The Brief

The billboards popped up in January, looming above busy intersections near the city limits of Beverly Hills, where such advertising is banned.

“Los Angeles should be SAFE for abortion seekers,” declared the signs, which depicted a group of four young women of color staring defiantly at passersby. “Fight back against attempts to shut down DuPont Clinic.”

Weeks later, at a forum ahead of Beverly Hills’ March city council election, moderator Andrea Grossman pressed the crowded table of candidates about their position on abortion rights.

“Are you pro-choice, and what is your view about abortion clinics in Beverly Hills?” she asked. “Would you take steps to keep out abortion clinics in the city if there were likely to be disruptive protests?”

Nearly a year after DuPont Clinic — a Washington, D.C., provider that performs abortions into the third trimester and sought to open a clinic in one of California’s wealthiest and most famous communities — lost its lease at a medical center on Wilshire Boulevard, Grossman and a small band of local activists are still laboring to draw a spotlight and stoke a sense of outrage that matches their own.

Despite the sympathetic politics of Beverly Hills, which lit its city hall pink to protest the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court Dobbs decision that overturned a constitutional right to abortion, it has been a struggle. While more than two-thirds of local voters joined Californians statewide that November to enshrine “reproductive freedom” in California’s constitution, few of them now seem to be paying attention to what Grossman calls a “hideous” situation that undermines that very protection.

On a recent afternoon, Grossman sat in her living room with other members of a group they founded last fall to demand attention and accountability for DuPont Clinic — furious that Beverly Hills had failed to stand up to anti-abortion protestors and defend a provider offering a procedure not commonly available elsewhere, and frustrated that liberals remain oblivious to the threats to abortion access in their own backyard.

“In 2023, to have to start Beverly Hills for Choice,” she said, “how crazy is that?”

‘Feeling the backlash’ to abortion rights

Reproductive rights have dominated the political landscape across the country since the end of Roe v. Wade and California is no exception. In the wake of the ruling, Gov. Gavin Newsom and other Democratic state leaders vowed to turn California into a “haven” for abortion rights, placing the constitutional amendment, known as Proposition 1, on the ballot and passing dozens of other new laws to protect doctors, expand the number of providers and fund travel for patients.

Just last week, Newsom and the Legislative Women’s Caucus introduced a bill that would allow Arizona abortion providers to temporarily treat their patients in California after a strict abortion ban takes effect in Arizona in June.

But with the heightened focus on accommodating the expected influx of patients from conservative states that banned or restricted abortion, California has largely overlooked the limitations on access in its own borders.

Many counties have no abortion clinics at all. Because the procedure is prohibited once a fetus can live outside the womb (around 24 weeks of pregnancy) except when the life or health of the mother is threatened, most providers will not treat women who need abortions late in their pregnancy, forcing them to leave California for care. There are no gestational limits in nine states and Washington, D.C. — where DuPont Clinic performs abortions up to 32 weeks.

At least two other proposed California abortion clinics have also been blocked from opening in the past two years because of local opposition in more conservative areas: Visalia, one of the largest cities in the Central Valley, and Fontana, the second-most populous city in San Bernardino County.

“We are feeling the backlash of the state taking a very strong stand in support of very strong access,” said state Sen. Toni Atkins, a San Diego Democrat who ushered Proposition 1 onto the ballot. “The more rights people seem to gain, the more those who are directly opposed become more vocal.”

Abortion rights protesters confront an anti-abortion demonstrator at a rally in Los Angeles on May 14, 2022.

(

Ringo Chiu

/

AP

)

Jon Dunn, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Orange and San Bernardino Counties, said the organized resistance is more intense than he’s ever seen in his 30-year career. Aggressive demonstrations now require full-time security staff at every clinic, he said, while local officials who might have once backed down under threat of a lawsuit are standing firm.

“It ramped up after (Donald) Trump and then it ramped up again after the Dobbs decision,” Dunn said. “The folks on the extreme of the issue are more extreme and more willing to dig in.”

