WASHINGTON, D.C. — New reporting from Stateline examines the unregulated pregnancy clinic (UPCs, also known as crisis pregnancy centers) industry’s efforts to preserve and expand its ability to provide obstetric ultrasound services while remaining largely outside the regulatory framework that governs regulated healthcare providers. The story comes just weeks after Reproductive Health and Freedom Watch (RHFW) released Is there a Doctor in the House? A National Analysis of Medical Service Oversight at Unregulated Pregnancy Clinics, the first national analysis of the physicians whose medical licenses are used to oversee UPC clinical services.
Stateline interviews with former employees and leaders within the UPC industry reveal concerns about inconsistent ultrasound training and inadequate clinical preparation, underscoring why identifying the physicians responsible for supervising medical care is a matter of patient safety—not simply organizational transparency.
Together, Stateline’s reporting and RHFW’s research point to the same fundamental question: If unregulated pregnancy clinics are increasingly providing medical services, who is responsible for this medical care?
Stateline documents how UPCs across the country are resisting proposals for greater oversight of ultrasound services, even as lawmakers continue directing millions of taxpayer dollars toward the industry and federal officials promote these facilities through Moms.gov. The article underscores a central finding of RHFW’s June analysis: although more than 80 percent of UPCs advertise obstetric ultrasound services, the medical oversight behind those services often remains difficult for patients—and policymakers—to evaluate.
According to RHFW Executive Director Debra Rosen, “What makes this reporting so significant is that these concerns aren’t coming only from outside experts. Current and former leaders within the industry are acknowledging gaps in ultrasound training and clinical preparedness. When insiders are raising these questions, policymakers should be asking what safeguards are actually in place to protect patients.”
RHFW identified just 239 publicly identifiable physician medical directors overseeing 349 clinic locations nationwide, despite thousands of facilities offering medical services. Most UPC websites do not identify a verifiable medical director, fewer than half of identified medical directors are obstetrician-gynecologists, and more than three-quarters maintain primary employment elsewhere, raising important questions about clinical supervision, accountability, and patient transparency.
The questions raised by Stateline’s national report are already shaping conversations in the states. Last week, Alabama Reporter reported that although more than 80 percent of Alabama UPCs advertise ultrasound services, only a small number publicly identify a medical director.
The story also highlights RHFW’s recommendations for requiring disclosure of medical directors, public transparency regarding their credentials, and minimum transparency standards for facilities promoted through government referral platforms.
The debate over ultrasound services is no longer simply about whether UPCs should be permitted to own ultrasound equipment. It is about whether organizations that increasingly provide diagnostic medical services—and receive growing public support—should be expected to meet basic standards of transparency regarding the clinicians responsible for patient care.
Read More:
- Stateline: Crisis pregnancy centers fight for ultrasound use in clinics without government oversight.
- RHFW analysis: Is there a Doctor in the House? A National Analysis of Medical Service Oversight at Unregulated Pregnancy Clinics
- Alabama Reporter: Report urges further transparency for Alabama crisis pregnancy centers.