Category: Uncategorized

The US town of Bristol, population around 44,000, is a divided community.

Split between Virginia and Tennessee, the state line runs literally down main street. While both sides have much in common, there is one major difference – abortion is illegal in Tennessee. This has been the case since the 2022 Supreme Court ruling which gave individual states, rather than the federal government, the power to legislate abortion, triggering 12 states to pass near-total bans.

So the city’s only abortion clinic, Bristol Women’s Health, moved less than a mile down the road to continue practising legally in Virginia.

But just because abortion is legal in Virginia it doesn’t mean the battle for abortion access is over.

“It’s like whack-a-mole,” said Barbara Schwartz, the co-founder of SLAAP, the State Line Abortion Access Partnership. They assist people travelling into Virginia to get an abortion at Bristol Women’s Health Clinic.

“As soon as one approach doesn’t work, the anti-abortion crowd pops up in Bristol and tries another.”

On 22 December, Bristol’s Circuit Court will hear the clinic’s case against an eviction notice served by their landlords, brothers Chase and Chadwick King in April 2024.

Lawyers for the clinic argue it has the right to renew its lease for a total of six more years. But if the judge rules in favour of the building’s owners, the clinic will be forced to find a new home.

This is not the landlords’ first attempt to remove the clinic from their property. The brothers claimed that the clinic fraudulently concealed that they perform abortions, to which they maintain to be “adamantly opposed”. The case was dismissed in September last year, with Judge Sage Johnson ruling:

“If [the landlords] had conducted a simple internet search on their tenants, as any reasonably prudent landlord likely would, they would have discovered that the clinic did, in fact, provide abortion services as is plainly stated on their website.”

Clinic owner Diana Derzis, who declined to comment on the hearing, previously stated that she hopes to keep the clinic in the city, even if they are evicted. However, she noted there are few other suitable facilities in Bristol, Virginia.

The clinic leaving Bristol would be a “blow” to abortion access, according to Barbara Schwartz, the co-founder of SLAAP, the State Line Abortion Access Partnership.

Since Roe v Wade was overturned, states where abortions are legal have become destinations for out-of-state abortion seekers, with 155,000 people crossing state lines last year, according to the Guttmacher Institute (GI).

The organisation also found that over 9,200 people travelled to Virginia alone to have the procedure done last year.

“Bristol’s position means the clinic is the closest place by several hours to get a safe and legal abortion for millions of southerners.”

Victoria Cobb, the director of anti-abortion lobbyist the Family Foundation, also notes that Bristol’s location places it at the “epicentre of the debate”.

Ms Cobb launched the first of several efforts to restrict abortion in Bristol by making use of local bylaws. The tactic is being used by anti-abortion campaigners in states which permit abortion. The logic is simple: If you can’t win at Capitol Hill, why not fight at City Hall?

“Locals don’t want to see their town turn into an abortion destination location,” Ms Cobb states. “We’re happy to help them.”

The Family Foundation has argued in the past that the existence of the clinic goes against zoning regulation, which prohibits buildings from being used in a way that could endanger life.

“Why would this not extend to unborn life?” asked Ms Cobb.

Their ordinance said no new clinics should be allowed to open in Bristol, and expansion of the existing clinic should be blocked.

Similar rules have been used in other parts of the US to restrict abortion, including nearby Washington and Russell counties. But Prof Laura Hermer, an expert on abortion regulations in the US, says these efforts are largely “virtue signalling”.

“I’d be surprised if many of these towns have any healthcare, let alone abortion, providers,” she said.

The debate became heated in Bristol, as the council agreed to look into the matter.

“It has been more stressful than dealing with a parking lot. It’s not something that has really come to the local level before,” Jay Detrick, the city’s planning director told the BBC.

Ultimately, the city’s attorney found that imposing restrictions on a medical facility was not in their remit.

Soon after the city decided not to intervene, another group decided to try and shut the clinic down – this one spearheaded by Texas pastor Mark Lee Dickson.

The pastor has lobbied councils across the US to enforce the Comstock Act, a 152-year-old federal law that prohibits sending or receiving material via post which might induce an abortion.

Ninety-three local authorities have passed ordinances to enforce the Comstock Act, even closing a Planned Parenthood clinic in Lubbock, Texas.

Pastor Dickson is hopeful his ordinance filed in Bristol will have the same result. It has not yet been considered by the Council, but he remains optimistic.

