State senators have begun discussing a wide-ranging bill that would safeguard Vermont doctors from professional repercussions for providing abortions within state lines — and crack down on non-medical, anti-abortion facilities that lawmakers deem deceptive in advertising.
The bill, S.37, is in the early stages of the legislative process, having only received a first hearing before a Senate panel on Tuesday. But it’s a hotly anticipated piece of legislation, many provisions of which began to take shape in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision striking down nationwide abortion protections last June.
S.37 tackles the issue of abortion, as well as gender-affirming health care, from health care providers’ perspective. The 24-page bill bars medical malpractice insurance companies from hiking providers’ rates if they offer such reproductive health care in Vermont, and it protects providers from professional repercussions — such as a suspension of their medical license — for offering those services within state lines, where it’s legal. It also seeks to regulate what are known as crisis pregnancy centers, which are non-medical facilities that advertise to pregnant people and have the goal of dissuading patients from seeking abortions.
House lawmakers have introduced their own bill to address some of the same matters. That measure, H.89, looks at the issue of abortion and gender-affirming care from a judicial perspective, as Vermont providers and law enforcement agencies stare down what experts last week termed a “new world” of “interjurisdictional abortion wars.”
Lucy Leriche, who serves as vice president of public policy for Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, told VTDigger on Tuesday that she thinks of H.89 and S.37 as omnibus bills, meaning wide-ranging and including numerous provisions. Rather than splitting the packages into smaller, more bite-sized pieces of legislation, she said, lumping them together allows the Legislature — which appears eager to get the bills out the door — to approve them more expediently. And passing them quickly “speaks to the urgency” of the issue in the wake of last summer’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, she said.
“I think the idea is that, after the overturn of Roe (v. Wade) this summer, I think legislators just wanted to be really efficient in capturing all of the ways that they can think of to protect reproductive health care and to put them in one place so that it can be very clear to people,” Leriche said.
Part of protecting abortion access in Vermont, according to advocates and proponents of S.37, is cracking down on those who attempt to steer patients away from obtaining abortions by what they consider deceptive advertising. Abortion advocates for years have taken issue with crisis pregnancy centers’ advertising strategies and attempts to appear as licensed medical facilities — or even legitimate abortion clinics — only to dissuade patients from obtaining the procedure once they’re in the door.
There are at least seven such facilities spanning almost the entirety of Vermont, from Care Net Pregnancy Center in Barre, to Pregnancy Resource Center of Addison County in Middlebury, to Aspire Together in Williston, to Branches Pregnancy Resource Center in Brattleboro.
S.37 defines such a pregnancy center as a facility whose “primary purpose is to provide services to individuals who are or may be pregnant,” offers obstetric or prenatal services or “has the appearance of a medical facility.” The bill then seeks to make those pregnancy centers subject to the state’s existing consumer protection laws, which prohibit false and deceptive advertising. The bill grants authority to the Attorney General’s Office and state’s attorneys to investigate and bring civil suits against pregnancy centers deemed to engage in false advertising.
Mary Beerworth, who serves as Vermont Right to Life’s executive director and is a staunch opponent of both H.89 and S.37, questioned why state government should involve itself in the business of private facilities. “These people are operating with the financial support of people who support what they’re doing. So why it’s any business of this Statehouse, I have no idea,” she said.
“They’re not deceiving women. They’re very clear,” Beerworth continued. “How do you trick a woman into carrying a baby to term? That’s what they say: ‘They’re tricking them into it.’ How is that? You’re just saying, ‘Let’s do an ultrasound.’”
“You would not believe how many stories I hear,” Beerworth continued. “They see that ultrasound — they see that little heartbeat, and they go, ‘This is my baby and I’m keeping it.’”
Leriche said the problem with crisis pregnancy centers is that in their advertising, “they present themselves as legitimate health clinics or health centers that provide the full range of options for reproductive health care.”
“But in reality, what they are meant to do, their full mission in life, is to talk people out of getting an abortion,” Leriche said.
Leriche conceded that “there are speech considerations, constitutional considerations” at the heart of S.37. National interest groups have proven themselves eager to litigate similar bills cracking down on pregnancy centers. Leriche pointed to a 2018 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that struck down a California bill that required crisis pregnancy centers to more fully disclose their intent.
“But at the same time, that needs to be balanced with an ethical environment for people seeking health care, because they can cause harm and they do cause harm,” Leriche said.
Asked if Vermont Right to Life would challenge S.37 in court, Beerworth answered, “I don’t know how that would play out.” The pregnancy crisis centers would have to file their own lawsuits, should S.37 pass in its current form, she said.
Does she foresee that happening?
“Oh, yeah,” Beerworth said. “They love what they do.”