport to give women "alternatives to abortion" by helping low-income pregnant women apply for social aid, get second-hand baby and maternity clothes, and secure baby supplies like bottles and bassinets. But in actuality, these centers are more about scaring women out of abortion than actually helping them. The better ones present misleading information, and the rest flat-out lie to their clients. Often, they set up shop across the street from abortion providers, and direct women entering abortion clinics into their centers. Once inside, the women are given a pregnancy test, and asked to wait until the results come back. While they're waiting, CPC staff turn on an anti-choice video tape which grossly exaggerates the risks of abortion and is intended to scare clients into childbirth. Women are given pamphlets full of medical inaccuracies, and are bombarded with anti-choice propaganda - they're told that abortion is likely to make them sterile or kill them, that abortion leads to breast cancer, that they will experience serious depression and even suicidal tendencies after abortion, and that contraception can cause abortion. At no point are these centers open about the fact that they are explicitly religious and anti-abortion -- something that a simple perusal of the front page of one of their largest website confirms.
In fact, abortion is at least 10 times safer than childbirth. There is no established link between abortion and depression, despite anti-choice claims of "post-abortive syndrome," a made-up epidemic that is not justified by any major medical or psychological organization. In fact, women are far more likely to experience depression after giving birth - but no one would argue that a chance of post-partum depression is a good reason to limit, outlaw or dissuade women from having children. Further, the abortion/breast cancer link has been thoroughly debunked, and no major medical association recognizes it. Several large-scale studies and evaluations have again and again shown no link. When the National Cancer Institute convened more than 100 medical experts to review any possible connection between abortion and breast cancer, they overwhelmingly concluded that there was none. In fact, out of more than 100 medical experts, only one opposed the findings -- and he is a born-again pro-life Christian, who is the primary "expert" that anti-choice groups cite when referencing abortion and breast cancer.
Yet CPCs have no qualms about subjecting pregnant women to a stream of lies if it will push them into making a particular choice.
At no point during the first visit or phone call do many CPCs reveal that they are an explicitly anti-abortion group. Most do not reveal that they are religious in nature - the vast majority of these centers are run by conservative Christians, who wait for return visits to "share the Gospel" with their clients. Usually, the Gospel is shared once the women are too far along for abortion, and are dependent on the center.
Further, CPCs make promises that are impossible to keep in an effort to persuade pregnant women out of abortion. They often promise full support, but cannot actually give more than a pack of diapers and a few used onesies. Their assistance is completely pregnancy and baby-related - they can offer cheap baby bottles, but mom is usually on her own after baby's first birthday, and there is little recognition that raising a child is a life-long commitment that extends well past the cute infant stage.
There is also little recognition that women with unintended "crisis" pregnancies may be interested in preventing pregnancy in the future. Logic would dictate that it might be worth helping sexually active women prevent unintended pregnancy by offering them a full range of pregnancy-prevention options, from abstinence to contraception to barrier methods like condoms. Instead, crisis pregnancy centers focus entirely on abstinence, telling women that it is the only valid choice, and that their partners don't really love them if they want to have sex before marriage or if they suggest using contraception. There is no suggestion that women might actually want and like sex in their own right.
Even more problematic is the fact that an increasing number of CPCs perform ultrasounds on their clients in an effort to dissuade them from abortion. According to the FDA, ultrasounds should only be used for diagnostic purposes. The American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine has stated that "nondiagnostic fetal imaging without medical indication is inappropriate, medically irresponsible, and potentially unsafe." The CPC staff members who perform ultrasounds are usually not doctors or nurses, and have no training in how to actually read the ultrasound, beyond pointing and saying, "That's your baby!" Low-income women who use CPCs are often uninsured and lacking access to medical care; many may receive an ultrasound at a CPC and logically assume that the person performing a diagnostic medical exam actually knows what they're doing, and would be able to identify a problem with the pregnancy or a fetal abnormality. Since most CPC personnel cannot read an ultrasound at all and have no clue how to pinpoint a problem or abnormality, they actively compromise the health of pregnant women to suit their anti-abortion agenda.
And none of this comes for free. CPCs advertise their services as free for low-income women, but they actually come with serious strings attached. While CPCs do things differently from center to center, a popular system requires pregnant women and new mothers to attend a variety of workshops in order to "earn" things like baby supplies, formula, and maternity clothes. While some of the workshops are undoubtedly helpful - like those emphasizing parenting skills - others focus on Bible study, abstinence, and proselytizing.
In theory, crisis pregnancy centers are great, and anything that helps women to have a wider variety of reproductive choices is a step in the right direction. But not when they compromise actual health care and tell bold-faced lies. And especially not when this pseudo-health care is underwritten by our tax dollars, and was supported by the very person who was supposed to be in charge of women's health funding.
Misleading anti-choice organizations like A Woman's Concern continue to thrive, largely unregulated, across the country. Keroack's resignation is a positive first step in promoting women's health, and in drawing attention to these centers. But regulating CPCs and requiring that they adhere to honesty in advertising regulations and at least be honest with their clients -- as Rep. Carolyn Maloney has proposed in New York -- would be an equally substantial victory.