Worcester Councilor Delays Crisis Pregnancy Center Ordinance Debate

WORCESTER, MA — Debate and a possible vote on a proposal to regulate so-called crisis pregnancy centers in Worcester will be delayed until mid-September after a parliamentary maneuver by a councilor at Tuesday's meeting.

City Solicitor Michael Traynor sent the council two proposed laws regulating how anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers advertise services. At the beginning of Tuesday's meeting, At-Large Councilor Donna Colorio asked to "hold" the item, a privilege any councilor can use to delay debate on an item until the next meeting.

The hold is a small bump for a policy proposal that only barely made it to the council floor.

At-Large Councilor Thu Nguyen asked City Manager Eric Batista for proposed ordinances in July 2022 backed by a 6-5 council vote in favor. But internal communications between Traynor and an official in the state Attorney General's office show Traynor wasn't planning to produce anything to present to councilors. Batista said at a July meeting he told Traynor not to present anything to councilors. Batista also said he told Nguyen in a private meeting the policy wouldn't happen.

After a confrontation at the July 18 meeting between Nguyen, Batista and Traynor, Batista said he would send proposed ordinances to the council for the Aug. 22 meeting. Traynor last week sent two suggested ordinances to councilors that would regulate how CPCs advertise services. The centers divert pregnant people from abortion providers by offering similar services like ultrasounds, STD tests and pregnancy tests. CPCs do not refer women to abortion care, however.

In a memo to councilors about the ordinances, Traynor and Batista both said they opposed any ordinance regulating CPCs because they don't think the laws will hold up in court.

On Monday, a Wakefield-based anti-abortion organization sent a letter to Worcester officials threatening to sue if they adopted the ordinances. It was the second letter an attorney representing the Massachusetts Family Institute — which describes itself as "a non-partisan public policy organization dedicated to strengthening families" — has sent councilors warning of legal action if the city moves to regulate CPCs.

During public comment at Tuesday's meeting, several speakers supported regulating CPCs, including one woman who said it would be "money well spent" to fight a legal battle over the regulation.

Other speakers pointed out that Worcester has spent freely on legal battles. The ACLU of Massachusetts sued the city in 2013 over an ordinance regulating panhandling. Worcester lost the suit, and ended up paying out more than $500,000 in legal fees and damages. Worcester has paid out nearly $14 million in legal settlements over just the last five years, according to data provided to councilors by Traynor in July.

The MFI letter from attorney Samuel Whiting urged councilors to side with Batista and Traynor and not adopt the ordinances.

"I write to echo the statements of the solicitor, to provide additional information on the unconstitutionality of these draft ordinances, and to warn the council that should either of these ordinances pass, the city will face litigation," Whiting wrote.

The two ordinances are almost identical to ones passed in Somerville and Cambridge, where no CPCs operate. There are two CPCs in Worcester: Clearway Clinic, which has been sued by a woman who claims a nurse at the clinic misled her about the viability of an ectopic pregnancy that later required surgery; and Problem Pregnancy, which is located across the street from the Pleasant Street Planned Parenthood clinic.

One of the proposed ordinances would regulate deceptive advertising, effectively prohibiting CPCs from mimicking abortion providers like Planned Parenthood. The second proposed ordinance requires CPCs to prominently disclose that they are not licensed medical centers, and they do not provide abortions.

"Forcing PRCs to put unnecessary disclaimers on all of their published materials would place an undue burden on them. It would require them to expend thousands of dollars rewriting their materials and signify government disapproval of their operations," Whiting wrote.

MFI is aligned with Alliance Defending Freedom, which helped sue Connecticut recently over that state's regulations on CPCs. The lawsuit was settled earlier this year with Connecticut's attorney general agreeing not to enforce the law. ADF in July sued Vermont over a state law that regulates the centers.

The council will next meet on Sept. 12, one week after the Sept. 5 preliminary election.