Worcester City Council hears draft ordinances on ‘limited pregnancy centers’

By Tanya Connor and Maria LeDoux
The Catholic Free Press

The line item regarding advertising by pregnancy centers was tabled under privilege at the Worcester City Council meeting Tuesday. The item is expected to be on the agenda at the next meeting, Sept. 12. for comments and votes.  
When the public was given time to speak about agenda items, at least one person supported pro-life pregnancy centers and at least seven took issue with such centers.
At issue was what has been called deceptive advertising by places that provide alternatives to abortion instead of performing abortions or referring clients to places that perform abortions.  
The council’s agenda item was about “transmitting informational communication relative to draft ordinances related to pregnancy service centers.” The council is considering draft legislation aimed at regulating “crisis pregnancy centers” or “limited services pregnancy centers,” also known as pregnancy resource centers.
Attachments to the online agenda included the draft ordinances and letters from City Manager Eric D. Batista and City Solicitor Michael E. Traynor giving reasons for not passing the ordinances.  
In a letter addressed to Worcester City Manager Batista from the City Solicitor Traynor, there are concerns about legal action that could be taken against the city should the draft legislation go forward.  
Mr. Traynor said in his letter that the ordinance prohibiting deceptive advertising practices, modeled on ordinances adopted in Somerville and Cambridge, applies to only some pregnancy services centers. These centers have been called “limited services pregnancy centers”; they do not provide, or provide referrals for, abortions or “emergency contraception.”  
Mr. Traynor cited precedents set forth by the Supreme Court in various past rulings, such as in the case of National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra that stated, “Speaker based laws run the risk that the ‘[s]tate has left unburdened those speakers whose messages are in accord with its own views.”  
The letter goes on to cite similar ordinances passed in other states, such as Connecticut and Illinois, that were subsequently sued.
The letter sent by Mr. Traynor said one of the proposed ordinances was modeled on ones in the cities of Somerville and Cambridge which “prohibited deceptive advertising practices of limited services pregnancy centers.” The ordinance would not apply to “other facilities that provide pregnancy-related services.” This is known as the “Deceptive Advertising Ordinance,” states the letter. He did not think Worcester’s draft Deceptive Advertising Ordinance would survive a First Amendment challenge.
The Transparency in Advertising Ordinance, Mr. Traynor said, would apply to any pregnancy services center and would require statements about whether a center is a licensed medical facility, and what services it provides, in all its advertising. It is meant to better inform the public, he said.  
But, after citing details of another case, he said he does not believe the Transparency in Advertising Ordinance would survive the “narrow, demanding level of review” it would likely be subject to.
City Manager Batista said in his letter to the Worcester city council that after researching similar ordinances in Massachusetts and beyond, his administration found three factors to consider.
First, some places with ordinances, such as Cambridge and Somerville, do not have limited pregnancy centers.  
Second, places with such centers “have been the subject of debate and legal consequence,” such as Easthampton, where the mayor ultimately vetoed the ordinance the city council passed.
Third, none of the ordinances adopted across the nation and legally challenged have been upheld.
He said Worcester has two such centers which “opens the city to almost certain legal challenge, along with associated costs” if the ordinances are adopted. The two centers are: Problem Pregnancy and Clearway Clinic.
And, he added, “We do not believe that these requested ordinances will achieve the desired outcome of enhanced protection for residents seeking care. Therefore, the administration does not recommend adoption.
“We remain committed to pursuing and ensuring reproductive rights, health, and access to care for all,” he said, and expressed hope of “exploring alternative legal avenues to expanded care.”
According to Mr. Traynor, City Councilor-at-large Thu Nyguen, who sponsored the order for regulation of crisis pregnancy centers in July 2022, requested that draft ordinances “address safe access to protected healthcare information and a commitment that the city will post consumer advisories issued by the Commonwealth; the link to Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare Locations posted by the Massachusetts Department of Health; and the posting of information on the City’s website to advise residents of the City of their right to file a consumer complaint against any crisis pregnancy center or other pregnancy-related services provider.”
Responding to the concern about the cost of lawsuits, members of the public speaking at the meeting said that money would be well spent to keep people healthy and safe, and that the council should not be servile to threats of lawsuits. Some suggested there could be lawsuits because of people being hurt or killed due to the centers. Others complained of various forms of false advertising or said such centers prey on people who are desperate or offer free services to lure them in.
A member of the public supporting pro-life centers spoke of free speech and centers deciding what to provide or refer for. The speaker asked whether Planned Parenthood provides free ultrasounds and said the way this abortion provider makes money is by doing procedures.
He said it could be said that Planned Parenthood engages in deceptive advertising. He indicated that his mother said no to aborting him, despite health concerns, so he is alive now.