The Planned Parenthood affiliate has been trying to open a new clinic in Fontana since 2022. The permit process was first delayed for months by what Dunn said were “absurd corrections” from city officials to their building plan, such as demanding sconces for decorative lighting. Shortly after the permits were finally approved last summer, the city council passed an emergency moratorium on development in the section of Fontana where the proposed clinic was located.

Now the Planned Parenthood affiliate is suing Fontana, alleging that it violated residents’ right to access reproductive services as established by Proposition 1 — a broad legal argument that Dunn hopes could prevent another city from doing the same thing in the future.

“We saw this pattern developing of municipalities using their power to prevent reproductive health centers from opening,” Dunn said. “We felt it was time to draw a line in the sand.”

The city of Fontana has denied that it targeted Planned Parenthood, calling the emergency moratorium “a strategic and necessary measure in the planning process as Fontana progresses with the highly anticipated redevelopment of the important downtown and commercial corridor.”

State leaders have been slow to get involved in these local battles.

The office of Attorney General Rob Bonta is reportedly investigating the Beverly Hills case, but a spokesperson declined to confirm the investigation or discuss their strategy for protecting abortion access in California.

At a press conference about the bill for Arizona abortion providers, Newsom refused to answer a question from CalMatters about whether his administration is doing anything to address the barriers preventing clinics from opening in California.

Another measure currently moving through the Legislature could help: Assembly Bill 2085 by Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, an Orinda Democrat, would create a streamlined approval process for reproductive health clinics that meet certain development criteria.

“Just listening to the amount of work that our abortion providers are putting in to get the permits, it’s shocking to me,” Bauer-Kahan said. “There’s always a new front that people who want to deny access to health care will find and we need to show them that California will continue to be vigilant.”

‘The gap between values and action’

Activists have been particularly struck by the conflict in Beverly Hills because the community is a Democratic stronghold in a blue state — demonstrating what they regard as a lack of courage by politicians to prioritize abortion rights in a polarized society.

Bonyen Lee-Gilmore, vice president of communications for the National Institute for Reproductive Health, an abortion access advocacy organization that paid for the billboards about DuPont Clinic, said its campaign was a warning that “this can happen anywhere” if people are complacent about reproductive rights and a call to demand accountability for elected officials who did not step up to defend the clinic’s right to open.

“We have had a long-running problem with standing in the gap between values and action,” Lee-Gilmore said.

DuPont Clinic never opened in Beverly Hills and never served a single patient there. The matter is now headed to court after DuPont last year separately sued Beverly Hills and Douglas Emmett, Inc., the landlord that rescinded its lease, alleging they “colluded and conspired with the protestors to try to drive DuPont out of the City.” The case against the city, which has sought a dismissal on free speech grounds, is set for a hearing today about discovery.

A spokesperson for Beverly Hills did not respond to a detailed list of questions about how it handled the controversy over DuPont Clinic, citing the lawsuit.

“The City is already home to medical offices that offer reproductive health services and has been very clear on its position of strongly supporting a person’s right to choose,” spokesperson Lauren Santillana said in an emailed statement. “The decision to rescind DuPont Clinic’s lease was not made by the City of Beverly Hills.”

According to its lawsuits, DuPont chose Beverly Hills as the site for its second clinic in part because it believed the city would support it. After the company announced its plans in late 2022, anti-abortion protestors began showing up outside the building where DuPont had leased an office, but renovations and permit applications with the city continued.

The medical building where the DuPont clinic was planned in Beverly Hills, on April 16, 2024. Photo by Jules Hotz for CalMatters

(

Jules Hotz

/

CalMatters

)

The situation escalated in April 2023. First, on April 10, the group Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust projected the words “MURDER MILL” onto the side of the building during one of its protests and DuPont contacted the local police department about security concerns. A week later, three opponents spoke during a city council meeting, with one suggesting that Beverly Hills would develop a “reputation of condoning murder” if it allowed the clinic to open.

