NRL News

Attack on CPCs Comes to Missouri

by | Mar 21, 2012

By Dave Andrusko

House Speaker Pro Tem Shane Schoeller

The non-stop drumbeat against Crisis Pregnancy Centers is now being heard in Missouri. In a multi-pronged attack pro-abortionists there are seeking to end pro-life tax credits, stop appropriations to alternative to abortion organizations, and pass local ordinances to harass CPCs, also known as pregnancy resource centers.

The explanation, although dressed up in the usual rhetorical rigmarole, is actually quite simple. The number of abortions in Missouri decreased by over l,000 from 2009 to 2010. This hurts the abortion lobby’s bottom line.

“We always want to be a society that strongly affirms life and the importance of life,” said House Speaker Pro Tem Shane Schoeller. “Pregnancy resource centers across our state really do what is important to protect life.” Schoeller is sponsoring a bill to extend Missouri’s Pregnancy Resource Center Tax Credit program which, by giving donors an incentive to donate more, has greatly increased donations to Missouri’s 56 pregnancy resource centers .

These women helping centers are also eligible to be reimbursed for some expenses from a state fund called the Alternative to Abortion program. According to the Kansas City Star’s Jason Hancock, “Private donors to the centers can receive a state tax credit of up to $50,000 a year.”

Cindi Boston, CEO of Springfield Pregnancy Care Center, explained to Hancock why the investment is so fruitful: “Pregnancy resource centers take state dollars and multiply them many times over, because we have dedicated volunteers willing to invest their time in the work we do.”

The attacks, which are part of a coordinated attack by NARAL, take their cues from  “a congressional study” which in fact was a 2006 tract produced for pro-abortion Democrat Rep. Henry Waxman, the ranking minority member at the time, by the minority staffers on the House Committee on Government Reform.

A key portion of the Waxman “investigative report” was supposedly that CPCs were distributing “medically inaccurate information.” What that means is that pro-lifers are distributing information pro-abortionists don’t agree with. That is part of the assault on CPCs in Missouri.

The irony is that while pro-abortionists typically like to focus in on arguments they feel are controversial, here is the illustration used in Hancock’s story. “For example, the New Beginnings Women’s Center in Warrensburg states on its website that ‘carrying your first pregnancy to full term gives protection against breast cancer. Choosing abortion causes loss of that protection.’”

There is simply no disagreement with the former and very little with the latter for reasons we’ve written about numerous times in NRL News and NRL News Today.

Another important measure the Missouri legislature is contemplating is preventative. NRL News Today has carried story after story about attempts by certain cities to harass Pregnancy Resource Centers. The laws enacted in New York City and Baltimore have already been overturned by federal judges on First Amendment grounds and the latest–in San Francisco–is being challenged in court.

In response to these attempts to stifle free speech, committees in both the House and Senate are considering legislation to restrict local governments from passing regulations that are violations of the CPCs’ First Amendment, regulations that courts frown on.

Supporters point to language in the court decision striking down the Baltimore ordinance:

“[I]t is for the provider – not the Government – to decide when and how to discuss abortion and birth-control methods.  The Government cannot, consistent with the First Amendment, require a ‘pro-life’ pregnancy-related service center to post a sign as would be required by the Ordinance.”

According to Hancock’s story, “Michelle Trupiano, public affairs manager for Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri, said that her organization faces massive state regulation about what it can do or tell its clients.”

The obvious difference between abortion clinics and CPCs is that the former charges women considerable sums to destroy unborn children while the latter provides services free of charge, giving hope to the lives of both mother and child.

Your feedback is very important to improving National Right to Life News Today. Please send your comments to If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at