By Dave Andrusko
According to Zach Levitt Graphics/Multimedia Editor, Opinion for the New York Times, there are more than 2,600 Crisis Pregnancy Centers nationwide — “over three for every abortion-providing facility.” If Roe is overturned, “at least 26 states are likely to ban abortion, reducing the number of abortion facilities nationwide to fewer than 600. In that scenario, C.P.C.s would outnumber abortion facilities more than four to one.”
As you would imagine, writing for the New York Times, this is viewed as an unmitigated disaster. And it has the potential (from their perspective) to become even worse!
In a piece he co-authored for the Times with two professors, their “most striking finding: If Roe v. Wade falls and nearly 200 abortion facilities close, over half of all women of reproductive age will live closer to a C.P.C. than an abortion clinic — an additional 18 million women.”
Let’s assume, for the sake of discussion, these figures are roughly accurate. What do we learn?
First and foremost, their attacks on C.P.Cs.—more commonly called Pregnancy Help Centers—resemble the long litany of pro-abortion hit jobs. Their fear—and fear it is—is because they understand that C.P.Cs. are a threat to what otherwise would be a pro-abortion monopoly. They understand that C.P.Cs. seek a life-affirming outcome for mother and child and that they are in it for the long haul.
Second, Levitt says,
We write that these shifts would make it easier for C.P.C.s to intercept women who are seeking legitimate reproductive health care and would likely have disproportionate impacts on women of color. For example, our analysis shows that the share of Black and Latina women who live closer to a C.P.C. than an abortion facility would triple in a post-Roe v. Wade world.
Abortion clinics locate near their “market,” which is disproportionally composed of women of color. The closer C.P.Cs. are to these women, the more they can help them through a crisis. The Abortion Industry hates this with a passion.
Even the lone positive comment they manage to turn into a negative: “Some C.P.C.s provide material resources to women, like diapers and baby clothes,” they write. “A large share of women who visit C.P.C.s are not pregnant or undecided but are parents who in many cases have been failed by a society that does little to help poor mothers. The anti-abortion movement takes advantage of their economic vulnerability.” (underlining added)
“Some”? Nonsense. One of my daughters is president of a C.P.C. She tells us heartbreaking stories about women who have been abandoned by the men in their lives and how her C.P.C. provides them with strollers and diapers and baby clothes and formula. Only a heartless pro-abortion partisan could write “The anti-abortion movement takes advantage of their economic vulnerability.”
There are many other phony baloney charges Levitt et al. level at C.P.Cs. But they have an action plan:
There are also grass-roots efforts that individuals can take to curb the centers’ dangerous practices in their own schools, churches and communities. As legal access to abortion is threatened, we must act now to limit the role of C.P.C.s in the future.
Really? They’ve already tried with some success to limit the outreach of C.P.Cs. but these life-affirming centers will continue in their saintly work to help women and children.
God bless the work of Crisis Pregnancy Centers!