‘They knew I wanted an abortion’: What she got instead at a ‘crisis pregnancy center’ in NC

When the clock is ticking on an unwanted pregnancy, many women go to the first search result that looks like it’ll help them get an abortion. That’s what crisis pregnancy centers are counting on.

At first, Taylor Shelton thought she was in the right place. 

The website she found promised “unbiased medical information,” offered free ultrasounds, and featured glowing testimonials from women who said they’d been supported without judgement. Plus, the name—Queen City Pregnancy Resource Center—sounded official, and for Shelton, who was overwhelmed and running out of time, that was enough.

In 2023, Shelton, then 27, found herself unexpectedly four weeks pregnant despite having an intrauterine device (IUD). As someone living with Type 1 diabetes, she knew a poorly managed pregnancy could pose serious health risks. But South Carolina’s abortion ban, Fetal Heartbeat and Protection from Abortion Act, which had drawn attention to a six-week window for care, had left her with few options at home. So North Carolina—even after passing its own 12-week ban—seemed like the safest path.

So she crossed state lines, deciding between a Planned Parenthood clinic and the Queen City Pregnancy Resource Center. The center could see her four days earlier. With the clock already ticking, that mattered.

READ MORE: NC GOP Bans Abortion After 12 Weeks and Impose Other Restrictions by Overriding Gov. Cooper’s Veto

Shelton walked into the Charlotte facility seeking medical guidance and a referral for an abortion. But she left feeling misled, shamed, and unsafe.

When she arrived

Shelton said the center’s kindness struck her as unusual from the moment she walked in.

“The people at the center were very, very kind, almost in a creepy way,” said Shelton, recalling the atmosphere. “Uncomfortably kind.” 

She’d scheduled the appointment carefully, messaging ahead to explain her situation—the IUD, the diabetes, the urgency. The staff began by giving her an ultrasound, then took her to a consultation room to discuss options. Shelton sat down expecting “counseling” and clarity about her abortion options. Instead her questions about abortion were met with silence or deflection. She said she was looking for unbiased support, but received “the total opposite.”

In North Carolina, two appointments are necessary to get an abortion—first, a confirmation of the pregnancy and counseling. The second—for the abortion itself—requires a 72-hour waiting period. Up until this point, Shelton believed she was in the first of the two appointments. But the deflection felt off.

After Shelton tried to reiterate her concerns about pregnancy, mentioning her diabetes, she said the counselor brushed them aside.

“It was ‘Oh no, no no. You’ll be just fine, I have education and know about nutrition. You just eat right and take care of your blood sugars, you’ll be fine,’” said Shelton, replaying what the staff member told her. “And it’s like, well, little did she know, I was struggling with that in my life at the time. And so I felt like it was misleading.”

When Shelton mentioned her IUD and the pains and spotting she’d experienced after finding out she was pregnant, she said the red flags became too much to ignore.

“She was like, ‘Oh my gosh, you need to go to the hospital right now, your baby is in danger.’ My baby is in danger, is what she says, which is crazy, because if it were an ectopic pregnancy—those aren’t viable,” Shelton said. “So the embryo actually would not have survived. And if anybody was in danger, it would be me, the already living person who has come to you to seek information, and she’s not even giving medically sound information. Luckily, I know about ectopic pregnancies. I’m educated about the woman’s body, and so I caught that.” 

She called the moment “horrendous” and realized that then she felt “immediately unsafe,” prompting her to get up and leave the center for better help.

Shelton’s experience isn’t unique. More than 90 pregnancy resource centers, commonly referred to as “crisis pregnancy centers,” operate in North Carolina. These facilities often present themselves as medical clinics, but many are faith-based and largely unregulated. They are usually designed to dissuade people from getting abortions, regardless of their circumstances.

A promise of “unbiased” care

On the Queen City Pregnancy Resource Center’s website, patients looking for abortion options are prompted with text offering “unbiased medical information” to “make a fully informed decision” for unplanned pregnancies.

Screenshot of the Queen City Pregnancy Resource Center’s first website.

Mary Fleischman, the Queen City Pregnancy Resource Center’s executive director, told Cardinal & Pine in an email “all medical services provided are done by medical professionals” in the facility, and they offer “medically sound and fact-based” information that is provided to all clients.

“We are truthful in our advertising and tell clients what we can provide and what we do not provide,” she said. “It is always our intention to assist the women who come to us for help with accurate information and compassionate care.”

But on a second website affiliated with the center—Friends of QC PRC—the center is described to have a very different mission.

On the home page, the center is described as a “ministry to women facing unplanned pregnancies that partners with the local church to serve her family, save her child, and share the Gospel.”

