Difference between revisions of "Sanctuary city for the unborn"
From Conservapedia
(→Official Sanctuary Jurisdictions for the Unborn: begin second section) |
(fixing an apparent typo) |
||
| Line 329: | Line 329: | ||
|February 15, 2022 | |February 15, 2022 | ||
|City Council action (4-0) | |City Council action (4-0) | ||
| − | |Willey was the first city in | + | |Willey was the first city in Iowa to pass a sanctuary city ordinance, making Iowa the fifth state to have a municipality pass such an ordinance. |
|- | |- | ||
|50 | |50 | ||
Revision as of 05:52, November 15, 2025
A sanctuary city for the unborn is a municipality which has passed a legal ordinance, prohibiting the performing of abortions within its municipal limits. The term is taken from "sanctuary city" (a city that openly states that it will not enforce immigration laws) and differs from an abortion sanctuary city (which is a city that will allow abortions no matter what other jurisdictions do). The term also includes counties which have passed ordinances covering the portions not part of an incorporated municipality.
The cities which have passed such ordinances or have considered doing so are generally very small rural towns (though the largest city, Lubbock, Texas, is over 250,000 population and is home to a large state university) where the city (or the county in which it is located) is overwhelmingly conservative, Republican and pro-life; even if the area was heavily liberal, Democrat and openly supported abortion on demand, abortion clinics likely would not open in those towns due to the lack of potential clients (though Lubbock was home to one). Even so, it has not stopped abortion advocacy groups from threatening to sue if such an ordinance is passed, which has caused some towns to not take any action and at least two towns to withdraw the ordinances passed.
Most of the ordinances have two parts: a public section and a private section.
- The public section generally would allow the municipality to fine anyone who performs an abortion, or "aids and abets" in one. However, the section generally states that the fines cannot be imposed unless 1) it is determined that enforcing the fine would not create an "undue burden" upon one seeking an abortion, 2) whoever commits the abortion lacks standing in the courts to assert third-party rights on behalf of one seeking an abortion, or 3) Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey are overturned.
- The private section generally would allow individuals to sue anyone who performs or "aids and abets" in an abortion (except the mother who has the abortion), making that person liable in tort to the mother and/or father of the aborted child for compensatory damages (including damages for emotional distress), punitive damages, and court costs and attorney's fees. In addition, any private individual may file suit against anyone who performs or "aids and abets" in an abortion (again, except the mother who has the abortion), and can be granted injunctive relief, statutory damages, and court costs and attorney's fees. However, unlike the public section, this section usually has immediate effect. (This provision, which is highly controversial, made its way into the Texas Heartbeat Act.)
These cities differ from those which have passed resolutions opposing abortion, as a resolution is only "the opinion" of the city and has no legal effect.
The movement began in Texas, a generally pro-life state, with the passage of such an ordinance in the town of Waskom, Texas (located on the Louisiana border) on June 11, 2019, but has spread to other states.
Contents
Official Sanctuary Jurisdictions for the Unborn
The list is current as of September 25, 2025.
(*) The jurisdiction subsequently repealed its ordinance; it remains on the list to maintain the official count by Sanctuary Cities for the Unborn.
(~) The jurisdiction has chosen to designate itself as a "Safe Haven for the Unborn".
(C) The jurisdiction's ordinance includes abortion provisions located in the Comstock Act (18 U.S.C. 1461-1462).
(^) The jurisdiction's ordinance passed does not explicitly outlaw abortion (as the state in which it is located has, by law, protected abortion rights), but instead requires an abortion provider to "comply with Federal law" (the Comstock Act), which essentially makes abortion de facto illegal in that jurisdiction.
(+) The jurisdiction's ordinance prohibits abortion trafficking of residents.
(++) The jurisdiction's ordinance prohibits abortion trafficking of both residents and non-residents.
