On May 19, 1943, Bob Anderson was born, the oldest of three children. He grew up on a farm in North Dakota before heading off to college, where he studied to become a veterinarian. He then began a journey to western Australia, and he stopped in Humboldt County on the way and never looked back.

Over the years, he worked in many veterinary practices, opening several of his own and finally retiring in 2012. He worked on all sorts of animals over the many years, large and small, garnering quite the reputation as a vet and as a kind-hearted, generous person and friend. Ask anyone that knew him and they’ll have some story to tell fondly about “Dr. Bob.” In 1981, he had a son, Jared, and added “loving and devoted father” to his list of qualifications. And in 1993, he met his long time partner in life and travel, Linda, whose family he took on as his own, adding even more to those who called him family.

Fast forward to the early 2000s and he became a grandpa for the first time, and he took on the role of “Papa Bob” with as much (or more) kindness, generosity and love as he had devoted to all those friends, family and animals over the years.

On June 9, 2023, having recently celebrated his 80th birthday and after a night of fun and joking with family, Bob passed away in his sleep peacefully, leaving behind a host of people who love him and will continue to remember him, his adventures and exploits fondly and wish him well on his next adventures.

For those that wish to attend, a celebration of life is scheduled for July 8 from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. at the Scotia Fire Hall. All his friends are welcome to stop by for a minute or stay the whole time.

###

###

Humboldt County Superior Court Judge Gregory J. Kreis last week ruled in favor of Sharon and Steve Wolff, owners and publishers of the local news site Rio Dell Times, in a matter that pitted accusations of libel, slander and harassment against the right to free speech enshrined in the First Amendment.

In his ruling, Judge Kreis ordered attorney Chris Hamer, of Arcata firm Stokes, Hamer, Kirk & Eads, and her client, Royce Mendonca, to pay more than $53,000 in attorney’s fees to the Wolffs’ representative, Sacramento-based Paul Nicholas Boylan, who specializes in media and free speech matters. [DISCLOSURE: Boylan has also represented the Lost Coast Outpost in the past.]

The ruling stems from a contentious legal battle over the conservatorship of Sharon Wolff’s elderly mother and father-in-law, Barbara and Ronald Keller. In 2021, the probate court appointed Mendonca as conservator of the Kellers, much to the frustration of the Wolffs, who characterized the situation as a “court-sanctioned kidnapping.” (They had filed a competing conservatorship request.)

In a press release sent out Thursday, Sharon Wolff alleged that Hamer helped Mendonca, a “distant relative” of her stepfather, remove the elderly couple from the Wolffs’ Fortuna home shortly before a conservatorship hearing “with no explanation.”

“And then they had mom and Ron declared mentally incompetent, which meant they could control mom and Ron completely. That’s what it felt like and looked like, and I said so in the Rio Dell Times,” Sharon Wolff said, adding, “This is a cautionary tale for all adult children of Alzheimer’s and dementia victims.” 

Reached by phone this morning, Hamer said that after losing the conservatorship decision, Sharon Wolff lashed out with wild allegations online and in a series of letters.

“She was a sore loser, and she has been libeling and slandering us, me and my client, since the order saying that she lost and we won,” Hamer said.

As described in Kreis’s decision, the Wolffs chronicled their grievances in the conservatorship case on riodelltimes.com, accusing Hamer of lying and fraud, among other allegations, while accusing Mendonca of being a virtual stranger to the Kellers who kidnapped them and pursued conservatorship so he could steal their money. (Hamer says that’s false and that, in fact, the Kellers personally nominated Mendonca as their preferred conservator.)

Last summer, Hamer filed two petitions on behalf of Mendonca, seeking injunctions to prevent the Wolffs from libel, slander and harassment of both Mendonca and herself. They also asked the judge to order the Wolffs “to immediately remove all existing false and derogatory posting, audio files, articles, statements, letters and pictures” about Mendonca and Hamer from their website.

The petitions also complained about a series of letters that accused Mendonca of elder financial fraud and abuse, letters that the Wolffs sent to Humboldt County Superior Court judges, federal state and local officials and various media outlets, including the Times-Standard, Lost Coast Outpost, Redheaded Blackbelt and North Coast Journal.

