How Pregnancy Centers Are Preparing for Dobbs Aftermath

I n the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s leaked draft decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, several crisis pregnancy centers have been targeted by pro-abortion radicals who violently oppose their mission.

Over the weekend, a center in Oregon was the target of an arson attack, the wall graffitied with “If abortions aren’t safe then neither are you.” A week earlier, another clinic in Buffalo, N.Y., was firebombed, an attack for which the pro-abortion group Jane’s Revenge claimed responsibility. The same group was apparently responsible for vandalizing the Capitol Pregnancy Center on June 3. In total, at least 24 crisis pregnancy centers have experienced some form of vandalism since the leak. Coupled with the failed assassination attempt on Justice Brett Kavanaugh, these attacks have pro-life clinics concerned for their safety.

National Review spoke with the director of one such clinic, ArborWoman Health, which serves patients in the Ann Arbor area, including those with ties to the University of Michigan. While the center has not itself been the victim of an attack, it is preparing for the trouble that could come in the wake of the potential overturning of Roe v. Wade — as well as the possibility that its services may become even more important.

“We had a very candid conversation with our staff . . . about protocols for handling violence and what we need to do to make sure that we protect ourselves, whether it is simply a disgruntled patient who’s reflecting the stress in the world that we see manifests in so many different ways or whether it is somebody who’s ideologically opposed to what we’re doing,” said Dr. William Chavey, Patrolwoman’s director.

Chavey’s center offers free pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, and counseling for women who are coping with an unplanned pregnancy. “Doesn’t matter if her last name is Gates or Buffett. That’s all complimentary, and we provide whatever services she needs,” said Chavey.

Like other such centers, this one operates in ideologically hostile territory. In late May, the University of Michigan created an abortion-access task force in preparation for the expected overturning of Roe v. Wade. The task force will assess how the potential outlawing of abortion in the state — if Michigan’s dormant ban goes back into effect — would affect its educational instruction and clinical care, and will even consider providing resources for women to get out-of-state abortions. The creation of the task force is unsurprising, said Chavey, who serves as a faculty member in the university’s department of family medicine.

“It certainly does align with the broader philosophy of the University of Michigan, what they believe is appropriate for patient care and what they believe is necessary for education,” he said. “I know many of the people who are involved. Many of them are good people who simply have a different viewpoint and a different philosophy about what is best, but it is very consistent with what has been the University of Michigan’s approach.”

There are no pro-life faculty members on the task force, and University of Michigan president Mary Sue Coleman, who convened the body, has openly supported legalized abortion.

“The specter of a complete ban on abortion care in Michigan is worrisome. I strongly support access to abortion care,” she said in the university’s announcement of the task force’s creation. “We have a female-dominated institution; we care about our own communities as well as those we serve through clinical care and education. I am deeply concerned about how prohibiting abortion would affect U-M’s medical teaching, our research, and our service to communities in need.”

The task force’s co-chairwoman, Dr. Lisa Harris, an ob-gyn on the faculty of the university, works with Planned Parenthood and once served as the medical director for its Michigan branch. In 2015, she was one of the physicians interviewed undercover by David Daleiden, who alleged his videos were evidence that Planned Parenthood was profiting from the sale of aborted fetal tissue. In 2017, she again appeared in a video from Daleiden’s organization, the Center for Medical Progress, speaking at a past convention of the National Abortion Federation.

The task force’s apparently monolithic pro-choice stance is common in the medical field, according to Chavey.

“If you are a pro-life physician, you are going to be swimming upstream in health care in 2022. And if you are in probably any setting of any size, you are going to be not only in a minority, but you’re going to be operating from a position that is not going to be respected and appreciated as even equally valid and equally sound,” he said.

While the university is focusing largely on finding abortion access for women in a post-Roe world, ArborWoman looks to support women to carry their pregnancies to term.

“Our belief is that this is a child, and you cannot justify taking the life of that child, and that a woman will carry that with her. We don’t try to coerce women into any decision. We try to walk lovingly by her and support her in whatever way we can, and we feel that she will make the choice, which is written on her heart, which is to try to carry that child,” Chavey said.

Crisis pregnancy centers across the country are considering what their role will be in a world after Roe v. Wade. Their services will likely be required on a much larger scale if states are allowed to ban abortion, given the increase in the birth rate that may follow. The centers may also need to counter mail-order abortion pills, which the bans waiting to be enacted are not entirely equipped to stop.

For Chavey, while the nature of the work that ArborWoman and other centers do will change, its core will remain largely the same.

“The role of crisis pregnancy centers is and always has been to serve women, and to serve women who are finding themselves with an unexpected pregnancy.”