The Kansas Legislature is determined to make it harder for Kansans to access safe, medically sound reproductive care—even defying the governor to further their agenda.
On March 27, 2026, both legislative chambers overrode Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly’s veto of an anti-choice bill that proposed to weaken government oversight of “crisis pregnancy centers” and exempt them from the standard patient-protection regulations that typically apply to health care facilities.
“Crisis pregnancy centers,” also sometimes called anti-abortion centers, are ideological facilities masquerading as health clinics. Today, thanks to the determination of state legislators—and against the will of its elected governor—Kansas has joined a broader national strategy to effectively legalize this kind of deception in reproductive care.
And now, the Supreme Court is poised to weigh in on a state’s investigation into “crisis pregnancy centers.”
SCOTUS to rule on regulating anti-abortion centers
This term, the Supreme Court is expected to step into the fight through First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin.
This case asks the justices to decide if a federal or state court should determine whether New Jersey may investigate “crisis pregnancy centers” for potentially misleading donors and engaging in unlicensed practices. A statewide chain of anti-abortion centers called First Choice Women’s Resource Centers has refused to comply with the state’s subpoena.
New Jersey says its investigation stems from concerns that the organization is misleading donors, offering unlicensed practices, violating patient privacy, and making false medical claims. The organization and its lawyers appealed the state’s subpoena power to two federal courts, which dismissed the case. Now, they are alleging at the Supreme Court that compelling the “crisis pregnancy center” to hand over its donor information violates its First Amendment rights of association and free speech.
If ADF succeeds, its win could weaken one of the last safeguards states can use to regulate “crisis pregnancy centers”—obtaining records to facilitate fraud investigations—by creating a new First Amendment objection to state subpoenas in those probes.
During December 2025 oral arguments at the Supreme Court, Justice Amy Coney Barrett called the state’s probe a “war on pregnancy centers.” Validating that frame is a hint that at least one conservative justice may see less a question of state oversight authority and more a solely First Amendment concern in this case.
Given this Court’s track record, a ruling in favor of First Choice would not be surprising.
Anti-abortion centers exploit regulatory loopholes
As a reproductive rights attorney and as a Texan who grew up driving past these centers daily while attending religious schools that supported their mission, I have been watching a trend for years: Anti-abortion centers are gaining more exceptions to state regulation.
In Texas, anti-abortion centers are embedded in communities, often positioned near or next to legitimate clinics and frequently affiliated with churches. There were more than 200 across the state from 2023-2024, according to the Crisis Pregnancy Center Map, run by public health researchers at the University of Georgia.
Listen: The Supreme Court Gears Up for Another Unprecedented Term (Podcast)
Anti-abortion “crisis pregnancy centers” are designed to appear as legitimate, trustworthy places for pregnant people to seek care. In practice, however, most are not medical facilities; the privacy and transparency standards that govern actual licensed providers do not apply to anti-abortion counselling centers without medical licensing.
Unlike licensed clinics, for example, most “crisis pregnancy centers” are not subject to credentialing requirements, HIPAA privacy protections, or other accountability regulations.
Without these safeguards, these centers can give pregnant patients inaccurate or misleading information about their options without facing professional discipline or legal liability.
They tend to target their misinformation at vulnerable populations.
Disproportionately located in low-income communities and communities of color, anti-abortion centers frequently advertise “free” pregnancy testing and ultrasounds to attract newly pregnant patients seeking affordable medical care and advice.
Employees rely on a pattern of medical cosplay to make patients think they are receiving actual health care, research has found. Staff may wear white coats—despite lacking medical credentials—and rooms are often designed to look like doctors’ offices.
Yet ultrasounds are used only to confirm a pregnancy—not to provide comprehensive, diagnostic care.
For example, in March 2026, Dallas News reported that when a pregnant woman got a sonogram at Abundant Life Pregnancy Resource Center in Athens, Texas, unlicensed staff members said both she and her fetus were fine. Three days later, she had to have emergency surgery to treat an ectopic pregnancy. The pregnancy was never viable, and it could have been life-threatening.
This is not an isolated incident. Studies have found that roughly 80 percent of anti-abortion centers provide false or misleading information. They may misstate gestational age to delay time-sensitive abortion care, for example, or promote unscientific medical practices like “abortion pill reversal.”
