Conservative lawmakers in several states are advancing legislation modeled by an anti‑abortion legal group to expand legal protections for crisis pregnancy centers — organizations that offer some health‑related services while discouraging women from having abortions.
The proposed laws would bar state and local governments from forcing crisis pregnancy centers to provide abortions, to make referrals for abortion services, or to give patients information about abortion or contraception. The measures would also allow centers to sue government entities that try to impose such requirements.
Wyoming lawmakers passed a version of the Center Autonomy and Rights of Expression Act (the CARE Act) on March 4. Similar bills have progressed this year in Kansas and Oklahoma, and Montana enacted a version in 2025. The CARE Act is model legislation drafted by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a conservative Christian legal advocacy organization that opposes abortion. A related federal proposal, the Let Pregnancy Centers Serve Act, was introduced in Congress last year but has not moved out of committee.
Proponents say the legislation is needed because pregnancy centers have faced what they call “unprecedented attacks” since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Many of the centers are affiliated with religious groups, and supporters contend they are being targeted in ways that threaten free speech and religious exercise. “This legislation is not about creating division. It’s about protecting constitutional freedoms, freedom of speech, and freedom of conscience,” Valerie Berry, executive director of the LifeChoice Pregnancy Care Center in Cheyenne, told a Wyoming legislative committee.
Opponents argue the bills would shield organizations that are not held to medical standards and sometimes portray themselves as clinical providers, leaving patients without clear information about their options. University of California‑Davis law professor Mary Ziegler said the measures would insulate crisis pregnancy centers from requirements that apply to medical providers and blur the line between advocacy and medical practice. She also called the push politically useful for Republicans seeking a message on caring for women while restricting abortion access.
Some lawmakers expressed concerns about carving out special legal status for these centers. Wyoming Rep. Ken Clouston, a Republican, told colleagues he worried about giving “extra special protections” to pregnancy centers that other private businesses do not receive.
The debate over protections comes amid real‑world threats and attacks. In 2022, Wellspring Health Access, the only Wyoming clinic providing abortions at the time, was the target of an arson attack. Julie Burkhart, Wellspring’s founder, said clinics that provide accurate reproductive‑health information have suffered consequences and continued to emphasize the need for access to qualified reproductive care, including abortion.
ADF has a recent track record of shaping abortion‑related law. The group helped draft model legislation, including the Gestational Age Act that formed the basis for Mississippi’s 15‑week ban and was part of the Dobbs case that led to Roe’s reversal. ADF has said centers face federal, state and local efforts intended to undermine or close them; the group did not comment for this reporting.
Legal fights over regulation are already playing out in the courts. States have sought to require clearer disclosures from crisis pregnancy centers about services they do and do not provide; a California law requiring such notices was overturned in part on First Amendment grounds after litigation by centers. The Supreme Court has also heard and is considering cases about whether states can subpoena donor and internal records from these organizations.
Services and oversight differ widely between crisis pregnancy centers and regulated medical providers. Many crisis pregnancy centers provide material assistance — diapers, clothing, counseling or parenting classes — and some offer ultrasounds or have a limited number of licensed clinicians, but many are not medically licensed and are run by volunteers or staff without medical credentials. By contrast, Planned Parenthood and similar clinics offer a broader range of regulated medical services — testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections, primary care, cancer screenings and abortion services — and operate under medical licensing and oversight.
Since Roe was overturned, abortion providers have faced policy and funding pressures. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed last summer, cut Medicaid payments to abortion providers, a move that contributed to Planned Parenthood closing more than 50 clinics last year, according to reporting. That shrinking of clinical abortion capacity has coincided with a relative abundance of crisis pregnancy centers: a 2024 University of Georgia mapping project identified more than 2,500 centers nationwide, compared with 753 clinics providing abortions at the end of 2025, per Guttmacher Institute data. Anti‑abortion research organizations such as the Charlotte Lozier Institute have argued that pregnancy centers could help fill care gaps left by clinic closures; critics warn that shifting people to largely unregulated centers raises medical‑risk and transparency concerns.
Regulatory efforts in past years in states including California, Colorado and Vermont arose from concerns about deceptive practices and patient data privacy. In 2024, a watchdog group asked several state attorneys general to investigate whether some centers were misleading patients about HIPAA protections and how they use personal information. Courts, including the Supreme Court, have often sided with faith‑based groups arguing that regulation violated their First Amendment rights.
Crisis pregnancy centers have also received substantial public and private funding since Roe’s reversal. At least 19 states have dedicated funds to “life‑affirming” organizations that include pregnancy centers, and six states redirect portions of federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds to such groups. Texas, Florida, Tennessee and Oklahoma have allocated tens of millions of dollars to these organizations. One analysis found crisis pregnancy centers received about $429 million in federal funding between 2017 and 2023, including from pandemic relief legislation.
Despite attacks and financial and legal pressures on clinics that provide abortions, leaders like Burkhart say maintaining access to reproductive health care remains essential, especially in rural and conservative states where medical options are scarce. “Regardless of your religion, political party, there are times in people’s lives that people need access to qualified reproductive health care. That includes abortion,” she said.
KFF Health News is a national newsroom producing in‑depth journalism about health issues and is part of KFF, the independent source for health policy research, polling and journalism.
