Skip to main content
Research

Reproductive Health and Freedom Watch: What Unregulated Pregnancy Clinic Industry Estimates of Reported FY 2024 “Value” Leave Unanswered

By March 4, 2026No Comments

As policymakers continue to cite UPC “impact data” from Charlotte Lozier Institute, scrutiny and transparency is paramount. 

WASHINGTON, DC – State and federal policymakers, as well as influential anti-abortion advocacy organizations, are citing Charlotte Lozier Institute’s latest “impact data” in their push to funnel additional taxpayer dollars to the unregulated pregnancy clinic industry (UPC, AKA “crisis pregnancy centers”, “pregnancy resource centers”). See examples below. 

Charlotte Lozier Institute is not an independent public health research body; it is the research and education arm of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, a national anti-abortion political advocacy organization.

In November 2025, the Charlotte Lozier Institute—in partnership with UPC industry leaders Care Net, Heartbeat International, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA), and Focus on the Family—released a sector-wide “impact report” titled A Legacy of Life & Love: Rising to the Occasion with Unwavering Care. The report presents itself as evidence of expanding reach and measurable public benefit. However, a close review—particularly when compared with prior reporting from Charlotte Lozier, Care Net, and Heartbeat International—raises serious, unresolved concerns:

  1. Client reach appears flat or declining. 
  2. Financial impact claims rely on inflated valuations and probable double-counting. 
  3. Material aid outpaces medical services. Even by the UPC industry’s own reporting, demand for diapers, formula, and other tangible goods dramatically exceeds demand for pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, or clinical services—undercutting claims that UPCs primarily meet medical needs.
  4. No independent verification. The data are self-reported by clinics, aggregated by industry leaders, and released without public access to underlying datasets, audit procedures, response rates, or validation methods.
  5. Consistent opacity across networks. Care Net and Heartbeat International publish parallel figures using similarly undisclosed methodologies, compounding concerns about reliability and comparability.

This was not an independent evaluation and the findings rely on self-reported data from individual unregulated pregnancy clinics—data that have not been publicly released, independently audited, or made available for replication. 

“When organizations with direct financial and ideological interests generate and publish their own performance metrics—without disclosing the underlying data—policymakers should approach sweeping ‘impact’ claims with scrutiny, particularly when those claims are being used to justify expanded taxpayer funding and regulatory carve-outs.” said Debra Rosen, Executive Director of Reproductive Health and Freedom Watch. 

Though UPCs already benefit from ample funding, generous tax credits, and unique policy carve-outs, several states are seeking to increase the industry’s taxpayer funding and extend its special policy protections despite mounting evidence of financial waste. 

Legislators allocating taxpayer funds should demand UPCs be held to the same reporting standards applied to any state-funded health or social service provider: clear denominators, transparent valuation methods, credential verification, and measurable outcomes tied to public benefit.

Examples of Legislators and advocacy organizations Citing Charlotte Lozier Institute’s UPC “Impact” Data:

Read the full memo here.