Cities
| Number | City and State | Date Ordinance Passed | How Ordinance Passed | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Waskom, Texas | June 11, 2019 | City Council action (5-0) | Waskom was the first city to pass such an ordinance. After being sued the council amended and strengthened the ordinance on March 11, 2020, after which the suit was dropped; no taxpayer money was required to defend the action. |
| 2(*) | Omaha, Texas | September 9, 2019 | City Council action (5-0) | However, on October 14, 2019, upon the advice of the City Attorney, the city council replaced the ordinance with a non-binding resolution, which passed 3-2. |
| 3 | Naples, Texas | September 9, 2019 | City Council action (5-1) | After being sued the council amended and strengthened the ordinance on April 27, 2020, after which the suit was dropped; no taxpayer money was required to defend the action. |
| 4 | Joaquin, Texas | September 17, 2019 | City Council action (5-0) | After being sued the council amended and strengthened the ordinance on March 17, 2020, after which the suit was dropped; no taxpayer money was required to defend the action. |
| 5 | Tenaha, Texas | September 23, 2019 | City Council action (unanimous) | After being sued the council amended and strengthened the ordinance on April 27, 2020, after which the suit was dropped; no taxpayer money was required to defend the action. |
| 6(~) | Gilmer, Texas | September 24, 2019 | City Council action (4-2, two members not present) | |
| 7 | Westbrook, Texas | November 18, 2019 | City Council action (3-0) | Westbrook was the first city outside of East Texas - where the movement began - to pass such an ordinance. |
| 8 | Rusk, Texas | January 9, 2020 | City Council action (3-2) | After being sued the council amended and strengthened the ordinance on April 15, 2020, after which the suit was dropped; no taxpayer money was required to defend the action. |
| 9 | Colorado City, Texas | January 14, 2020 | City Council action (5-1) | |
| 10 | Gary, Texas | January 16, 2020 | City Council action (unanimous) | After being sued the council amended and strengthened the ordinance on March 19, 2020, after which the suit was dropped; no taxpayer money was required to defend the action. |
| 11(~) | Big Spring, Texas | January 14, 2020 | City Council action (3-2 with one abstention on first reading; 4-2 on second reading and final passage) | |
| 12 | Wells, Texas | January 14, 2020 | City Council action (unanimous) | After being sued the council amended and strengthened the ordinance on March 9, 2020, after which the suit was dropped; no taxpayer money was required to defend the action. |
| 13 | Whiteface, Texas | March 12, 2020 | City Council action (3-2) | Between February-May 2020 (when seven cities were being sued for passing these types of ordinances), Whiteface was the only city to pass such an ordinance. |
| 14 | East Mountain, Texas | July 20, 2020 | City Council action (3-0 with two abstentions) | |
| 15 | New Home, Texas | September 29, 2020 | City Council action (5-0) | |
| 16 | Morton, Texas | October 12, 2020 | City Council action (4-0) | |
| 17 | Ackerly, Texas | December 1, 2020 | City Council action (6-0) | |
| 18 | Grapeland, Texas | January 25, 2021 | City Council action (4-0 with one abstention) | |
| 19 | Goldsmith, Texas | February 20, 2021 | City Council action (unanimous) | |
| 20 | Carbon, Texas | February 22, 2021 | City Council action (unanimous) | |
| 21 | Gorman, Texas | March 4, 2021 | City Council action (unanimous) | |
| 22 | Murchison, Texas | March 9, 2021 | City Council action (unanimous) | |
| 23 | Latexo, Texas | March 15, 2021 | City Council action (4-0) | |
