On Mother’s Day 2026, the Trump administration officially launched moms.gov, a new federal portal designed as a centralized digital resource for mothers and their families. However, the platform has quickly drawn intense scrutiny and sparked widespread debate. Prominently featured near the top of the homepage is a direct link to a non-government resource locator that directs users to "pregnancy centers," commonly referred to as crisis pregnancy centers, or CPCs. By positioning these centers alongside established entities like Federally Qualified Health Centers, official nutrition facts, and guidance on opening federal investment accounts, the administration has elevated the profile of facilities whose role in the nation’s healthcare landscape remains deeply contentious.
While there is no uniform regulatory definition for what qualifies as a crisis pregnancy center, these largely unregulated sites are typically established or associated with faith-based organizations and anti-abortion groups. Their primary mission is to dissuade pregnant individuals from seeking abortion care, encouraging adoption or parenting instead. The launch of moms.gov highlights a broader national trend in which CPCs are gaining increased recognition, legislative protection, and funding from local, state, and federal programs, even as they face a complex web of legal challenges, privacy concerns, and questions regarding their medical credentials.
What Are Crisis Pregnancy Centers and How Do They Attract Clients?
Crisis pregnancy centers trace their origins back to the 1960s, emerging during the early days of the organized anti-abortion movement. Traditionally, they offer free services such as pregnancy tests, limited ultrasounds, and material assistance like diapers and baby clothing to support expectant clients. However, these tangible supports are sometimes contingent upon clients attending religious seminars or counseling sessions. According to data from the U.S. Government Accountability Office, between 2,400 and 2,800 CPCs were operating across the United States by 2025. The vast majority of these facilities are affiliated with three major national anti-abortion networks: Heartbeat International, the National Institute for Family and Life Advocates, and Care Net. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, the opening and reopening of CPCs have been heavily concentrated in the American South, regions where numerous states have enacted total bans on abortion or imposed strict early gestational limits.
The primary organizational goal of these centers is to reach individuals whom network literature describes as "abortion-determined" clients. For years, many CPCs have engaged in a practice known as co-locating, deliberately opening offices in close physical proximity to comprehensive reproductive health clinics. This strategy allows them to intercept patients attempting to access licensed abortion facilities and discourage them from obtaining care. Medical organizations have repeatedly criticized these tactics. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has formally stated that by utilizing deception, delay tactics, and disinformation, CPC staff undermine the core tenets of informed consent and patient autonomy while impeding access to comprehensive, ethical healthcare. In addition to co-locating near reproductive clinics, CPCs actively target young people, low-income individuals, the uninsured and underinsured, and communities that have historically faced systemic barriers to accessing traditional healthcare.
In recent years, CPCs have expanded their service offerings. Data from 2024 indicates that over 71 percent of CPCs nationwide offered nondiagnostic ultrasounds, 28 percent advertised testing for sexually transmitted infections, and six percent advertised HIV testing. As hospital labor and delivery units shutter and OB-GYN practitioners depart from states that ban abortion care, such as Idaho, some rural CPCs have reported an increase in foot traffic. Nevertheless, experts note that CPCs cannot fill the growing gaps in the maternity care safety net, largely due to operational hurdles and staffing requirements. For example, the 7B Care Clinic, a CPC situated on the Idaho-Washington border, sought to expand prenatal services following the closure of a local hospital’s labor and delivery ward. Although the clinic contracted with a rural Washington hospital to bring in qualified clinicians, the arrangement collapsed when prospective medical providers refused to sign a mandatory faith-based pledge aligning with Christian values. Consequently, the center was left unable to fulfill its planned expansion of prenatal care.
Most Crisis Pregnancy Centers Are Not Medical Clinics
Although crisis pregnancy centers frequently advertise or position themselves as medical clinics, the vast majority are not licensed medical facilities. While many offer ultrasounds and some advertise an ability to rule out medical emergencies like ectopic pregnancies, a significant number operate without a credentialed, practicing physician or registered nurse on staff. When trained clinicians are affiliated with these centers, they often serve on a strictly part-time or volunteer basis.
