With abortion in Texas being outlawed from the moment of conception, Amarillo has become an abortion trafficking hub connecting abortion-free states like Texas to abortion-access states like New Mexico, Colorado, and Kansas. After much back and forth attempting to see their City Council approve such a measure prohibiting abortion trafficking, residents have now sent a Sanctuary Cities for the Unborn (SCFTU) Ordinance to the ballot for voters to decide the issue this November.
One organization wanting to see that measure fail at the ballot is the national pro-abortion organization known as Women’s March—whose Executive Director, Rachel O’Leary Carmona, moved to Amarillo, Texas from Brooklyn, New York in 2021.
The Women’s March, which has been actively targeting Amarillo for years, has launched a new initiative targeting the City of Amarillo. The initiative, “Stop Prop A: Protect Healthcare and Local Freedom in Amarillo,” can be found on the Action Hub section of the Women’s March website. While abortion rights are on statewide ballots in ten different states, Women’s March does not have a page devoted to any of the statewide ballot measures. Their website reads, “We stand firmly against Prop A because it is a clear overreach of government power, has no place in any city, and is part of a larger out-of-town extremist push to criminalize abortion care nationally.” The organization calls Amarillo one of the “key battlegrounds” in their “fight against authoritarianism.”
The organization states:
If Prop A passes, it would forbid the use of the city’s roads and highways to seek an abortion out of the state. It would punish anyone aiding a woman seeking the procedure, including by providing funds or transportation, and be enforced through private lawsuits, similar to a 2021 state law that prohibited abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy.
Women’s March claims their goal is to “defeat Prop A and ensure that Amarillo stands for reproductive rights and justice.” The call to action reads:
We need 150 canvassers to come to Amarillo on October 12th to help us defeat this proposition. We will hit the streets of Amarillo to knock on doors and speak with local residents about the importance of voting “NO” on Prop A. This face-to-face engagement is critical to our strategy of activating voters and ensuring they show up on Election Day.”
The time of their organized community canvas is from 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM.
A local advertisement by Women’s March and Amarillo Freedom PAC (a political action committee led by the founders of Amarillo Reproductive Freedom Alliance) advertises their October 12th canvass of the streets of Amarillo.
In addition to the launch of their new page on their online Action Hub, on Friday, October 4, 2024, Women’s March sent out an email to members on their mailing list about this effort, titled, “Help Us Hit the Ground in Amarillo.” The email read:
Amarillo is a critical battleground, and we need your support to fund our Resistance Road Trip stop there on October 12th . . . Prop A allows private citizens to sue anyone who travels through Amarillo for abortion care. In plain language, it’s a travel ban and a snitch law. We have to act fast. Our plan: bring 150 volunteers, train canvassers, and launch targeted digital ads to turn out voters. But we can’t do it without the funds to make it happen . . . Every dollar helps us defend reproductive freedom. From where the fight is, Women’s March.
If passed, what would Prop A do?
Amarillo’s proposed SCFTU Ordinance, represented on the ballot as Prop A, contains six prohibitions seeking to close six major loopholes in Texas anti-abortion laws. Those six prohibitions are, as follows: (1) prohibit performing elective abortions and aiding or abetting elective abortions under local law by extending the private enforcement mechanism found in the Texas Heartbeat Act to the point of conception, (2) prohibit elective abortions on residents of Amarillo, and the abortion trafficking of such residents, outside the State of Texas, (3) prohibit the abortion trafficking of an unborn child through the City of Amarillo, (4) prohibit abortion-inducing drugs from being manufactured, possessed, distributed, mailed, transported, delivered, or provided in any manner to or from any person or location in the City of Amarillo, (5) prohibit criminal organizations who are violating federal laws prohibiting the mailing and receiving of abortion-inducing drugs and abortion paraphernalia from doing business in the City of Amarillo, and (6) prohibit the transportation and disposal of the remains of unborn children killed by elective abortions. These six provisions all do something that current law in Texas does not and would make Amarillo one of the safest cities in Texas for pregnant mothers and their unborn children.
Why Women’s March is Against Prop A: Four Primary Reasons
Women’s March gives four primary reasons to vote against the ordinance. The first reason given by the pro-abortion organization is that the measure is “unnecessary” since abortion is “already illegal in Texas,” calling the measure “redundant, divisive” and a “waste of taxpayer dollars.” The second reason given by the pro-abortion organization is that the measure “empowers private lawsuits,” arguing that “neighbors could sue anyone they suspect of being involved in abortion care” and claim that the ordinance turns “neighbors against neighbors.” The third reason given by the organization is that it “violates privacy” by opening “the door to surveillance and legal risks for people seeking reproductive healthcare” and that the proposition is a “violation of our freedoms.” The fourth and final reason given by the organization is that it “makes Amarillo a pawn,” claiming that “out-of-state extremist groups are using Amarillo to push their agenda to criminalize abortions nationally” and aiming to “exploit local Amarillo governance.” The website does not specifically state who these “out-of-state extremist” groups are, just that they exist. Elsewhere on their website, an image on the page reads, “Texas extremists seek a travel ban to prevent pregnant women from driving for out of state abortion care. We can’t let them win.”