| 24 | Hayes Center, Nebraska | April 6, 2021 | City Council action (5-0) | Hayes Center was the first city in Nebraska, and the first outside of Texas, to pass a sanctuary city ordinance. |
| 25 | Blue Hill, Nebraska | April 13, 2021 | City Council action (3-0) | |
| 26 | Lubbock, Texas | May 1, 2021 (effective date of June 1, 2021) | Citizen vote (62% in favor) | Lubbock was the first city to pass a sanctuary city ordinance via citizen vote, the largest city to do so, and the only one where an abortion clinic was actively practicing. A lawsuit filed by the ACLU was dismissed by a Federal court on the date the ordinance took effect. |
| 27 | Abernathy, Texas | May 10, 2021 | not specified | |
| 28 | Poynor, Texas | May 11, 2021 | City Council action (unanimous) | |
| 29 | Lebanon, Ohio | May 25, 2021 | City Council action (6-0) | Lebanon was the first city in Ohio to pass a sanctuary city ordinance, making Ohio the third state to have a municipality pass such an ordinance. |
| 30 | Levelland, Texas | May 17, 2021 | City Council action (unanimous on first reading, unanimous on second reading and final passage) | |
| 31 | Sundown, Texas | June 8, 2021 | City Council action (4-1) | |
| 32 | Sterling City, Texas | June 21, 2021 | City Council action (5-0) | |
| 33 | Centerville, Texas | June 7, 2021 | City Council action (5-0) | |
| 34 | Eastland, Texas | August 4, 2021 | City Council action (4-0 on first reading, 5-0 on second reading and final passage) | |
| 35 | Leona, Texas | August 9, 2021 | City Council action (6-0) | |
| 36 | Centerville, Texas | June 7, 2021 | City Council action (5-0) | |
| 37 | Eastland, Texas | August 4, 2021 | City Council action (4-0 on first reading, 5-0 on second reading and final passage) | |
| 38 | Leona, Texas | August 9, 2021 | City Council action (6-0) | |
| 39 | Nazareth, Texas | October 5, 2021 | City Council action (3-0) | |
| 40(+) | Cisco, Texas | October 12, 2021 | City Council action (5-0 with one abstention on first reading, 5-0 with one abstention on second reading and final passage) | |
| 41(*) | Mason, Ohio | October 25, 2021 | City Council action (4-2 on first reading, 4-3 on second reading and final passage) | However, on December 13, 2021, after election of a new mayor and councilmembers, the city council repealed the ordinance, by a vote of 6-1. |
| 42 | Anson, Texas | November 8, 2021 | City Council action (4-0 first reading, 5-0 on second reading and final passage) | |
| 43(+) | Slaton, Texas | December 13, 2021 | City Council action (4-1 on first reading, 5-0 on second reading and final passage) | |
| 44 | Jewett, Texas | February 15, 2022 | City Council action (5-0) | |
| 45 | Shallowater, Texas | March 22, 2022 | City Council action (5-0) | |
| 46 | Pollock, Louisiana | March 23, 2022 | City Council action (4-1) | Pollock was the first city in Louisiana to pass a sanctuary city ordinance, making Louisiana the fourth state to have a municipality pass such an ordinance. |
| 47 | Lindale, Texas | date not specified, but it was between Pollock LA and Marquez TX votes | City Council action (4-0) | After four separate appeals to the City Council to pass a sanctuary city ordinance, upon advice of the City Attorney, the Council elected to only pass a non-binding resolution. Upon the filing of a citizen initiative petition to pass an actual ordinance, the Council reversed course and adopted an ordinance in lieu of putting the matter before the voters, the first city to take such an action in that manner.[1] |
| 48 | Marquez, Texas | April 20, 2022 | City Council action (unanimous) | |
