Colorado abortion clinics report uptick in protesters and trespassing
Abortion rights supporters march in Denver in the wake of a leaked Supreme Court opinion that indicated justices would overturn Roe v. Wade on May 7, 2022. (Kevin Mohatt for Colorado Newsline)
When volunteers in Pueblo, Colorado, escort patients to abortion clinics, they have umbrellas on hand to create a visual barrier in case nearby protesters try to intimidate patients.
They also play music to 'drown out the harassment and create a calmer atmosphere,' Pueblo ProChoice President Jacquelyn Bernal said.
If those deescalation tactics don't work and situations escalate beyond what her organization can control, they contact law enforcement, Bernal said.
'Our first priority is getting the patient inside safely so they can make it to their appointment without interference,' Bernal said in a statement. 'The bubble law is part of Colorado's criminal code, and it's there to protect patients and providers. We just need it to be enforced.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Colorado's 'bubble law' prohibits anyone from approaching people within 100 feet of a health care facility, including abortion clinics. It was crafted to curb the practice of protesters trying to dissuade patients from seeking abortions.
Most Colorado abortion providers who participated in research by the National Abortion Federation said they experienced trespassing and protests outside their clinics in 2023 and 2024, according to a recent report.
Of the 17 Colorado abortion providers that participated, 65% experienced at least one incident of trespassing, 53% reported protestors outside, 24% experienced an incident of obstruction, and 18% received threats.
A spokesperson for the National Abortion Federation said Colorado providers received 216 suspicious, harassing or threatening calls, mail, emails or social media posts, compared with 150 in the previous report covering 2020-2022. A similar number of providers participated in the both reports but not the exact same group.
Providers reported 27 instances of trespassing in the most recent report compared with 17 in the previous, 10 instances of vandalism compared with eight, eight instances of obstruction compared with seven, and five threats of death or harm compared with three.
Bernal said while Colorado's bubble law exists to prevent 'exactly this kind of intimidation,' law enforcement needs to better enforce it.
'Law enforcement must do their part to protect patients,' Bernal said. 'When federal protections fall short, it's up to our communities and our state to step up. We need to protect each other and uphold the right to seek health care safely.'
Providers in Colorado have consistently seen higher numbers of people seeking abortion care and have adapted to meet the new demand after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Every state except New Mexico that borders Colorado has some abortion restrictions. Nearby Texas does, too.
About 62% of Colorado voters in November approved Amendment 79, which enshrined access to abortion as a right in the Colorado Constitution. The Colorado Legislature approved a measure implementing the amendment, and also passed several shield laws to protect providers and out-of-state patients.
Christie Burkhardt, director of facilities and infrastructure operations at the Boulder Valley Health Center, joined the center's team shortly after the 2022 Supreme Court decision upending national abortion rights to help with the uptick in demand and oversee security.
Between Burkhardt's start with the center in July 2022 and October 2024, she said she only reached out to local law enforcement over disruptions twice. Since October 2024, as the presidential election approached and rhetoric on abortion rights grew, she has called law enforcement 17 times for assistance with disruptions at the clinic. She said she has gotten to know the local police department 'very well' in the last six months.
The center, which offers the full spectrum of reproductive health care, sees protesters at the public sidewalk next to its parking lot two to three times per week as of fall 2024, Burkhardt said. Small groups of people will try to talk to patients and clinic staff for anywhere from half an hour to full days, she said. Burkhardt said protesters are 'very emboldened' after the Trump administration pardoned protesters convicted under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act and halted its enforcement.
'That can get very frightening for folks that have never been approached and have never had to deal with someone protesting what they do and at their work place, so our team has definitely had to learn a little bit on the fly,' Burkhardt said.
She said harassing and threatening phone calls also increased at the center, particularly after the Boulder Abortion Clinic — one of the few clinics in the country that offered late-term abortions — shut its doors at the end of April. The center also receives about 10-15 pieces of threatening mail a month.
Staff canceled a sex ed summer camp planned for 5th grade to 8th grade students out of safety concerns after the center garnered national attention online from right-wing media and other abortion opponents. Burkhardt said she has weekly conversations with clinic staff about safety, and they've developed new policies to ensure the safety of staff and patients.
Karen Middleton, president of Cobalt, which advocates for access to reproductive health care and runs an abortion fund in Colorado, said her organization remains in contact with its partner clinics to gather feedback on their concerns and needs around clinic safety.
'Reports like these really emphasize why states like Colorado must take action on their own to ensure patients and providers are protected now that federal protection is not guaranteed,' Middleton said in a statement.
Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, which operates about a dozen clinics across the state, declined to comment for this article.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
22 minutes ago
- Axios
Democrats more likely than Republicans to boycott brands, new survey
Why it matters: These murky expectations highlight the complicated environment businesses are currently operating in. What they're saying: "Businesses need to understand how their brand aligns to current issues and the values that matter to their customer base," says Mallory Newall, vice president at Ipsos. "Brands cannot please everyone, and wading into the political fray does not come without risk. It needs to be done in a strategic way. However, there are potential upsides if companies have a clear understanding of who they're talking to and who their customers are. Those who act inauthentically will lose ground in this environment," she added. State of play: There's a disconnect in what consumers say and what they do. 53% of Americans say they are less likely to buy from a company that takes a stance they don't agree with, but only 30% actually do. Between the lines: A company's political or social stances influence Democrats more than Republicans, per the survey. Democrats are more likely to boycott (40%) than Republicans (24%), but they are also 2x more likely to go out of their way to support a brand that aligns with their values. Target is the latest American corporation to grapple with these boycotts, following its retreat from diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. Of note: Boycotting is a luxury afforded to those with disposable income, per the survey. Households with incomes of $100k and above are 50% more likely to stop buying from a company they disagree with than those households making $50k and below. What to watch: 67% of Democrats say they are closely tracking how companies respond to pending Supreme Court decisions, compared to 52% of Republicans. There is more appetite across party lines for business commentary on economic issues — like inflation and trade policies — than other policy issues. The bottom line: "The data suggest that Democratic consumers are much more likely to actually follow through on the threat to withhold or reduce spending when they disagree with brands during this era of complete GOP control," says Matt House, managing partner at CLYDE.
Axios
22 minutes ago
- Axios
Supreme Court rejects higher bar for straight workers to prove discrimination
Workers who are white, heterosexual or a member of another "majority group" don't need to provide extra evidence to prove workplace discrimination, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday. The big picture: The case concerned a heterosexual woman who was passed over for a promotion, then demoted. She alleged that she was discriminated against in favor of LGBT employees. A lower court ruled that when a member of a majority group — in this case, someone who's heterosexual — wants to bring a discrimination suit, they have to provide extra evidence to prove that they work for "that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority." No they don't, the Supreme Court said. Federal nondiscrimination law protects every individual under the same standards.
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court sides with straight woman in decision that makes it easier to file ‘reverse discrimination' suits
The Supreme Court on Thursday sided with a straight woman in Ohio who filed a 'reverse discrimination' lawsuit against her employer when her gay boss declined to promote her. The ruling will make it easier to file such suits in some parts of the country. Despite the politically divisive debate playing out over workplace diversity efforts – a fight that has been fueled by President Donald Trump – a unanimous coalition of conservative and liberal justices were in the majority. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the opinion for the court. 'Our case law thus makes clear that the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group,' Jackson wrote. Marlean Ames started working for Ohio's state government in 2004 and steadily rose through the ranks at the Department of Youth Services. She claims that in 2017, she started reporting to a gay boss and was passed over for a promotion that was offered to another gay woman. Ames is challenging a requirement applied in five appeals courts across the nation that 'majority' Americans raising discrimination claims must demonstrate 'background circumstances' in order to pursue their suit. A plaintiff might meet that requirement, for instance, by providing statistical evidence documenting a pattern of discrimination against members of a majority. Ames couldn't do that and so she lost in the lower courts. An employee who is a member of a minority group does not face that same initial hurdle. The requirement was rooted in the notion that it is unusual for an employer to discriminate against a member of a majority group. But neither federal anti-discrimination law nor Supreme Court precedent speak to creating one set of requirements for a majority employee to file a discrimination suit and a different set for a minority employee. During oral arguments in the case in late February, it was clear Ames had widespread support from the justices. Citing the 'background circumstances' requirement, the Cincinnati-based 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for Ohio. Federal appeals courts based in Denver, St. Louis, Chicago and Washington, DC, applied that same standard, according to court records. At a moment when Trump has politicized workplace diversity efforts, both the court's conservative and liberal justices – as well as the attorneys arguing the case – appeared to agree that the 6th Circuit's analysis was wrong. The case landed on the Supreme Court's docket last fall, about a month before Trump was elected on a pledge to clamp down diversity and inclusion efforts in both the government and the private sector. The administration has taken a number of steps in that direction, including but attempting to cut funding to entities federal officials allege have supported DEI efforts. Many of those actions are being reviewed by courts. But Ames' case was more procedural. Notably, both the Trump and Biden administrations agreed that the 6th Circuit should reconsider its approach. CNN's Hannah Rabinowitz contributed to this report. This story has been updated with additional developments.
