{"id":273958,"date":"2022-08-11T16:37:23","date_gmt":"2022-08-11T21:37:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=273958"},"modified":"2022-08-17T19:24:26","modified_gmt":"2022-08-18T00:24:26","slug":"worcester-votes-pregnancy-centers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/worcester-votes-pregnancy-centers\/","title":{"rendered":"Worcester City Council votes to discriminate against pregnancy centers"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

The City Council of Worcester, Massachusetts, voted<\/a>\u00a06-5 in July to investigate the regulation of pro-life pregnancy resource centers and to throw its support behind abortion.<\/p>\n

As reported<\/a> by MassLive, “Councilor-at-large Thu Nguyen put a motion before City Council requesting the city manager, along with the city solicitor, look at ordinance language in Somerville, Cambridge and Easthampton related to deceptive advertising practices of ‘limited pregnancy centers’ in order to draft a similar ordinance in the city.” The council also voted to have the solicitor look into requiring any<\/em> establishment the serves pregnant women \u2014 such as a pro-life pregnancy center \u2014 to “either directly provide or provide referrals for abortions or emergency contraception.\u201d Yet not everyone agreed with the decision.<\/p>\n

Councilors Donna Colorio and Kathleen Toomey were two of the councilors who voted against the measure, saying that it is a violation of free speech:<\/p>\n

\u201cWorcester is inviting a lawsuit if we proceed with this,\u201d Colorio said. \u201cThe Supreme Court made it very clear that the government cannot target certain messages because it doesn\u2019t like a particular viewpoint. These organizations should have the freedom to continue to operate without government interference.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

The case Colorio referenced is\u00a0NIFLA v. Becerra<\/em><\/a>, and this case was a major pro-life win in 2018. The Supreme Court ruled that states cannot force pregnancy centers to promote abortion. The Court ruled that California’s ‘Reproductive FACT Act,’ \u201clikely violates the First Amendment.” It did not strike down the law but sent it back to lower courts with the order that certain provisions of the law be immediately blocked.<\/p>\n

READ: City of Columbus goes after pregnancy resource centers, gives $1 million to abortion groups<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

According to MassLive<\/a>, in April, the pro-abortion group Reproductive Equity Now created a list of centers that it claimed to be “fake” because they oppose abortion and therefore do not refer for or commit the procedures.\u00a0These centers \u201coftentimes present themselves as resources for people facing unplanned pregnancies but do not offer the full spectrum of pregnancy care, including abortion care,\u201d claimed Taylor St. Germain, a spokesperson for Reproductive Equity Now.<\/p>\n

However, abortion facilities do not offer prenatal care or access to pregnancy-related resources \u2014 or any actual “pregnancy care” as St. Germain called it. Abortion is not “pregnancy care.” It is the ending of a pregnancy by means of killing the preborn baby.<\/p>\n

The two pregnancy centers in Worcester \u2014 Clearway Clinic and Problem Pregnancy \u2014 state that they do not commit or refer for abortions but that they help women who are facing unplanned pregnancies as well as mothers and fathers who are hurting from past abortions.<\/p>\n