HELENA, Mont. -- A new report investigates facilities that dissuade women from getting abortions.

Known as crisis-pregnancy centers, the facilities have proliferated across the country.

Kim Clark, senior attorney for reproductive rights, health and justice at the advocacy organization Legal Voice, said crisis pregnancy centers purposely deceive people.

"They draw people in by misleading folks and giving the false impression that they are full-service reproductive health clinics," Clark explained. "And then, really all they're providing is the drug-store pregnancy test and potentially an ultrasound that is useless, if not actually harmful, insofar as it could be misleading."

The Alliance: State Advocates for Women's Rights and Gender Equality partnered with Legal Voice on the study, called "Designed to Deceive." According to the report, there are nearly 3.5 times more crisis-pregnancy centers in Oregon than there are abortion-care clinics.

Sometimes known as pregnancy-resource centers, the organizations running them state their purpose is to provide medical resources to expectant mothers.

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard challenges to a Texas law, which would essentially ban abortions after six weeks of pregnancy.

Clark pointed out crisis-pregnancy centers are connecting and in contact with pregnant people, and the Texas law allows private citizens to sue abortion providers and people who aid women with getting abortions.

"Which creates an incentive for, basically, the surveillance of pregnant people," Clark contended. "And crisis-pregnancy centers are really in the ideal position to serve that function."

Clark noted there are measures states can take if they are interested in reducing unintended pregnancies.

"Expanding access to reproductive-health care and access to comprehensive medically accurate sexual health education, both would go a long way," Clark asserted.

The report found some crisis-pregnancy centers have been able to secure public funding, although Clark said it is not the case in Northwest states.

Oregon is in the upper echelon when it comes to the number of women in higher office.

Four of the five statewide elected positions in the state are held by women, including Tina Kotek in the governor's office. It is a rare achievement.

Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics, said the national average for women in statewide elected offices is about one in three. However, the number of women in the top positions in Oregon is guaranteed to go down in November, with men running for two of the five offices. Walsh acknowledged it is the nature of politics.

"No state can just say, 'Well, we fixed the problem of women's underrepresentation in politics. We don't need to do the work of recruiting and supporting women to run.'" Walsh stressed. "That work is ongoing."

Men will be facing off in Oregon's Secretary of State and Attorney General races in November. But Walsh noted the state has set a high bar elsewhere too. Women hold half of its Congressional seats and women are in a little more than 40% of the seats in the state legislature.

Walsh pointed out women face a number of barriers to office. While they raise comparable amounts of money to men running in comparable races, they are less likely to self-fund their campaigns. She explained women are more dependent on small donors, which can be good because it means more people are investing in the campaign.

"The flip side of that is that the amount of time and energy and work that it takes to raise $1,000 is just exponentially higher and harder for a candidate who is more dependent on those low level dollars or those low dollar donations," Walsh stressed.

Women running for office has become a big storyline this year with Vice President Kamala Harris' run for president. Walsh noted if she wins, it will be a big breakthrough for women, especially women of color.

"The only downside to seeing a woman elected at the very top is that people then think that the problem is solved because we've elected a woman President of the United States," Walsh added. "Complacency will not get us to gender equity across levels of office."


get more stories like this via email

Following the signing of the Michigan Family Protection Act by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, concerns remain about a potential federal ban on in vitro fertilization. The Act, signed in April, safeguards reproductive services such as surrogacy IVF and abortion. However, Project 2025 could limit access to these services if he wins the presidency in November.

Stephanie Jones of Grand Blanc, a mother who used IVF to conceive and had her daughter via surrogacy after secondary infertility, is a strong advocate of the procedure.

"A ban on IVF would be a ban on critical health care to hundreds of thousands of Americans, and without access to IVF, people would not be able to grow and some start their families. So it would be devastating," she contended.

Jones nearly lost her life due to a rare ectopic pregnancy, and credits an emergency abortion with saving her. Her pre-Roe experience now drives her advocacy for policies that protect IVF and support unrestricted abortion rights.

However, many right-to-life advocates contend that these reproductive services are not only morally wrong but unsafe.

Natalie Dodson, a policy analyst with The Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington D.C., warns that reproductive service providers often downplay the health risks associated with IVF for both mothers and babies.

"In particular, the risk of non-chromosomal birth defects increase by 40%, the risk of autism is two times more likely, stillbirth increases up to 4 times compared to spontaneous conception. Additionally, women who undergo IVF experience increased health risks and poor health outcome," she said.

Dodson claims that scientifically life begins at conception, inside or outside the uterus, and said her main concern is whether embryos created through IVF have the same value as those developing naturally.


get more stories like this via email

Women's Equality Day commemorates the passage of the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote. More than a century later, women have made progress but more work needs to be done.

Women have made major gains in elected positions across the country. In Oregon, they make up more than 40% of the seats in the legislature, the 13th highest percentage in the country.

Libra Forde, co-chair of the Oregon Commission for Women, said the 19th Amendment was a big accomplishment but it did not end the push for women's progress.

"As they saw a need during their time for us to have availability and access to things that they didn't have, I think most of the women -- especially the women of the commission -- we see a need to do the same thing for things that maybe women have not had access to yet and kind of taking the torch that's been passed to us," Forde explained.

Forde highlighted some of the issues where Oregon lawmakers could go further, such as being more vigorous in protecting women from domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking. On Aug. 26, 1920, the U.S. Secretary of State completed the ratification process for the 19th Amendment, ensuring women the right to vote.

Forde acknowledged Oregon lawmakers and groups across the state are doing a good job advocating for women's rights but added it is going to take a greater effort to protect rights for the next generation.

"We're going to need more than just women to do that work," Forde emphasized. "We need everyone to come together, kind of like they did 104 years ago, and say, hey, this is important to all of us and if we all came in on this, then I think we all can also succeed."

The Oregon Commission for Women is among the state's four advocacy commissions. It pushes for policies to support and protect women.


get more stories like this via email