| Think of the last time that you came back from a trip. At what point did you feel that you had reached home? Was it when you turned into your street? Maybe it was when the car was parked in the driveway or perhaps it was when you walked in through the front door. The chances are that your answer is different to that of the person sitting next to you and yet that is what makes buildings so unique. |
| Sure, floorplans or land deeds will say explicitly where a building starts and stops but in reality, that is not how we experience them. A child will not wait until they are in Sleeping Beauty’s Castle to get excited that they are going to Disneyland. We pick up on signs from afar, familiar bumps and changes in scenery until they culminate at the front door. |
| Proximity is a vital tool in how we experience buildings. It builds association and anticipation, a grey area where we question decisions or commit to seeing them through. It creates a vulnerability no matter what the destination but there are few places where proximity to the entrance plays a more outsized role than in healthcare. |
| The spaces outside abortion clinics are some of the most sensitive settings in today’s cities. They fall under a layer of social ambiguity, becoming both democratically accessed public space but also a necessary route to access reproductive care. |
| This grey area has historically been exploited by anti-abortion campaigners under the guise of free speech. Standing by front doors or on the side of the street, the public space around abortion clinics is a hotbed for political and social activity. |
| It invites dissent, both peaceful and violent, and pulls into question the boundaries between free speech and the exercising of rights. Regularly at the cost of the safety for women and healthcare workers, this dissent weaponises public space and its proximity to clinics. It forces tradeoffs between two fundamental rights but protecting the right to choose requires these to be made. |
A clinical matter
| Abortion and reproductive health clinics are often found as standalone facilities. Unlike other healthcare services, they can be removed from the hospital system and still be able to function independently at a relatively low cost. Like other clinics, they are outpatient facilities meaning most patients are not required to stay overnight and any complicated cases are transferred to hospitals. |
| The purpose of a clinic is to ensure that the environment is supportive and reassuring to someone that is making a highly sensitive choice. Politically, it is far easier to employ staff that are pro choice and supportive of a clinic’s practices. |
| The limited scope of clinics means that there is less uncertainty as to what a staff member may be required to do or how they may interact with a patient. For the patient, they can use a facility with greater reassurance that they will be met with dignity and no passing judgement. |
| The flexibility that is afforded is also the same reason that they have become visible targets for protesters. Clinics no longer have the protective veil and maze of wards within a hospital and can now be exposed on the street. A hospital that provides abortions is far less likely to face protests because, well, who protests a hospital? |
| The shape a protest takes can change drastically, oftentimes morphing into harassment, intimidation and violence. Congregations gather across entrances offering leaflets and “counselling” to those entering clinics. Silent prayers can get drowned in predatory chants of “mum” and “murderer”. |
| Placards with graphic photos of dismembered foetuses and threats of damnation and regret are both on the less intrusive end of the spectrum. Clinics have seen a spate of bombings, arson attacks and vandalism over the years with the aim of spreading fear amongst those seeking and providing healthcare. |
| While harassment and violence are globally prevalent, America has historically seen a rise in a far more contrived threat to choice; “Crisis Pregnancy Centres”. A product of the religious right, CPCs have become doppelgangers for genuine clinics. They offer pregnancy tests and consultations and sometimes vague pathways to abortion, plausible enough to convince someone seeking one. |
| CPCs occupy office space in the same areas or buildings as abortion clinics and use a mixture of rhetoric and misleading signs to coerce women inside under the guise of providing abortions. ‘Counsellors’ roam nearby streets and prey on women looking to access a genuine clinic before coaxing them into a centre. |
| Inside, rooms are segregated and secured to prevent a woman from seeing others that have been deceived. Conversations are muffled through music and upon entering counselling rooms, women are taken through barrier after barrier dissuading them from seeking an abortion. |
| The success of all such tactics boil down to proximity. The distance to abortion clinics is a vantage point for those wanting to harass and disturb. Protecting the right to choose is not just a legislative matter, it is spatial too. A legal path to abortion is of no use if the routes to access it are riddled with fear and coercion. |
In the zonePublic space has a direct impact on our feeling of safety. Well lit streets, populated areas and easily accessible locations all lend themselves to creating a safe atmosphere. Architects use the principle of ‘passive surveillance’ and ‘eyes on the street’ to reduce the need for intrusive design measures like gates and barriers. However, these are not failsafe mechanisms and the use of buffer zones has become necessary to protect clinics.Zones around clinics can range from roadside markings to signposted cordons. In the UK, they prevent specific activities anywhere between 150-200m around abortion clinics. Across England and Wales, the law states that prohibited activities include those that:
Beyond state imposed zones, some clinics have had to resort to creating their own protective barriers. Clinics in America set up in non specialist buildings have implemented everything from sprinkler systems to loud stereo systems and fans to drown out the noise from pickets. The challenges facing such clinics are almost contradictory. Be hidden away to the point that it does not draw attention but be visible enough to let people know that it exists. Provide safe passage to those entering and leaving the building without constructing an oppressive barrier that intimidates people further. Irrespective of the physical form of barriers, the principle behind creating safe passage is instrumental to the right to choose. Two rights and a wrongIn a 2025 speech, US Vice President JD Vance claimed that people in Scotland were banned from praying in their house. The context? Scotland’s passing of the Safe Access Zones Act which prohibits "intentional or reckless behaviour" within 200m of a clinic.Democracy, free speech and public space have long shared common histories. Squares, streets and public parks are where opinion is made visible for all to engage with. The ability to protest with the reassurance that you will not be persecuted is a vital part of a free society. At face value, the freedom to disagree may seem a sufficient argument against buffer zones but to do so would strip the subject of all context. The first piece of the puzzle is the choice of location. Abortion is linked to many parts of life ranging from healthcare to law to religion. Despite this, abortion protests are regularly found outside clinics and not legislative assemblies. When the aim shifts from the lawmaker to the individual, so does the meaning. The protest is no longer about the morality of abortion or a meaningful legislative debate but a conscious targeting of women at the point of accessing healthcare. It strays into the far more troubling realm of deliberate acts of intimidation towards women and staff. Then comes the act, what happens inside the building. Abortion clinics are not forums to discuss the intricacies of legislation and ethics. Clinics carry out a service and those who use them are seeking healthcare. Protesting the act of carrying out an abortion is a privileged decision by those who will never have to face the myriad consequences of seeing that pregnancy to term. The end result is markedly different to the simplistic ‘free speech’ argument. It is speech with the intention of preventing a person from accessing their right to healthcare. It is not a broadcast of thought but targeted speech that is tailored to have a specific impact. But challenges remain. A buffer zone treats the symptoms and not the cause. Critics say they promote a reliance on force to achieve goals rather than addressing wider societal stigmas. In societies where marginalised and minority communities have often borne disproportionate consequences of policing, it signals further dependence on an already imperfect method. The effectiveness of buffers is also subject to political will. Enforcement of zones under The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act has dropped significantly under the Trump administration. Enforcement is dependent on budget allocation and personnel and the prohibited actions vary by jurisdiction. The comparatively recent passing of legislation has meant that the true efficacy of buffer zones is harder to determine. The protection of fundamental rights starts far from the doorstep. Buffer zones may not be the sole tool required to protect the right to choose but in today’s climate, cannot be ignored. They are a poignant reminder that the right to choose is more nuanced than simply being able to get an abortion, but also ensuring safe passage and dignity when at the point of access. |