A mystery client study of crisis pregnancy center practices in New York State



      To evaluate practices of crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) in a state with supportive abortion policies.

      Study design

      We called all New York State CPCs regarding their services using a “mystery client” protocol, utilizing checklists and thematic analysis.


      Of 86 CPCs, 67 (78%) encouraged in-person appointments, offering free medical services and support. Twelve centers (14%) spontaneously disclosed their non-medical status, and 36 (42%) disclosed after direct questioning. Sixty-five (76%) made inaccurate or inflammatory statements about pregnancy or abortion.


      In a state without specific barriers to abortion and pregnancy care, CPCs claim to provide support while using inflammatory rhetoric and concealing their organizational status.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Contraception
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Swartzendruber A
        • Lambert DN.
        A web-based geolocated directory of crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) in the United States: description of CPC map methods and design features and analysis of baseline data.
        JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2020; 6: e16726
        • Bryant AG
        • Swartz JJ.
        Why crisis pregnancy centers are legal but unethical.
        AMA J Ethics. 2018; 20: 269-277
        • Swartzendruber A
        • Newton-Levinson A
        • Feuchs AE
        • Phillips AL
        • Hickey J
        • Steiner RJ.
        Sexual and reproductive health services and related health information on pregnancy resource center websites: a statewide content analysis.
        Womens Health Issues. 2018; 28: 14-20
        • Bryant AG
        • Narasimhan S
        • Bryant-Comstock K
        • Levi EE.
        Crisis pregnancy center websites: information, misinformation and disinformation.
        Contraception. 2014; 90: 601-605
        • Bryant AG
        • Levi EE.
        Abortion misinformation from crisis pregnancy centers in North Carolina.
        Contraception. 2012; 86: 752-756
        • Tsevat D
        • Miracle J
        • Gallo M.
        Evaluation of services at crisis pregnancy centers in Ohio (abstract).
        Contraception. 2016; 94: 391
      1. Nash E. State abortion policy landscape: from hostile to supportive. Guttmacher Institute: Policy Analysis, 2020. Accessed on February 28, 2022, from:

      2. New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU). Testimony of the NYCLU before the NYC council committee on consumer affairs regarding enforcement of local law 17 and the regulation of pregnancy service centers. NYCLU: ACLU of New York, November 15, 2017. Accessed on April 26, 2022, from:

        • Kimport K
        • Kriz R
        • Roberts SCM.
        The prevalence and impacts of crisis pregnancy center visits among a population of pregnant women.
        Contraception. 2018; 98: 69-73
        • LaRoche K
        • Foster M.
        Toll free but not judgement free: evaluation postabortion support services in Ontario.
        Contraception. 2015; 92: 469-474
        • Beauchamp TL
        • Childress JF.
        Principles of biomedical ethics.
        8th ed. Oxford University Press, New York2019