EASTHAMPTON — After months of revision and debate, the City Council officially struck down an ordinance around reproductive and gender-affirming care at its meeting Wednesday when supporters could not muster enough votes to override a mayoral veto.
The meeting followed Mayor Nicole LaChapelle’s veto of the ordinance after it had passed by City Council on July 5 with six votes.
The council had the opportunity to override the veto with six votes, but with Wednesday’s 5-3 vote to do so, councilors did not meet that requirement. City Council President Homar Gomez, who had previously voted in favor of the ordinance, voted against overriding the mayor’s veto — a move that angered some of the ordinance’s supporters.
“Shame on you, Councilor Gomez,” said councilor Brad Riley, who proceeded to leave the remote meeting after Gomez responded, “Respect my vote… This is the first and the last time that I’m going to ask for respect.”
Without meeting the required two-thirds majority, the ordinance was officially struck down.
The ordinance had two main functions. First, it would protect people seeking reproductive and gender-affirming services in the city from being reported to other states. Second, it would require the city to disseminate to the public relevant information from the Massachusetts Department of Health around such issues.
At Wednesday’s remote meeting, which drew over 60 people, residents voiced their support for the ordinance and urged council members to vote to override LaChapelle’s veto.
“As a midwife, I am first and foremost an educator. I know there is no bodily autonomy without accurate and unbiased information … It is shocking to me that the sharing of accurate public health information and the protection of people’s private decisions about their bodily autonomy is still up for debate,” said Easthampton resident Amy Gordon Richane.
“Easthampton is in a favorable position where it may not seem like an emergency,” said Ava Smith, a student at the Williston Northampton School. “But with the approval of this ordinance… this may encourage other towns to follow suit and establish a multitude of these ordinances that will better protect not just my future, but the future of all young people in this area seeking health care.”
Only one speaker during the public hearing voiced opposition to the ordinance, Jackie Brousseau-Pereira, who said the “ordinance could potentially open the city up to frivolous lawsuits around First Amendment rights.”
In past hearings, many residents voiced concerns about the measure’s potential impact on the Bethlehem House, a “pregnancy care center” that was vandalized last year after two public hearings on the previous version of the ordinance, which centered on banning deceptive advertising by so-called crisis pregnancy centers. Such centers typically offer limited pregnancy services and do not provide abortion or contraception, despite their appearance as reproductive health care clinics.
Opponents argued that the ordinance could poses legal troubles for the city, along with moral concerns around abortion.
In a memo to City Council President Homar Gomez announcing her veto, LaChapelle wrote that the ordinance would not strengthen individual rights beyond what already exists in state law, and that despite legal merit, the measure could still face costly court challenges.
On Wednesday, Riley and councilors Owen Zaret, Thomas Peake, Koni Denham and Salem Derby expressed their disagreement with the mayor and support for the ordinance, and encouraged councilors to overturn the veto.
“As a woman, as a member of the LGBTQ plus community, as the only woman on this council who is voting tonight, I am sitting before eight male constituents who are going to have a say in whether or not women’s rights to choose are affirmed and whether or not members of my community have access to health care information,” Denham said. “This is an affirmation to members of our community who feel attacked, disenfranchised, et cetera, and it is our responsibility as elected officials to support them.”
Zaret pointed to the 18 reproductive equity groups and health organizations that sent letters to councilors in the weeks leading up to the veto, urging an override. Abortion Truth Campaign, Reproductive Equity Now, and Planned Parenthood Advocacy Fund were among groups that reached out in advance of the meeting.
“All these groups who make it their business to assist in access to reproductive care see this will help. The mayor says it won’t.” said Zaret. “With respect to her opinion … I have to take these groups’ overwhelming knowledgeable opinion over hers.”
“It’s not often that we make choices that are globally and historically impactful,” Zaret said. “And I don’t have a crystal ball, but I have a very strong feeling that upholding this veto, i.e. not overriding it, will have a negative historical impact locally, statewide and even potentially federally for reproductive freedoms.”
In response to financial concerns for the city, Riley said that councilors received a letter on July 27 from the Lawyering Project, an abortion right legal advocacy group.
Riley said the letter “indicated that they are offering the Lawyering Project’s services in the event that the city or any of its officers or agents are named as defendants in any lawsuit challenges ordinance 6-22 … completely free of charge.”
“What we have here before us right now is the opportunity to do the thing that we know is the right thing to do with the assurance that we have a law firm that is willing to pay for any legal fees on our behalf, should one of these frivolous lawsuits be enacted,” he said.
Gomez said he did not see evidence that such legal assistance free of charge was guaranteed, and added that “even if they say yes, at the end … we will have to spend some money with a city solicitor and the city will be the liability.”
In the end, councilors Zaret, Peake, Riley, Denham and Derby voted in favor of an override, and Gomez, David Meunier and James Kwiecinski voted against it.
Immediately following the meeting, Reproductive Equity Now President Rebecca Hart Holder said in a statement, “The vote’s failure is indicative of how rampant anti-abortion misinformation and disinformation can be in our communities.”
“But as much as we are disappointed in tonight’s outcome, we are determined to keep fighting to ensure every person across our Commonwealth has access to accurate, unbiased information on how they can obtain reproductive health care services.”
Maddie Fabian can be reached at mfabian@gazettenet.com or on Twitter @MaddieFabian.
