City Council Rejects SCFTU Ordinance
In a marathon six-hour session, the Amarillo City Council voted 4-1 to reject both the original and amended versions of the “Sanctuary City of the Unborn” ordinance. This decision followed months of heated debate and public comments from over 25 community members, highlighting the divisive nature of the proposed legislation.
The ordinance, initially brought to the council last fall, failed to gain approval. Advocates then pursued a petition to bring it back for another vote, resulting in Tuesday's decisive rejection. Councilmembers expressed concerns about the city’s authority to implement such a sweeping ordinance. Mayor Cole Stanley and other council members highlighted the potential legal challenges and overreach of the measure.
During the meeting, Stanley emphasized that the city lacked the authority to enforce such an ordinance. Amarillo's rejection of the measure marks it as the second Texas Panhandle city to do so, following Clarendon's similar decision.
Councilmember Tom Scherlen argued that the ordinance was a significant overreach, potentially harming local businesses and deterring future business opportunities. This ordinance, seen as a significant government overreach, risks harming local businesses, deterring future investments, and infringing on individual rights. If passed, it could prevent companies from offering travel or reimbursement for abortion services in their insurance plans. Moreover, it could discourage businesses from relocating to Amarillo, fearing restrictive and authoritarian local laws. With more than 203,000 residents, Amarillo's strategic location on Interstates 40 and 27 connects it to other states and cities. SCFTU could harm interstate commerce and isolate the city.
Don Tipps discussed possible amendments with the petition committee. The committee members, however, resisted suggestions like exempting parents and grandparents from punishment.
ARFA members opposing the ordinance echoed these concerns, stating that it was more about making a political statement than saving lives. Especially when you consider that this ordinance wouldn’t stop someone from receiving an elective abortion - it would only do harm to families and support systems after the fact.
Following the vote, the ARFA members who stuck out the marathon session celebrated, while a member of the petition committee was removed for disrupting the proceedings. We all stood in shock in awe as the votes rang through the speakers in the council chamber, and after a sigh of relief, we cheered and embraced - our hard work had finally paid off.
Forced-birth activist Mark Lee Dickson, who helped author the ordinance, expressed his disappointment, viewing the council’s decision as a rejection of the Texas Heartbeat Act and the Republican Party Platform on abortion trafficking, while refusing to admit the extensive government overreach he is trying to implement in a town in which he doesn’t reside.
As we await the petition committee's decision on whether to place this ordinance on the November ballot, it remains crucial for everyone to stay informed and engaged. This vote is a significant step, but the conversation is far from over. If you want to stay up to date with ARFA, become a member today!
