may be affiliated with more than one network. us based care net and heartbeat international are the world's two largest cpc networks with about 3,000 associated centers between them in the united states and abroad. italy, for example, has more than 400 cpcs associated with heartbeat international, the largest number outside the u.s. the largest uk organisations are careconfidential and life, while the largest canadian one is the canadian association of pregnancy support services (capss). human life international, a catholic group opposed to abortion, also runs cpcs outside the united states. advertising methods example of an advertisement for a cpc cpcs have been criticized for deceptive advertising. some falsely advertise abortion services, attracting clients who wish to have an abortion. in the 1980s, investigative reporters from the arizona republic, the san francisco chronicle and cbs news, among others, filed stories about cpcs attracting women by offering free pregnancy tests but then presenting them with religious arguments and scare tactics against abortion. cpcs may intentionally locate near, and look like, abortion clinics; critics have also objected to cpcs' use of rhetoric and advertising language similar to those of abortion providers, such as "plan your parenthood" or a directory listing under "abortion services" or "clinics". these, they say, may mislead pregnant women seeking abortion into contacting a cpc. in particular, the advertising approach of the pearson foundation, which assists local groups establishing cpcs, has been criticized by some other anti-abortion groups, including birthright international, another cpc operator. the foundation recommends that a center seek out women who want abortions through "neutral" advertising, and refuse to answer questions that would reveal that they provide neither abortion services nor referrals to abortion services. pearson, identified by some as the founder of the first cpc, said that a woman "has no right to information" that will allow her to have an abortion. in ireland, when abortion was illegal except in circumstances where pregnancy endangered the mother's life and women often went to the united kingdom to end their pregnancies, "rogue" cpcs, in contrast to government sponsored pregnancy centers, might falsely give the impression in their advertising that they referred women to britain for abortions or otherwise provided information for women seeking to travel for abortion. in recent years, cpcs have also begun using the internet as a means of advertising. some use search engine optimization to get their websites closer to the top of search results or bid against abortion providers to appear at the top of sponsored link sections on google and yahoo. heartbeat international, a christian association that runs 1,800 crisis pregnancy centers, recommends that cpcs use two websites, one fundraising website that describes an anti-abortion mission to secure donors, and another website that purports to provide medical information to attract women seeking contraception, counseling, or abortion. in august 2022, after a group of 21 democratic senators criticized google for displaying cpc's alongside abortion clinics in search and map results when users searched for abortion services, google stated that they will now clearly demarcate whether a clinic "provides abortions" or, when google is unable to verify that the clinic provides abortions: "might not provide abortions". yelp stated that it will use new labels to differentiate cpc's into separate categories from clinics which provide abortions. legality of advertising methods much legal and legislative action around cpcs has attempted to rein in deceptive advertising by cpcs seeking to give the impression that they provide abortions or other women's health services. lawsuits against a number of cpcs have determined that they engaged in false advertising and required them to change their methods, or led to settlements where they agreed to do so. cpcs that advertised that they provided abortion services were forbidden from doing so or obliged to affirmatively tell clients that they did not do so. in some instances, cpcs were prohibited from using names similar to nearby medical clinics that provided abortions, from providing pregnancy tests, or from advertising pregnancy tests as "free" if they were conditional upon hearing a presentation or counseling. in one of these cases, the cpc argued that they did not receive money from clients and were therefore not subject to regulations on commercial speech, but the court ruled that they were not exempt because they aimed to provide services rather than exchange ideas. several ordinances requiring cpcs to post signs disclosing that they do not provide abortions, birth control, referrals for either, and sometimes other medical services have been enjoined, with courts finding that such "compelled speech" violates the centers' rights. in december 2009, baltimore, maryland was the first local government to introduce and pass a cpc ordinance—ordinance 09-252, "limited service pregnancy centers—disclaimers". austin, texas, amended its law requiring centers to disclose that they do not offer abortion or birth control services to instead require them to disclose whether they do offer medical services under the direction of a licensed health care provider. a bill in oregon would require its cpcs, currently unregulated, to disclose whether or not they provide these services, and bar them from releasing health information collected from clients without the clients' consent. in san francisco, rather than compelling any speech, the city ordinance is framed as a false advertising law which allows courts to fine cpcs up to $500 every time they falsely imply in an advertisement that they offer abortion services. the law's constitutionality was upheld in federal court, with a judge dismissing a lawsuit from a cpc that had been identified by the city attorney as advertising deceptively. california's 2015 reproductive fact act requires cpcs without medical licenses to post signs saying that they are not licensed medical facilities and have no medical professionals providing or supervising services; cpcs must also let clients know about the state's public programs for reproductive health care. the law was challenged in national institute of family and life advocates v. becerra, argued at the supreme court on march 20, 2018, with the court required to decide whether or not the disclosures required by the california reproductive fact act violated the free speech clause of the first amendment. the court ruled on june 26, 2018, in a 5–4 decision that the notices