“DuPont Clinic has chosen Beverly Hills to host a massacre,” Tasha Barker, a Sacramento paralegal leading a group called Stop DuPont Clinic, said by phone at the meeting. “I am asking you to consider how extreme this clinic is, pause the approval of their building permits and place this issue on the agenda for the next city council meeting.”

During the meeting, Beverly Hills City Manager Nancy Hunt-Coffey emailed members of the council with more information about DuPont Clinic, according to documents obtained by Beverly Hills for Choice through a public records request. It included a warning: “Late-term abortion clinics can be the focus of protests, rallies and unfortunately other more violent actions on occasion.”

“How did this get through?” Councilmember Sharona Nazarian responded.

“Well, it’s a private business renting space in a private building,” Hunt-Coffey replied. “We don’t have anything in our code that prevents it…”

Barker followed up by email with several council members the next day, arguing that it was “quite offensive to the community of Beverly Hills” that DuPont had chosen the city and requesting a meeting to “explain some of the practical, unemotional reasons” why the clinic should not be allowed.

Nazarian replied that she was open to learning more. Over the next few weeks, emails show city employees planning with the city attorney and local law enforcement for a meeting with Barker, which was scheduled for May 19. It’s unclear what was ultimately discussed.

The entrance to the Beverly Hills City Council chamber and the exterior of Beverly Hills City Hall, on April 16, 2024.

(

Jules Hotz

/

CalMatters

)

Barker would only speak with CalMatters if a reporter signed a contract agreeing to conditions that included allowing her to “review and make edits” to this story prior to publication. CalMatters refused because that would violate our editorial policies.

In the Beverly Hills council chambers earlier this month, Nazarian declined to answer questions, before Deputy City Manager Keith Sterling stepped in front of a CalMatters reporter to end the conversation.

“As someone who has always supported a person’s right to choose, I am proud that our City already provides high quality reproductive services,” Nazarian wrote in an email. “As an elected official committed to transparency and accessibility, I make it a point to meet with any group or individual, when requested.”

‘A political basis’ or safety concerns?

Meanwhile, the week after the city council meeting where opponents raised objections to DuPont Clinic, the abortion provider learned that Beverly Hills had placed a hold on its project while City Attorney Laurence Wiener reviewed whether it was an allowed use for the building, according to emails and DuPont’s lawsuit.

Following a phone conversation with Wiener, a lawyer for DuPont agreed to provide a letter confirming that the clinic would not violate California law with any services it provided. A few days later — after DuPont’s chief medical officer, Dr. Jennefer Russo, emailed the city council to complain about the permit delays — the hold was lifted.

Jessica Corpuz, an attorney representing DuPont Clinic, told CalMatters the abortion provider was “always, always going to operate within California law,” which only allows abortions after fetal viability when the life or health of the mother is threatened. She said Beverly Hills officials appeared to take some of the complaints of “anti-abortion extremists” to heart and “interject themselves in the process” in a way that they would not have for other medical practices.

“It was clear from the beginning that it was a political basis,” Corpuz said.

The DuPont lawsuit alleges that around the same time, the city met with representatives from landlord Douglas Emmett and directly asked if there was any way to “simply prevent DuPont from opening its clinic.”

Emails show that in the weeks that followed, city officials, including from the police department, continued to meet with Douglas Emmett representatives about safety concerns and drafted a letter for distribution to other tenants of the building. It warned that they could face violence, vandalism, harassment and intimidation because an unnamed “new reproductive health care provider” was opening.

“I thought he was going to suggest a locking door for the garage, security to get in the elevators, security offers with/without guns, bomb sniffing dogs etc.” then-Mayor Julian Gold, who did not respond to interview requests, wrote in an email after reviewing a draft. “I don’t mind turning up the heat a little.”

Though the letter was never sent, it was cited by Douglas Emmett on June 12, 2023, when the landlord canceled DuPont’s lease. The notice, emailed to DuPont with six Beverly Hills officials copied, accused DuPont of withholding information during lease negotiations about its services and the severity of protests that it would face, which DuPont denies. A spokesperson for Douglas Emmett said the company does not comment on matters in litigation.