Hamer described these writings as “a campaign of daily disparagement.”

“This imposed a considerable burden and distraction on administration of the conservatorships,” Hamer said in an emailed statement. “Instead of filing independent civil lawsuits for damages for defamation, Royce Mendonca, as the conservator of both Ronald and Barbara Keller, filed petitions requesting that the court simply instruct Sharon and Steve Wolff to cease libeling Royce Mendonca, the conservator, and his attorney.”

In response to that filing, the Wolffs retained Boylan, and last September, Boylan filed what’s known as an “anti-SLAPP” motion, accusing Hamer and Mendonca of trying to stifle the Wolffs’ free speech rights through a “strategic lawsuit against public participation.”

“The Wollfs were the victims of the legal system to a degree I’ve never encountered before,” Boylan said in an email to the Outpost. “Sharon’s mother was legally removed from her life, and then the attorney who helped do that used the inequities in the legal system (i.e., the often crushing costs of defense) to censor free speech and the right to petition.”

Hamer and Mendonca wound up dismissing their petitions after being told that they should have been filed them as independent civil actions, rather than petitions in the context of the conservatorship proceedings. Boylan then sought to recoup his legal fees from Hamer and Mendonca, citing a rate of $750 per hour.

Hamer said it was unfair of Boylan to seek reimbursement from herself and her client, saying “there is no legal authority whatsoever supporting such a request.”

In his ruling, filed on June 8, Kries says that while not all of the Wolffs’ statements have concerned matters of public interest, “the ones concerning Chris Hamer and her activities as a lawyer in connection with the case are of public interest in that they seek to inform the public about alleged abuses of public court processes designed to protect vulnerable members of the public.”

Kries also ruled that Boylan and the Wolffs would have prevailed on their anti-SLAPP motion and are thus entitled to attorney’s fees and costs. (He wound up using an hourly rate of $500 to calculate the amount due to Boylan: $53,445.34.)

“This is a true David and Goliath story, —  the largest law firm in Humboldt County against the smallest local newspaper, suing them for the exercise of constitutionally protected rights,” Boylan is quoted as saying in a press release from the Wolffs. (He confirmed to the Outpost that the quote is accurate.) “It is rare to encounter people this deserving of assistance,” he added.

Sharon Wolff described the ruling as “a wonderful outcome to a very bad chapter in my life” and said, “Hamer and Mendonca were using my mom and Ron’s money to finance two lawsuits for [their own] benefit. I am grateful that the Court put a stop to it.”

Hamer reiterated that she considers the imposition of fees on Mendonca and herself to be unprecedented, saying, “[T]here is not a single decided case where a judge has ever done this.”

She vowed to appeal the ruling.

###

DOCUMENT: Order re: Motion for Attorney’s Fees

After years of moving to various different locations due to a devastating sewage spill that destroyed its building and ruined thousands of dollars worth of food, local non-profit Food for People is finally back in its old location … but with a brand new building. 

Food for People officially moved back into its Eureka Choice Pantry location 307 West 14th Street just earlier this week, Executive Director Anne Holcomb told the Outpost during a tour of the new digs on Friday afternoon, and is again open and offering its services at the old location. 

Holcomb in front of the new building

“We’re back to the mothership,” Holcomb said, “This has been an enormous thing, because we were in four different locations. So we’ve been bringing everything back in stages.” 

The site’s sewage spill disaster happened in February 2020 and was almost immediately followed by the pandemic, leaving the non-profit to scurry to find a new location and replace the lost food inventory so that it could help serve the community during the COVID-19 emergency. After discovering that the sewage spill had caused much more damage than initially anticipated, the building had to be completely demolished. 

Because Food for People owns the property, the nonprofit decided it would be easier to build a new building on the site, since it is very difficult to find a space that could accommodate its needs in the long run. Thanks to a $1.5 million grant from the Smullin Foundation, other various grants and many donations from members of the community, Food for People was able to fund construction of the new building, which Holcomb said cost about $6.2 million. After many delays due to supply chain issues, construction was finally able to begin on the site about a year and a half ago. 

