The American city of Bristol, with a population of around 44,000, is a community divided between Virginia and Tennessee: the line that marks the border between the states literally runs down the middle of the main street.
Although both camps have a lot in common, there is one big difference: abortion is illegal in Tennessee.
This has happened since the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling, which gave states — and no longer the federal government — the power to legislate on abortion, leading 12 states to approve near-total bans.
So the city’s only abortion clinic, Bristol Women’s Health, moved less than a mile away to continue operating legally in Virginia.
But just because abortion is legal in Virginia doesn’t mean the fight for access to the procedure is over.
“It’s a never-ending conflict,” said Barbara Schwartz, co-founder of SLAAP, the Stateline Abortion Access Partnership. The group helps people who travel to Virginia obtain abortions at the Bristol Women’s Health clinic.
“As soon as one approach no longer works, the anti-abortion group shows up in Bristol and tries another.”
On December 22, a Bristol court will consider the clinic’s action against an eviction notice issued by its owners, brothers Chase and Chadwick King, in April 2024.
The clinic’s lawyers argue that there is the right to renew the lease for a total of six additional years. But if the judge rules in favor of the owners of the building, the clinic will be forced to look for a new address.
This is not the owners’ first attempt to remove the clinic from the property. The brothers alleged that the clinic fraudulently concealed the fact that it performed abortions – a practice they say they are “vehemently opposed to.” The case was dismissed in September last year, when Justice Sage Johnson ruled:
“If (the landlords) had conducted a simple Internet search among their tenants, as any reasonably prudent landlord would likely do, they would have discovered that the clinic did indeed provide abortion services, as is clearly stated on its website.”
Clinic owner Diana Derzis, who declined to comment on the case, previously said she hoped to keep the clinic in the city even if evicted. She points out that there are few other suitable facilities in Bristol, Virginia.
The Bristol clinic’s departure would be a “big blow” to abortion access, according to Barbara Schwartz, co-founder of Slaap, the State Line Abortion Access Partnership.
Since Roe v. Wade (U.S. Supreme Court ruling on abortion) was overturned, states where abortion is legal became destinations for people coming from other states to have the procedure. According to the Guttmacher Institute, around 155,000 people crossed national borders last year.
The organization also found that more than 9,200 people traveled to Virginia just for the procedure during the same period.
“Bristol’s location makes the clinic the closest place, within hours, for millions of people in the American South to obtain a safe, legal abortion.”
Victoria Cobb, director of the anti-abortion lobby group Family Foundation, says Bristol’s location puts it at “the epicenter of the debate”.
Cobb launched the first in a series of initiatives to restrict abortion in Bristol using city ordinances. This tactic has been adopted by anti-abortion activists in states where abortion is legal. The logic is simple: if you can’t win at the Capitol, why not fight at City Hall?
“Residents don’t want to see their town become a destination for abortion,” Cobb says. “We are happy to help them.”
The Family Foundation has argued in the past that the clinic’s existence goes against zoning rules, which prohibit buildings from being used in a way that could endanger lives.
“Why wouldn’t this extend to unborn life?” » asked Victoria Cobb.
The group’s proposal said no new clinics could be opened in Bristol and expansion of the existing clinic would be prohibited.
Similar rules have been used in other parts of the United States to restrict abortion, including in neighboring Washington and Russell counties.
Professor Laura Hermer, an expert on abortion regulation in the United States, says these initiatives largely constitute a kind of “virtue signaling.”
“I would be surprised if these towns had any kind of health care system, let alone abortion services,” she said.
The debate heated up in Bristol when the city council agreed to examine the issue.
“It’s been more stressful than dealing with parking. It’s not a problem that has arisen locally before,” Jay Detrick, the city’s planning director, told the BBC.
Ultimately, the city attorney concluded that imposing restrictions on a health care facility was not City Hall’s responsibility.
Shortly after the city decided not to intervene, another group decided to try to shut down the clinic – this time led by Texas pastor Mark Lee Dickson.
The pastor has pushed city councils across the United States to enforce the Comstock Act, a 152-year-old federal law that prohibits sending or receiving, through the mail, material that could induce an abortion.
A total of 93 local authorities have already approved regulations to implement the Comstock Act, including leading to the closure of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Lubbock.
Pastor Dickson hopes the rule he introduced in Bristol will have the same result. The proposal has not yet been analyzed by the city council, but he says he is optimistic.
“The fact that a local government postpones or rejects a measure like this in no way means that the initiative is dead,” he told the BBC.
Kimberly Smith, co-founder of Slaap, imagines that there will be new campaigns of this type. According to her, anti-abortion activists are targeting Bristol because of its unusual political makeup:
“They’re coming here because we were a red (Republican) part of a blue (Democratic) state. If they can get ahead here, it will undermine the entire state’s rights structure.”
Even if the clinic wins the case this week and can continue operating there, its opponents remain determined, Dickson told the BBC.
“As long as the cries of unborn babies are silenced in Bristol, efforts will be made to pressure the city council to fulfill its obligation to protect unborn Bristolians.”
The text was originally published here.
About The Author
