Google says it will provided verified results for abortion clinics

Google search results will now default to show only verified abortion providers, after it was accused of steering users toward fake clinics and pregnancy crisis centers that seek to discourage women from getting the procedure.

The search engine will now start adding labels to its Search and Maps listing for specific health care facilities it has verified as abortion providers, with a different label given to others that provide abortion-related services.

If the company has received confirmation that a facility provides abortions, the label would say ‘Provides abortions,’ and in cases where they don’t have confirmation, the label will say ‘Might not provide abortions.’

The new policy comes after Democratic lawmakers urged the company to crack down on its results for fake clinics and crisis pregnancy centers following reports that these facilities were the top results for abortion services in states creating laws to limit abortions.

But Google executives say it is just one part of a series of improvements to how the search engine displays and labels results for locations in Search and Maps.

They now plan to expand labels to other facilities and places to better show which services a business provides, Tech Crunch reports, and will make it easier for users to expand their search perimeter if they do not find what they are looking for in their local area. 

That could mean that women living in one of the states where abortion access is restricted could search beyond their area for an abortion provider. 

Google executives say it is just one part of a series of improvements to how the search engine displays and labels results for locations in Search and Maps

Google will now work to get confirmation that each site listed as an abortion provider on the website actually perform the service by regularly calling the businesses and working with authoritative data sources.

Executives note that the search engine already has a similar feature in place when users look for a specific COVID vaccine or an electric vehicle charging facility, and the initial local results show you places that offer that service.

‘When people turn to Google to find local information, we aim to help them easily explore the range of places available, so they can determine which are the most helpful to them,’ a company spokesperson said in a statement. 

‘For a number of categories where we’ve received confirmation that places offer specific services, we’ve been working for many months on more useful ways to display those results.

‘We’re now rolling out an update that makes it easier for people to find places that offer the services they’ve searched for, or broaden their results to see more options.

‘We followed our standard testing and evaluation process to confirm that these updates are more helpful for people.’

But when asked whether Google will specifically label crisis pregnancy centers that discourage women from getting an abortion with the ‘Might not provide abortions’ label, company executives just said the update is not about categorizing the places themselves or labeling specific types of organizations. 

Still, they noted that the ‘Might not provide abortions’ label could appear on a variety of different places that are available in a certain area, but do not provide the service. 

The search engine has been accused of trying to steer women seeking an abortion away from facilities that provide the procedure and to facilities that discourage women from getting an abortion. A woman is seen here checking in for her appointment to receive an abortion at a Planned Parenthood in Florida

Studies have shown that in states where abortion access is limited, search results for abortion clinics mainly turn up crisis pregnancy centers, like the one in Worcester, Massachusetts, right, rather than a facility that provides an abortion, like the one in Fargo, North Dakota, left

The tech giant has previously been accused of steering women seeking an abortion away from facilities that offer the service.

A recent Bloomberg study found that crisis pregnancy centers make up about a quarter of the top 10 search results on average in all 50 states and Washington DC, and in 13 states where the procedure is limited, five or more of the top 10 results were for crisis pregnancy centers.

Meanwhile, the Guardian reported back in June that a similar study found 11 percent of Google search results for ‘abortion clinic near me’ and ‘abortion pill’ led to crisis pregnancy centers.

The researchers studied 13 states that were at the time likely to outlaw abortions, and found 37 percent of the Google Maps searches in those states led to fake clinics.

They also found that nearly 28 percent of Google ads displayed at the top of the search result pages in those states were for anti-abortion clinics.

Eventually, after the Supreme Court’s plans to overturn Roe v Wade were leaked back in May, Sen. Mark Werner, of Virginia, and Rep. Elissa Slotkin, of Michigan, wrote to Google asking it to crack down on results that pointed users to ‘anti-abortion fake clinics’ when they searched for ‘abortion clinic near me’ or ‘abortion pill.’

But since the Supreme Court struck down the decision granting women the right to an abortion, the company has made some changes.

On June 24 – the same day Roe was overturned, Alphabet Chie People Officer Fiona Cicconi sent a memo telling employees that the company would ‘keep working to make information on reproductive health care accessible across our products.’ 

Then in July, Google executives announced it would automatically delete records of user visits to sensitive locations like abortion clinics.

And in that same month, Alphabet-owned YouTube said it would take down content that promotes falsehoods about the safety of abortion and direct users to information from health authorities, alongside videos and search results about abortion. 

Finally, on Thursday, Mark Isakowitz, Google’s vice president of US and Canada Government Affairs and Public Policy, wrote back to the Democratic lawmakers, saying it would indeed change its policy.

