Abortion Advocates Need Secret Abortions on Teenagers, No Professional-Life Being pregnant Facilities
Typically, high profile pro-abortion organizations such as Guttmacher and the Abortion Care Network issue end of the year overviews. Guttmacher offers its “State Policy Trends 2025 Full-Year Analysis” while the Abortion Care Network delivered its “Communities Need Clinics” report, which “highlights the role of independent abortion clinics in the U.S.”
We’ll look at the former today and the latter tomorrow.
As is almost always the case, Guttmacher’s report is woe-is-us, a lamentation about the pro-life communities insistence on not going away and looking after the welfare of their children. It’s a long report, and I’ll just look at two key components.
#1. According to Kimya Florouzan
REACH PRO-LIFE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE! Advertise with LifeNews to reach hundreds of thousands of pro-life readers every week. Contact us today.
While 2025 saw some states reaffirming abortion bans, pausing and resuming care provision, and redefining exceptions to abortion bans, much of the past year’s legislative activity moved beyond the prior pattern.
So, what was the focus of anti-SRHR [sexual and reproductive health and right] policymakers? Florouzan argues they [us]
shifted to cutting off the ways that people in states with total and gestational bans are still accessing care in spite of these restrictions. For example, the anti-SRHR movement has increased attacks specific to medication abortion access, telehealth provision under state shield laws, and the remaining avenues through which young people can access SRH information and care. They have also targeted the abortion funds, community networks and individuals who help patients access care, while ramping up funding for anti-abortion centers and “alternatives to abortion” programs.
A couple of points. #1 is keeping out parental involvement in whether their minor-age daughter has an abortion. Unless they facilitate their child’s decision to abort, parents, to Guttmacher, are nothing more than nuisances who think they know what’s best for their child.
“Forcing parental involvement often deters young people from accessing SRH services,” Florouzan complains.
So what is the busy abortionist to do? How about financing their trips out of state?
For many young people, particularly those in states with abortion bans and restrictions, traveling out of state with the support of an abortion fund or practical support organization is the only way they can access abortion care.
#2. It goes without saying but I’ll make the obvious point. The Abortion Industry not only wants unfettered access to sink its hooks deep into adolescents, it also loathes the very existence of “anti-abortion centers and ‘alternatives to abortion’ programs.” She writes
In 2025, states continued their funding of anti-abortion centers, one means by which anti-abortion policymakers seek to reduce access to the remaining avenues of care. Anti-abortion centers (also called “crisis pregnancy centers”) aim to prevent pregnant people from obtaining abortion care and contraception by providing misleading and stigmatizing information about these services and about human development.
You notice that the term that has been used for decades—pregnancy help centers—is conspicuous by its absence. PHCs seek to dissuade women from aborting by offering them—watch this now—a choice.
We know, and Guttmacher knows as well, that many-to- most women are at the very least ambivalent about going through with an abortion and/or coerced (subtly or overtly) into killing their child. But none of that makes its way in “State Policy Trends 2025 Full-Year Analysis.”
But there’s not only that! PHC’s are receiving a pittance, compared to Big Abortion, of state money with the promise, perhaps, of more in the future.
In 2025, legislators in 16 states introduced 29 bills to grant or extend funding for anti-abortion centers, and 10 were enacted (Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and West Virginia).
There’s lots more, of course. They celebrate “Shield Laws,” which is a legal ploy used by one state to ignore the laws of other states.
In this instance, a pro-abortion state, like New York, ships abortion pill into a pro-life state like Texas. A state, like New York, refuses to enforce out-of-state judgments or subpoenas from a state like Texas, undermining the constitutional mandate for interstate recognition of legal decision
Then there are pro-life education initiatives which teaches the truth about prenatal development to teenagers—aka “Baby Olivia.”
Guttmacher says it “features a fake ultrasound video and an inaccurate depiction of fetal development throughout pregnancy.” Of course, it does nothing of the sort.
Baby Olivia was created by Live Action in collaboration with a panel of medical doctors, including experts in embryonic and fetal development — Dr. David Bolender; Dr. Donna Harrison; Dr. Tara Sander Lee; Dr. Katrina Furth; Dr. Michelle Cretella; and Dr. Jeffrey Barrows, DO, MA — who each endorsed the project.
And so on. However, it is worth reading. It’s always useful to know what is in the mind of pro-abortionists.
LifeNews.com Note: Dave Andrusko is the editor of National Right to Life News and an author and editor of several books on abortion topics. He frequently writes Today’s News and Views — an online opinion column on pro-life issues.
