Big Spring City Council opts not to vote on measure to outlaw abortion

Following more than two hours of emotional public discussion on the item, city council members opted not to vote on a measure to establish Big Spring as “a sanctuary city for the unborn.” Following more than two hours of emotional public discussion on the item, city council members opted not to vote on a measure to establish Big Spring as “a sanctuary city for the unborn.” Photo: Google Maps Photo: Google Maps Image 1 of / 1 Caption Close Big Spring City Council opts not to vote on measure to outlaw abortion 1 / 1 Back to Gallery

BIG SPRING -- Following more than two hours of emotional public discussion on the item, city council members opted not to vote on a measure to establish Big Spring as “a sanctuary city for the unborn.”

About 20 people spoke at Tuesday night’s city council meeting, many of whom were in favor of an ordinance to outlaw abortion within city limits. Pastors, teachers, nurses and pro-life organization members gave passionate testimony on the morality of the issue.

Others spoke out against the item, calling into question the legality of a city government attempting to ban what has been ruled legal by the U.S. Supreme Court. Many came into town for the meeting from neighboring cities where similar measures have been introduced.

Councilman Raul Marquez made the motion to table the item, telling those in attendance he thought the council needed to “step back and think about it.”

He said in an interview he was unclear on the legality of such an ordinance, after hearing conflicting information from those on both sides of the issue. The city attorney was also unclear on where the ordinance fell legally, Marquez said.

“I don’t think anybody’s clear on it, and we don’t want to be the first ones going into it to see if we end up getting sued,” he said.

City Attorney Marianne Banks declined to comment on how she advised the council and whether she believed the ordinance to be legally sound, though she did say she found parts of it unclear.

“There are a number of issues I would have concerns about from a municipality law standpoint,” she said.

Some who spoke in opposition of the measure said it would also outlaw emergency contraception, but Banks said proponents of the measure have told her emergency contraception is not intended to be included.

Similar measures have been popping up before city councils across Texas over the last several months, spearheaded by pro-life organizations Right to Life of East Texas and Texas Right to Life. Six small towns have passed ordinances banning abortion.

Marquez said a resident of Big Spring contacted Right to Life of East Texas for assistance in bringing the measure before the Big Spring City Council. Representatives for Right to Life of East Texas and Texas Right to Life spoke in favor of the proposal at Tuesday’s meeting.

There are no abortion clinics in Big Spring or any neighboring cities. Presently, there are only 22 clinics in the state, most clustered in the large metro areas of Dallas, Houston and Austin.

The lack of available access to abortion clinics is part of why Marquez didn’t want to vote on the motion, he said. He said he feels the ordinance, written by Right to Life of East Texas, is part of a larger agenda of pro-life organizations.

“It’s nothing we should be worried about at the moment,” he said.

Many who opposed the item took specific issue with the language of the ordinance, which declared abortion to be “an act of murder” and described eight organizations, including Planned Parenthood, as criminal organizations.

Shonda Folsom, a lawyer in Big Spring, spoke in opposition to the measure, saying it would open up the city to defamation lawsuits from people and organizations it describes as criminals.

“The city council is publicizing that those people and organizations are criminals without criminal convictions,” she said at the meeting.

In a letter written to the Big Spring City Council and provided to the Reporter-Telegram, Folsom cautions the court against such language without “due process of a criminal trial or relying on any criminal conviction by any court.”

“Some Big Spring residents may feel that these people and organizations are morally wrong,” she states in the letter. “However, accusations of criminal culpability are not based on a feeling and need to only be used when based on a final criminal conviction.”

The ordinance is largely symbolic, as it states it would not be enforceable unless Roe v. Wade is overturned. No entities in Big Spring would have the authority to penalize anyone who seeks an abortion or provides one.

Kimberlyn Schwartz, director of communication with Texas Right to Life, said the ordinance is meant to deter Planned Parenthood and other clinics. She said it would lay the foundation for the council to block clinics from opening within city limits.

“Generally, whenever a city council declares an organization a criminal organization, that gives the city standing to prevent the clinics from setting up,” she said.

However, the ordinance opens up the possibility of civil lawsuits against anyone who provides an abortion or assists someone in getting an abortion. It states the mother of the unborn child would not be liable.

Folsom said in her letter this could lead to problematic litigation. The ordinance has no statute of limitations attached, so angry or grieving family members could file a suit at any time, she said.

“This ordinance invites angry family members, neighbors or anyone else with a grudge to go back in time and look for any time a female on the other side was no longer pregnant and use the threat of a suit under this ordinance as leverage in that later dispute,” she said.

Additionally, Folsom states women who have had miscarriages could be called to testify in court cases brought by family members who believe they may have had an abortion, further traumatizing women who have miscarried.

The motion to table the measure passed 5-2, with Mayor Shannon Thomason and Councilman Jim DePauw casting the dissenting votes. Thomason said he added the item to Tuesday’s agenda after residents requested it at a November meeting.

He said although he disagreed with the decision to table it, he also disagreed with aspects of the ordinance – specifically the section that named several clinics as criminal organizations. He said he felt some aspects were not within the municipality’s control.

“There was essentially no discussion on the council side,” Thomason said. “I thought we owed it to the citizens to at least discuss it.”

Thomason said the item will be addressed again at their next meeting, which is set for Jan. 14.