MassLive | Crisis pregnancy centers, data privacy a priority for Massachusetts attorney general’s office with Roe v. Wade overturned

By Alison Kuznitz
Story Originally Appeared on MassLive.com

As confusion abounds over reproductive health care access in a post-Roe national landscape, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey’s office remains focused on reining in crisis pregnancy centers that are known for deceiving patients seeking abortions.

But the state’s top prosecutor is limiting in fully shuttering the facilities — which are also called pregnancy resource centers, pregnancy help centers, pregnancy care centers or women’s resource centers — that ultimately aim to dissuade patients from going through with an abortion.

“Unfortunately, our consumer protection laws have kind of a big hole in them when it comes to enforcement of crisis pregnancy centers because they’re nonprofit agencies that aren’t in trade or commerce for purposes, for the most part, of our consumer protection law,” Abigail Taylor, the chief of the civil rights division in the AG’s office, said during a Wednesday morning virtual panel hosted by the Boston Bar Association.

Despite that lacking enforcement mechanism, Taylor said the AG’s office has focused on consumer education and awareness.

Healey earlier this month, for example, issued a consumer advisory urging people to beware of crisis pregnancy centers that purport to be legitimate medical providers and are often situated in close proximity to Planned Parenthood clinics.

Crisis centers are not usually staffed by licensed doctors and nurses, despite employees wearing white coats and performing ultrasounds on patients, according to Healey’s advisory. The centers “do NOT provide comprehensive reproductive healthcare,” the advisory emphasized.

“While crisis pregnancy centers claim to offer reproductive healthcare services, their goal is to prevent people from accessing abortion and contraception,” Healey, the sole Democrat running for governor, said in a statement earlier this month. “In Massachusetts, you have the right to a safe and legal abortion. We want to ensure that patients can protect themselves from deceptive and coercive tactics when seeking the care they need.”

Advocates say cracking down on crisis pregnancy centers is an urgent endeavor as Massachusetts prepares for an influx of out-of-state patients seeking care in the commonwealth, where abortion rights are already enshrined into state law — and are about to gain additional protections with a provider shield bill now on Gov. Charlie Baker’s desk.

“That tidal wave is coming to Massachusetts. We have 10 freestanding clinics but (it’s) important to note that even in Massachusetts, crisis pregnancy centers or fake women’s health centers outnumber legitimate reproductive health care providers three to one,” Rebecca Hart Holder, executive director of Reproductive Equity Now, said during the panel discussion. “We’ve seen a lot of misinformation put out by crisis pregnancy centers.”

The Senate’s reproductive health care bill incorporated an amendment from Sen. Becca Rausch that directed the Department of Public Health to collaborate with Reproductive Equity Now to create and publish a list of legitimate abortion provider facilities. That provision did not survive conference committee, Rausch lamented on the Senate floor Wednesday before the chamber passed the bill to be enacted on a 39-1 vote.

“We must continue to fight and fight hard until there are no barriers to care — zero,” Rausch said. “As I join colleagues in celebrating today’s victory, I also gear up for the great deal of work still ahead of us.”

Bolstering protections for abortion providers — which remains the crux of Beacon Hill’s post-Roe push amid Sunday’s end-of-session countdown — and tightening data privacy safeguards are also top priorities now at the AG’s office, Taylor said.

Providers will need legal representation and assistance as they navigate conflicting state laws, Taylor said, even as Massachusetts lawmakers seek to insulate medical professionals and other individuals involved in delivering legally protected health care in the commonwealth. Telehealth care, particularly in states that have banned abortions, could raise complex dilemmas, Taylor said.

Receiving care at brick-and-mortar clinics comes with heightened risk as well, due to digital tracking that can intimidate both providers and patients, Taylor said. She invoked geofencing technology that knows when a patient has entered a reproductive health care facility and then sends targeted advertising to the person’s phone, unleashing misleading and unwanted messaging.

“It’s taken on real new valence to have companies like this know where patients are and where they are in the context of reproductive health care when we have criminal bans in many states,” Taylor said. “But I think we’re looking hard at that issue, both from an enforcement perspective, also from a policy perspective ... working with the tech sector and (doing) the right thing in this area to protect as best as possible.”