The new building is substantially bigger than the old one and has several new features, including a food pantry that is about three times the size of the old pantry, huge walk-in refrigeration systems for perishable foods, a bigger storage warehouse and three new intake rooms for people looking to receive services. Upstairs the building also has new offices and a large conference room. 

the much bigger Choice Pantry space, with new refrigeration

Holcomb said that the building is also much more “emergency prepared” than the previous one (for obvious reasons) and is fit with a big backup generator in case of power outages and solar panels. The silver lining to all the difficulties of the last few years, is that Food for People now has a building that will be able to fully meet their needs for the next many years. 

“The past three years have been some of the most challenging I’ve ever been through,” Holcomb said. “I’ve been with Food for People for 22 years and am actually getting ready to retire. So this was kind of my finish line.” 

Press release from the Eureka Police Department:

On June 15, 2023 at approximately 6:20 p.m., officers with the Eureka Police Department (EPD) were dispatched to 20/30 Park, 2500 block of California Street, on a report of gunshots fired at that location. Officers learned while in route to the call that the suspect, described as a black male adult, late teens, thin build, last seen wearing a green and yellow hooded sweatshirt with a white t-shirt underneath, blue “skinny” jeans, and a black ski mask with only the eye holes cut out, left the vicinity traveling south on California Street in a red Toyota Tundra. Officers checked the vicinity for the suspect vehicle while other officers responded to the park. The vehicle and suspect have not been located at the time of this press release.

The investigation, at this point, has revealed the suspect parked on California Street at the entrance to the park and exited the vehicle. The suspect entered the park and fired three (3) rounds from a handgun and then fled back to the truck. The truck was occupied by an unknown number of additional subjects. No one was injured during the shooting and it appears this was not a random act, but a targeted attack against other individual(s) who were already at the park. These individuals left prior to officers arriving on scene and have not contacted EPD to make a report.

The suspect vehicle is believed to be a 2012, Red, Toyota Tundra, double cab (4-door truck), with black door handles. The truck appears to be primarily stock and has large, chrome, 5-spoke rims. A photo of the suspect’s truck obtained during the investigation is attached to this release.

If anyone has any information about this incident or the vehicle, please contact Commander Wayne Rabang at 707-441-4216 or the Eureka Police Department at 707-441-4044. If you spot or locate the vehicle, notify your local law enforcement jurisdiction immediately. The occupants are considered armed and dangerous.

Press release from the Humboldt County Drug Task Force:

On June 15, 2023, Humboldt County Drug Task Force Agents and HCSO Deputies served a multi-location search warrant at the residences of Cody Ryan Wuillmier (age 31) located in 300 block of Garden Lane in Arcata and the 600 block of Highland Avenue in Eureka. After a multi-week investigation and several neighborhood complaints, the HCDTF believed Wuillmier was in possession of large quantities of narcotics and was in possession of several firearms. Wuillmier is a convicted felon, and he had multiple felony warrants out for his arrest. 

Upon arrival at the residence on Garden Lane, Agents and Deputies searched the area. No subjects were located on scene. During a search of the property, Agents and Deputies located two stolen vehicles and a large amount of drug paraphernalia.

After the scene was processed on Garden Lane, HCDTF Agents responded to the 600 block of Highland Avenue in Eureka. While enroute to Highland Avenue, Agents received a tip that Wuillmier was currently staying at a residence in the 3000 block of Central Ave. in McKinleyville. HCDTF Agents responded to the area to surveil the residence. 

Once in the area, Agents observed three male occupants in a truck leave the suspected residence and travel southbound on Central Avenue. Agents followed the vehicle into the city of Eureka where it stopped at a business in the 1400 block of 5th Street.  Once the vehicle was stopped, Officers with the Eureka Police Department contacted the subjects inside the vehicle. 

Wuillmier was located in the back seat of the vehicle. Wuillmier originally provided a false name to the Officers but was positively identified by a photograph and the Officers’ previous contacts with Wuillmier. Wuillmier was removed from that back seat and taken into custody without incident. 

Sergeant Nantz with the Eureka Police Department and his K9 partner Bohdie conducted an “open-air sniff” around the outside of the vehicle. K9 Bohdie alerted near the rear passenger side of the vehicle, indicating firearms and/or narcotics may be inside. EPD Officers searched the back seat of the vehicle where Wuillmier was sitting and located a loaded .45 caliber revolver and approximately one ounce of methamphetamine. 

