51黑料

Each year, the state receives millions in federal dollars through Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF. In recent years, roughly $6.3 million of that grant has been funneled to pregnancy centers that counsel women to consider alternatives to receiving an abortion.

However, the continued practice of using federal funds for pregnancy centers in Missouri could run afoul of new federal guidelines.

Some Democrats and abortion-rights advocates said spending money intended to help low-income families through programs such as Alternatives to Abortion has largely fallen on deaf ears.

Rep. Deb Lavender, a Manchester Democrat, said millions of state dollars are funding Alternatives to Abortion clinics that appear to be 鈥渄eceptive and truly lie to women.鈥�

鈥淲e have great concerns that Temporary Assistance for Needy Families is going to organizations that routinely lie to women,鈥� Lavender said.

The expenditures were included in the budget before the state enacted one of the strictest abortion bans in the country and have been included since then.

But supporters of the effort said pregnancy centers provide critical services to women in crisis.

The Haven of Grace maternity shelter in 51黑料 is among the agencies that receive state funding through the Alternatives to Abortion program.

Patricia Bosman, the organization鈥檚 executive director, said state funding enables the center to provide critical services to some pregnant mothers who may be at risk of becoming homeless. Other services include housing assistance, mental health counseling and helping clients find jobs.

鈥淏y the time our moms get to us, they鈥檝e already made a decision,鈥� Bosman said. 鈥淭hey鈥檝e already made a decision, and they are seeking support to make it through the pregnancy.鈥�

Lawmakers passed a budget recently that includes money for the Alternatives to Abortion effort. That means the money for the program is unlikely to be affected by the new rule this year.

But lawmakers may be forced to remove the allocation from future state budgets as a result of a proposed federal rule that would effectively block states from sending federal money to pregnancy centers.

Under the new rule, states would be required to explain how the grant expenditure supports efforts to help low-income families become less reliant on government assistance, prevent out-of-wedlock pregnancies and encourage two-parent families to remain intact.

The proposal specifically discourages federal grant money going to pregnancy centers because, according to the federal government, they do not support the federal program鈥檚 intent to help needy families.

Battling misinformation

Whether pregnancy centers supported by Alternatives to Abortion fit within the TANF program largely depends on whether the services they offer do anything to accomplish the program鈥檚 goals.

Other nonprofit groups such as food banks, fatherhood development programs and domestic violence shelters could still receive grant money under the new federal guidelines, according to the Missouri Department of Social Services.

Bosman said that a number of the services provided by the Haven of Grace maternity center meet TANF鈥檚 goals in the same way that other nonprofits do, by providing stable housing, individual and group counseling and sexual education.

鈥淚 think that there is a misnomer or misunderstanding of what those funds are for and who鈥檚 getting them and who鈥檚 using them and the benefit of them,鈥� she said.

鈥淪omebody who is not in the trenches every day with unhoused women and children don鈥檛 understand that it is just not for housing, but it is for all the other things that that individuals need to survive, to thrive to get back on their feet.鈥�

Rep. Dirk Deaton, a Noel Republican and vice chair of the House鈥檚 budget-writing committee, said he was critical of the rule because the pregnancy centers provide important services to many low-income women.

鈥淚f that was not available if this program was not available, I mean, how is that going to ultimately affect the health and well-being of the mother and the family, but you know, the soon-to-be-born child as well,鈥� Deaton said.

鈥淪o that seems to me that that would have a very negative effect on families and women and babies across the state of Missouri,鈥� he said.

However, abortion advocates painted a different picture of what the pregnancy centers are doing with the federal dollars.

Maggie Olivia, a senior policy manager with Abortion Action Missouri, a reproductive rights advocacy group, said that Alternatives to Abortion providers often use the money to mislead women rather than serve them.

鈥淚 think we鈥檝e seen that a lot of this money that is allocated to and even donated to these centers ends up being used on marketing,鈥� Olivia said. 鈥淐onfusion and fear in and of itself serve as a barrier to abortion care.鈥�

鈥淪o even if an anti-abortion fake clinic can鈥檛 convince someone not to seek an abortion, they can confuse them and bombard them with misinformation,鈥� she said.

The lack of transparency around how pregnancy centers spend federal funds was a part of the problem, said Katie Baylie, the director of legislative affairs and associate general counsel for Planned Parenthood Great Plains.

鈥淲e鈥檙e not able to really see if the goals of the program, which are explicitly anti-abortion are even being met,鈥� Baylie said.

鈥淥bviously abortion is not happening in Missouri, it鈥檚 been illegal. So it鈥檚 just not really clear, if the goal is stopping abortions in a state where abortion is illegal, what the funds are really being used for,鈥� she said.

Bosman said her agency, the Haven of Grace does not spread misinformation about abortion care. Instead, they provide resources beyond what cash assistance could offer, which would be unfairly restricted if the new rule were enforced, she said.

鈥淚 think that many of the people that we serve need help, they need guidance, they need to be educated around how to use resources,鈥� Bosman said. 鈥淚f you鈥檝e not had any type of exposure, which many don鈥檛, to money management, it will not be helpful.鈥