While some CPCs provide limited services that consumers can easily purchase over the counter—such as basic pregnancy tests and STI screenings—others utilize ultrasounds primarily as a persuasive counseling tool rather than a diagnostic procedure. Because interpreting ultrasound imaging and assessing fetal health requires specialized medical training, and because many CPCs are staffed by volunteers with little to no clinical background, the ultrasounds performed at these facilities are widely classified as nondiagnostic. Critics point out that these scans are frequently used to show clients visual imagery of a fetus to discourage abortion. Furthermore, relying on nondiagnostic scans can lead to miscalculated gestational ages and missed diagnoses of life-threatening conditions like ectopic pregnancies.
The potential misdiagnosis of serious medical complications has triggered legal action across multiple jurisdictions. While some CPC networks have instructed local affiliates to avoid performing ultrasounds on patients suspected of having an ectopic pregnancy, advocacy groups have documented instances where centers continued to advertise their capacity to rule out such conditions despite lacking appropriate equipment and expertise. In Massachusetts, a class-action lawsuit was filed against the Clearway Clinic after staff failed to identify a patient’s ectopic pregnancy. The incident prompted Massachusetts to enact legislation prohibiting individuals from providing pregnancy-related ultrasounds unless they are supervised by a licensed healthcare provider acting within their scope of practice.
Several other states have instituted comparable regulations. Washington and Connecticut require all pregnancy-related ultrasounds to be performed under the supervision of a licensed healthcare professional for legitimate medical or diagnostic purposes. Conversely, only four states—New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Oregon—mandate that the individuals directly administering ultrasounds hold a specific state-issued medical imaging license. In practice, however, consistent enforcement mechanisms remain elusive. State licensing boards in places like North Dakota have acknowledged a lack of jurisdiction over unlicensed individuals, and state prosecutors have largely declined to pursue criminal charges against unlicensed volunteers performing scans. This stands in sharp contrast to states like California, where the attorney general has actively utilized subpoena power and cease-and-desist authorities to crack down on unauthorized ultrasound procedures at unlicensed facilities.
Most Crisis Pregnancy Centers Are Not Subject to HIPAA, the Federal Health Privacy Law
Crisis pregnancy centers routinely collect sensitive personal and confidential health information from their clients, yet they generally operate outside the scope of federal medical privacy regulations. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule sets national standards protecting individuals’ medical records and personal health information, prohibiting covered entities from disclosing such data without patient authorization. Federal law defines covered entities strictly as healthcare providers who conduct certain electronic transactions, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses that transmit health information in connection with standard administrative or financial transactions, such as insurance billing.
Because the vast majority of CPCs offer their services free of charge and do not accept private insurance or Medicaid, they do not engage in standard healthcare transactions. Consequently, neither the centers nor the individual practitioners who volunteer or work there are classified as covered entities bound by HIPAA compliance. CPCs are sustained primarily through private donations, national network funding, and government allocations, including state funds and federal programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Industry estimates indicate that CPC networks generated over $2 billion in revenue in 2024, entirely independent of patient billing or insurance reimbursements.
Data Privacy Violations at Crisis Pregnancy Centers Often Escape Regulatory Enforcement
The absence of federal privacy oversight has raised significant data security concerns. Some CPCs utilize intake forms, website disclosures, or privacy notices that employ language suggesting HIPAA compliance, inadvertently giving clients a false sense of security regarding the confidentiality of their medical records. Without federal statutory oversight, clients have virtually no legal recourse if their private health data is mishandled or leaked.
A prominent privacy breach occurred when Heartbeat International published an online training video that accidentally exposed the full names, dates of last menstrual period, and specific services received by clients at an affiliated clinic in Louisiana. When the incident was reported to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights—the federal agency tasked with enforcing HIPAA—the office closed the complaint after determining it lacked jurisdiction because the CPC was not a covered entity. While HIPAA violations by traditional medical providers can result in severe financial penalties and criminal fines of up to $2 million per violation, the center and its network faced no federal regulatory sanctions.
Regulatory bodies such as the Federal Trade Commission also face jurisdictional hurdles. Because the FTC’s consumer protection authority is limited to commercial, for-profit entities, free-of-charge non-profit clinics fall outside its regulatory reach. Although some state attorneys general have received complaints regarding deceptive practices concerning HIPAA compliance—prompting certain centers to scrub privacy claims from their websites—CPC networks continue to gather intimate health data with minimal external accountability.
Courts Have Shielded CPCs from State Oversight
Across the country, federal and state courts have frequently shielded crisis pregnancy centers from regulatory investigations and enforcement actions, relying heavily on First Amendment protections regarding free speech and association.
