Worcester on Tuesday became the latest Massachusetts community to consider penalizing businesses that falsely advertise providing abortion services.
In a 6-5 vote, the Worcester City Council directed the city manager and city solicitor to begin drafting an ordinance that would regulate the businesses, sometimes called crisis pregnancy centers, which are often religiously affiliated and offer limited reproductive health services for patients.
Several councilors expressed concerns that the centers deceive people by presenting themselves as comprehensive reproductive healthcare facilities even though they often dissuade women from having abortions.
“The need for [abortion] access is crucial right now,” said Councilor Thu Nguyen, who introduced the proposal. “People deserve compassionate, medically accurate and unbiased and informed care. ... And this is where we need to take a stance.”
The vote followed more than an hour of emotional public testimony from people both in support of and against anti-abortion pregnancy centers.
Kelly Wilcox, the executive director of the Worcester center Clearway Clinic, told the council her facility provides pregnancy services like ultrasounds and is transparent about not providing abortions.
Corinne Kimball added that Clearway offered her much-needed counseling to help her manage feelings of regret about having an abortion.
“I was alongside a group of women [at Clearway] who also had gone through the same trauma, and I could finally breathe and I could heal,” Kimball said. “I know many women could benefit from Clearway as well.”
Still, several other speakers, including Sarah Cleveland, repeated concerns that these centers rely on misinformation to lure in vulnerable women.
“I am not against [a center] providing a utility to the people that it serves. But manipulation of patients to serve a practice’s desired outcome, in my opinion, is wrong,” Cleveland said.
The decision on limited-service pregnancy centers came as part of a larger focus on abortion access at Tuesday’s City Council meeting, which also featured a 7-3 vote affirming support for abortion rights following the United States Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and send abortion law decisions back to the states.
While Massachusetts lawmakers are set to implement sweeping protections for abortion providers and patients since the court’s ruling in June, anti-abortion pregnancy centers have faced accusations that they draw in pregnant women by mimicking abortion providers and then counseling patients against ending their pregnancies.
There are more than two dozen anti-abortion pregnancy centers in Massachusetts, including two in Worcester, according to a national map produced by researchers at the University of Georgia School of Public Health.
Worcester is the latest Massachusetts city to consider regulating these centers. In March, Somerville adopted an ordinance that would fine any centers in its city limits $300 for circulating misinformation about pregnancy-related services. Cambridge is also seeking to ban the facilities within its city limits, while Easthampton and Northampton are taking steps to regulate and fine centers for false advertising.
Limited-service pregnancy centers have also been a concern for Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, who warned the public in early July that the facilities seek to prevent people from accessing abortion care and usually do not have medical licenses.
During the City Council debate on the centers, councilors Donna Colorio and Kate Toomey pushed back on the proposal to regulate them, arguing that doing so could violate free speech and subject Worcester to lawsuits. Councilors Sarai Rivera and Candy Mero-Carson added they support a person’s right to access abortion services but said people should have a choice to attend anti-abortion pregnancy centers just like they can visit a Planned Parenthood.
“I, too, like my colleagues, think about how are we pro-choice for some but not all,” Mero-Carlson said. “Equity is OK for some but not for all is what I feel like is happening tonight.”
Nguyen and other councilors in support of the proposal stressed that they do not seek to shut down the anti-abortion pregnancy centers. Rather, they want to ensure the centers are not deliberately misleading pregnant women.
“If there are no deceptive practices, this ordinance will not be harmful in any way,” Councilor Khrystian King said. “I encourage anyone who’s counseling folks who are making these sorts of life decisions ... to provide comprehensive information.”
Mayor Joseph Petty joined Nguyen, King, Sean Rose, Etel Haxhiaj and George Russell in supporting the proposal. Colorio, Toomey, Mero-Carlson, Rivera and Morris Bergman voted against it.
The vote Tuesday was the first step in what could be a long process before any ordinance involving anti-abortion pregnancy centers takes effect in Worcester. City Council will revisit the issue once the city administration completes a draft of the ordinance.
