The Catholic Spirit: Pregnancy resource centers struggle with funding cut
Two souls, not one. That’s the motto of Options for Women East, a pregnancy resource center in St. Paul. For Jennifer Meyer, executive director, it means caring for the mother as much as the unborn child.
Providing this care has become more difficult for pregnancy resource centers in recent years, as the Twin Cities, and Minnesota as a whole, continue to be a battleground between pregnancy resource centers and clinics that provide abortion services such as Planned Parenthood.
This conflict remains contentious and has been marred with protests, vandalism at pregnancy resource centers, legislative maneuvers and lawsuits. In Minnesota, pregnancy resource centers outnumber abortion clinics by 11 to 1. Currently, there are 90 identified pregnancy resource centers with only eight abortion clinics, with most abortion clinics based in the Twin Cities area. In the United States there are an estimated 2,500 pregnancy resource centers and 800 abortion clinics. Despite this discrepancy, pregnancy resource centers in Minnesota are fighting an uphill battle.
In August 2023, a legislative move signed off on by Gov. Tim Walz — now Vice President Kamala Harris’ running mate in the 2024 presidential election — repealed the Positive Alternatives Grant.
Since 2005, the grant provided $3 million in funding every five-year grant cycle to pregnancy resource centers “to promote healthy pregnancy outcomes,” according to the grant’s original writing. In 2021, a total of 27 clinics and organizations were awarded funds from this grant, funds that were intended to continue coming in annually until 2025.
Meyer said, “The beautiful thing about the Positive Alternatives Grant is that it’s specifically stated that this money is intended for services that promote alternatives to abortion. The idea is that you had both sides of the coin. Funding is going here, and funding is going there. It wasn’t even, by any means. We’re talking triple, quadruple the money going into that bucket (abortion clinics) compared to ours.”
The repeal, two and a half years into the full five-year grant cycle, came as a shock to most clinics relying on the Positive Alternatives Grant to keep their doors open. Most clinics budgeted for a five-year allotment of money. By year three, clinics were scrambling to make up for the lost revenue through donations and volunteers.
The Options for Women East allocation “was just shy of $200,000 a year,” Meyer said. “Over five years we’re talking just shy of $1 million. That is a chunk of money for us. When you lose $200,000, that’s payroll. The highest expense for any pregnancy center is payroll because payroll equals a program. Without people, you have no program. … Then you must cut the hours, you cut back staff and that just means less money, (fewer) people. You serve (fewer) women and families.”
As a result of the funding cut, Guiding Star Wakota, a pregnancy resource center in West St. Paul, lost $350,000 and laid off half its staff, said Megan Plum, its executive director. So far this year, Guiding Star Wakota has had at least 9,000 patients. Currently, the center is seeking a new ultrasound machine through a Focus on the Family grant. Twenty percent of the funding for the ultrasound machine will come from the Knights of Columbus.
Sydney March, a registered nurse who works in the emergency department at a Twin Cities hospital, is also a staff nurse at the Options for Women East clinic. She is on the medical board of Elevate Life and has had extensive years of service and accompaniment with women facing unexpected pregnancies. March said that with recent state law changes regarding abortion, a spiritual battle has reared its head.
“These women are vulnerable,” March said. At Options for Women East, she said, “We have a prenatal program and a postpartum program. We provide that care at no cost. We’re one of the only ones that does that in-house within the state of Minnesota and then we support them (the women) postpartum up until three years, with education and support and material assistance. … With the impact of the law, any one of those women could have a dramatic life change, go down the road to Planned Parenthood and terminate their child.”
March said this has been an eye-opening experience for her. “The law opened that opportunity and that temptation up even more with the circumstances that confront families,” March said.
Sonograms
Pregnancy resource centers believe the battle is won or lost in the sonogram room.
Meyer described her center’s sonogram room as “the room that will change a life.”
Places like Planned Parenthood do not show sonogram screens to their patients because this would change the minds of many patients who go there, Meyer said. At most pregnancy resource centers, showing the screen is a main objective in providing services.
“For a woman, if you don’t feel pregnant or look pregnant, it’s so much easier to have the concept of abortion, because there’s nothing (visibly) there,” Meyer explained, “until you come in for an ultrasound and you see that child on the screen. That’s what makes it real. That is why Planned Parenthood will never, ever, ever show the screen. If they did, they (pregnant women) would leave.”
