After more than a year of on-and-off debate, a majority of Worcester city councilors on Tuesday night rejected a proposal to regulate anti-abortion counseling centers amid fears that doing so could subject the city to expensive lawsuits.
The facilities, often known as “crisis pregnancy centers,” have attracted increased attention since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year. Abortion-rights activists have focused on the centers amid concerns they they use deceptive advertising tactics to steer people away from abortions. There are more than two dozen centers around Massachusetts, including two in Worcester.
Last year, Worcester councilors voted to ask City Manager Eric Batista to draft ordinances that would penalize the facilities if they use misleading tactics to falsely present themselves as comprehensive reproductive healthcare clinics. However, a subsequent legal review led city lawyers to conclude that cracking down on the centers could unconstitutionally violate free speech rights.
That convinced a majority of Worcester council members that they should refrain from implementing the regulations.
“I’m too concerned about the unintended consequences of going too far and trying to push them on the municipal level,” Mayor Joseph Petty said at a City Council meeting Tuesday night. “At a time when the city residents are seeing increases with inflation, gas prices, electricity and taxes, I cannot subject [the city] to any more litigation that causes any more financial anguish.”
Five other councilors were less sure the proposal was unconstitutional. During several contentious meetings this summer, they pushed the city manager to receive additional legal opinions on the issue. That ultimately happened earlier in October when an attorney for the New York-based reproductive rights nonprofit the Lawyering Project provided a review that contrasted with the conclusion of Worcester’s attorneys.
In the review, the nonprofit’s lawyer wrote that penalizing “crisis pregnancy centers” could in fact be permitted given that federal courts have ruled that the First Amendment does not protect commercial speech that is false.
In response, councilors Thu Nguyen, Khrystian King, Etel Haxhiaj, George Russell and Sarai Rivera — who’ve long supported regulating the centers — argued Tuesday that there clearly continues to be uncertainty about the legality of the proposal. Nguyen said the council could tailor the language of the regulation to ensure that its constitutional, and pushed for councilors to keep reviewing the issue in one of their subcommittees.
“We're talking about people's rights,” King added. “We're talking about making sure that we protect the rights of the folks who live in the city of Worcester, folks who are able to have children, folks who have health concerns that are significant. We should be thoroughly vetting this.”
But Worcester’s clerk determined that council rules prevented councilors from immediately sending the proposal to a subcommittee because they previously voted against doing so over the summer. In response, the councilors who were still convinced the regulation was illegal successfully voted 7-4 to end discussion on the issue.
“I have consistently stated that this does not belong before our body. It belongs at the [state] Legislature,” Councilor Kate Toomey said. “I think that they are far more suited to address this and to do so on a state level so that there is consistent legislation and rules and regulations as opposed to cities, small cities and towns trying to take this on.”
The anti-abortion centers in Worcester have maintained that they’re transparent about their goals and the services they provide. However, state officials have acknowledged public concerns about the centers, warning Massachusetts residents the facilities do not provide comprehensive reproductive healthcare and instead seek to prevent people from accessing abortions.
Tuesday’s City Council vote ends months of uncertainty about how Worcester would navigate worries about the anti-abortion clinics. The issue garnered even more scrutiny beginning in June when a Worcester woman filed a class-action lawsuit against one of the two centers in the city.
The woman alleged that a Clearway Clinic worker, who was not a licensed physician, failed to diagnose her ectopic pregnancy during an ultrasound, instead telling her the pregnancy was safe. About a month after the ultrasound, the woman needed life-saving emergency surgery to address internal bleeding from a ruptured fallopian tube.
Community divisions have been on display during the public comment periods of City Council’s several meetings on the issue. During Tuesday night’s meeting, some people said they supported the centers because they offer women resources to navigate a pregnancy without pursuing an abortion. Other commenters stressed that centers that use deceptive advertising tactics threaten public safety.
