Voted down: Worcester City Council decides not to regulate anti-abortion clinics
WORCESTER — More than a year after draft ordinances regulating the advertising practices of clinics that advertise against abortion were requested from the city administration, the City Council has voted to effectively end consideration of the ordinances Tuesday.
City councilors cited concerns over their constitutionality for their decision to put a halt to adopting the ordinances.
The City Council voted 7-4 in favor of ending consideration of two draft ordinances the city's law department submitted with a recommendation from City Manager Eric D. Batista and City Solicitor Michael Traynor to not adopt either policy.
Mayor Joseph M. Petty, Councilors-at-Large Morris Bergman, Donna Colorio and Kathleen Toomey, District 1 City Councilor Sean Rose, District 2 City Councilor Candy Mero-Carlson and District 4 City Councilor Sarai Rivera voted to end consideration. Councilors-at-Large Khrystian King and Thu Nguyen, District 3 City Councilor George Russell and District 5 City Councilor Etel Haxhiaj voted in favor of adopting the ordinances.
Sept. 12, the City Council voted to receive at least two additional legal opinions from "reproductive justice" experts. Tuesday, the council received a legal opinion from the national organization the Lawyering Project, a legal advocacy organization that promotes abortion rights and access to reproductive care across the country.
It was the only organization that provided an opinion to the city, Batista wrote in a communication to the City Council.
The Lawyering Project's Stephanie Toti wrote that she disagreed with the assessment of Traynor on one of two submitted draft ordinances, modeled after ordinances in Somerville and Cambridge. While Traynor wrote about the ordinance presenting serious constitutional concerns, Toti wrote that the ordinance could pass constitutional muster.
Toti largely agreed with Traynor that the second ordinance had legal issues as written.
The Law Department stood with Traynor's opinion Tuesday.
When asked by Councilor-at-Large Khrystian King, a deputy city solicitor said Traynor, who was not present Tuesday, had vetted Toti's opinion.
However, the Law Department did not present analysis of Toti's argument or her interpretation of case law from the West Coast's Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals when King asked.
King said he was unsatisfied with the city administration's vetting of the legal opinion.
Councilor-at-Large Morris Bergman said he was confident in Traynor's assessment and warned the last time the City Council relied on an outside Circuit Court's ruling was its anti-panhandling law, which a federal judge struck down in 2015 after a U.S. Supreme Court decision.
With several councilors saying the issue was a matter for state government, the City Council also agreed to request the city legislative delegation come to the Standing Committee on Municipal and Legislative Operations to discuss efforts to protect residents from deceptive practices from clinics.
In July 2022, Nguyen requested the city solicitor and administration return a draft ordinance regulating the advertising practices of these clinics, often known as crisis pregnancy centers. They cited claims that the clinics used deceptive practices to attract clients and convince them to keep their babies to term.
The City Council voted 6-5 in favor of the city developing a draft ordinance.
The issue received renewed attention when a lawsuit announced in June alleged the actions of Clearway Clinic, a pregnancy clinic on Shrewsbury Street that advises patients against abortion, led to the missed diagnosis of a Worcester woman's ectopic pregnancy. The woman claims the ectopic pregnancy threatened her life.
After the lawsuit was announced, Nguyen again requested that the city return a draft ordinance in July. After a story from Worcester Patch was published reporting Traynor had communicated his reservations on the policy to the office of then-Attorney General Maura Healey, Nguyen accused Batista of lying to them about having an ordinance ready by September 2022.
The two draft ordinances were delivered to City Council ahead of the Aug. 22 meeting and a vote was subsequently delayed by Colorio.
One ordinance is similar to others in Cambridge and Somerville in ensuring that any clinic providing services for people who believe they might be pregnant either directly provide abortions or emergency contraception, or provide referrals. The other would require all pregnancy services centers list whether they are licensed medical facilities and list the services provided.
Traynor wrote he believed both would not fare well in court. The socially conservative Massachusetts Family Institute sent letters to the city and City Council saying the adoption of the ordinances would risk a lawsuit.
On Sept. 12, City Council voted to further delay a vote on the ordinances and receive at least two additional legal opinions from "equity justice" experts. On Sept. 19, City Council voted to pause consideration until the ordinances were received. The council had also previously voted to not send the ordinances to a standing committee for consideration.
Return to telegram.com for more on this story.
This article originally appeared on Telegram & Gazette: Worcester City Council will not regulate anti-abortion clinics