Project Destiny Amarillo’s Response to the Objections Given By Women’s March on Prop A
Amarillo resident and Project Destiny Amarillo member Steve Austin, representing the pro-life initiative responded to these objections by Women’s March, stating, “While we are proud of our Texas abortion laws, the work is not finished. This ordinance is necessary. Our Texas abortion laws have loopholes that still allow for young women to be trafficked into New Mexico and other states that allow abortions to be performed on minors.” Austin continued, “Alamo Women’s Services in Albuquerque has advertised that Texas teens can have their travel costs covered for their abortions, with no parental consent needed. As good as our state laws are, they do not address this sick predatory behavior of the abortion industry.”
Austin concluded, “The abortion industry and those who support them are the ones who are being divisive. Abortion is not healthcare. Abortion is not freedom. Abortion is murder. Those who are trafficking pregnant moms across state lines to take away their motherhood and end the lives of their unborn children are not loving their neighbor – but are harming their neighbors. What this ordinance does is seek to stop the abortion traffickers, those who are aiding and abetting the abortionists, and the abortionists themselves, from harming pregnant mothers and their unborn children.”
Additional Objections Brought By Women’s March Against Prop A
In addition to these four reasons to vote against the ordinance, Women’s March claims that Prop A “would negatively impact the community’s well-being, healthcare system, and local democracy.” The organization claims that the measure is not about protecting anyone, but is about “giving government and private citizens the power to interfere in deeply personal decisions.” The organization claims the ordinance would “harm women, families, and healthcare providers” in Amarillo by “imposing unnecessary risks” and “forcing” Amarillo into “legal battles over private healthcare decisions.” Lastly, Women’s March stated, “The ordinance will impact not only Amarillo residents but also those from surrounding areas, including neighboring states, who drive through Amarillo for care.”
While Women’s March claims that Prop A will “limit access to essential care and criminalize healthcare providers,” members of Project Destiny Amarillo state the passage of Prop A would do neither of these things. Amarillo resident and Project Destiny member Jade Casias shared, “The only way Prop A could lead to ‘costly lawsuits’ for healthcare professionals ‘just for doing their jobs’ is if part of their job included the intentional killing of an unborn human being. There is no way Prop A could lead to ‘criminal penalties’ for healthcare professionals because Prop A does not include criminal penalties for anyone.”
Although Women’s March claims the measure would “discourage doctors from offering comprehensive care,” Casias believes Women’s March is “working under the false assumption that abortion counts as ‘comprehensive care,’” taking the view that “an elective abortion can never be considered healthcare.” And while Women’s March states that the measure would limit “the options available to Amarillo residents in times of need,” Casias claims Women’s March appears to be working under the false assumption that women actually need abortions. Casias stated, “An elective abortion is never the answer to an unexpected pregnancy.”
Casias also expressed frustration with misinformation spread by Women’s March and other pro-abortion organizations upset over the Supreme Court of Texas ruling in Zurawski v. the State of Texas, which upheld the State of Texas laws against abortion. Casias stated, “Both the proposed Amarillo SCFTU Ordinance and the laws of the State of Texas are clear that healthcare professionals cannot be penalized for removing a dead unborn child caused by a miscarriage, the removal of an ectopic pregnancy, or the performing of an abortion in the case of a medical emergency. According to the proposed Amarillo SCFTU Ordinance, a medical emergency is defined as ‘a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that, as certified by a physician, places the woman in danger of death or a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless an abortion is performed.'”
The fate of the proposed Amarillo SCFTU Ordinance will be decided on November 5, 2024.
Early voting begins October 21 and ends on November 1.
If the ordinance passes, the City of Amarillo will become the 53rd city in the State of Texas and the 70th city in the nation to pass a Sanctuary City for the Unborn Ordinance. The City of Amarillo would also become the sixth pro-life ballot victory in the State of Texas since the initiative began, following victories in the City of Lubbock in May of 2021 and the Cities of Abilene, San Angelo, Plainview, and Athens in November of 2022. If the ordinance fails to pass by Amarillo voters voting AGAINST Prop A, the City of Amarillo will become the first city in the State of Texas where voters have rejected an anti-abortion ordinance.
This is a commentary published with the author’s permission. If you wish to submit a commentary to Texas Scorecard, please submit your article to submission@texasscorecard.com.