Once Wuillmier was in custody, HCDTF Agents authored a search warrant for the residence in the 3000 block of Central Avenue in McKinleyville. HCDTF Agents and HCSO Deputies responded to the residence and served the search warrant. During a search of the residence Agents located a loaded, non-serialized, AR-15, that was equipped with a loaded high-capacity magazine. 

Wuillmier was transported to the Humboldt County Correctional Facility where he was booked for the following charges:

• 11370.1(A) - Possession of a controlled substance while armed with a loaded firearm

• 29800(a)(1) PC - Felon in possession of a firearm

• 30605(a) PC - Possession of an assault weapon

• 25850(A) PC - Unlawful possession of firearm on person/vehicle

• 25400(A)(1) PC - Unlawful possession of concealed handgun on person/vehicle

• 12022.1(b) PC - Use of a firearm during the commission of a felony

• 4573.6  PC - Possession of narcotics in jail

• 30600(A) PC - Manufacturing an assault weapon

• 11377(A) HS - Possession of a controlled substance

• Warrant Arrest - Multiple Felony Warrants                     

Anyone with information related to this investigation or other narcotics related crimes are encouraged to call the Humboldt County Drug Task Force at 707-267-9976.

###

There’s an old, cliché idea that firefighters spend most of their time rescuing cats from trees. And though that may not be true, they do occasionally get the opportunity to rescue a cute animal. Thursday night Captain Tony Freeman of the Arcata Fire District rescued an adorable baby fawn that was trapped in a storm drain in McKinleyville. 

The rescue occurred at about 8:30 p.m. on Thursday on Blackbird Ave., after some bystanders who were on a walk called to say that they heard distressed animal cries and discovered the fawn at the bottom of a storm drain. In a phone interview Friday morning, Freeman told the Outpost that he tried to call Animal Control, but the department didn’t have anyone on shift that late in the day. So, Freeman, along with other responders from AFD and the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office, took the call. AFD posted the event on its Instagram:

Freeman himself made the rescue, climbing down into the storm drain and picking up the tired and frightened animal, using gloves to be sure not to transfer his human scent. Freeman said that one of the people who made the call also assisted with the rescue by providing a fishing net to cover the drainpipe opening at the bottom of the storm drain, so that the fawn would not try to run into the opening and become further trapped.

Luckily, the little fawn was very docile and allowed Freeman to pick it up with no issues. After rescuing the fawn, Freeman placed it into the nearby wooded area and it scampered away. The animal did not appear to have any injuries, Freeman said. 

As for how the fawn got into the storm drain, Freeman is not entirely sure. But he guesses that the fawn was crossing the street with its mother and slipped into the opening at the curb as it was crossing the storm grate. Freeman’s hope is that the mother was still nearby and that it will hear the fawn’s cries and the two will soon be reunited. 

Freeman wanted to thank the other responders as well as the community members who called in the incident and assisted with the rescue, and encouraged the rest of the community to report incidents like this. 

“We don’t get animal calls too often,” Freeman said. “As soon as this happened, I knew it would make the news. Everyone loves an animal rescue.”

In California, less than two-thirds of counties have an abortion clinic. But nearly 80% have at least one “crisis pregnancy center,” according to a database compiled by CalMatters.

Abortion rights advocates and lawmakers have long accused these centers — also known as anti-abortion centers — of coercing vulnerable people into remaining pregnant by misleading them about abortion procedures and contraceptive methods. In rural areas with acute primary care shortages, “crisis pregnancy centers” outnumber abortion clinics 11 to 2, a CalMatters analysis shows.

While center supporters vehemently deny the accusations about misleading pregnant people, they’ve become the next battleground for California lawmakers bent on protecting abortion rights and offering services for people who live in states where abortion is banned.

“They’re the next way in which the anti-abortion movement will try to stop people from getting access to abortion here,” said Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, a Democrat from San Ramon and member of the Women’s Legislative Caucus, which has spearheaded the state’s legislative push for enhanced abortion protections.