DuPont, in its lawsuit, said this joint email was clearly intended by Douglas Emmett “to notify the City that it had done what the City instructed it to do.” Beverly Hills treated the clinic as the problem, said Corpuz, the DuPont attorney, instead of focusing on how to keep everyone safe.

“The implication is that there is really scary things that are going to happen as a result of DuPont Clinic moving into this building,” she said. “It’s really sad, really scary, to see that all it takes is a couple of anti-abortion protesters going to a city council meeting.”

‘They betrayed the voters of California’

Despite the controversy, many Beverly Hills residents were entirely unaware of DuPont Clinic and the protests against it. Grossman and her fellow activists learned about the situation from news coverage of the lawsuits last summer. Infuriated, they formed Beverly Hills for Choice to push back, though by then, it was unclear that it would make a difference.

In addition to its records request, Beverly Hills for Choice collected signatures for an online petition asking the city for an independent investigation, a swift resolution to the lawsuit and an ordinance prohibiting cooperation with out-of-state entities looking into abortions performed in California. Those demands have so far been ignored.

Members also unsuccessfully sought help from Democratic politicians representing the area, whom they hoped might intervene and push for another solution, including U.S. Rep. Ted Lieu, state Sen. Ben Allen and Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur. Lieu and Chavez Zbur declined to comment for this story; Allen said in a statement he is “hopeful that the provider and the City can work together to ensure that area patients can get the access they need.”

Andrea Grossman, left, and Gay Abrams, two members of Beverly Hills for Choice, on April 16, 2024.

(

Jules Hotz

/

CalMatters

)

Gay Abrams, a member of Beverly Hills for Choice, said she found the city’s handling of the situation hypocritical, given its public stance in support of reproductive freedom, and she worried that it would empower abortion opponents to use the same strategy elsewhere. Though she understood the heightened sensitivities around a clinic that performs abortions into the third trimester, she said it should not have mattered because of the protections guaranteed by Proposition 1.

“They kowtowed to a group of anti-abortion extremists,” Abrams said. “They betrayed the residents and they betrayed the voters of California. And I think they betrayed people and women all over the country who are in need of safe reproductive health care.”

The Beverly Hills for Choice activists argue that, in the emails they obtained, city officials never consider whether they have an obligation to protect DuPont Clinic’s right to operate. The activists believe the city was primarily concerned with appeasing protestors to avoid the “messiness” that would follow if the clinic opened.

In another series of exchanges, from July 2023, city officials including then-Mayor Gold communicated and set up meetings with Tim Clement, outreach director for Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust, about further protests his group had planned outside the medical center where DuPont was no longer opening. After Clement wrote in an email that “we would be willing to turn our campaign in another direction out of Beverly Hills” if the city would provide a written statement that “DuPont is definitely NOT moving into Beverly Hills City limits,” Deputy City Manager Sterling confirmed that “the lease has been rescinded.”

Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust touts that it shut down DuPont Clinic in Beverly Hills, including with signs at its booth last week at the California March for Life rally at the state Capitol.

“Activism works. It’s meant to cause concern about how this is going to affect your neighborhood,” Clement said in an interview. “But mainly what activism does is make people aware. It exposes what’s in the dark.”

With significant funds sunk into the office renovation, attorney Corpuz said DuPont Clinic still hopes to open in Beverly Hills, but she acknowledged that may never happen.

The Beverly Hills for Choice activists also have their doubts. They wonder whether there will be any accountability for how DuPont was treated.

“I’m looking for people to own up to it,” Grossman said. “I do want more than a slap on the wrist. I don’t know what that looks like.”

On a tour of Orange County’s voting headquarters on Wednesday, Registrar Bob Page demonstrated the careful, multi-step process through which voters’ ballots are validated and counted.

As the federal government raises the specter of unsubstantiated voter fraud, Page’s message was clear: “ I want voters to know that we're doing everything we can to make sure they can vote safely and securely."