In California, the 2018 landmark Supreme Court ruling in NIFLA v. Becerra struck down a state law that required licensed CPCs to post notices about state-funded reproductive services and forced unlicensed facilities to disclose their non-medical status. The high court ruled that the mandates constituted unconstitutional compelled speech, establishing a powerful precedent that limits state governments from compelling CPCs to promote state programs or disclose licensing details.
Legal battles have also centered on advertising claims regarding so-called "abortion pill reversal." In New York, Attorney General Letitia James filed a lawsuit against Heartbeat International and several local CPCs under state consumer protection statutes, arguing that their marketing of abortion pill reversal was deceptive and scientifically unsupported. In response, NIFLA filed a countersuit, and a federal appeals court affirmed a preliminary injunction protecting the clinics from enforcement, holding that the First Amendment protects their right to promote the treatment. Meanwhile, a similar false-advertising lawsuit brought by California Attorney General Rob Bonta against Heartbeat International proceeded through a six-week trial, with closing arguments concluded in late 2026.
Investigative subpoenas issued by state regulators have faced similar judicial roadblocks. In New Jersey, Attorney General Matthew Platkin subpoenaed a CPC for donor and data-handling records amid an ongoing fraud investigation. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately ruled that compelling the disclosure of donor identities violated First Amendment associational rights by potentially chilling public support for the organization. Legal analysts note that while the ruling did not entirely invalidate the state’s subpoena power, it established significant evidentiary hurdles for investigators seeking internal records from CPC donors, board members, or volunteers.
Private-sector pushback has also sparked complex interstate litigation. In Texas, Attorney General Ken Paxton sued the consumer review platform Yelp on behalf of CPCs, challenging consumer warning labels placed on CPC profiles that highlighted their limited medical capabilities. Although a local court initially dismissed the case, a state appellate court reversed the decision, allowing the litigation to move forward and demonstrating that private companies critical of CPCs can face legal exposure in supportive jurisdictions.
State Laws Limiting Regulations of Crisis Pregnancy Centers
To counter regulatory efforts by state attorneys general, conservative legal organizations such as the Alliance Defending Freedom have successfully lobbied state legislatures to adopt model legislation known as the Center Autonomy and Right of Expression Act. The CARE Act explicitly prohibits state and local governments from interfering with the free expression and associational rights of CPCs, or from restricting their operations because they do not provide or counsel for abortions and contraception.
The legislation has been enacted in at least four states, including Kansas, Montana, Oklahoma, and Wyoming. In Wyoming, the law explicitly bars government entities from forcing CPCs to perform abortions, dispense medication abortion or contraception, offer formal referrals for reproductive care, or counsel clients in favor of abortion services. These statutes provide CPC networks with an additional layer of legal insulation against state-level oversight.
Looking Ahead
The launch of moms.gov and shifting federal policy priorities suggest that crisis pregnancy centers are poised to receive heightened national attention and potentially expanded funding streams. Several prominent CPC organizations are actively expanding their medical and supportive infrastructure to position themselves as direct alternatives to traditional family planning networks like Planned Parenthood. Between 2022 and 2025, twenty-one states directed approximately $491 million in state funding toward CPCs, separate from federal allocations distributed through programs such as TANF. Furthermore, historical precedents like the Trump administration’s 2019 allocation of a Title X family planning grant to the anti-abortion network Obria have highlighted the potential for CPCs to tap into federal public health funds.
The release of the revised Fiscal Year 2027 Notice of Funding Opportunity for the federal Title X program has intensified these debates. The updated NOFO prioritizes grant applicants that emphasize alternative practices, such as fertility-awareness-based methods, reproductive goals counseling, and family formation support. In response, major reproductive health organizations, including the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, Planned Parenthood, and a coalition of 23 state attorneys general, have filed federal lawsuits challenging the new guidelines. The plaintiffs argue that the revised priorities depart from congressional intent and introduce ideologically driven criteria designed to advantage non-traditional providers.
As legal battles unfold in federal and state courts, and as government resources continue to flow toward crisis pregnancy centers, debates over medical standards, patient privacy, and regulatory oversight show no signs of abating. Supported by broad First Amendment protections and an expanding network of state-level statutory shields, CPCs remain a central and fiercely contested focal point in the nation’s broader landscape of reproductive healthcare and policy.
