EASTHAMPTON — After a contentious public hearing Wednesday evening that ended in the City Council passing a pregnancy center ordinance, Mayor Nicole LaChapelle vetoed the measure Thursday afternoon.

First introduced nine months ago and revised considerably since then, the ordinance aims to protect the privacy of people seeking or accessing reproductive and gender-affirming services in the city.

In a memo to City Council President Homar Gomez, the mayor wrote that the ordinance would not strengthen individual rights beyond what already exists in state law, and that despite legal merit, the ordinance would face legal challenges and add up to costly repercussions for the city.

“There was proper legal vetting of this ordinance,” LaChapelle wrote. “But this ordinance will not strengthen individual rights beyond existing state law for Easthampton residents.”

“The ordinance as I read it, it wasn’t about abortion and access to abortion or reproductive rights,” LaChapelle said in a phone interview Thursday. “When we lost on Dobbs, there was this big move on resolutions … but what we need to do is send $5 a month to abortion funds where the legal structure is being figured out.”

She added, “We’re a city. We’re boots on the ground… Let’s see what we can do with local groups so we can get the word out while the state figures out what to do next.”

Wednesday’s 2½-hour hearing drew over 100 attendees in person and remotely, and included representatives from organizations including Reproductive Equity Now and the Abortion Truth campaign, councilors from neighboring cities, researchers, medical providers and lawyers.

The ordinance would prevent city employees from reporting information to other states that may impose civil or criminal penalties on people who seek, receive, cause or aid in reproductive or gender-affirming health care services. It would also require that the city disseminate to the public relevant information from the Massachusetts Department of Health around such issues.

“The landscape of reproductive and gender-affirming health care has changed substantially in just the last year,” said At-Large Councilor Owen Zaret, who co-sponsored the ordinance with councilors Salem Derby and Koni Denham. “We have an obligation from a public health perspective to make sure the public is aware of this information from the state.”

Six councilors voted to approve the measure, while Councilor David Meunier voted against the ordinance without speaking during the meeting. Councilor James Kwiecinski abstained from voting, citing legal concerns after hearing from attorneys during the meeting. Councilor Daniel Rist was not present. According to the city’s charter, the council can override a mayor’s veto by a vote of two-thirds of the full council, or six yes votes. That vote must be taken no sooner than 10 days after receiving the veto letter and no later than 30 days.

Zaret expressed displeasure that the mayor vetoed the ordinance.

“I feel the hundreds of hours spent on this ordinance and the time invested by reproductive justice organizations and stakeholders at least deserved the courtesy of a conversation prior to this veto,” Zaret wrote in an email Thursday evening, adding that preeminent reproductive justice organizations in the state strongly supported the ordinance.

“Whereas we have connected residents and visitors to the commonwealth with vital reproductive and gender-affirming information and services, now they are left to fend for themselves at the risk of mis- and disinformation,” he wrote.

The ordinance as originally submitted by Zaret last fall aimed to prevent deceptive advertising practices by crisis pregnancy centers offering limited resources. After several public hearings, and opposition from LaChapelle, Zaret withdrew the measure to rewrite it.

In meetings concerning the revised ordinance, At-Large Councilor Brad Riley said at Wednesday’s public hearing, “a constant obstruction of our meetings and unhelpful dialogues were tiring at best and sometimes completely exhausting... Despite that, we produced an ordinance that is fair and inclusive of everyone’s viewpoints, including those of you who protested.”

At the start of Wednesday’s meeting, Councilors Salem Derby and Zaret emphasized two main functions of the ordinance.

“One: It protects individuals pursuing legal reproductive or gender-affirming care from city agents reporting them to other states where such actions may be civilly or criminally illegal,” Zaret said. “And two: It instructs the city to provide information from the commonwealth regarding legally protected reproductive and gender-affirming health care.”

That information could include general materials around what is legal in the state, how to access reproductive and gender-affirming care and advisories, as well as information on limited-services pregnancy centers, defined as any individual, entity or organization that provides pregnancy-related services but does not provide contraceptives, pregnancy testing, obstetric ultrasound, prenatal care, abortion, or sterilization.

Opponents weigh in

Opponents of the ordinance voiced opinions relating to abortion, and repeated concerns over its potential impact on the Bethlehem House, which was vandalized last year after two public hearings on the previous version of the ordinance.

Bethlehem House is a faith-based nonprofit in Easthampton that offers free pregnancy resources, including diapers, clothing and other supplies to pregnant women and men in need. It does not provide medical services.

“The biggest concern I have is the fact that the pathway to this ordinance has caused division with our residents, vandalism, and written violent threats painted on the property,” said resident Bob Sass. “It wasn’t until the ordinance appeared that we had issues with acts of terror. The Bethlehem House has been, for almost 30 years, supplying women with the things they need in order to successfully have their baby.”

Two attorneys in attendance cited legal concerns with the ordinance, despite legal vetting of the measure by another attorney.

“There’s no enforcement in this ordinance, so I disagree with the mayor,” said Derby, referring to comments LaChapelle has made in previous meetings. “I disagree that this puts us in any legal liability because this is just codifying things that are already happening that we already do. … This ordinance has been reviewed by the city attorney and his feedback has been incorporated into the final document.”

In her memo to Gomez, LaChapelle wrote, “Even with our City Solicitor assuring the ordinance’s legal merit, we know it will face legal challenges by well-funded organizations intent on limiting the rights of women and the LGBTQIA+ community.”

Those in support of the ordinance pointed to the role of the city in protecting women’s rights and the prevention of misinformation about reproductive and gender-affirming care, particularly in providing information about crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs), also called pro-life pregnancy centers.

“To interfere with reproductive health care access, abortion opponents are now targeting states where abortion remains legal by pumping resources into a spider web of anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers [CPCs] that work to mislead people,” said Carrie Baker. She pointed to a recent class-action lawsuit against Clearway Clinic in Worcester,  where a woman was allegedly not informed of her ectopic pregnancy, resulting in an emergency abortion.

“Google ads [from anti-abortion groups] intercept people seeking abortion health care and direct them to anti-abortion CPCs, including here in western Massachusetts,” Baker added.

LaChapelle wrote, “Past actions show the City of Easthampton governs based on values rather than fear or likelihood of legal repercussions. Affirming and protecting the rights of women and members of the LGBTQIA community is not new to our City— we act to do so regularly.”

Maddie Fabian can be reached at mfabian@gazettenet.com or on Twitter @MaddieFabian.]]>