More than 380,000 Orange County ballots have been returned as of Oct. 27, Page said. That’s about 80,000 more ballots than was received around the same time in 2022, the last mid-term elections.

Orange County Registrar of Voters Bob Page addresses the media and other members of the public in attendance as part of a tour of the voting operations on Wednesday, less than one week before Election Day.

(

Kavish Harjai

/

LAist.com

)

The journey of a ballot in Orange County

Collecting, and counting, all those ballots takes time. Page explained that two-person teams are dispatched to collect dropped-off ballots every day during election season.

The ballot drop-off boxes in Orange County are made of steel, weigh more than 1,000 pounds and are bolted to the concrete, Page said.

The ballot retrieval duos are required to follow a strict process to ensure the chain of custody remains secure, including taking photos showing they’ve picked up the ballots, properly locked the retrieval door and that the internal fire suppression canister is intact.

The locations of the two-person teams are GPS-tracked by separate teams, which also review the photo evidence before giving the ballot retrieval duos the green light to go to their next stops.

An overhead camera shows the process that occurs after the signatures on a ballot have been verified and the ballot is then ready to be counted.

(

Kavish Harjai

/

LAist.com

)

Signature verification

Once a ballot reaches the Registrar of Voters’ office, the next step is ensuring the signature on the envelope matches the voter's signatures in their registration file.

“If we do challenge [a signature], we’re required under state law to send a first-class letter notice to that voter,” Page said, adding that state statute affords voters until the day before Thanksgiving this year to correct errant signatures.

Page said three election workers must agree that enough of a discrepancy exists before the decision to challenge a signature is made.

Around 1.9% of the nearly 718,000 vote-by-mail ballots returned in the June primary election in Orange County were rejected, largely due to signature mismatch or because they weren’t received in time, according to the California Secretary of State.

Verified ballots are then separated from their envelopes and sorted before they’re prepared to be scanned and, finally, counted. The equipment used to tally votes isn’t connected to the internet, and access to the room the equipment is housed in is limited, according to Page.

Threats from the federal government

On Wednesday evening, a federal judge denied an emergency request from the Department of Justice to segregate 20,000 ballots across California that the federal government said were sent to “likely” noncitizens.

More than 1,750 of those people identified were in Orange County, according to a letter Bill Essayli, top federal prosecutor for the Central District of California, delivered to the county registrar’s office Monday.

The Department of Justice said it will appeal the ruling from U.S. District Court Judge David Carter, who, in his decision, said the federal government’s attempted move could “wreak havoc and disrupt the election that is already underway.”

California Attorney Gen. Rob Bonta called the ruling an “important victory,” but warned “the fight is not over.”

On Wednesday, before the ruling came down, Bonta released resources about election integrity in the state, including guidance for local election officials if law enforcement attempts to “access election sites where ballots are cast, processed, or counted.”

Page said he’s fielded more questions from the public this year about the potential for law enforcement to interfere in the election. He said he will have open lines of communication with partners with the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services and  Orange County Intelligence Assessment Center should the threat arise.

What’s on your ballot?

Our LAist Voter Game Plan is here to help guide you through the Nov. 3 election with guides to races across Los Angeles and Orange counties — and that long list of state propositions — to help you cast a ballot that’s in line with your own personal beliefs and values.

But the one thing we don’t do? We don’t tell you how to vote. That part is left up to you.

You can find it all at LAist.com/Vote.

The U.S. Justice Department has issued subpoenas to California officials in an escalation of its scrutiny of local election administration.

The Associated Press obtained copies of three subpoenas sent Oct. 21 to employees of the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder, ordering them to appear in court on Nov. 4, the day after the election. The documents request any records, documents and communications related to letters sent in July and October by federal officials to state election officials outlining allegations of noncitizens on the state’s voter rolls. The subpoenas also seek information relating to the office’s “methods for screening for unlawful voting by aliens” and anything about efforts to prevent noncitizen votes from being counted.

