A judge in Visalia ruled that a group of physicians in Tulare cannot prevent an abortion clinic from opening in their office complex. The ruling has profound implications for the abortion debate in California, and it furthers the state’s dismissive approach to the public health crisis facing women seeking prenatal care in the San Joaquin Valley.

For years, abortion activists have complained about the lack of abortion clinics in Tulare County. Until recently, there was no abortion clinic between Fresno and Bakersfield, and Tulare County was the most populous county in California without an abortion clinic. Despite efforts by abortion businesses to seize this market, local pro-life advocates raised public awareness to stop several efforts to open Planned Parenthood clinics in Visalia and Tulare over the last several years.

This focus on the lack of abortion in Tulare County ignores the dire state of prenatal care provision in the rural San Joaquin Valley. With expanded Medi-Cal eligibility and low reimbursement rates for providers, more and more women are seeking care from the fewer and fewer OB/GYNs who are willing to take Medi-Cal patients.

Almost 70% of American women who have abortions report that it is against their own preference, a choice they are forced into by crushing financial or other pressures, including a lack of healthcare access. Local advocates are right to oppose more abortion, given that the alleged need for abortion stems chiefly from poverty and healthcare unavailability. True compassion would focus on those problems, not on furnishing more abortion.

The Tulare Medical Center at 1068 N. Cherry St. in Tulare is an office complex composed of several private doctors’ offices. The complex is governed by a covenant that defines what kinds of businesses are allowed to conduct business there. Abortion clinics are explicitly excluded by the terms of this covenant.

Nonetheless, a Family Planning Associates clinic has set up shop within the center, advertising that it offers both surgical abortions and abortions via the drug mifepristone (the “abortion pill”). This is in spite of an assertion to the Tulare City Council that it would not offer surgical abortions.

Troubling Ruling by Tulare County Judge

The doctors from the Tulare Medical Center sued Family Planning Associates, seeking a preliminary injunction to stop their operations. Superior Court Judge Bret Hillman ruled against the preliminary injunction request on Dec. 16, 2024.

In his ruling, Judge Hillman argued that the doctors’ restriction on abortion clinics could be viewed as violating California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act as a form of discrimination against women. The decision seems to unconsciously slide between the right to abortion as a right possessed by women (something well established in the California Constitution), to a right possessed by a doctor who wishes to perform the practice (something that is not at all established).

This ruling is troubling. If its suggestions for the Unruh Act are followed by appellate courts in California, it could elevate the operation of a clinic that performs abortion to a kind of protected class under California civil rights law, analogous to the status of being a woman or being black. Obviously, a private covenant that forbade black-owned doctors’ offices from opening on the complex would be illegal and unenforceable, which is consistent with both the text and interpretive tradition of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Courts have read it as protecting immutable personal characteristics like race, sex, national origin, or religious faith from business discrimination. But it has never been thought to protect a right to perform a specific business practice, or a specific surgical/drug intervention.

If refusing to allow an abortion clinic to open on one’s property violates the rights of women, how should we view conscience protection laws in California that allow doctors and other healthcare personnel to opt out of performing abortions for ethical reasons? Are they simply participating in anti-female bigotry by not performing abortions or prescribing mifepristone? Will a Christian landlord who opposes abortion be subject to a lawsuit for sex-based discrimination if he refuses to lease to an abortion-performing tenant?

Abortion is a highly disputed public policy issue on which large percentages of Californians disagree. Private landlords and associations should not be forced to do business with them in violation of their preferences, consciences, or deeply held religious beliefs. Through it all, the actual needs of women facing poverty and lack of prenatal healthcare are forgotten.

About the Author

John Gerardi is an attorney, executive director of Right to Life of Central California, and co-founder and Development Director of the Obria Medical Clinics of Central California.

Make Your Voice Heard

GV Wire encourages vigorous debate from people and organizations on local, state, and national issues. Submit your op-ed to bmcewen@gvwire.com for consideration.