On May 3, 2018, a bill (HF1108/SF1168) was indefinitely postponed on the House floor. The bill would require Minnesota physicians to offer a patient the opportunity to see or decline to see an active ultrasound image of their unborn child. Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota Action Fund, Inc. described the bill as “dangerous.”
“This bill is about shaming a person for their decision to end a pregnancy because it assumes they have not carefully thought about the decision,” said an article on Planned Parenthood’s website. “Patients deserve their physicians’ best medical judgment and counsel, not unnecessary requirements mandated by politicians.”
“(For) what other medical procedure would you withhold information?” Meyer asked. “None. But in that instance, it’s OK, because they’ve deemed it not necessary.”
Legislation
In 2022, when the Minnesota Senate flipped to a DFL (Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party) majority, a trifecta of Democrat control was created between the House, the Senate and the governor’s office. Maggee Hangge, policy and public relations associate with the Minnesota Catholic Conference, said in the first legislative session under this trifecta, Minnesota’s state government made a commitment to fund abortion and abortion only.
While every two years, by state law, the budget needs to be balanced, Hangge said that the Positive Alternatives Grant made up 0.00017% of the budget’s surplus. The move to repeal that grant, according to Hangge, was not pragmatic, but purely political. On March 14, Vice President Harris visited a Minnesota Planned Parenthood clinic. This was the first time a president or vice president has ever toured a facility that performs abortions.
“We went from being a pro-choice state to a pro-abortion state,” Hangge said. “Current legislators have only focused on increasing access to and funding for abortions in our state, while repealing common-sense safeguards and cutting funding to pregnancy resource centers. That’s a clear message from our elected officials on where they want our money to go and what they value most.”
Hangge noted that when the grant was repealed last year, in the state of Minnesota, the abortion reimbursement rate and taxpayer-funded abortions increased.
“They (the Minnesota Legislature) made some changes to MinnesotaCare (state-sponsored health care program for Minnesotans with low income) and medical assistance to fund more abortions than they had in the past,” Hangge said. “Medical assistance now covers medically necessary abortions as determined by the treatment provider. … MinnesotaCare now covers elective abortions with no restrictions.”
In Walz’s notes on repealing the Positive Alternatives Grant, he said that the services pregnancy resource centers provide, such as sonograms and maternal products, are redundant because in the state of Minnesota, all county agencies provide those services. However, Meyer argues that the purpose of pregnancy resource centers is to provide alternative services to abortion.
“The first thing they did, January of last year, is they tried to rewrite the grant,” Meyer said. “This was a treat: they changed (the language) from ‘mothers’ to ‘pregnant people.’ It all came down to words. … When you start to read through it, words matter.”
In January 2023, Walz signed a bill defining abortion as a “fundamental right” in Minnesota state law. Walz told MPR News that same month, “I think that there’s a lot of misinformation that came out of that … (Positive Alternatives Grant). I think women deserve better than that, I think they deserve to have the whole picture.”
Controversy
March acknowledged controversial claims by pro-choice advocates and described many allegations as misconceptions of modern pregnancy resource centers. For example, one allegation is that pregnancy resource centers use deceptive tactics to bring pregnant women seeking an abortion into a pregnancy resource center under the guise of an abortion clinic.
“Most, if not all, abide by privacy, medical, and professional standards, as well as transparency, truthfulness, and compassion –– regardless of the outcome chosen or intention,” March said.
Historically, March said, some clinics might’ve had solely a spiritual focus, forgetting about the need for material support, healing, growth and accompaniment. But now centers are there to support women and families, she said.
“I think people are thinking of pro-life clinics where you’ve got the little old grandma just having it all be about conversion and saving the baby,” March said. “Maybe there have been isolated occasions where that’s been the case, but it’s not like that. You’re primarily there for that woman, and if she is open to talking about religion, that is a beautiful thing.”
March also defended medical staff present at pregnancy resource centers, often called “fake clinics” by opposing groups.
“Many of the people (who) work within these clinics, they’re competent medical professionals,” March said.
March said there are statements of truth said by those who do not support this kind of work that pregnancy resource centers, and the pro-life movement in general, need to listen to, such as being fully present with the mother and her situation.
