Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.

Citizens raise concerns over Easthampton's proposed pregnancy center ordinance

Date: 6/8/2022

EASTHAMPTON – The Easthampton City Council hosted a public hearing at its June 1 meeting to discuss a proposed city ordinance regarding deceptive advertising practices of limited service pregnancy centers.

The proposed ordinance stated “No limited services pregnancy center, with the intent to perform a pregnancy-related service, shall make or disseminate before the public, or cause to be made or disseminated before the public, in any newspaper or other publication, through any advertising device, or in any other manner, including, but not limited to, through use of the Internet, any statement concerning any pregnancy-related service or the provision of any pregnancy-related service that is deceptive, whether by statement or omission, and that a limited services pregnancy center knows or reasonably should know to be deceptive.”

Councilor Owen Zaret began to speak about limited service pregnancy centers, non-diagnostic ultrasound use, and how he felt these establishments target the economically disenfranchised. “It doesn’t ban any business from operating and I can appreciate any organization that either exists in our city or might exist in the future that seeks to generally help people looking to have a child but lacking the financial resources to do so. I applaud them,” said Zaret.

Once the floor was open to the public, Robert Sass of Easthampton shared his beliefs on abortion rights. “Is this really in the best interest of the city? This is an ordinance, not a resolution that has no teeth. I ask that the city of Easthampton focus on providing outstanding schools, solid police and fire support, and improving our public works rather than subjecting the city to this financial exposure and risk.”

Laura Balton, a resident of Westfield, asked the council why the ordinance was even brought forth in the first place.

“This is a concern across the country” Zaret said. “So I felt that it was responsible especially with the growing anti-choice movement in this country, to make sure that we are safeguarding all and any loopholes for people to protect their reproductive freedom.”

Balton responded to Zaret, saying, “If you are tolerant and pro-choice you should be tolerant of people who have other beliefs, it’s not an attack on you. People get along here and you have a nice community, why not show and extend love and compassion to young girls who want an option? Why would you try to make it difficult when they are not giving false deception?”

Meeting attendee Dan Constantine rose in opposition to the proposed ordinance, expressing his disappointment to Zaret that not as many pro-life commentators were brought into the meeting.
“After reading over this ordinance I do not see how it benefits the people of this community. We do not have a medical pregnancy center in town that I know of but we do have a faith based organization, the Bethlehem House, that helps to support women and children, and all members of the family with giving gifts of baby supplies and other necessities, regardless of race or creed.”

Many had an issue with the word “deceptive” in context of the use of the medical pregnancy center as more anti-abortion sentiment came forward. Nate Horwitz-Willis, the executive vice president of external affairs for Planned Parenthood of Massachusetts, offered his perspective on the overall situation.

“What this does is it creates a healthcare standard for everyone to work and operate in. For people to still have an opportunity to have sexual and reproductive choice and freedom,” he said

He later added, “I want to say thank you for being courageous, for being intellectual and engaging with people of varying different backgrounds, because if you look at who is coming to this podium, it’s not people who care at a disadvantage, its not people who do not have parental systems, so I speak for them because I have been in that situation before.”

Nori Coleman of East Street, argued, “Our freedom of speech is under attack. Bethlehem House was started because of me actually. Because I was supposed to be aborted. You want to talk about abortion? I was supposed to be aborted because I was half black.”

Coleman told the story of her mother’s struggle in starting Bethlehem House. “It was started by my mother, who at 17 didn’t have the alternative of having a pregnancy center help her at the time. What’s why she started it. Planned Parenthood was started by a racist eugenics lady named Margaret Sanger. She said black people didn’t have the right to breed because they were the weeds of society.”

She later spoke about Adolph Hitler and his adoption of Sanger’s sterilization process, before expressing her concern of BIPOC members working for Planned Parenthood.

“Don’t represent black and brown people if you don’t know. And this Planned Parenthood has a new face of colored people which we should be ashamed of because it is steeped in racism.”
After cheers and applause, Coleman’s husband, Joseph, followed suit. “We are Americans. We help each other. We support each other. We don’t try to go behind each others back, put the board of health on people, and give them a $300 fine. We have a place in Easthampton that supports mothers, that support minority mothers, that support all mothers … y’all are sick.”

Easthampton native Jay Andrzelczyk said, “We are talking about Easthampton. In Easthampton, we have got a great nonprofit that has done so much the people of Easthampton over the last twenty plus years. We are looking at a potential ordinance that will fine a really nice lady who is giving free baby clothes to pregnant ladies. The ordinance is to fine her $300 every time she gives away free baby clothes. If you read the language of the ordinance, that’s what it says. This is sophomoric. This is absolutely insane and if this moves ahead at anytime in the council’s future, what you are doing is dismissing the charity of your fellow resident. If you think that’s a good thing to do, great, you’re going to be on the ballot in two years.”

A continued discussion will take place on July 6 at 6:15 p.m.