Bill also shields fetal death reports from civil, criminal proceedings
By Guy Page
A bill that extends advertising restrictions on pro-life centers and gives more legal immunity to abortion providers has been passed by the Legislature. It will now go to Gov. Phil Scott for his signature.
The Senate Friday agreed with House amendments to S.28, this year’s new so-called ‘muzzle bill.’ The bill empowers the Attorney General to punish pro-life pregnancy centers and other health care providers for advertising he/she believes the ad has a ‘tendency to mislead.’
S.28, titled “access to certain legally protected health care services,” would allow the AG’s office to find a health care provider guilty of unprofessional conduct with fines of up to $10,000 for “advertising, including advertising about health care services, that is intended or has a tendency to deceive or mislead.”
Abortion rights activists have long maintained that Vermont pro-life pregnancy resource center advertising misrepresents their unwillingness to perform abortions, even though the websites and marketing information clearly state they do not perform abortions. For example, the home page of the Lamoille Valley Pregnancy Resource Center states: “We do not provide or refer for abortions or emergency contraception or estimate cost and we do not profit from any of your sexual health or pregnancy decisions.”
Despite legislative restrictions on messaging, there are now 10 pro-life pregnancy resource centers in Vermont, compared with a dwindling number (5) of outpatient surgical abortion clinics.
S.28 is the second pregnancy resource center muzzle bill in three years. It is deemed necessary by pro-legal abortion advocates because the the first law, S.37 passed in 2023, faces an active free-speech lawsuit by the Alliance Defending Freedom. Last June, a federal judge allowed the suit to proceed.
S.28 more broadly defines who may face Attorney General sanctions for misleading advertising. The “advertising, including advertising about health care services” clause has other health care providers – such as doctors opposed to vaccination mandates – concerned they, too, could run afoul of the AG. At present, the state’s Medical Practice Board is the go-to overseer of complaints against the medical providers.
Compared to years past, abortions are more often performed with drugs rather than surgery. This may explain why S.28 also shields some medical abortion providers from state oversight. S.28 exempts Advanced Practitioner Registered Nurses (APRNs) from a medical board discipline from instate or out-of-state medical board discipline in connection with providing abortion drugs.
The bill also shields all fetal death reports from civil, criminal or administrative legal proceedings, and require they be destroyed after two years.
S.28 was subject to one role call vote. On April 17, the House voted 97-43 in favor. These House members voted no:
Bailey of Hyde Park
Bosch of Clarendon
Boutin of Barre City
Branagan of Georgia
Burtt of Cabot
Canfield of Fair Haven
Casey of Hubbardton
Demar of Enosburgh
Dickinson of St. Albans Town
Dolgin of St. Johnsbury
Donahue of Northfield
Feltus of Lyndon
Goslant of Northfield
Gregoire of Fairfield
Harrison of Chittenden
Harvey of Castleton
Higley of Lowell
Howland of Rutland Town
Keyser of Rutland City
Labor of Morgan
Laroche of Franklin
Maguire of Rutland City
Marcotte of Coventry
McCoy of Poultney
Micklus of Milton
Morgan of Milton
Morgan of Milton
Morrissey of Bennington
Nielsen of Brandon
North of Ferrisburgh
Oliver of Sheldon
Page of Newport City
Parsons of Newbury
Pinsonault of Dorset
Powers of Waterford
Pritchard of Pawlet
Southworth of Walden
Steady of Milton
Tagliavia of Corinth
Toof of St. Albans Town
Winter of Ludlow
Charlton of Chester
Coffin of Cavendish