Addressing the Facts
The Amarillo City Council voted against adopting the controversial Sanctuary City for the Unborn (SCFTU) ordinance. Despite the claims made by Mark Lee Dickson (the author of the ordinance) and his supporters, this ordinance is more accurately described as a "Travel Ban & Trafficking Ban" ordinance, not just a pro-life measure. Below we will fact-check the bogus claims made by Mark Lee and his supporters:
Claim: Mayor Cole Stanley led the charge to defeat the SCFTU ordinance, which aimed to close loopholes in state abortion laws, including prohibiting abortion trafficking across state lines.
Fact: Mayor Cole Stanley gave the petition committee two hours of uninterrupted time to present their case to the City Council. Despite the mayor’s efforts to find common ground, the Council found the ordinance's travel ban unconstitutional, as it claimed jurisdiction over violations across the entire U.S. The Council had no choice but to reject the amendment. The original, more restrictive version of the ordinance was also rejected procedurally, sending it back to the petition committee.
Claim: Mayor Stanley claimed the City of Amarillo lacked the authority to enact such a law, contradicting a letter signed by twenty Texas Senators and Representatives.
Fact: Mayor Stanley correctly noted that the ordinance attempted to enforce a federal criminal statute (organized criminal activity) in a civil proceeding, which is legally unfeasible. Mark Lee's claim that the ordinance mirrored Senate Bill 8 (SB-8) was misleading, prompting strong objections from those who recognized the falsehood.
Claim: MLD alleged that Mayor Stanley and most of the City Council broke their campaign promises by not supporting the SCFTU ordinance. He suggests that only Councilman Don Tipps stayed true to his word.
Fact: This claim is false. The SCFTU ordinance was not a campaign issue during the elections. MLD's accusations are baseless, and the petition committee, who helped gather support for the ordinance, is welcome to provide evidence, although none has been presented at this point in time.
Claim: MLD states that the City Council ignored the voices of 10,389 petition signers, churches, businesses, and organizations supporting the ordinance.
Fact: Amarillo is home to over 200,000 people with diverse beliefs. The City Council's duty is to represent all residents, not just a single-issue group. Many petition signers were unaware of the full implications of the ordinance. The petition committee demonstrated a lack of understanding of the ordinance during their discussions with the Council. This was clearly Mark Lee Dickson’s ordinance, and the petition committee was merely serving his interests.
Claim: MLD claims the City Council sided with Amarillo Reproductive Freedom Alliance (ARFA) and other pro-choice organizations, rather than supporting the ordinance.
Fact: Those opposing the ordinance included both pro-choice and pro-life individuals who recognized that it violated the constitutional rights of Amarillo residents. The ordinance does not save lives but rather divides the community and threatens civil liberties. True pro-life efforts should focus on love, compassion, and hope, not legal battles and unconstitutional measures.
Claim: Councilman Les Simpson's concerns about the legality, necessity, and effectiveness of the ordinance were dismissed by MLD, who claimed support from high-profile attorneys and legislators.
Fact: Jonathan Mitchell, one of the ordinance's architects, admitted that the travel bans were a "novel" legal frontier, raising the likelihood of lawsuits against the city. Despite receiving supportive letters, the city had no formal legal agreement with Mitchell, and the costs of potential litigation would be substantial. Councilman Simpson's concerns were valid, as the ordinance would have exposed the city to unnecessary legal risks.
Claim: MLD asserts that there was compelling evidence to support the ordinance, but it was ignored by the City Council.
Fact: The petition committee had ample time to present their case but failed to provide convincing evidence of the ordinance's necessity or effectiveness. The ordinance was a reactive measure, targeting family members of women in crisis without offering real support or solutions. Instead, it subjected them to potentially endless lawsuits, with no protections against double jeopardy.
Claim: MLD laments that Tuesday, June 11th, was a sad day for Amarillo and blames pro-abortion opposition for the ordinance's defeat.
Fact: Tuesday was indeed a sad day, but not for the reasons MLD suggests. The SCFTU ordinance tore the community apart and exposed the harsh and hateful attitudes of some of its supporters. True Amarilloans value unity and reject the divisive tactics of outsiders like MLD. The fight for the unborn continues, but it must be based on love, compassion, and respect for the constitutional rights of all residents.
In conclusion, the SCFTU ordinance was not a pro-life measure but a divisive and unconstitutional attempt to impose legal burdens on Amarillo residents. The City Council made the right decision in rejecting it, and the community must now come together to find real solutions that protect both life and liberty.
