WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, Reproductive Health and Freedom Watch (RHFW) released Is there a Doctor in the House?, a new national analysis of physicians providing medical oversight at unregulated pregnancy clinics (UPCs). Release of this analysis was prompted by the May 10th launch of Moms.gov, a federal website that directs pregnant patients to UPCs alongside federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) and congressional inquiries and calls for removal of the site in the last few weeks.
RHFW’s analysis identified 239 physician UPC “medical directors” affiliated with 349 clinic locations nationwide and found:
-
The vast majority of unregulated pregnancy clinic websites do not identify a verifiable medical director;
-
Fewer than half of identified medical directors are obstetrician-gynecologists; and
-
More than three-quarters of unregulated pregnancy clinic medical directors appear to maintain primary employment elsewhere.
Taken together, these findings reveal a striking clinical transparency gap at the center of an industry that increasingly presents itself as part of the healthcare system. While UPCs frequently cite physician oversight, the identities, qualifications, and involvement of those physicians may be difficult for patients, policymakers, and regulators to determine.
RHFW’s analysis comes one day after NPR reported that some UPC leaders advise staff not to perform ultrasounds when they suspect an ectopic pregnancy, a potentially life-threatening medical emergency requiring prompt diagnosis and treatment. This reporting is particularly significant because more than 80% of UPCs nationwide advertise ultrasound services and many, according to NPR, encourage pregnant women to visit their facilities to “rule out” ectopic pregnancy, even though UPC clinical capacity to evaluate and respond to pregnancy complications may vary considerably across the industry.
A 2024 study published in JAMA Internal Medicine found that more than 90% of UPC websites advertise medical services, including pregnancy testing, STI testing, and obstetric ultrasound. Many state that these services are provided under the supervision of a licensed medical director. And in multiple state legislatures, including a recent Louisiana State House committee hearing, UPC industry leaders have testified that UPC medical services are provided under the license of a medical director, even when these people may not provide direct patient care or routinely interact with patients.
“Over the past year, the federal government has increasingly elevated unregulated pregnancy clinics as part of the maternal healthcare landscape, most notably through the launch of Moms.gov,” said Debra Rosen, Executive Director of Reproductive Health and Freedom Watch. “Yet, as these organizations are promoted alongside licensed healthcare providers, basic questions remain unanswered about who is overseeing the medical services they advertise.”
“The NPR reporting highlights why this conversation matters,” Rosen continued. “Many UPCs encourage women to visit their facilities for concerns related to pregnancy complications while simultaneously presenting themselves as healthcare providers. Yet remarkably little is known about the physicians responsible for overseeing those services. If these organizations are serving women with limited healthcare options and are being promoted through a federal government website, transparency about clinical oversight is not optional—it is essential.”
The RHFW analysis is not about whether UPCs should be permitted to provide medical services. It is about transparency. Patients seeking pregnancy-related care should be able to identify the physicians responsible for overseeing those services, understand their qualifications, and know how the medical oversight model functions in practice.
“Moms.gov has elevated UPCs as participants in the nation’s maternal health infrastructure,” Rosen added. “As policymakers continue to direct pregnant patients to these organizations, questions about medical oversight, accountability, and patient safety can no longer be treated as secondary concerns. The public deserves clear answers about who is overseeing care at these facilities.”
The full analysis is available at https://