Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs), which have been providing women with "pregnancy-options" counseling from an antiabortion perspective for over three decades, are working to build political support and secure public funding for their activities through legislation introduced at both the federal and state levels, according to an analysis in the most recent issue of The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy. The article, "Crisis Pregnancy Centers Seek to Increase Political Clout, Secure Government Subsidy," by Vitoria Lin and Cynthia Dailard, policy analysts with The Alan Guttmacher Institute, points out that despite recent political gains, some are also coming under increased public scrutiny and calls for accountability.

According to a variety of reports, many CPCs pose as women's health clinics and sources of unbiased pregnancy counseling, using neutral-sounding names and advertisements, but actually offer women medically inaccurate antiabortion propaganda and little in the way of actual medical services. In addition to their antiabortion agenda, many CPCs are anti-family planning as well: Despite the fact that the women who come to them are clearly sexually active and at risk for unintended pregnancy, they refuse to provide information about contraception and instead teach chastity.

The authors identify a variety of strategies that CPCs and their supporters use to secure public dollars, including:

• Applying for federal abstinence-only education funding, which cannot by law mention contraception except to emphasize failure rates.

• Seeking federal money to help CPCs obtain ultrasound equipment so that, in their own words, they can better "compete with abortion clinics for—abortion-vulnerable women."

• Enacting state legislation that creates "Choose Life" or "Respect Life" license plates and allocates proceeds from plate sales to CPCs.

• Securing direct appropriations of state funds, which run as high as $4 million per year in Pennsylvania.

Even though many CPCs are seeking to become publicly funded agencies that offer ultrasound examination and perhaps other select medical services as well, they have opposed efforts, such as the one recently mounted by the Attorney General of New York, to ensure that the information they provide be medically accurate and complete. The authors argue that such public scrutiny and potential government regulation is "a part-and-parcel reality for any organization that receives public dollars."

This issue also features several other analyses:

• "Legislators Craft Alternative Vision of Sex Education to Counter Abstinence-Only Drive," by Heather Boonstra;

• "Looking at Men's Sexual and Reproductive Health Needs" by Adam Sonfield;

• "Hierarchy Crackdown Clouds Future of Sterilization, EC Provision at Catholic Hospitals," by Rachel Benson Gold; and

• "Nepal Reforms Abortion Law to Reduce Maternal Deaths, Promote Women's Status," by Susan Cohen.