A box set at the Crisis Pregnancy Center in Wakulla County, Florida, containing information about pregnancy options. Two states, Kansas and Wyoming, recently passed laws preventing government regulation of emergency pregnancy centers, based on model legislation developed by the conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom. (Photo: Nada Hassenein/Stateline)
States with and without abortion bans are advancing bills that would protect anti-abortion pregnancy resource centers from certain government mandates and regulatory attempts, allowing them to sue for damages if they violate any part of the law.
At least four states introduced legislation this session, and two of them, Kansas and Wyomingit was the law. Montana also passed the test similar law in 2025. The bills are still pending Oklahoma AND New Hampshire.
They are based on model legislation developed by Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal group that represented one of the vast umbrella organizations for pregnancy centers nationwide, the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, when the California government tried in 2018 to regulate the centers by requiring signs informing clients about available abortion options at state-funded clinics.
“It really reflects the legal reality that pregnancy care centers were taken to court when they decided they were not interested in promoting abortion and (the government) was going to carry it out,” said Kristi Hamrick, vice president of media and policy for the anti-abortion group Students for Life Action.
Many crisis pregnancy centers are faith-based, and their mission is to prevent anyone who comes to them from choosing abortion. In recent 50-state analysisStates Newsroom found that since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs decision, 21 states have allocated more than $491 million in taxpayer dollars to emergency pregnancy centers that invalidated federal abortion rights. Medical experts, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, say the centers can endanger public health delaying legal health care, and some centers advertising services such as free ultrasounds may miss diagnoses such as ectopic or molar pregnancy that are unfeasible and may be life-threatening.
The centers have also been criticized by supporters for misleading potential customers about their services by creating the impression that they provide abortion care, and for promoting treatments such as abortion pill reversal that are unproven and potentially perilous.
California lawwhich the U.S. Supreme Court struck down in 2018 on free speech grounds also required disclosure if the pregnancy information center was not licensed. Violators will be fined $500 for a first offense.
Hamrick said the facility protection bills are a “vaccination” against what she called malicious lawsuits that would punish them for refusing to oppose their anti-abortion mission.
Samantha Nagler, an attorney for the Equal Justice Works program at Gender Justice, said the bills carve out an area of health care where providers can omit information during a visit and face no consequences for doing so.
“No other health care provider that I can think of is simply exempt from regulation,” Nagler said.
Israel Cook, legal counsel for the Center for Reproductive Rights’ policy and advocacy team, said this type of legislation is becoming more popular as reproductive rights advocates push for regulation of emergency pregnancy centers.
Colorado passed the act in 2023, declaring it a deceitful trade practice to disseminate any public advertisement indicating that a facility provides abortion or emergency contraceptives when it does not. The law included a similar provision prohibiting publicity about abortion pill reversals, but that was a federal judge blocked execution this part of the Act in August. Alliance Defending Freedom also assisted in this process.
“It’s very scary for (facilities) to not face consequences for the harm they cause,” Cook said.
Oklahoma sponsor: law allows centers to ‘stay in their lane’
The bills prohibit any state or local government from adopting or enacting a law, rule, ordinance, or any other regulation that would require a facility to offer or perform abortions, make referrals for abortions or abortion medications, or publish any advertising or materials promoting abortion or abortion medications. Every bill, except Kansas, also states that centers cannot be forced to offer or recommend contraceptives.
The Kansas Legislature passed House Bill 2635 on March 12 and overrode Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly’s veto on Friday. Kelly said she vetoed the decision because Kansas residents had already voted to keep the government from making private medical decisions in 2022, preventing lawmakers from passing an abortion ban. Kelly also opposes the funding that pregnancy crisis centers receive from the state each year – the Legislature approved $3 million in 2025 on top of a $10 million tax credit program.
The Oklahoma House of Representatives passed it by a majority vote similar bill in early March, but has not yet been considered by the Senate. It was sponsored by Republican Rep. Denise Crosswhite Hader, who said the legislation allows the centers to continue their mission.
Oklahoma’s statute provides for maximum penalties with triple damages, which means that a successful lawsuit could result in three times the amount of damages proven in court. The maternity center would be eligible for at least $10,000.
“I don’t see abortion as care. I see abortion as ending a pregnancy,” she said during a debate in the House of Representatives. The facilities want to facilitate continue pregnancies, she said, but when they avoid abortions, they get sued, “and we try to help them so they can stay in their lane and not have to fight lawsuits over and over again.”
The state government has committed $18 million to a revolving grant fund for maternity centers in crisis in 2024, which will run until November 2027.
Oklahoma has a near-total ban on abortion, with no exceptions for rape and incest, and only an exception intended to save the life of a pregnant person. With that in mind, Democratic Rep. Cyndi Munson told States Newsroom she doesn’t see a need for such legislation.
“If a private organization has a policy, they can stick to it. I don’t know why we need to put additional protections in the law,” Munson said.
Meanwhile, health care issues in Oklahoma continue, according to Munson. A report by the nonprofit March of Dimes ranked the state 46th in infant mortality and 31st in maternal mortality. However, reproductive health care in general can also be tough to obtain. Munson said she recently had to wait an entire year for her annual gynecological exam because her doctor was overbooked.
She worries that at some point, pregnancy centers will become the only form of health care left, especially in more rural parts of the state.
“Not every woman seeks access to abortion, but all women need reproductive health care,” Munson said.
This story was originally produced by News from the USwhich is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network that includes the Ohio Capital Journal and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.