‘We continue to update our Local Search services for local health-related queries, including those related to abortion services, to improve the accuracy and relevance,’ he wrote, according to CNBC. 

‘When someone in the US searches for health care providers that provide abortions — for example using the query “abortion clinics near me,” the Local Search results box will display facilities that have been verified to provide abortions.’

He noted that users will still be able to see a wider array of results if they choose, including organizations that do not provide abortions.

After the Supreme Court’s plans to overturn Roe v Wade were leaked back in May, Sen. Mark Werner, of Virginia, left, and Rep. Elissa Slotkin, of Michigan, right, wrote to Google asking it to crack down on results that pointed users to ‘anti-abortion fake clinics’ when they searched for ‘abortion clinic near me’ or ‘abortion pill’

On Thursday, Warner announced that Google executives wrote back to them informing them about the new policy, which he applauded

Werner applauded the decision in the aftermath, writing in a Tweet: ‘This isn’t about silencing voices or restricting speech.

‘It’s about returning search results that accurately address a user’s query and giving users information that is relevant to their searches.

‘I appreciate Google taking these steps to improve its services.’

New York Attorney General Letitia James also lauded the new policy, saying in a statement: ‘I applaud Google for taking steps to improve their search results to help individuals seeking abortion care.

‘These critical changes to Google search results will be life saving and will help individuals get the safe care they need.

‘As reproductive rights are under attack, it’s more important than ever for business to do their part to protect access to reproductive care.

‘My office will continue to take action to ensure that every person has the freedom to make their own choices about their bodies,’ she added. 

New York Attorney General Letitia James also applauded Google’s new policy

The news comes just one day after a federal judge blocked Idaho from enforcing a ban on abortions when pregnant women require emergency care.

US District Judge B Lynn Winmill agreed with the U.S. Department of Justice on Wednesday that the state’s abortion ban conflicts with a federal law that ensures patients can receive emergency ‘stabilizing care.’

In Idaho, U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill agreed with the U.S. Department of Justice that an abortion ban conflicts with a federal law that ensures patients can receive emergency ‘stabilizing care’

The exceptions the Idaho abortion ban offers for emergency situations are among the most limited in the US. It applies only when an abortion is carried out to prevent the death of a pregnant patient.

In his ruling, Winmill argued that the guidance conflicts with federal law that says abortions should be carried out if it means protecting a pregnant woman’s health, citing the threat it imparts on patients.

‘One cannot imagine the anxiety and fear (a pregnant woman) will experience if her doctors feel hobbled by an Idaho law that does not allow them to provide the medical care necessary to preserve her health and life,’ Winmill wrote in his ruling.

‘The State of Idaho will not suffer any real harm if the Court issues the modest preliminary injunction the United States is requesting.’

He issued a preliminary injunction blocking Idaho from enforcing the ban.

The ruling viewed as a win for the Biden administration, will now protect doctors performing abortions on women in order to save their lives from being prosecuted, when before they were subject to arrest and criminal charges.

It also sets a stark precedent for the looming legal battles between the Justice Department and states seeking stricter restrictions on who can get abortions. 

The exception the Idaho abortion ban offers for emergency situations is among the most limited in the US. It applies only when an abortion is carried out to prevent the death of a pregnant patient. Pictured is a pro-abortion sign in front of the Idaho Capitol 

Meanwhile in Texas, U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix ruled that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services went too far by issuing guaranteed abortion care to women in the case of a medical emergency. 

In Texas, U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix ruled that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services went too far by issuing guaranteed abortion care to women in the case of a medical emergency

Hendrix agreed with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, that the guidance issued in July ‘discards the requirement to consider the welfare of unborn children when determining how to stabilize a pregnant woman.’

He claimed the federal statute was silent as to what a doctor should do when there is a conflict between the health of the mother and the unborn child and that the Texas law ‘fills that void.’

Hendrix ultimately issued an injunction on Tuesday barring enforcement of the Health and Human Services guidance in Texas and against two groups of anti-abortion doctors who also challenged it.

Appeals are expected in both cases and would be heard by separate appeals courts, one based in San Francisco, with a reputation for leaning liberal and another in New Orleans, known for conservative rulings.

Greer Donley, an assistant professor at the University of Pittsburgh Law School and expert on abortion law, said that if the conflicting rulings were upheld the U.S. Supreme Court may feel pressured to intervene.

‘Without a federal right [to] abortion, this is the type of legal chaos that most people were predicting would be happening,’ she said.