OPINION:
Imagine being so opposed to an organization that offers free diapers, baby clothes, pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, parenting classes and compassionate support that you dedicate government resources, legal teams and public campaigns to discrediting it.
Imagine looking at a woman facing an unexpected pregnancy — frightened, financially struggling or unsure where to turn — and deciding that the organization offering her help is the problem.
Across America, pregnancy help organizations — many of which have served women for more than 50 years, long before Roe v. Wade was overturned — increasingly find themselves at the center of negative political campaigns, government investigations and lawsuits.
People were interested in these podcasts
They survived changing administrations, economic downturns and decades of political disagreement. Their work has continued because women continue to need help and they continue to step up.
Now, politicians and advocacy organizations, many far removed from the daily realities of pregnancy help, presume to tell these long-standing charities how they should serve women, what assistance they should offer and how their missions should be defined.
The arrogance of that presumption deserves scrutiny.
In Massachusetts in 2024, Gov. Maura Healey’s administration launched a $1 million taxpayer-funded campaign warning residents about pregnancy help centers. The campaign was developed in partnership with abortion activist organization Reproductive Equity Now Foundation.
Ms. Healey later signed abortion-up-to-birth into law.
In California in 2023, Attorney General Rob Bonta sued Heartbeat International and RealOptions over promotion of abortion pill reversal. After years of litigation and weeks of trial proceedings, the case awaits a ruling.
In 2024, New York Attorney General Letitia James similarly sued Heartbeat International and 11 pregnancy help centers over abortion pill reversal advertising.
These lawsuits are only part of a broader campaign.
Politicians have held press conferences condemning pregnancy centers. Government agencies have issued public warnings. Advocacy organizations have invested resources in purported research and messaging designed to portray pregnancy help negatively and call for increased regulation.
Even the federal government’s decision to connect women with pregnancy support has become a target. When the Department of Health and Human Services launched Moms.gov in May, the website linked to OptionLine.org, Heartbeat International’s 24/7 pregnancy help contact center.
Rather than recognizing an additional resource connecting women with free, local pregnancy support, critics and media outlets focused on the administration’s inclusion of a life-affirming organization. Members of Congress even demanded oversight of the link.
When did government helping women find pregnancy support start meriting criticism?
Scrutiny is appropriate. Organizations serving women should be transparent. They should protect client information and maintain appropriate professional standards. Heartbeat International’s Commitment of Care and Competence reflects those expectations.
Still, there is a significant difference between holding organizations accountable and dictating how they must operate simply because their values do not align with a particular political agenda.
Who decided that the people writing these reports, directing these campaigns and pursuing these lawsuits understand the needs of pregnant women better than the people who have spent decades serving them?
How many have spent time inside a maternity home, listening to a woman explain why she has nowhere safe to sleep? How many have sat with a frightened college student trying to figure out how to continue her education while pregnant? How many have accompanied a mother struggling to provide for the children she already has?
These are questions worth asking before accepting sweeping conclusions about an entire network of charitable organizations. The people serving these women work daily with the practical realities of unexpected pregnancy. They lack the luxury of treating these women’s circumstances as abstract policy questions.
A woman who needs diapers for her baby does not need a political debate. A mother facing eviction needs somewhere safe to sleep. A student who fears losing her education needs to know what resources are available.
Pregnancy help organizations respond to those needs at no cost to the women they serve. These organizations did not emerge because of a Supreme Court ruling. They emerged because women needed help.
Pregnancy help organizations should not have to justify their existence to every new administration, advocacy campaign or research initiative that objects to their beliefs.
Their work was needed before Roe. It was needed before Dobbs. It remains needed today.
While politicians and advocacy organizations debate the place of pregnancy help, volunteers and professionals will continue answering the phone, opening the door, offering practical assistance and reminding women that they are not alone.
• Andrea Trudden is vice president of communications at Heartbeat International.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.