| 49 | Willey, Iowa | February 15, 2022 | City Council action (4-0) | Willey was the first city in Iowa to pass a sanctuary city ordinance, making Iowa the fifth state to have a municipality pass such an ordinance. |
| 50 | Normangee, Texas | May 19, 2022 | City Council action (unanimous) | |
| 51 | Stapleton, Nebraska | August 10, 2022 | City Council action (3-1) | |
| 52(C)(^) | Hobbs, New Mexico | November 7, 2022 | City Council action (7-0) | Hobbs was the first city in New Mexico to pass a sanctuary city ordinance, making New Mexico the sixth state to have a municipality pass such an ordinance. |
| 53(+) | Athens, Texas | November 8, 2022 | Citizen vote (58% in favor) | |
| 54 | Abilene, Texas | November 8, 2022 | Citizen vote (53% in favor) | |
| 55 | Arnold, Nebraska | November 8, 2022 | Citizen vote (60% in favor) | |
| 56 | Paxton, Nebraska | November 8, 2022 | Citizen vote (52% in favor) | |
| 57 | Brady, Nebraska | November 8, 2022 | Citizen vote (57% in favor) | |
| 58 | Hershey, Nebraska | November 8, 2022 | Citizen vote (57% in favor) | |
| 59 | Wallace, Nebraska | November 8, 2022 | Citizen vote (64% in favor) | |
| 60(+) | San Angelo, Texas | November 8, 2022 | Citizen vote (56% in favor) | |
| 61(+) | Plainview, Texas | November 8, 2022 | Citizen vote (69% in favor) | |
| 62(++)(C) | Odessa, Texas | December 13, 2022 | City Council action (6-1) | |
| 63(C)(^) | Clovis, New Mexico | January 5, 2023 | City Council action (7-0 with one abstention) | |
| 64(++)(C) | Little River-Academy, Texas | January 12, 2023 | City Council action (5-0) | |
| 65(C)(^) | Eunice, New Mexico | January 23, 2023 | City Council action (7-0) | |
| 66(C)(^) | Edgewood, New Mexico | April 26, 2023 | City Council action (4-1) | |
| 67(C)(^) | Danville, Illinois | May 2, 2023 | City Council action (8-7; the Mayor broke the otherwise tied vote) | Danville was the first city in Illinois to pass a sanctuary city ordinance, making Illinois the seventh state to have a municipality pass such an ordinance. Unlike other de facto ordinances, this one is "dependent upon a particular court ruling" (which is not state in the information provided). |
| 68 | Midlothian, Texas | February 27, 2024 | City Council action (5-2) | |
| 69(~)(++)(C) | Muenster, Texas | April 8, 2024 | City Council action (unanimous) | |
| 70(++)(C) | Ovilla, Texas | December 9, 2024 | City Council action (4-1) | |
| 71(++)(C) | Mullin, Texas | April 8, 2025 | City Council action (5-0) | |
| 72(++)(C) | Moran, Texas | April 15, 2025 | City Council action (4-0 with one abstention) | |
| 73(++)(C) | Lueders, Texas | April 18, 2025 | City Council action (5-0) | In 2025, April 18 was Good Friday, an appropriate date for such a vote. |
| 74(++)(C) | Avinger, Texas | April 28, 2025 | City Council action (3-1) | |
| 75(~)(++)(C) | Big Sandy, Texas | May 13, 2025 | City Council action (4-0) | |
| 76 | Hooks, Texas | July 21, 2025 | City Council action (5-0) | |
| 77 | Douglassville, Texas | August 5, 2025 | City Council action (5-0) | |
| 78 | Como, Texas | August 7, 2025 | City Council action (3-0) | |
| 79 | Talco, Texas | August 11, 2025 | City Council action (2-0-1) | |
| 80 | Annona, Texas | August 12, 2025 | City Council action (3-1) | |
| 81 | Clyde, Texas | August 12, 2025 | City Council action (4-0) | |
| 82 | New Boston, Texas | August 20, 2025 | City Council action (3-1-1) | |
| 83 | Avinger, Texas | September 25, 2025 | City Council action (4-0-1) |
Counties
NOTE: The ordinance only covers "unincorporated areas" of the county (i.e., areas not under the jurisdiction of a city).
References
- ↑ Under Texas law, if a properly submitted initiative calls for adoption of an ordinance, the City Council must either pass the ordinance, or submit the matter to the voters for approval.
