Beverly Hills city officials have faced scrutiny for allegedly obstructing the establishment of an abortion clinic within the city last year, as reported by an investigation conducted by the California Department of Justice. The inquiry revealed that the city delayed permit approvals and pressured the property owner, effectively violating state protections for reproductive rights. As a result, the city is now mandated to implement thorough training for its staff regarding state and federal regulations affecting abortion services, and it must create a system for reporting any potential violations to the state, according to a stipulated judgment announced by California Attorney General Rob Bonta.
This case marks the first action taken by the state under Proposition 1, a voter-approved measure in 2022 that incorporated the principle of “reproductive freedom” into California’s constitution. Bonta, who is contemplating a gubernatorial run in 2026, emphasized the settlement serves as a cautionary message to other local governments contemplating similar actions that hinder access to abortion. When asked about ongoing investigations, Bonta declined to provide specific details.
“In California, actions that restrict reproductive rights can happen even in cities with strong protections,” he stated in an interview. Bonta reassured that his office will actively investigate and intervene in any other jurisdictions that might follow Beverly Hills’ example. However, the city maintains its stance, denying any misconduct with officials asserting support for reproductive health providers and women’s rights.
Amidst these events, city council member John Mirisch voiced his dissent against the stipulated judgment, claiming it unfairly targeted Beverly Hills, which has a significant Jewish population, while he felt other pressing issues like rising anti-Semitism were being overlooked. He criticized the Attorney General’s office for using the situation as a political tool to draw attention to itself rather than addressing broader community concerns.
In response to Mirisch’s remarks, Bonta labeled the city’s defense as mere rhetoric and insisted that if Beverly Hills was innocent, it would not have agreed to the settlement. According to him, the city’s actions were intentionally damaging to the rights of the clinic and its potential patients. The case has raised awareness among activists and state officials about California’s supposed status as a sanctuary for abortion rights, particularly after the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn federal protections in 2022.
Despite California’s robust legal framework supporting abortion rights, the obstacles faced in Beverly Hills illustrate the challenges that still exist. Conservative leaders have obstructed the launch of additional abortion clinics in other areas for the past two years, and numerous counties remain without any abortion services. Particularly problematic is the law that restricts abortion access once viability is reached, complicating care for those needing services later in pregnancy.
DuPont Clinic, a Washington, D.C.-based provider capable of performing abortions into the third trimester, aimed to set up a facility in Beverly Hills to address the lack of late-term abortion services. Prior to its opening, the clinic encountered aggressive opposition from anti-abortion protestors, leading to heightened security concerns among city officials. Records indicate that amid public proclamations supporting abortion rights, Beverly Hills froze permits for DuPont’s project to reconsider the legitimacy of the clinic’s operation within the property.
Further, city officials engaged in discussions with both the landlord and anti-abortion advocates concerning safety apprehensions, culminating in the claim that the clinic would endanger other tenants. The investigation concluded that Beverly Hills violated its obligations by delaying permit approvals and pressuring the property owner until its lease was terminated midway through 2023.
In response to these actions, DuPont Clinic has initiated legal proceedings against both Beverly Hills and the landlord for their alleged collusion with protestors aiming to oust the clinic. Although city officials dispute this characterization, abortion rights activists are rallying to hold Beverly Hills accountable for what they perceive as a breach of the city’s public commitment to reproductive rights, motivated by a desire to quell opposition from anti-abortion entities.
The resolution agreement with the Justice Department leaves open questions regarding its implications for DuPont’s ongoing legal battles and efforts to establish a clinic in California. A representative for DuPont noted they are currently reviewing the legal memo related to the case.
Dr. Jennefer Russo, Chief Medical Officer of DuPont, reaffirmed their commitment to ensuring access to abortion services in California despite these challenges. Earlier this year, the California Legislature passed a law designed to expedite the approval process for reproductive health clinics, potentially simplifying the establishment of these facilities in communities resistant to abortion access. This legislation is part of a broader strategy aimed at countering rising conservative movements against the state’s liberal policies.