Crisis Pregnancy Centers A Hidden Threat To Women’s Health, Says New Report

A new report by NARAL Pro-Choice Texas evaluating taxpayer-funded crisis pregnancy centers charges that the facilities are detrimental to the health of Texas women, and lack accountability and regulation in their use of millions of taxpayer money.

The report answers key questions about the Texas Pregnancy Care Network which are worth noting:

Does the TPCN meet self-identified goals? No. A close look reveals the TPCN did not come close to reaching self-identified projected goals. For example, the TPCN failed to meet their projected goal of “clients served” by more than 35% in the first two fiscal years (FY 06 and FY 07) of the contract. Over the first two fiscal years, the entire statewide TPCN network served an average of 127 women per month at a cost of more than $3 million. Assuming there are twenty workdays per month, the entire TPCN network reached about six women per day statewide.

2. Is the TPCN an efficient public structure? No. By any reasonable standard of service delivery competence, the TPCN contract is grossly inefficient and wasteful. Under the contract, the state of Texas is paying the TPCN almost $1.4 million (44% of all funds) in administrative fees and passing through almost $1.8 million (56% of all funds) to service providers (pre-existing local organizations that were already providing services to women long before TPCN was created). For every $1 that is passed through the TPCN to a local service provider, Texas taxpayers are paying the TPCN over $.44 – almost half – in overhead!

3. Does the TPCN, acting as a public structure to assist pregnant women, offer recommended services to prepare Texas women for a healthy birth and raising healthy children? No. In contrast to services recommended by mainstream, non-controversial organizations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and National Association of Social Workers, the TPCN does not offer, and is not required to offer, recommended services for pregnant women. These services include licensed medical services, licensed counseling and support, or (with the exception of maternity homes) significant material assistance, such as cash, housing, or transportation assistance. The Texas “Alternatives to Abortion” program fails to consistently deliver recommended services for pregnant women. Texas women and families deserve a higher standard of care than the TPCN and its CPC partners are designed to provide.l Furthermore, hardworking Texas taxpayers deserve to know their multi-million dollar investment is justified by efficient and beneficial public structures.

Of course, the Texas “Alternatives to Abortion” program, and its contractor, the Texas Pregnancy Care Network, is a giant $3 million political project. Its primary purpose is solely to dissuade Texas women from choosing abortion as an alternative. Unlike real family planning clinics, the crisis pregnancy centers don’t provide any legitimate health services cuch as gynecological exams or prenatal care. Instead, according to the report, the CPCs instead provide “biased and often inaccurate information about the risks of safe and legal abortion care.”

Also, check this out:

During the 2005 Texas legislative session, anti-choice Texas lawmakers led by Senator Tommy Williams (R-The Woodlands) forced an unprecedented rider onto the state budget to create an experimental “Alternatives to Abortion” program. This rider cut a total of $5 million from family planning funding over the 2006–2007 biennium. From its inception, controversy has surrounded the program. Described as the mission of the program, the following mission statement describes the intent of information distributed to promote the program’s mission: “The purpose of the program is to promote childbirth rather than abortion. Therefore, providing abortions, or providing information about abortions or referrals to abortion services in inconsistent with the purpose of this program. However, under the provision of the RFP, abortion may be discussed in the context of promoting childbirth rather than abortion.”

Because licensed social service and medical providers may discuss abortion as a safe and legal option for a woman seeking to terminate her pregnancy, they are not eligible for the program. In effect, only organizations opposed to abortion are eligible to participate. In addition to the biased mission of the program, many have complained about the unusual process through which this program was enacted into state law, moving through the Legislature through a back-door process as a rider rather than a bill. As reported by the Austin Chronicle, Texas officials complained about the back-door nature of the rider’s incorporation in the state budget:

“Sen. Judith Zaffirini, D-Laredo, noted that the rider was never discussed by the committee’s work-group (in fact, until that day, the committee as a whole wasn’t aware that the rider even existed). The rider passed quickly out of committee, despite the stern and final objection of Senator Barrientos (D-Austin), “The bottom line, it appears to me, is that [in] transferring the money [to the CPCs], are we are saying it’s OK to get pregnant and then deal with it as a crisis?” he asked.

“I really think we need to think about this item a little more.”13In the same article regarding lack of accountability for the proposed program, the following conversation occurred between Senator Shapleigh (D-El Paso) and Senator Williams (R-The Woodlands): “Does your rider require that [the CPCs or other service providers] be licensed by the state?” Sen. Shapleigh asked. “No,” Sen. Williams said. “This rider does not do that.” “Don’t you want to license them, [to] make sure that the information being given out is accurate?” Sen. Shapleigh asked. “Uh, you know, that wouldn’t be proper,” Sen. Williams responded. “That might be the proper way to craft a ‘general law’,” he said, “but not for a rider.” “Well, we could restrict [the funding to make sure it goes] to licensed agencies, couldn’t we?” Sen. Shapleigh continued. “No,” Sen. Williams replied, that’s “not necessary.” When pressed as to why the state would cut funding from proven family planning programs to create an experimental and perhaps duplicative bureaucratic program, several officials responded: Rep. Dawnna Dukes (D-Austin), a member of the House Appropriations Committee, questioned the motive for the program when she asked state officials: “Why would the state want to build a network when we already have entities that provide such services at a lower rate for more women who are low-income, uninsured and underinsured?”

Rep. Dan Gattis, (R-Georgetown), also a member of the House Appropriations Committee, stated, “Everyone knows this is a debate over Planned Parenthood and pregnancy resource centers.” He said that he and Dukes “have some philosophical differences” and that he was confident the program’s costs would decline.

Rep. Warren Chisum (R-Pampa), Appropriations Committee chairman, said that while he is “100 percent in favor of providing women [with] health care” (which the program does not provide) he also favors “encouraging people to have babies.”

Stephanie Goodman, spokeswoman for the Health and Human Services Commission, said the new program was intended “to serve a different population — low-income women who are pregnant and want to have the child. The services they need are different, and so are the costs. . . . This program is about giving women real choices. It offers support for women who choose not to have an abortion and go ahead and have their child. There are very meaningful choices being provided to these women where there weren’t before.”

However, there are no eligibility requirements for the women served by the program and the Texas Maternal and Child Health program, a long-established program, does in fact have eligibility requirements and provides medical and social services to pregnant women.

You just can’t make this stuff up, folks. Read the whole report for more.

Tweet This Post   Ping This Post

Bookmark It