The subpoenas were being issued by all four U.S. attorneys in California, according to a person familiar with the matter who insisted on anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation.

Dean Logan, the Los Angeles County registrar, said, “threats and intimidated have no place in elections.”

Subpoenas come amid ongoing court battle

The Trump administration has sued to force California to set aside up to 20,000 ballots it suspects went to noncitizens and not count them until citizenship can be verified. A district court judge on Tuesday rejected that request, then on Thursday appointed a special master to evaluate the administration’s claims.

U.S. District Judge David O. Carter did not specify the exact scope of special master Daniel B. Garrie’s responsibilities, but said he would be tasked with “developing the factual record” for the court.

In a Tuesday court hearing, Carter said he wanted to vet the federal government’s list of over 20,000 alleged noncitizen voters since there has been extensive debate over its reliability and both sides have agreed that it includes an unspecified number of citizens.

null

Carter also said at the hearing that a special master could investigate California’s claims that it cannot logistically separate the ballots in time for the county election certification deadline on Dec. 3. The federal government has contested that assertion.

It is not clear what would happen if a special master did find a substantial number of noncitizen voters on the federal government’s list or whether it would affect the certification of California’s election results. The 20,000 people on the DOJ’s list constitute only a small fraction of California’s 23 million voters.

Trump administration appeals to higher court

Meanwhile, the Trump administration asked a federal appeals court to quickly weigh in.

The Justice Department said in a late Wednesday filing that it’s essential the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issue a ruling as soon as possible due to “irreversible ballot processing occurring on an ongoing basis.”

Carter’s decision was the latest legal setback for President Donald Trump in his efforts to expand federal control over state-run elections in the midterms that will decide control of Congress for the rest of his term. The Justice Department has made similar demands in other states, including Washington. Noncitizen voting has been a central focus of Trump’s political messaging for years, although available data indicates it is exceedingly rare.

Trump blasted Carter’s ruling against the federal government on Thursday morning before heading to a campaign rally in South Carolina.

“California is very corrupt. The elections are extremely corrupt. The judge should not have done that but we’ll appeal that, of course,” he told reporters. Trump added without evidence that there are “hundreds of thousands” and then amended it to “millions, in my opinion” of “bad ballots” in California.

Carter, an appointee of Democratic President Bill Clinton, argued that the Justice Department’s demands were a clear violation of the National Voter Registration Act, which prohibits changes to voter rolls or election procedure within 90 days of an election.

A number of US citizens were included in the Justice Department’s list of names

Both sides agree that an unspecified number of citizens were inadvertently included. Carter argued that separating the ballots at this point would risk disenfranchising citizens and “wreak havoc” on the election certification process.

Over 500,000 votes have already been processed in Los Angeles County alone, according to court filings. The system also protects voter privacy: Once a vote is processed, it cannot be traced back to the person who cast it.

Carter is to rule on the government’s renewed request for a preliminary injunction, which would bar the state from counting the ballots until the litigation is resolved. He said he will do so after a Nov. 13 evidentiary hearing with input from the special master.

He said that if the federal government suspected noncitizens were voting, it could continue to prosecute those cases criminally. Federal authorities have charged over two dozen foreign nationals in California as part of a statewide sweep targeting people officials allege have illegally registered or voted in U.S. elections.

Appeals panel judges have said they wouldn’t support setting aside ballots this close to midterms

The appeal will be the second time that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will consider the case.

The first time was just last week when the Justice Department argued before an appeals court panel that a fast ruling on its request was needed to stop any counting of the ballots.

Although the panel ruled it was premature for an appeals court to get involved before a lower-court ruling, two of the three judges wrote separate concurrences making it clear they wouldn’t support setting aside ballots at this late date. They questioned the accuracy of the federal government’s list of alleged noncitizen voters and argued that to set aside votes risks disenfranchising citizens.

One judge dissented, arguing that federal law bars noncitizens from voting and requires California to vet the potentially illegal ballots before counting them. The failure to do so, he wrote, would cause irreparable harm to the election.