Skip to main content

Guttmacher Institute

Donate Now

Highlights

  • Roe v. Wade in Peril
  • COVID-19 impact
  • Reproductive Health Impact Study
  • Adding It Up
  • Abortion Worldwide
  • Guttmacher-Lancet Commission
  • U.S. policy resources
  • State policy resources
  • State legislation tracker

Reports

  • Global
  • U.S.

Articles

  • Global research
  • U.S. research
  • Policy analysis
  • Guttmacher Policy Review
  • Op-eds & external blogs

Fact Sheets

  • Global
  • U.S.
  • U.S. State Laws and Policies

Data & Visualizations

  • Data center
  • Infographics
  • Public-use data sets

Peer-Reviewed Journals

  • International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health
  • Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health

Global

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • HIV & STIs
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

U.S.

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • HIV & STIs
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

Our Work By Geography

  • Global
  • Africa
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Latin America & the Caribbean
  • Northern America
  • Oceania

Who We Are

  • About
  • Staff
  • Board
  • Job opportunities
  • History
  • Contact
  • Conflict of Interest Policy

Media

  • Media office
  • News releases

Support Our Work

  • Make a gift today
  • Monthly Giving Circle
  • Donate stock or securites
  • Guttmacher Legacy Circle
  • Financials
  • Annual Report

Awards and Scholarships

  • Darroch Award
  • Richards Scholarship
  • Bixby Fellowship

Search form

Good reproductive health policy starts with credible research

 

Connect With Us

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Twitter
  • Email
Guttmacher Institute

Good reproductive health policy starts with credible research

 

Donate Now

Connect With Us

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Twitter
  • Email

Highlights

  • Roe v. Wade in Peril
  • COVID-19 impact
  • Reproductive Health Impact Study
  • Adding It Up
  • Abortion Worldwide
  • Guttmacher-Lancet Commission
  • U.S. policy resources
  • State policy resources
  • State legislation tracker

Reports

  • Global
  • U.S.

Articles

  • Global research
  • U.S. research
  • Policy analysis
  • Guttmacher Policy Review
  • Op-eds & external blogs

Fact Sheets

  • Global
  • U.S.
  • U.S. State Laws and Policies

Data & Visualizations

  • Data center
  • Infographics
  • Public-use data sets

Peer-Reviewed Journals

  • International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health
  • Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health

Global

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • HIV & STIs
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

U.S.

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • HIV & STIs
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

Our Work By Geography

  • Global
  • Africa
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Latin America & the Caribbean
  • Northern America
  • Oceania

Who We Are

  • About
  • Staff
  • Board
  • Job opportunities
  • History
  • Contact
  • Conflict of Interest Policy

Media

  • Media office
  • News releases

Support Our Work

  • Make a gift today
  • Monthly Giving Circle
  • Donate stock or securites
  • Guttmacher Legacy Circle
  • Financials
  • Annual Report

Awards and Scholarships

  • Darroch Award
  • Richards Scholarship
  • Bixby Fellowship

Search form

As of May 1, 2022 State Laws and Policies

Protecting Access to Clinics

Background

While the handful of murders of abortion providers and clinic staff have attracted much media attention, family planning clinics report that they frequently experience other serious forms of antiabortion violence. These include bombings, arson and vandalism, as well as violent protests and blockades. In 1994, the federal government enacted the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, which prohibits intentional property damage and the use of “force or threat of force or…physical obstruction” to “injure, intimidate or interfere with” someone entering a health care facility.

States have taken two approaches designed to protect abortion providers. Some states have enacted laws similar to the federal FACE Act that prohibit specific activities such as vandalism or obstruction at clinics. Other states have limited protests aimed at clinic patients by either creating “buffer” zones around clinics that bar protestors entirely or establishing floating “bubble zones” of several feet around a person who is within a specific distance of a clinic; protesters are prohibited from crossing into that “bubble zone” without the person’s consent. In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Massachusetts law that placed a 35-foot buffer zone around clinic entrances. The impact of this ruling on the New Hampshire law is still to be determined, but the decision did not immediately affect the Court’s 2000 ruling that upheld Colorado’s floating “bubble zone” law.

Visit our state legislation tracker for policy activity on all sexual and reproductive health topics.

Highlights

  • 14 states and the District of Columbia prohibit certain specified actions aimed at abortion providers.
    • 12 of the states and the District of Columbia prohibit blocking the entrance to and egress from clinic facilities.
    • 6 of the states and the District of Columbia prohibit threatening or intimidating staff who provide reproductive health services and/or patients entering the clinic.
    • 3 of the states prohibit property damage to facilities providing reproductive health services.
    • 2 of the states and the District of Columbia prohibit telephone harassment of staff who provide reproductive health services.
    • 5 of the states and the District of Columbia prohibit other specified actions, such as creating excessive noise outside the clinic, possessing or having access to a weapon during a demonstration at a medical facility, trespassing, or releasing a substance that produces noxious odor on clinic premises.
  • 3 states have established a “bubble zone” around a person within a specific distance of a clinic’s entrance or driveway.
Printer-friendly version

For more information

  • Public Policy Office

    202-296-4012
    [email protected]

Topic

United States

  • Abortion: State Policies on Abortion

Geography

  • Northern America: United States
    • Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming

Related Content

Policy Analysis

Anthrax Threats, Continued Violence Prompt Renewed Attention to Clinic, Client Protection

Guttmacher Policy Review
News in Context

Laws Affecting Reproductive Health and Rights: State Trends at Midyear, 2015

Research Article

Secondary Measures of Access to Abortion Services in the United States, 2011 and 2012: Gestational Age Limits, Cost, and Harassment

Women's Health Issues
2019.09.01_slp_-_protecting_access_to_clinics.pdf

Protecting Access to Clinics

STATE

SPECIFIC PROHIBITED ACTIONS

PROTECTED "BUBBLE ZONE"

Obstruction

Threat

Damage

Telephone Harassment

Other

California*

X

X

X

 

Online harassmentβ​

 

Colorado

 

 

 

 

 

8-ft. zone within 100 ft. of door

Dist. of Columbia

X

X

 

X

Noise, Trespassing

 

Kansas

X

 

 

 

 

 

Maine

X

 

 

X

Noise, Odor

 

Maryland

X

 

 

 

 

 

Massachusetts

X

X

 

 

 

25 feet if ordered by police

Michigan

 

X

 

 

 

 

Minnesota

X

 

 

 

 

 

Montana

X

 

 

 

 

8-ft. zone within 36 ft. of door

Nevada

X

 

 

 

 

 

New Hampshire

 

 

 

 

 

♦

New York

X

X

X

 

 

 

North Carolina

X

X

 

 

Weapon on site

 

Oregon

X

 

X

 

 

 

Washington

X

X

 

X

Noise, Trespassing

 

Wisconsin

 

 

 

 

Trespassing

 

TOTAL

12 + DC

6 + DC

3

2 + DC

5 + DC

3

*    Requires the collection and analysis of data by state attorney general's office and training for law enforcement officers by experts on clinic
      violence.

β​ Prohibits posting of contact information and images of reproductive health service providers.
♦  New law was scheduled to take effect in 2014; currently not enforced.

 

Get updates on policy issues and more

Guttmacher Institute
Reproductive rights are under attack. Will you help us fight back with facts?
Donate Now
Follow Guttmacher:

Connect With Us

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn

Footer Menu

  • Privacy Policy
© 2022 Guttmacher Institute. The Guttmacher Institute is registered as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization under the tax identification number 13-2890727. Contributions are tax deductible to the fullest extent allowable.

Get Our Updates