These centers are not regulated as health facilities. They offer services such as free ultrasound scans or diapers and usually try to dissuade women from having an abortion.
By Shefali Luthra, 19.
In the two years since Roe v. WadeSince repealing the law, states have increased public funding for anti-abortion centers – nonmedical facilities designed to deter people from having abortions – by nearly $500 million, according to a new analysis released today.
The analysis was conducted by Equity Forward, a research organization that supports abortion rights and specifically keeps an eye on anti-abortion centers, also known as crisis pregnancy centers. The researchers used budget documents and state laws to track how much money has been invested in these centers since 1995, the first year they could show that public funds were being spent on them.
These facilities have become a focal point in the last two years since Roe’s death brought about the end of federal abortion rights. They usually offer free pregnancy tests and ultrasounds, and some also offer parenting classes or diapers. But they are not subject to the same standards as medical facilities and do not always employ medical professionals.
This means that these ultrasounds can be inaccurate and that they can be accompanied by counseling aimed at dissuading people from having an abortion. Yet in some states with abortion bans, pregnant patients – including those seeking abortions – have said that such centers offer the only affordable option in your area for an ultrasound examination.
Even before Roe’s case, these centers outnumbered abortion clinics by a ratio of three to one, according to a study by the University of Georgia. Now, with abortion almost completely banned in 14 states and significantly restricted in several other states, anti-abortion activists are pushing for increased state funding for these centers. Some have sought to open new facilities in states where the number of abortion patients is increasing.
Conservative MPs, nervous about the political backlash that would accompany the push for unpopular new bans, have followed the call of anti-abortion activists to promote those centers instead. Measures to expand funding for those centers were the most common form of anti-abortion legislation pushed by state governments this year, with nine states increasing their financial support, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks reproductive health policy.
The new report highlights how successful these efforts have been and paints a picture of dramatic growth in just a few years.
From 1995 to 2024, the researchers found, states invested a total of more than $1 billion to support these centers. Some used state funds exclusively, while others also repurposed federal funds allocated to them through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. Notably, since Roe’s fall in 2022, state funding has increased: $489 million was allocated over the past two years as 19 states funneled money into anti-abortion centers.
The largest increases are in the southern states of Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, Tennessee and Texas, all of which have strict abortion restrictions. In Missouri, Tennessee and Texas, the procedure is almost completely banned; illegal past six weeks pregnancy inFlorida; and in North Carolina it is banned for people after 12 weeks of pregnancy.
According to the report, Tennessee’s publicly funded anti-abortion program, which began in 2021, has been increased by more than $23 million over the past two years. North Carolina has spent about $49 million to support anti-abortion centers since 2013; more than $33 million of that was allocated after the summer of 2022. And Texas, the largest state that bans abortion, has spent about $438 million to support anti-abortion centers since 2005, with nearly half of that money allocated in the past two years, the researchers found.
“This is really alarming. States have decided to take millions of dollars away from comprehensive maternal health care and instead funnel money to anti-abortion centers without much oversight or accountability,” said Ashley Underwood, the director of Equity Forward.
The effects are visible, says Kathy Kleinfeld, who runs a reproductive health clinic in Houston. Although her staff can no longer perform abortions, they still advise patients about the option and tell them which clinics in surrounding states can terminate their pregnancies. For one thing, Kleinfeld says, online advertisements from anti-abortion clinics are far more common than they were a few years ago.
“They appear actively and aggressively on the first page, always after the first search for ‘abortion pill’ or ‘abortion clinic’ – whatever,” she said. “Every time you search for one of these important keywords, there are at least three to four anti-abortion centers.”
She increasingly has to instruct her staff to warn patients who call for appointments not to go to one of those centers instead. Even if the centers can offer an earlier appointment, the information they provide may not be accurate, she said.
Kleinfeld said that even before Roe was overturned, she often saw patients in her clinic who had received incorrect ultrasound readings from one of these centers. In one case, before Texas banned abortions, a young woman believed she was eight weeks pregnant – but when Kleinfeld and her team looked at the ultrasound, they found she was actually 20 weeks pregnant. At the time, the state had banned abortions for people who were 20 weeks pregnant or more.
“We have this loose $438 million going to these centers that are supposed to — yes, they don’t perform abortions, but they provide education, counseling and medical care,” she said, referring to Texas’ spending. “What training do these people have? And who’s supervising them?”
