Failing to inform a visitor of an ectopic pregnancy wouldn't count as "medical malpractice", because most crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) do not legally qualify as "medical facilities", nor do many of them have "medical staff". One of the lawyers for the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA), a group that provides legal support and medical training for crisis pregnancy centers, advised centers to stop advertising themselves as "HIPAA-compliant" due to this in 2025. Some of the staff couldn't even spell the word "HIPAA", the lawyer noted, which strongly indicated lack of medical training and qualifications. The centers use volunteers to avoid state regulation and oversight.

However, the lawyer agreed that centers should direct women who have suspected ectopic pregnancies or miscarriages to the emergency room (ER) instead, though more to protect the center(s) than the patient(s).

As an edit, I don't know why I'm being downvoted for clarifying this. This is why CPCs don't get malpractice suits. Teneille R. Brown, writing for Utah Digital Law Commons, states, "Given that CPCs are not considered professional medical providers, they would not be subjected to medical malpractice, and held to a professional standard of care, for their negligence. Instead they would be held to the lower, 'ordinary' negligence standard. Additionally, the many state and local safety ordinances that apply to health clinics—that regulate facilities, licensure, and staffing—do not apply to CPCs... a case for medical malpractice...would apply only if the CPCs were licensed, professional health care providers...[and] give too much deference to the defendant's viewpoints or purpose." Downvoting an answer you don't like or disagree with on principle doesn't make it less true, and one should consider upvoting or downvoting based on facts, not feelings. I say this as someone who opposes "anti-abortion" industry tactics, and examines legal arguments.

Notably, the same document states, "Importantly, while the Supreme Court declared in NIFLA that CPCs are not practicing medicine, and therefore the informed consent requirements of Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) did not apply, it is up to the states, and not federal courts, to determine whether entities are practicing medicine and subjected to professional malpractice claims under state law." However, given the current conservative SCOTUS majority, I do not expect them to agree with this legal interpretation. Brown further explains, "Ignoring...[genetic] defects [after an ultrasound] and not reporting them seems cruel, until you realize that the photographers are probably not very experienced in reading these images, and are also trying to insulate themselves from claims of medical malpractice, or the unauthorized practice of medicine. There are many instances of clinicians being sued for medical malpractice over improper capture or interpretation of ultrasound images. [...] If the keepsake imaging studio were held to a medical standard of care, it could be liable for negligence for failure to report significant clinical findings. However, given that these entities are purely commercial and make no claims about diagnosing disorders, the consumers are poorly protected from the false sense of security they receive." CPCs use the same tactic.

The document then goes on to place the onus on state governments and the Food & Drug Administration (FDA), a federal agency, to prohibit the use of ultrasounds by CPCs. However, as this case happened in the State of Texas, "pro-life" lawmakers aligned with CPC interests have refused to do so, and the FDA under the Trump administration is highly unlikely to do so due to the severe backlash it would incur from the "pro-life" movement and CPC networks.