The progressive push to protect abortion in Vermont now includes an effort to discourage pregnancy centers from supporting would-be mothers who might keep their children with helpful support.

S.37 includes a new provision to restrict so-called pregnancy services center fraud. The bill seeks to ban “unfair and deceptive acts” by such centers — presumably, this is to compel pregnancy centers to clearly state that they do not support or offer abortion services.

There are no stated examples of pregnancy service centers actually lying to women. The chief complaint is that the centers are not more open about their ideological views. As one American Medical Association commentary observes:

Crisis pregnancy centers are organizations that seek to intercept women with unintended pregnancies who might be considering abortion. … Often using neutral-sounding language, these centers offer to help women with free pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, testing for sexually transmitted infections, and counseling on “all options” for pregnancy. In addition, pregnant women are often offered resources such as maternity clothes, diapers, and parenting classes.

Such alternatives to “abortion-only” facilities nurture babies and motherhood, and alleviate the fear and lack of support that make many young women undertake abortions they later regret. The Vermont Legislature opposes that support for women, and seeks to intimidate organizations whose methods and intentions are sound.

“Our method is to provide them comfort and resources and tools to be able to parent — because a lot of people are scared and feel they have no other option (than abortion),” Marlana Mills, executive director of Kansas-based Family Life Services, told KMUW in Wichita. “We want to expand those options to them.”

Supporters of abortion clinics oppose such services on the basis that they could divert public funds away from performing abortions. No public money is diverted in Vermont, where pregnancy centers are not publicly funded. In addition, abortion clinics are not unbiased health care services: their ideological leanings are strident and controversial. Instead of offering abortion freely while acknowledging that for some women an abortion is not their preferred choice, Vermont’s progressives discourage this much-needed support.

According to an article about a 2018 Pregnancy Center Study from the Charlotte Lozier Institute:

The 2 million clients of pro-life pregnancy centers in 2017 received care that included free services with estimated savings to the communities of $161 million annually. … In addition to ultrasounds, free services offered by pregnancy centers also include material assistance including baby gear and clothing. … Three out of four centers offer post-abortion support and recovery and 24,000 clients visited centers to help them deal with the trauma that resulted from the abortion. Post-abortion syndrome can include depression and guilt, as well as an increased risk of drug and alcohol use and an increased risk of suicide.

Yet an article in the AMA Journal of Ethics argues no one should be able to say these things.

The safety and well-being of women seeking abortion or any reproductive health care should take precedence over free speech, particularly when exercising that right can harm patients. … Those who are unable to obtain an abortion might be less likely to have and achieve aspirational goals, which affect overall well-being, and are exposed to the greater health risk of carrying a pregnancy to term.

Pregnancy is more dangerous than abortion, according to these authors.

According to some other pro-abortion activists, people who support women who desire to keep their children or put them up for adoption are wrong, and hide their true intentions to oppress women:

Rather it’s about propping facile justifications for abortion bans that are, in reality, rooted in a misogynistic desire to punish women for having sex.

Studies show, time and again, abortion access materially improves women’s lives. … Conservatives want to prop up this ideal of women as asexual beings who only have sex to please men and/or have babies. Abortion’s popularity, however, exposes the truth: Lots of women have sex with men they don’t want to have a baby with — either right now or ever.

Such claims overlook women who want their lives improved by motherhood, and do not view the traumatic procedure of abortion as mere birth control. Moreover, many abortion providers pressure women to terminate their pregnancies.

Balance requires that women be supported who wish to keep their children. Abortion clinics do not offer the range of important services these pregnancy centers provide.

The Supreme Court has taken a dim view of efforts to control free speech. As Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra:

This Court’s precedents are deeply skeptical of laws that “distinguis[h] among different speakers, allowing speech by some but not others.” Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U. S. 310, 340 (2010). Speaker-based laws run the risk that “the State has left unburdened those speakers whose messages are in accord with its own views.” Sorrell, 564 U. S., at 580.

Vermont is the world’s abortion services Mecca — the state allows speakers whose messages are in accord with its own pro-abortion policies. But targeting pregnancy centers is an agenda to maximize the taking of life through abortions as “good for women’s sex lives and careers.”

Some women choose a different path, and Vermont’s pregnancy centers are there to nurture them with services not offered by abortion clinics.

John Klar is an attorney and farmer residing in Brookfield. © Copyright True North Reports 2023. All rights reserved.