Several conservative state legislatures are advancing laws based on model language from a leading anti‑abortion legal group to expand legal protections for crisis pregnancy centers — organizations that provide some services to pregnant people while discouraging abortion. The measures would prevent state and local governments from requiring centers to offer abortions, to refer patients for abortion care, or to give information about abortion or contraception, and would let centers sue if authorities try to impose such requirements.
Wyoming lawmakers approved a version of the Center Autonomy and Rights of Expression Act (the CARE Act) on March 4. Similar bills have moved through legislatures in Kansas and Oklahoma this year, 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 advanced out of committee.
Supporters say the laws are necessary to protect centers from what they describe as increased hostility since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Many pregnancy centers are faith‑based, and backers argue they face government actions 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 counter that the bills would insulate organizations that often are not subject to medical licensing or regulation and that sometimes present themselves in ways that can be confused with clinical providers. Mary Ziegler, a law professor at UC‑Davis, said the measures would exempt crisis pregnancy centers from rules that apply to medical providers and obscure the boundary between advocacy and clinical care. She also said the effort gives Republicans a political narrative about supporting women while restricting abortion access.
Some lawmakers raised concerns about creating special legal status. Wyoming Republican Rep. Ken Clouston said he was uneasy about granting “extra special protections” to pregnancy centers that other private businesses do not receive.
The effort to shield centers comes amid a backdrop of real‑world threats and attacks. In 2022, Wellspring Health Access — then the only clinic providing abortions in Wyoming — suffered an arson attack. Julie Burkhart, Wellspring’s founder, said clinics that provide accurate reproductive‑health information have been targeted and stressed the continuing need for access to qualified reproductive care, including abortion.
ADF has been influential in drafting model abortion‑related laws before. The organization helped craft the Gestational Age Act that underpinned Mississippi’s 15‑week ban and played a role in the Dobbs case that led to the overturning of Roe. ADF has argued that pregnancy centers face federal, state and local efforts aimed at undermining or closing them; the group did not comment for this report.
Legal battles over regulation of pregnancy centers are already active in courts. States have tried to require clearer disclosures about services centers provide and do not provide; a California law mandating such notices was partly struck down on First Amendment grounds after litigation by centers. The Supreme Court also has addressed — and is considering — cases over whether states can subpoena donor lists and internal records from these organizations.
Crisis pregnancy centers vary widely in services and oversight. Many provide material support such as diapers, clothing, counseling or parenting classes; some offer ultrasounds or employ a small number of licensed clinicians. But many centers are not medically licensed and operate with volunteers or staff who lack clinical credentials. By contrast, clinics like Planned Parenthood generally offer a broader range of regulated medical services, including testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections, primary care, cancer screenings and abortion, and operate under medical licensing and oversight.
Since Roe was overturned, abortion providers have faced new policy and funding constraints. Legislation such as the One Big Beautiful Bill, enacted last summer, cut Medicaid reimbursements to abortion providers — a change that reporting attributes in part to Planned Parenthood closing more than 50 clinics last year. That contraction in clinical abortion capacity has coincided with a relative proliferation of crisis pregnancy centers: a 2024 University of Georgia mapping project counted more than 2,500 centers nationwide, compared with 753 clinics providing abortions at the end of 2025, according to Guttmacher Institute data.
Some anti‑abortion research organizations, including the Charlotte Lozier Institute, say pregnancy centers could help fill gaps left by clinic closures. Critics warn that steering people toward largely unregulated centers raises concerns about medical risk, transparency and the quality of information patients receive.
Regulatory efforts in recent years in states such as California, Colorado and Vermont were driven by concerns over deceptive practices and the privacy of patient data. In 2024, a watchdog group asked several state attorneys general to investigate whether some centers were misleading patients about HIPAA protections and how they handle personal information. Courts 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 was overturned. At least 19 states have set aside funds for “life‑affirming” organizations that include pregnancy centers, and six states redirect portions of federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families dollars 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 pandemic relief money.
Despite financial and legal pressures on abortion clinics, leaders who run clinical services emphasize the ongoing need for qualified reproductive‑health care in many parts of the country. “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,” Julie Burkhart 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.