Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 10/25/2022
EASTHAMPTON – A controversial ordinance for limited pregnancy centers that engage in deceptive practices has been withdrawn – but it may return.
The ordinance, presented over the summer as an amendment to Chapter 6, states, “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.”
At the City Council’s meeting on Oct. 19, council member At-Large Owen Zaret spoke to a letter he had submitted. In the letter, he wrote that while the ordinance was legislatively sound, the conversations around it showed potential complications and pitfalls in the language. Zaret wrote that the ordinance is intended to protect individuals from deceptive advertising from crisis pregnancy centers, not as a judgement on anyone’s beliefs.
“Its focus lies strictly within the secular realm of government, as all legislation should,” he wrote.
The council had little comment on the request, and unanimously approved a motion to withdraw the proposal, without prejudice, allowing for the possibility for reintroduction with changes.
The proposed ordinance created intense debate, with some residents claiming that it will unfairly impact the Bethlehem House. Located in Easthampton, the Bethlehem House is a nonprofit organization which offers free pregnancy resources for women in crisis. In August, the property was defaced with graffiti which read “If abortion’s aren’t safe, neither are you!” and “Jane’s Revenge.” Zaret’s letter said that the Bethlehem House was never targeted, nor does it fall under the auspices of the ordinance.
“A simple review of the definitions contained withing the section will demonstrably show that the Bethlehem House does not meet the criteria for a “pregnancy services center” and therefore does not meet the criteria for a “limited services pregnancy center” as defined in the proposed language,” he stated in the letter. “Therefore, that facility would not be subject to the proposed language, or any future language utilizing the same definitions.”
Zaret’s letter stated that the Massachusetts Attorney General, Department of Public Health and Mass Health, have all issued advisories against crisis pregnancy centers and it is his goal to make sure that they are followed and codified on the local level. Similar ordinances have been upheld in San Francisco, New York City, and Hartford, CT.
“We live in an era of eroding liberties, especially as it pertains to personal bodily autonomy,” Zaret stated in his letter. “I feel it is our duty as elected officials to ensure that such liberties are protected at the municipal level. I plan to follow up with language that considers all the feedback and research we have obtained in this process, and that is respectful of the stated goals contained herein as well as people’s individual beliefs.”