BOSTON — Opponents of a proposed state bill that would prevent deceptive advertising at pregnancy resource centers used a lengthy public hearing in Boston on Monday to make their case why the bill is deficient.

Testimony from several nonprofit groups and individuals argued that the bill would violate free speech, uses discriminatory language, has vague definitions, and contains legal problems and moral concerns.

“The bills apply only to clinics that do not provide or refer abortions and emergency contraception; they do not apply to abortion clinics like Planned Parenthood,” said Sam Whiting, an attorney with Massachusetts Family Institute. “This shows that the bills are not about preventing deception by pregnancy services providers, they’re about shutting down pro-life speech.”

The bill, H.377, which was open for public comment at a hearing held by the Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure, is written by Rep. Tram Nguyen, D-Essex, and co-sponsored by Rep. Lindsay Sabadosa, D-Northampton.

The legislation would work to prevent limited services pregnancy centers — defined as pregnancy services centers that do not provide abortions or emergency contraception — from disseminating “deceptive” information. The bill also contains a section on privacy standards that aims to protect the privacy of patients seeking pregnancy-related services.

“It’s a bit of a statement bill,” said Sabadosa. “It’s important for legislators to understand the dangers of crisis pregnancy centers.”

The hearing featured similar discussions around crisis pregnancy centers as those at recent City Council hearings in Easthampton, where some of the same free speech and other arguments against the proposal were made.

In response to the argument that the bill is discriminatory against crisis pregnancy centers, Sabadosa said, “Clinics that provide abortions are very clear about what they offer ... Those clinics employ doctors who are licensed, and what you get is what you’re actually going in for. When you’re going into a crisis pregnancy center that is not the case.”

According to a 2022 brief distributed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 71% of crisis pregnancy centers “use deceptive means such as spreading thoroughly debunked misinformation” and 38% never clearly state on their homepages that they do not provide abortion care.

In addition to the Massachusetts Family Institute, other groups represented at Monday’s legislative hearing included Massachusetts Citizens for Life and Americans United for Life, among others. In addition to H.377, groups took issue with a Senate bill, S.182, that also relates to deceptive advertising but doesn’t specifically address pregnancy services.

While some focused on free speech, other testifying at the hearing pointed to vague language as potential points of legal liability. The bill bans deceptive statements, but never defines “deceptive,” which many testifiers called vague and subjective.

A few women at the hearing testified on their own positive experiences with crisis pregnancy centers, and held that the bill would “give their opponents more tools to hurt women and children in Massachusetts,” as put by Worcester resident Mia McDonald.

State Committeewoman Deborah Dugan, R-Suffolk and Middlesex, said she had two abortions at ages 18 and 19, and when she started volunteering at crisis pregnancy centers, she was told to take an abortion recovery class in order to work with clients.

“I was married for 26 years before I ever told my husband about the shame and the guilt that I carried,” Dugan said. “At that time, I could forgive others, but I could not forgive myself. I needed this program to get to that point.”

She added that when clients are met for the first time, they are given “options counseling,” wherein they discuss parenting, adoption and abortion. “While abortion is promised as an escape from a crisis pregnancy, what comes are shame and guilt,” she said.

Sabadosa said she doesn’t think the bill will pass in its current form, but added, “I do think that the state is very interested … in trying to figure out how we can protect patients.”

Easthampton ordinance

Easthampton’s ordinance as originally submitted by At-Large Councilor Owen Zaret last fall aimed to prevent deceptive advertising by crisis pregnancy centers, similar to the intent of the bill presented at Monday’s hearing in Boston, H.377.

After several public hearings and opposition from Mayor Nicole LaChapelle, Zaret withdrew the measure to rewrite it. The new ordinance has two main functions: protecting individuals pursuing reproductive or gender-affirming care from being reported to other states, and instructing the city to provide state information around such care.

The ordinance was passed by City Council at a hearing on July 6, but was vetoed by LaChapelle the next day.

At Monday’s hearing on H.377, members of the public pointed to Easthampton as an example of backing away from legislation regarding deceptive advertising by crisis pregnancy centers due to legal concerns.

After vetoing Easthampton’s ordinance, LaChapelle wrote that it would not strengthen individual rights beyond what already exists in state law, and that despite legal merit, the ordinance would face legal challenges adding up to costly repercussions for the city.

According to City Council President Homar Gomez, the ordinance will be discussed by city councilors at the next City Council meeting, which will be held Wednesday, Aug. 2, at 6 p.m.

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