EASTHAMPTON — In the wake of two highly contentious public hearings that packed the City Council chambers, At-Large City Councilor Owen Zaret came before the Board of Health Tuesday night to present a proposed ordinance designed to stop deceptive advertising practices by pregnancy centers offering limited services.

Zaret, who brought forward the proposal, said the language was modeled after existing ordinances used in San Francisco, Hartford and New York City. A similarly written ordinance was also recently passed in Somerville.

“We work best when we work together. When writing policy, it is critical to make sure that all of the stakeholders are informed and part of the discussion. In this case, we intend to have the Health Department enforce this ordinance,” Zaret said in an interview. “For the sake of transparency and collaboration, we met with the Board of Health to inform them of the intended scope of the ordinance as well as to answer any questions and address any concerns.”

Under the originally drafted ordinance, no limited services pregnancy center, with the intent to perform a pregnancy-related service, would be allowed to make or disseminate “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” through public advertising via various mediums like newspapers or the internet.

Violations of the ordinance could be subject to fines of up to $300.

The proposal was originally approved and recommended by the Ordinance Committee in a 3-0 vote but was sent back to the committee after councilors raised concern that the phrasing of “deceptive practices” was not well delineated.

At both of the public hearings, several attendees cited concerns about the effect the ordinance could have on the Bethlehem House Inc., a city nonprofit that describes itself online as offering free pregnancy resources for women in crisis. When called for comment by the Gazette on the subject, a representative said, “We’re not responding at this time.”

The drafted ordinance was sent back to the Ordinance Committee for further review following the close of the July 6 public hearing. At this point, the city’s legal counsel is reviewing the proposed ordinance and will be providing the Ordinance Committee with some recommendations, according to Salem Derby, who serves as vice president of the City Council and chairperson of the Ordinance Committee.

“One of the most important things for us is to make sure enforcement authority is on board and is clear about what they would be required to do and comfortable with that,” Derby told members of the Board of Health on Tuesday.

Consumer beware

During the meeting, Zaret provided an overview of the proposal and his reasoning behind bringing it forward.

The crisis pregnancy entities often offer many services related to pregnancy, but definitively do not offer abortion and many contraception services. He explained that state Attorney General Maura Healey and California Attorney General Rob Bonta have both issued consumer advisories, warning patients about crisis pregnancy centers not offering reproductive care.

“The reason for that is that typically these entities will set themselves up to appear as full spectrum pregnancy centers, reproductive health care centers, by way of either locating themselves close to centers such as Planned Parenthood, or like in our case Tapestry, but typically Planned Parenthood is the well-known national organization, and will also use by way of either their logo or advertising means, entice people to seek their services without fully being aware of exactly the services that are offered there,” he said.

Additionally, Zaret said the information typically provided at the centers is questionable in terms of its basis in science and medicine, using post-abortion syndrome as an example. The condition, according to the American Medical Association and American Psychological Association, does not exist, he added.

“They’ll also typically use a variety of statistics in providing information that is, again either exaggerated or not based in fact,” he said. ” Typically, these centers will be staffed by essentially volunteers, so usually registered religious organizations, not real medical centers, some are actually registered medical centers, but as they do not typically take insurance or necessarily money because they offer free services, they’re not covered under HIPAA laws, so they’ll collect information for their clients that can ultimately be shared elsewhere.”

Ultimately, Zaret said the goal of the ordinance is to not necessarily address some of the questionable practices he cited, but rather the methods of advertising employed by some of the centers now.

“The problem with a lot of these centers, and again, some of the reason for the consumer warning, certainly in our state is that oftentimes, their advertising will suggest that services are offered, such as abortion or contraception that are not, and so this ordinance seeks to fine the centers for that practice,” he said.

Board of Health member Aimee Petrosky said that she appreciated the councilors bringing the ordinance before them and being a part of the development process. She also noted that she was pleased that Public Health Director Bri Eichstaedt working with councilors to craft enforcement language that is more aligned with the city’s Board of Health.

“I think that will certainly help make this more of an ordinance that we would feel comfortable enforcing,” said Petrosky.

The Ordinance Committee will be discussing the proposal at its next meeting on Thursday, Aug. 4 at 6 p.m.

Zaret said he was hopeful to receive something back from the city’s legal counsel by August and the Ordinance Committee would follow up again after. He suggested talking again with the Board of Health in September.

“This is a very important topic. Obviously, from my perspective. I mean, I think that you know, from the public health standpoint, some of the conversations I feel kind of got derailed in the sense that it became more of a debate of, you know, pro-choice or not pro-choice, but for me, this is more of a consumer protection or public health issue in the sense that it’s not necessarily choices you’re making but that the choices that are being made are presented in a way that it’s obvious to the consumer or the patient where they can go to make those choices,” said Zaret.

Emily Thurlow can be reached at ethurlow@gazettenet.com.]]>