Regulating “crisis pregnancy centers,” however, has proven to be exceptionally challenging even in the nation’s self-proclaimed “abortion safe haven.”

“They’re the next way in which the anti-abortion movement will try to stop people from getting access to abortion here.”
— Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, Democrat from San Ramon

This legislative session, two bills attempting to regulate the centers died quietly in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, including one authored by Bauer-Kahan. Officially, no one knows why the bills were killed in the Legislature’s opaque suspense file maneuvers, in which votes are not public, but it’s no secret that Democratic lawmakers are fearful of passing laws that might spur litigation from abortion opponents. Even before the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority overturned Roe v. Wade, abortion opponents had used the courts to steadily chip away at abortion protections.

“Even a state like California is treading very carefully,” said Margaret Russell, an associate constitutional law professor at Santa Clara University. “Who wants to waste public resources on a lawsuit going up to the Supreme Court with the risk that the law would become even worse?”

Alexandra Snyder, CEO of Life Legal Defense Foundation and former director of a pregnancy center in Santa Clarita, said the bills had clear “legal problems (and) constitutional problems” and would be “tied up in the courts at tremendous expense for the next five years.”

A “chilling effect”

At an Assembly Health Committee hearing in April, staff from the Alternatives Pregnancy Center in Sacramento dressed in hot pink — a color also frequently donned by the state’s abortion rights advocates — and lined up in opposition to a bill requiring the state Public Health Department to conduct an “awareness campaign” about reproductive health and abortion options.

The measure made no mention of pregnancy centers opposed to abortion, but public testimony accused them of manipulating women by advertising “abortion education” or counseling services that are a means to scare them away from abortion and of falsely claiming “abortion pill reversal” is scientifically tested. Abortion pill reversal — which involves giving patients high doses of the pregnancy hormone progesterone — is not supported by most doctors, including the nation’s leading association of pregnancy and women’s health specialists. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists states the procedure is “unproven and unethical” because it has not been backed by clinical studies.

Three weeks later the measure was dead — a rare win for the anti-abortion movement in California.

“We didn’t go there to necessarily stop the bill. We live in California, we know that. We didn’t think that was possible, but it’s clearly possible,” said Heidi Matzke, executive director of Alternatives Pregnancy Center.

Even the measure’s author, Santa Clarita Democrat Pilar Schiavo, was surprised.

“I was disappointed,” Schiavo said. “It literally didn’t say anything about crisis pregnancy centers. That’s as safe a bill as you can get.”California legislators have struggled to regulate these centers since 2018, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a state law known as the FACT Act that required reproductive health centers to notify clients about abortion and birth control options. It also required unlicensed centers to tell clients they were not medical facilities. Anti-abortion groups opposed it, arguing “crisis pregnancy centers” should not be compelled to say something that conflicts with their religious beliefs. The justices agreed in a 5-4 vote, dealing a bruising blow to abortion rights nationwide.

California’s use of a “government-drafted script” violated the First Amendment’s freedom of speech protections, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the majority opinion.

“By requiring petitioners to inform women how they can obtain state-subsidized abortions — at the same time petitioners try to dissuade women from choosing that option — the licensed notice plainly ‘alters the content’ of petitioners’ speech,” Thomas wrote.

“Because we have this history of the reproductive FACT Act, I think people are really worried about creating bad precedent,” said Cathren Cohen, a staff attorney at the Williams Institute and the Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy at UCLA. “The anti-choice movement is very litigious. They know the federal courts are on their side.”

What has resulted is a “chilling effect,” even in states like California, Cohen said.

“Who wants to waste public resources on a lawsuit going up to the Supreme Court with the risk that the law would become even worse?”
— Margaret Russell, associate constitutional law professor at Santa Clara University

At least one lawsuit has been filed in reaction to the flurry of abortion protections California passed last year. The claim, filed “on behalf of pro-life pregnancy care centers” by the Life Legal Defense Foundation, seeks to block the state’s requirement that health insurers cover abortion services with no out-of-pocket charges.