“I know many of the clinics offer material assistance and parenting and education classes, and those things are extremely good and definitely needed,” March said. “But we must try to go deeper to be involved in their life. … A lot of these women have come from traumatic situations, too.”
Meyer said that Options for Women East’s online marketing is targeted toward pregnant women looking for an abortion on purpose — a measure many pro-choice activists take issue with.
For many pregnancy resource centers, the hope is the pregnant woman will enter the sonogram room so that they can see the baby on the screen and have a change of heart. Meyer suggests clinics offering abortion use targeted marketing measures with different intentions to reach pregnant women.
“Just the same as Planned Parenthood,” Meyer said. “Which is why they try to come after us. They say, ‘You can’t target for (those seeking) abortion.’ I can target for whatever I want. Have you looked at the marketing that you see every day? Everyone’s targeting everybody at the same time. I think we just do it with a little more grace.”
Meyer explained that when a pregnant woman reaches out to Options for Women East, all employees are honest about the fact that they do not provide abortions. The objective of a place like Options for Women East is to care for vulnerable, pregnant women and their families with alternatives to abortion.
However, March explained that Options for Women East will always open its doors to patients who, even after visiting, decide to terminate their pregnancy.
“I wish the other side would see the beauty and the work that we do because even women who decide to walk out that door and still terminate, they are always welcome back,” March said. “We want to be there for them, to help pick up the pieces. To help support them and just be there because making a decision like that lives with you forever. … We have a duty to be there for them afterwards.”
Where do we go from here?
Now more than ever, March said, pro-life advocates need to support pro-life organizations and initiatives. Having faced backlash for being pro-life, March recommends pro-lifers put their words into “humble actions.”
“What did our Blessed Mother do? She said yes,” March said. When it comes to discussing pro-life issues, March said, “You have to really be prudent and be able to prayerfully take the time to craft (what to say) because you don’t want to compromise truth but you also want to make sure that the other side can be receptive, otherwise you just immediately get shut down.”
“It’s a little nerve-wracking,” March said. “We’re no longer living in the age where we can all just say that we’re pro-life and then not go out and live through that calling. You have to go out, be present, donate, work hard to try and serve, instead of just living by this line of being pro-life.”
March said the women who choose to keep their pregnancy are an inspiration to her, enough to move her to tears. And above all, prayers are needed.
“They’re saying yes, despite their circumstances,” March said. “They don’t necessarily have a job, they don’t necessarily have housing, and yet not only are they sacrificing their bodies, but they’re sacrificing their time. They’re sacrificing their whole being to say yes, to bring a child into the world.”
March said there is a unique but challenging opportunity for people in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis since the grant has been cut.
“It allows pro-lifers to put their money where their mouth is,” March said. “From a financial standpoint, we’re really struggling. … While in some respect, it’s a good thing because then we don’t have to be beholden to certain government or state requirements.”
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has stated that “The threat of abortion remains our preeminent priority.”
While it may seem to Catholic voters that the only way to affect legislation is through the ballot box, Hangge said faithful citizenship goes far beyond the voting booth in November. The MCC encourages individuals to talk with their state and local representatives.
“Talk to those people. Get to know them,” Hangge said. Additionally, Hangge said, the MCC encourages those at pregnancy resource centers “to talk with their legislators as well.”
The MCC also supports legislation such as eliminating the state sales tax on necessary baby items to help families achieve economic security. Economics, Hangge explained, is a major factor impeding men and women from starting families.
“We’ve supported and will continue to support an expansion of the state child tax credit,” Hangge said. “Giving money to families to help them in whatever way they need they see fit.”
The MCC, in 2022, recommended that Minnesota enact a permanent, fully refundable $150 a month child tax credit (CTC) for all children up to the age of 18.
In 2023, with MCC backing the proposal, the Legislature allocated $400 million annually toward an income-driven family tax credit of up to $1,750 per child with no limit on the number of children claimed. An estimated 300,000 families across the state with children under 18 can get help through the tax credit.
Beyond legislation, the MCC offers avenues for individuals to help in other ways, by supporting organizations and pregnancy resource centers.
“It’s more important than ever to be supporting our pregnancy resource centers both financially or whether you have the ability to volunteer or donate,” Hangge said, “especially those who were grant recipients who are still hurting because they lost, some upwards of 40% of their budget when the program was repealed.”
...