Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 8/7/2023
EASTHAMPTON — At its Aug. 2 meeting, the City Council failed to override the mayor’s veto of the Safe and Fair Access to Legally Protected Reproductive and Gender Affirming Health Care Services Act.
The final vote was 5-3, not meeting the two-thirds vote of the council requirement to override the veto. Councilors Homar Gomez, David Meunier and James “JP” Kwiecinski voted against the override. Councilor Daniel Rist was not at the meeting. The council had voted to approve the act at its July 5 meeting after lengthy discussion and public input, which was at times threatening.
According to supporters of the act, it essentially assures that people receive accurate information about their reproductive and/or gender-affirming care. Although pro-choice advocates have voiced their support, the act does not take a stand on abortion.
Mayor Nicole LaChapelle wrote in a letter to Gomez, the City Council president, after the July meeting, that she would be vetoing the act for fear of opening the city up to litigation as well as feeling like it was unnecessary. According to the mayor and several councilors, the act does not add any additional protections for people that do not already exist in Massachusetts General Law.
Several councilors voiced concern that the standard for passing an act such as this would be whether or not it might bring about a lawsuit. Both supporters and LaChapelle noted that the city solicitor had looked over the act and believed the city would win any lawsuit challenging the act.
“I don’t want [avoiding frivolous lawsuits] to become the standard,” said Councilor Thomas Peake, who added that he thought it could become difficult to legislate if that were to become the standard.
Councilor Owen Zaret agreed, noting that “upholding the veto would be a negative historical event.”
He contended that some of the mayor’s points were factually wrong and that many religious groups actually support the act. Zaret claimed that, at its essence, this act is about sharing public health information, reinforcing the state’s protections and making a statement about what the city values. He also noted that the council has been threatened and intimidated and that it should stand up to such tactics.
Councilor Koni Denham, who identified herself as the only woman on the council, as well as a member of the LGBTQ community, strongly advocated to override the veto. She noted that it was the “power of men with power over women and non-conforming individuals” making these decisions and said that an override would be “an affirmation to members of our community who feel attacked.”
“[This is] a little city with a big heart taking on institutions with goliath-size bank accounts who are attacking us,” said Denham.
Councilor Brad Riley directly addressed LaChapelle’s concerns about the financial implications that a lawsuit against the city may have, sharing that The Lawyering Project had reached out to the council offering its services pro bono if the city were sued.
Gomez countered that he wasn’t sure the organization would follow through with its offer and that would leave the city facing financial hardship, noting that the city solicitor would still need to be paid. He also agreed with LaChapelle that Massachusetts General Law takes care of these protections.
The vote came after public speak time when eight citizens spoke about the veto, with seven of them speaking passionately in support of overriding LaChapelle’s veto and one supporting her, noting a fear of litigation.
After Gomez announced that the vote to override the veto had failed, Riley said, “Shame on you, Councilor Gomez.”
Gomez responded by telling Riley “respect” and saying it was the first and last time he would ask for it. Riley then left the meeting and didn’t return.