required by the fact act violate the first amendment by targeting speakers rather than speech. on march 30, 2006, rep. carolyn maloney (d-ny) and eleven co-sponsors first introduced a bill called the "stop deceptive advertising for women's services act", which would have required the federal trade commission to "promulgate rules prohibiting...persons from advertising with the intent to deceptively create the impression that such persons provide abortion services" and "enforce violations of such rules as unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices." maloney and her colleagues have re-introduced the bill in several congresses, most recently in may 2013, in the 113th congress. in 2002, after an investigation and subpoenas of a number of new york state cpcs alleged to be engaged in deceptive business practices, then-new york attorney general eliot spitzer's office worked out an agreement with one of the cpcs in question, intended to be used as a model, which sets out practices including informing clients that the center does not provide abortion or birth control, that it is not a licensed medical facility, and that the pregnancy tests it provides are over-the-counter. in the united kingdom, the advertising standards authority mandated in 2013 that the central london women's centre must stop using "misleading" and "irresponsible" advertisements implying that it offered abortion services. government support as of july, 2006, 50 american cpcs had received federal funding. between 2001 and 2006, over $60 million in federal funds were given to crisis pregnancy centers, much of it coming from funding for abstinence-only programs provided under the conservative george w. bush administration. florida choose life tag in 2006, 20 u.s. states subsidized crisis pregnancy centers. these included florida, louisiana, minnesota, missouri, nebraska, north dakota, pennsylvania, and texas. efforts are led by anti-abortion republicans. some cpcs in canada have received funding from provincial governments. in 29 u.s. states, individuals can support cpcs by purchasing choose life license plates. motorists in these states can request these plates and pay an extra fee, a portion of which is used by the state to fund adoption support organizations and crisis pregnancy centers. in july 2013, then governor of rhode island lincoln chafee vetoed a bill for the license plates saying that in his opinion it violated the separation of church and state. under the trump administration, cpcs were encouraged to apply for title x funding, which is intended to go to organisations offering family planning services. however, most struggled to qualify because offering hormonal birth control, which many cpcs oppose, is a requirement to receive the grants. one cpc organisation, the obria group, was awarded millions in grants in 2019 after promising to provide those services in some clinics, despite not currently offering them. almost immediately after the supreme court overturned roe v wade, 38 republican legislators in wisconsin sent a letter to governor tony evers, demanding that he provide $10 million in federal arpa funding to crisis pregnancy centers. mandatory use of cpcs south dakota enacted a law in 2011 which would have required consultation at a crisis pregnancy center as a precondition to obtaining an abortion. the law, which was to take effect in july 2011, also would have established a three-day waiting period, the longest in the country. in june 2011, judge karen schreier issued a preliminary injunction blocking the law from going into effect, writing that the provisions "constitute a substantial obstacle to a woman's decision to obtain an abortion because they force a woman against her will to disclose her decision to undergo an abortion to a pregnancy help center employee before she can undergo an abortion." although the law remains enjoined, the state later enacted another law which excluded weekends and holidays from the 72-hour waiting period mandated for a person seeking an abortion, potentially extending the wait for the procedure to six days, so that only days when cpcs were already open would count as part of the period. in some cases, judges responsible for granting judicial bypasses to minors have required them to go to a cpc for counseling before having an abortion. confusion with government-supported centers in ireland in ireland, centres not affiliated with the government exist that attempt to persuade women not to have an abortion. these have been reported to "use manipulation and alarmist information", including false medical information, and have been called "rogue agencies". the government's crisis pregnancy programme (formerly crisis pregnancy agency) funds crisis pregnancy initiatives and is in turn reimbursed by the health service executive; however, crisis pregnancy counseling grants, provided through a campaign called "positive options", are only awarded to centres that offer non-directive and medically accurate counselling that discusses all possible options, including travelling abroad for abortion. government sponsored centres' efforts to reduce the number of women who opt for abortion consist primarily of the provision of "services and supports which make other options more attractive." a survey by the cpp found that 4 in 46 women surveyed encountered a "rogue agency" when seeking counseling. the department of health does not regulate the anti-abortion agencies, since the 1995 abortion information act, which establishes that irish women have a right to know about abortion services abroad and which regulates providers of information, does not apply to centres that do not provide information on abortion. the term "crisis pregnancy" is used by abortion-rights agencies like the irish family planning association. attacks and vandalism against cpcs some cpcs have been damaged or destroyed in several types of incidents, with some directly attributed to criminal action and others spurring further investigation. a suspected arson attack in 2016 against a cpc in albuquerque, new mexico, led to an fbi investigation; among the possibilities the fbi was investigating that the fire was a hate crime. on 1 february 2019, a cpc in culpeper, virginia, was vandalized with spray painted phrases that included "'fake,' 'you hate women,' and other vulgarities", spurring a police investigation. an arson attack against a peoria, illinois, cpc on 3 may 2021 caused $250,000 in damages. this attack came shortly after the declassification of a department of homeland security document that categorized both anti-abortion and pro-abortion rights "extremists" as "domestic violent extremist groups". dobbs-related