I’m told this ordinance is unconstitutional.

People are passionate about their positions. People are confident about their positions. But that does not always mean that they are right about their positions. While it is true that for years many have said that “abortion is a constitutional right” citizens throughout the United States have had a hard time finding the ‘right to abortion’ mentioned anywhere in the text of the United States Constitution. This is because nowhere in the Constitution does it come out and say, “abortion is a Constitutional right” or that “women have the right to an abortion.” It’s just not there. People act like abortion is a constitutional right because of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade in 1973, but members of our current Supreme Court have questioned the validity of that ruling and other rulings which have followed that decision. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has even gone as far to call Roe v. Wade “farcical” and stated that the Supreme Court “can reconcile neither Roe nor its progeny with the text of our Constitution” and that, because of this, “those decisions should be overruled.”

In November of last year several attorneys throughout the State of Texas signed onto a letter responding to the objections of the Mayor, City Council, and Olson & Olson – which was the law firm with family ties to Planned Parenthood which was hired by the City of Lubbock to review the proposed Lubbock Ordinance Outlawing Abortion. That letter reads,

“Mayor Pope and several city council members have been asserting that the proposed ordinance violates the federal Constitution, but they are mistaken. Abortion is not a constitutional right, and there is no language anywhere in the Constitution that even remotely suggests that anti-abortion laws are unconstitutional. Although the Supreme Court invented a right to abortion in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the Court’s holding merely prevents states or localities from enforcing abortion bans until Roe is overruled. It does not prevent states or localities from enacting abortion bans, so long as the city’s enforcement of its ban is delayed until the Supreme Court overrules Roe. The proposed ordinance is consistent with Roe because it specifically prohibits the city or its officials from enforcing the ordinance until they obtain a declaratory judgment from a court that the enforcement of the ordinance will comport with Supreme Court precedent. Instead, the ordinance allows the abortion ban to be enforced only through private citizen suits, and enforcement mechanisms of that sort will not expose the city to any liability. See Okpalobi v. Foster, 244 F.3d 405, 426–29 (5th Cir. 2001) (en banc).”

The Sanctuary Cities Ordinance which has been drafted specifically for Lubbock is not defying the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade. Instead of defying Roe v. Wade we are working within the confines of Roe v. Wade. Nobody is saying that women cannot get an abortion. All we are saying is that abortion, which is the murder of an innocent child, is not allowed within the city limits of Lubbock, Texas. A letter signed by Senators and Representatives across Texas, encouraging municipalities across Texas to consider the ordinance, states this well when it said,

“The Sanctuary City for the Unborn ordinance outlaws abortion within city limits, declares abortion to be murder, and protects municipalities from abortion providers setting up shop within the city’s jurisdiction. The ordinance does not defy federal law, but enables cities to take bold action for Life while remaining within the existing legal framework of Roe v. Wade. The ordinance does not contradict the United States Constitution; rather, the language is intentionally and carefully drafted to protect both tiny Texans from abortion and cities from costly lawsuits. Since there is some immediate enforcement, through civil liability, the ordinance serves as an important deterrent to the abortion industry from moving into their jurisdiction. Importantly, the ordinance does not penalize women who seek or undergo abortions, but places the penalty on the party who most deserves it — the abortionist and the industry profiting from the unjust procedure.”

I’m told we will be sued and spend millions as a city defending this.

That statement is based on the assumption that this is either a losing battle or a battle which, if it can be won, is not worth the cost. Before we go any further I think it should be said anytime we stand against the abuse of innocent children, in the womb or out of the womb, it is a battle worth fighting. I do not believe Lubbock is a city where the majority of their residents are okay with children having their limbs ripped from their bodies and their skulls crushed. Which person, in their right mind, actually wants children to have their arms and legs ripped from their bodies and skulls crushed in Lubbock, Texas? No matter what the cost, defending innocent children from violent acts from taking place in the city of Lubbock is more than worth it. It is certainly worth far more than the money spent on a public park. Children are Lubbock’s future and if it is allowed for children to be murdered in the city of Lubbock what does that say about Lubbock’s vision for the future of their city? Should babies be allowed to be murdered by abortion in Lubbock or should babies not be allowed to be murdered by abortion in Lubbock? It is a simple question.

Could the city of Lubbock be sued? Will the city of Lubbock be sued? Anything is possible. We live in a day and age where people can be sued for anything. But what are we talking about here? What we are talking about the murder of innocent children by abortion in Lubbock, Texas. If someone sues the city for attempting to stop the murder of innocent children by abortion whose side do you want to be on? Do you want to be on the side of the people suing the city who are wanting to murder innocent children or do you want to be on the side of those who are being sued seeking to prevent the murder of innocent children? To date, twenty-three cities in Texas have passed ordinances outlawing abortion within their city limits because they did not want babies to ever be murdered by abortion in their cities. In February of 2020, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against seven Sanctuary Cities for the Unborn only to withdraw their lawsuit in May of the same year. Every one of the seven Sanctuary Cities for the Unborn were represented at no cost to the cities and the taxpayers by Jonathan F. Mitchell – the former solicitor general for the state of Texas. The lawsuit from the ACLU did not cost the seven cities which were sued or their taxpayers one cent, the cities were well represented and defended, and abortion continues to remain banned in every city which was sued.

If the ordinance is voted to be accepted by the citizens of Lubbock on May 1st and the City of Lubbock faces a lawsuit as a result of the adoption of this ordinance there is an attorney who is willing to represent the city at no cost to the city and taxpayers. That attorney is Jonathan F. Mitchell, the former Solicitor General of Texas. So no, it does not have to cost the city anything if they choose to accept the offer of an expert attorney who was a law clerk of Justice Scalia, has experience before arguing cases before the Supreme Court of the United States, and has been quoted in court opinions by Supreme Court justices. Concluding Points The passing of this ordinance is not an attempt to try to run Planned Parenthood out of town. The passing of this ordinance is an attempt to prevent and therefore stop the murder of innocent children by abortion from taking place within the city limits of Lubbock, Texas. If Planned Parenthood would like to offer access to typical health care services for low income women this ordinance does not prevent them from doing that. All this ordinance does is seek to prevent the murder of innocent unborn children by abortion within the city limits of Lubbock, Texas.