“A local government’s tabling or rejecting of such a measure doesn’t by any means mean the initiative is dead,” he told the BBC.

Kimberly Smith, SLAAP’s co-founder, anticipates further campaigns. She says anti-abortion activists target Bristol due to its unusual political make-up:

“They come here because we were a red part of a blue state. If they chip away here, then that weakens the entire framework of a state’s rights.”

Indeed, even if the clinic wins its case this week and can remain in place, its opponents are undeterred, Pastor Dickson tells the BBC.

“As long as the cries of unborn babies are silenced in Bristol there will be an effort to push the City Council to fulfil their obligation to protect unborn Bristolians.”

Items from the Epstein files, including a photo containing Donald Trump, were removed by the justice department from its website because of concerns raised by victims, the deputy attorney general said on Sunday.

The image featuring Trump was later reinstated after review, said Todd Blanche, deputy attorney general.

Mr Blanche rejected criticisms that the removal was related to the US president and said the photo that included him also showed unredacted images of women.

At least 13 files – from thousands released on Friday related to late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein – had disappeared from the website without explanation by Saturday.

Democrats on the House Oversight Committee questioned the images’ removal. In a social media post, they asked Attorney General Pam Bondi: “What else is being covered up?”

The US Department of Justice (DoJ) said in a post on X on Sunday that the image of Trump was flagged by the Southern District of New York “for potential further action to protect victims”.

It added that the image was removed temporarily for further review “out of an abundance of caution”.

“After the review, it was determined there is no evidence that any Epstein victims are depicted in the photograph, and it has been reposted without any alteration or redaction,” the DOJ said, linking to the image in question on its website..

The picture was taken in one of Epstein’s homes, US officials said, and it shows a collection of framed photographs on a cabinet, many of them featuring famous people.

There is an open drawer filled with other photos – one of which shows the president with Epstein, First Lady Melania Trump and Epstein’s convicted associate Ghislane Maxwell.

Blanche called the suggestion that the photo was removed due to Trump “laughable”. “It has nothing to do with President Trump,” he told NBC News.

“There are dozens of photos of President Trump already released to the public seeing him with Mr Epstein.”

He added: “So the absurdity of us pulling down a photo, a single photo, because President Trump was in it, is laughable.”

Blanche cited a judge in New York who “has ordered us to listen to any victim or victims’ rights group if they have concerns” as a reason behind removing some previously posted files.

“There were a number of photographs that were pulled down after being released on Friday,” he said.

Trump has consistently denied any wrongdoing in relation to Epstein and has not been accused of any crimes by Epstein’s victims. There is no suggestion that these pictures imply any wrongdoing.

The DOJ already was under fire for not releasing all of the files by the Friday deadline, as mandated by law.

The justice department documents, which include photos, videos and investigative materials linked to Epstein, were highly anticipated after Congress passed a law mandating their release in their entirety by Friday.

Congressman Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican who led the charge to release the files, said he was frustrated with the Trump administration’s response and his focus is to get justice for the victims.

He said he is drafting inherent contempt charges for Attorney General Pam Bondi.

“They are flouting the spirit and the letter of the law,” he told CBS News on Sunday. “It’s very troubling the posture that they have taken. I won’t be satisfied until the survivors are satisfied.”

Ten of the missing files include images showing apparently the same room in Epstein’s home – a small massage parlour with clouds painted on the ceiling, and brown patterned wallpaper studded with multiple nudes. Some appear to be photos, others are artwork.

Most of the women pictured on the wall have had their faces redacted. However, one face is redacted in one file but plainly visible in three of the others. Another face remains unredacted in all of the files while a painted image of the same person is visible.

The documents released on Friday came to light as the result of an act of Congress that forced the DOJ to release them.

The DOJ said it would comply with the congressional request to release documents, with some stipulations.

It redacted personally identifiable information about Epstein’s victims, materials depicting child sexual abuse, materials depicting physical abuse, any records that “would jeopardise an active federal investigation” or any classified documents that must stay secret to protect “national defence or foreign policy”.

But many of the documents that were released were heavily redacted.

There was limited new information about Epstein’s crimes and things like internal DOJ memos on charging decisions were not included in the files that were released.

Additional reporting by Alison Benjamin and Benedict Garman.

Follow the twists and turns of Trump’s second term with North America correspondent Anthony Zurcher’s weekly US Politics Unspun newsletter. Readers in the UK can sign up here. Those outside the UK can sign up here.