In a nearly five-minute long promotional video hosted on the site’s mission and values page, Allison, donor and church partnerships coordinator, refers to Charlotte as an “abortion destination city,” while one of their staff members frames the center as “100% a medical facility, but 100% a ministry.” Staff continued to describe the center as a place to go to “learn about alternatives to abortion,” and a way to intercept people traveling to North Carolina for abortion care—exactly the situation Shelton faced when she traveled from South Carolina. 

“They knew I wanted an abortion,” Shelton said. “They should have already known this. They acted like they had no idea that that was why I was there, to get a referral. And mind you, I didn’t understand that ultrasound and a referral were two separate things. I just assumed that getting the ultrasound itself to decide how far along you were was the referral.”

According to the Calvary Church’s website, a Christian church in Charlotte, Queen City Pregnancy Resource Center is a “Calvary-supported local ministry partner,” where they “desire to be on the front line when it comes to standing for the life of unborn children and evangelizing and discipling families affected by pregnancy.”

Shelton said knowing what a crisis pregnancy center is now, she understands why she felt the staff “didn’t do a very good job” helping her.

“I had no idea that that was what I was dealing with going into it,” Shelton said. “It’s crazy because what I experienced is the exact definition of what it is and its deception targeting women who are confused, maybe lacking resources, and looking for information, is like any woman who has dealt with an unplanned pregnancy.”

Screenshot of a Queen City Pregnancy Resource Center-affiliated website.

A bill meant to stop the deception

In North Carolina, crisis pregnancy centers collectively receive millions in state funding each year. State allocations grew from $300,000 per year in 2013 to $12.5 million for fiscal years 2023-2025, but state oversight has stayed extremely limited. There’s a notable connection between major donors to North Carolina legislators and those donors’ interests in anti-abortion tactics. Conservative advocacy groups, religious organizations, and individual donors who publicly oppose abortion rights frequently fund the campaigns of Republican legislators who sponsor, support, or vote for the bills that ultimately lead to funding for these centers.

North Carolina is not the only state grappling with how to regulate these anti-abortion centers, but its approach is different from many others. In California, lawmakers attempted to address the issue through the Reproductive FACT Act in 2015, which required the centers to disclose that they don’t provide or refer patients for abortions. But in 2018, the US Supreme Court struck the law down in NIFLA v. Becerra, ruling that the mandate violated the centers’ free speech rights.

RELATED: Crisis pregnancy centers give questionable advice on unproven ‘abortion pill reversal,’ study finds

Other states have found themselves locked in legal battles. In New Jersey, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, a faith-based pregnancy resource center, has taken its fight to the courts, challenging a subpoena that sought information about its operations. The US Supreme Court said earlier this year that it will hear the case, and advocates on both sides say the outcome may shape how much states can regulate these facilities nationwide.

North Carolina’s HB 522, the Crisis Pregnancy Center Fraud Prevention Act introduced by Rep. Julie von Haefen (D-Wake) and others in March, attempts to thread a more careful needle. Rather than requiring pregnancy centers to discuss abortion, the bill targets the centers’ advertising practices instead of compelling speech, aiming to prevent facilities from presenting themselves as full-service reproductive health clinics when they do not actually provide abortion care or referrals. The proposal would also give the state Attorney General authority to investigate and penalize deceptive practices—an approach advocates argue could withstand constitutional challenges.

Von Haefen said stories like Shelton’s, and her own personal experience being invited to a pregnancy resource center, are driving the push for HB 522.

“This is exactly the situation that this bill would help to prevent,” von Haefen said. “It would basically allow the state to crack down on that kind of deceptive practice; not saying that we’re going to shut these places down, so to speak, but just allow them, or force them to act in a way that’s truthful.” 

She said while she supports the freedom of choice to go to a pregnancy resource center, she doesn’t believe “it’s fair for them to deceptively or unfairly lure people there or lie to them about why they operate.”

Shelton said the main issue for her is that women deserve the right to make an informed decision about their bodies, their family, and their future.

“That’s really what I think lawmakers should take into account—that I don’t think that they even need to be in that decision,” she said. “It’s a personal matter and as a human right, I think we deserve safe, affordable access to this care…and whatever decision you make, you’re still going to be supported. I think the main point in all this is the word ‘support,’ which is lacking.”

Von Haefen encouraged people like Shelton to also share their stories about these centers, and to not feel embarrassed about it because it’s not their fault—it’s the centers’ fault. She said personal stories are the best form of advocacy.

“They use these deceptive practices in a way that’s very effective, but we need people to tell the story about your experience,” she said. “Your personal story is the most effective way that we can fight against these because it’s one thing for a lawmaker or an advocate to tell how harmful these places are, but to hear firsthand from somebody is incredibly important. And there’s many, many people out there who want to help you, and these aren’t the places to do that.”

Want to share your story? Email us here. Let’s talk about how to share it in a way that helps others.