Cohen testified in support of Bauer-Kahan’s “crisis pregnancy center” bill during an Assembly Judiciary Committee hearing in March. That measure would have reinforced the state’s false advertising law to prevent facilities that provide pregnancy-related services from making false or misleading claims about abortion. It also allowed people who sought services and were harmed to later sue for damages.

The measure was carefully crafted to avoid the previous issue of compelled speech that prompted the Supreme Court to rebuke California, Cohen said, “but that doesn’t mean that it wouldn’t be challenged.”

Bauer-Kahan, who successfully passed two abortion protection bills last session, told CalMatters it’s unlikely she’ll reintroduce this measure but remains committed to exploring future options.

“It’s really important that we get our arms around it,” Bauer-Kahan said.

Conflicting narratives

So what happens inside a “crisis pregnancy center”? It depends on who you ask.

At the national level, abortion opponents don’t mince words when it comes to the goals of the centers: They exist to stop women from getting abortions. Convention trainings, e-books, and online courses from the largest anti-abortion center networks in the country offer strategies on how to talk to women who call asking about abortion.

At least three-fourths of California centers are affiliated with national organizations.

Proponents of the primarily faith-based nonprofits disagree with the characterization that their work is underhanded. Training materials from one of the largest networks in the country, Care Net, specifically say “manipulation is never an option,” though it recommends “speaking persuasively” as a “life advocate.”

Centers say they give women with unplanned pregnancies alternatives to abortion by providing material support: free diapers, parenting classes and sometimes housing.

“We are a safety net for women that want to carry,” said Marie Leatherby, president of the California Alliance of Pregnancy Care and executive director of Sacramento Life Center. “(For) most women, it’s just a great place to start your pregnancy.”

Leatherby said after the Supreme Court’s ruling, the organization worked hard to root out any “bad actors” that used deceptive practices. It requires members to state whether they are medically licensed facilities, and many disclose online that they do not provide or refer for abortions.

“We set the bar so high because we’re always scrutinized,” Leatherby said. “If they want to have the abortion, they are free to come and go. We let people know we don’t do that here but they can come in and sit and figure out what they want to do.”

Despite safeguards that Leatherby and other California center proponents say are in place to ensure women aren’t misled, it still sometimes happens.

“The anti-choice movement is very litigious. They know the federal courts are on their side.”
— Cathren Cohen, staff attorney at the Williams Institute and the Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy at UCLA

Numerous journalism investigations across the country have detailed instances in other states in which women were tricked into walking into a center rather than a Planned Parenthood site, shown an altered ultrasound image, or more recently had their data tracked. Many make assertions about the risks of abortion, side effects of contraceptives, and efficacy of “abortion pill reversal” that may be grounded in research but are taken out of context.

For instance, many centers’ websites say emergency contraceptives like Plan B or ella cause early abortions of a fertilized egg, which has been debunked by multiple research studies. They also emphasize the potential for abortion to cause depression or other negative mental health impacts when decades of research indicate a wanted abortion “does not cause significant psychological problems,” according to the American Psychological Association.

Gabriel, a Sacramento-area resident, said she visited a pregnancy center in 2016 seeking an abortion. She was about six weeks pregnant with a minimum-wage job and no health insurance. She and her boyfriend struggled to provide for their toddler and knew they weren’t ready for a second kid, Gabriel said. She had already visited a Planned Parenthood but couldn’t afford its $450 out-of-pocket fee. Her boyfriend saw a pregnancy center advertisement and hoped it could do the procedure for free.

CalMatters agreed to use only Gabriel’s middle name to protect her privacy. Her family doesn’t know she sought an abortion.

The center worker promised to help over the phone and never indicated that it did not perform abortions, she said. Gabriel didn’t realize it was a religious organization until halfway through the 45-minute appointment, she said. The staff member gave her “random scary statistics like 80% of couples who go through abortion together break up” and told stories of people who regretted the decision — and waited until the end of the appointment to tell her the center did not do abortions.

Gabriel was so uncomfortable with her experience that she left a review on Yelp warning other women to be cautious.

“I was definitely stressed and embarrassed. The rational part of my brain told me this was part of their fear tactic, but at the same time he and I were only like 22 or something still trying to figure our lives out,” Gabriel said. “Naturally part of me was wondering if they were right about everything.”

