Evaluation of services at crisis pregnancy centers in Ohio

Tsevat, Danielle G.; Miracle, Jill E.; Gallo, Manuel

doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2016.07.037

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This includes exaggerating the likelihood of miscarriage in early pregnancy to downplay the urgency in seeking abortion care, and emphasizing non-factual relationships between abortion and infertility, breast cancer and adverse mental health effects. 14 , 17 , 24 …”

Section: Lack Of Patient Awareness About Cpcs and Risk Of Deceptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Problems with Crisis Pregnancy Centers: Reviewing the Literature and Identifying New Directions for Future Research

Montoya¹,

Judge-Golden²,

Swartz³

2022

IJWH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Lack Of Patient Awareness About Cpcs and Risk Of Deceptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Problems with Crisis Pregnancy Centers: Reviewing the Literature and Identifying New Directions for Future Research

Montoya¹,

Judge-Golden²,

Swartz³

2022

IJWH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Scholars critique pregnancy centers for unethical practices (Bryant and Swartz 2018; Chen 2012), including spreading abortion misinformation, perpetuating abortion stigma (Bryant and Levi 2012; Kimport 2019; Rosen 2012; Tsevat, Miracle, and Gallo 2016), and strategically marketing to low-income clients and people of color (Kelly and Gochanour 2018; Thomsen et al 2022). These tactics, many argue, are manipulative and potentially delay clients from seeking contraception or abortion services.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“It Wasn’t Very Public-Clinicy”: Client Experiences at Faith-Based Pregnancy Centers

Hutchens

2023

J Health Soc Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Faith-based pregnancy centers strive to offer “alternatives to abortion” that supporters claim aid women and critics assert manipulate pregnant people, stigmatize abortion, and potentially delay clients from obtaining medical care. However, scholars know little about the exchanges within appointments and how clients make sense of these experiences. Drawing on ethnographic observations of client appointments in two pregnancy centers in the West and 29 in-depth interviews with clients, this article uses an intersectional framework to analyze client experiences. Clients favorably compared centers to clinical health care providers, emphasizing the unexpectedly attentive emotional care they received. These evaluations stem from clients’ reproductive histories, which are shaped by gender, racism, and economic inequalities that configure their access to and interactions within the health system. Emotional care serves to create and maintain pregnancy centers’ impression of legitimacy among clients.

show abstract

“…Once a woman has entered a CPC, rather than using solely moral arguments to dissuade her from abortion, staffers use scientific language to advance their mission. Secret shopper studies of CPCs' practices and reviews of their public-facing websites demonstrate that they commonly draw links between abortion and adverse mental health sequelae, breast cancer, and future infertility, [8][9][10][11] (all of which have been discredited by research), with the goal of diverting women with undesired pregnancies from abortion toward adoption or parenting. In one study evaluating CPC practices in Ohio, staff at some centers greatly overstated the risk of miscarriage, suggesting that abortion may therefore be unnecessary or even explicitly recommending to delay abortion given the high likelihood of spontaneous pregnancy loss.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In one study evaluating CPC practices in Ohio, staff at some centers greatly overstated the risk of miscarriage, suggesting that abortion may therefore be unnecessary or even explicitly recommending to delay abortion given the high likelihood of spontaneous pregnancy loss. 9 In clouding transparency about the provision of abortion services at their site, withholding information about abortion referral, and providing inaccurate information about the frequency of miscarriage and the safety of abortion, CPCs can obstruct access to timely abortion. Because abortions are medically safer and more accessible within the first trimester, delays in seeking abortion may have significant consequences.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%