Anti-abortion advocates target federal regulations
“Crisis pregnancy centers” have been effective at attracting patients because they exploit gaps in access to care. And they have significant financial backing for their operations.
While licensed reproductive health clinics struggle for funding, anti-abortion counseling centers are bankrolled by a network of private donors and even taxpayer funds. Other reporting has found that these donors include wealthy conservative philanthropies, large religious organizations, everyday grassroots supporters often motivated by religious and political opposition to abortion, and even the Department of Health and Human Services.
A 2022 analysis from the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy found that anti-abortion centers outspend abortion funds and clinics by a 5-to-1 ratio.
In 2021, The Alliance, a group of state advocates for women’s rights and gender equality, reported that 29 states direct millions in funding to these centers, and at least ten states divert federal anti-poverty funds away from traditional recipients like cash-assistance programs and child-care programs to support them. This increase in funding has not come with additional scrutiny, allowing religious organizations to spend public money with little monitoring or evaluation.
This whole setup hinges on weak regulation. So proponents of anti-abortion centers are actively working at both the state and nation level to squelch government oversight of their work through law, policy, and litigation.
In 2025, the anti-choice legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) developed the Center Autonomy and Rights of Expression (CARE) Act. The objective of this model legislation is to exempt anti-abortion pregnancy centers from the transparency and accountability standards applied to licensed health-care providers.
In states where this legislation gets enacted, regulation is framed as a violation of free speech or religious liberty. That makes it more difficult for states to require accuracy, disclosure, and basic consumer protections.
The ADF is the legal powerhouse behind several landmark anti-rights court decisions. Its lawyers assisted in drafting the abortion restrictions at issue in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization—the Supreme Court decision that ended federal abortion protections—and served on the legal team that argued the case. In 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the group helped a conservative Christian graphic designer win the right to refuse her services to gay couples.
In crafting the CARE Act to shield anti-abortion centers from oversight, the organization has relied on First Amendment and religious liberty arguments similar to those it used to win these cases. The underlying arguments are that government mandates requesting disclosure of service violate the First Amendment as compelled speech and that laws burdening religious practice must yield to “conscience” protections.
The Supreme Court has previously sided with this framing. In addition to 303 Creative, the justices in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra struck down a California law requiring anti-abortion centers to disclose information about state-funded reproductive services.
Kansas drew on this model to shape its legislation. Other states, including Montana, Oklahoma, Wyoming, and New Hampshire, have pursued similar measures to expand protections and funding while limiting oversight for “crisis pregnancy centers.”
How SCOTUS could shake things up
Now, the Supreme Court will have a say.
A ruling in favor of First Choice could make it harder for states to investigate “crisis pregnancy centers” or impose disclosure requirements, indirectly expanding protections of these anti-abortion organizations.
A ruling for New Jersey would preserve that state’s regulatory authority over anti-abortion centers. That, in turn, could enable other states to enforce measures requiring accuracy and transparency like consumer protection laws.
A ruling in New Jersey’s favor would also limit anti-abortion groups’ ability to use federal courts as a shield against state investigations.
A decision is expected by the end of June or early July, when the Court takes its recess.
Read: Supreme Court Could Gut Abortion, LGBTQ Protections With These 3 Cases—Analysis
A double standard
If this dual strategy—legislation and litigation—succeeds, the consequences for U.S. pregnancy care will be profound.
Medical deception is a serious matter. “Crisis pregnancy centers” force people to navigate pregnancy based on incomplete information and outright lies at a medically fragile time when expert health care and honest counsel is pivotal.
Pregnant patients would have little recourse when they realize they’ve visited an unlicensed facility and suffered the health consequences of delayed care, misinformation, and coercion.
States have the tools to regulate fake medical providers. States routinely use consumer protection tools to shut down other dangerous actors, such as unlicensed black-market providers offering discounted medical procedures in unsafe settings.
Carving out an exception for anti-abortion centers creates a double standard that prioritizes an organization’s ideology over the very public safety laws designed to prevent medical deception.
The post SCOTUS Could Make it Easier for Anti-Abortion Clinics to Mislead Pregnant Patients: Analysis appeared first on Rewire News Group.