The president of the March for Life, an alumna of the University of Notre Dame, recently wrote an op-ed debunking claims made by Associate Professor Susan Ostermann against pregnancy resource centers, which Ostermann has described as “anti-abortion rights propaganda sites”.
Jennie Bradley Lichter began her Feb. 27 opinion piece published by the IndyStar by stating that she is a proud graduate of the university and is grateful for the formation she received there.
“Notre Dame taught me that truth matters, that human dignity is not negotiable and that where we see an injustice being done, we should work to right it,” she wrote.
Lichter’s essay comes after the university faced widespread backlash in January over its decision to appoint Ostermann, an outspoken promoter of abortion, to head the Liu Institute for Asia and Asian Studies. After several weeks of outcry from Catholic bishops across the country, students, alumni, pro-life groups, and others, Ostermann announced she declined the position.
In the wake of that scandal, Lichter wrote that the claims Ostermann has made – which initially sparked the outcry against her appointment – merit further discussion.
“It is in the spirit of what I learned at Notre Dame that I must address one element of the recent controversy at the university: Ostermann's repeated public claims about pregnancy resource centers (PRCs), which cannot be permitted to stand — especially with the name of Our Lady's University attached to them,” Lichter wrote. “Her allegations are inflammatory, unsupported, and deeply irresponsible.”
Lichter wrote that in a 2024 commentary in the Chicago Tribune, Ostermann and her co-authors referred to PRCs as “anti-abortion rights propaganda sites” that give “false information to women who are lured to them believing they will receive legitimate medical care.” According to Lichter, Ostermann accused PRCs in an earlier article of engaging in “coercive” work that is “specifically designed to deceive pregnant people.”
Lichter, who said she has visited women at PRCs across the country, argued Ostermann’s accusations are inaccurate and “demeaning to the women who seek [PRCs] out.”
“It is also dangerous,” Lichter continued.
As she recalled, after the Supreme Court issued the Dobbs decision in 2022, “more than 100 pregnancy resource centers and pro-life organizations were attacked,” including some that “were burned to the ground.”
Claims such as Ostermann’s are not benign, but have an impact on the broader culture, according to Lichter.
“Words matter. When respected academics repeatedly characterize PRCs as fraudulent, coercive and harmful, it feeds a narrative that these organizations are illegitimate and even deserving of hostility,” Lichter wrote. “No one is responsible for the criminal actions of others, but people who wade into the public square bear responsibility for the climate they help create.”
Further, women do receive genuine medical care at PRCs, which are typically nonprofits staffed together by licensed medical professionals and trained volunteers, Lichter wrote. PRCs provided more than $350 million in medical services, such as free ultrasounds and STI testing, and material support, such as diapers, baby formula, and clothing, to more than one million clients in a year, according to 2025 data from the Charlotte Lozier Institute that Lichter cited.
There is a high demand for PRCs’ services, which are offered at no cost to the many women seeking genuine and practical support in carrying their pregnancies to term, according to Lichter.
PRCs provide more than just material support, however: they “[restore] women’s dignity and confidence by treating them with respect and affirming their capacity to be mothers,” Lichter wrote.
“PRCs are not the caricature Ostermann describes. They are an expression of civil society at its best and, more than any other type of organization, they prepare pregnant women to make a free and unfettered choice,” she wrote. “Not every woman who walks into a PRC ultimately chooses to carry her pregnancy to term, but every single one is treated with dignity and respect.”
Even though the controversy around the Liu Institute leadership position has been resolved, Ostermann’s claims against PRCs cannot go unchecked as “the final word” in this debate, Lichter urged.
“None of this is merited, none of it is fact-based and all of it damages the common good by making it more difficult for women who want and need pregnancy support to find it,” she wrote. “PRCs, and the countless women who have been helped by them, deserve better than these baseless smears.”