The center “was kind of our last resort…and them not being able to help us in the way we needed, and on top of that being talked into something I know I didn’t want, was a lot of emotional pressure,” Gabriel said.

Reproductive health deserts

Increasingly, “crisis pregnancy centers” across the country are seeking to be licensed by state health departments. Approximately half of the centers in California are medically licensed facilities, according to the California Alliance of Pregnancy Care. Proponents say it helps fill a community need, while opponents say it gives women in reproductive health deserts even fewer choices.

“We have a looming primary care provider shortage in California,” Cohen said. “It’s apt to note that they’re filling a gap because we do need more reproductive health care providers, particularly in rural areas, low income areas, (and for) people of color.”

The breadth of medical services offered at centers opposed to abortion varies widely, with most performing only pregnancy testing and ultrasounds. The state does not set a minimum service requirement for licensing.

Only 10% of the California centers provide prenatal care and none offer contraceptives, according to a 2022 report by The Alliance, a national coalition of organizations supporting abortion rights. Last year, State Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a consumer alert warning that the centers do not offer comprehensive reproductive health care.

There are at least 176 “crisis pregnancy centers” in California, according to a CalMatters analysis. That compares to 166 abortion clinics, according to state data. At face value, the difference of 10 seems negligible, but pregnancy centers are more likely to be located in areas where there are primary care shortages. Abortion clinics, on the other hand, tend to be located in urban areas where primary care shortages are less likely. Clinics like Planned Parenthood also offer services like cervical cancer screenings, HIV treatment, gynecological care and annual exams.

In rural areas of the state where primary care is insufficient, people have a 25% chance of living near a “crisis pregnancy center” compared to a less than 5% chance of living near an abortion clinic, according to a CalMatters analysis.

More than 13.1 million state residents — roughly one third-of the state’s population — live in a primary care shortage area, according to the federal Health Resources and Services Administration.

Matzke, with Alternatives Pregnancy Center in Sacramento, takes particular issue with the claim that she runs a fake medical clinic.

“From the moment they walk in the door, I want them met with medical professionals,” Matzke said. “The moment they leave, I want them being walked out by medical professionals. And that’s who we are.”

Alternatives is licensed as a free clinic by the California Department of Public Health. The staff includes three doctors, five nurses, a nurse practitioner, a phlebotomist to draw blood and several medical assistants, Matzke said. In addition to pregnancy tests and ultrasounds, Alternatives offers sexually transmitted disease tests, gynecological care and prenatal care up to 25 weeks. The clinic does not conduct or refer for abortion: It says so on the front door.

“Every woman knows where to go to get an abortion. You know, you can go to Planned Parenthood…but most women don’t know that free resources like ours exist,” Matzke said.

In some ways Alternatives is an outlier among centers in California, offering more medical services than most. In other ways, it’s not. It does not provide contraceptives. It also advertises “abortion pill reversal.”

Although most doctors reject abortion reversal, plenty of pregnancy center advocates claim it worked for them. Atoria Foley, a patient of Alternatives who testified against Assemblymember Schiavo’s bill, took the abortion pill mifepristone, which blocks absorption of progesterone, on two separate occasions, she said. She felt pressured into getting an abortion by her child’s father, she said, and immediately regretted it. The clinic staff got her a prescription for progesterone, she said, and her daughter was born roughly seven months later.

“There’s not any sort of condemnation or shame around that. It’s just, let’s take care of you and love on you and guide you through this,” Foley said.

According to a scientific review, between 8% and 46% of medication abortions are unsuccessful if the pregnant person does not take the second pill, which causes the uterus to contract and expel its contents, similar to a miscarriage. The first randomized control study of abortion pill reversal in the U.S. was stopped in 2020 after several participants were hospitalized for uncontrolled bleeding, according to study authors.

Abortion rights advocates are adamant: Pregnancy centers have no place in California. They are a “physical manifestation of the anti-abortion movement,” Schiavo said. Betsy Butler, a former state senator and executive director of the Women’s Law Center at UCLA, which contributed to The Alliance report, agreed.

“How do we reign them in? Why are they allowed to impact women like this? What can the state do about that? We have to answer this question,” Butler said.

###

CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.