Texas Thinks "Abortion Trafficking" is a Real Thing
Conservatives in smaller Texas cities have recently pursued a citizen-driven regulation of state and federal highways, in direct violation of Interstate Commerce, to further enforce abortion bans.
On June 11th, 2019, the City of Waskom, Texas, (population 2,189) became the first city in the nation to pass an enforceable ordinance outlawing abortion within their city limits. The ordinance, proposed by Sanctuary Cities for the Unborn, passed by a vote of 5-0. Since June 11, when Waskom spearheaded the movement to ensure that women within the city limits were unable to access complete reproductive healthcare services, 67 cities and 5 counties have all passed custom tailored ordinances outlawing access to abortion services.
While many of these small towns were already limited in their ability to provide extensive medical care and access to abortion, a new movement has emerged to ensure that women who live in these locations are not physically able to travel to another location to receive an abortion. In order to accomplish this, anti-abortion activists have crafted laws to target regions along interstates and areas with airports, coining the misleading and erroneous term “abortion trafficking” in an attempt to criminalize women who seek abortions.
During the month of August, the City of Chandler (pop. 3,476) and the City of Llano (pop. 3,537) considered similar measures that would take the Texas state-wide ban on abortion even further by seeking to stop any women from traveling to receive abortion services. The proposed ordinances would seek to do the following:
(1) prohibit elective abortions and the aiding or abetting of elective abortions within city limits – extending the private enforcement mechanism found in the Texas Heartbeat Act from the point of detectable heartbeat to the point of conception
(2) prohibit elective abortions or the aiding or abetting of elective abortions on residents who live within the city limits – regardless of the location of the abortion
(3) prohibit the manufacturing, possession, or distribution of abortion-inducing drugs within the city limits
(4) prohibit abortion trafficking and the aiding or abetting abortion trafficking within the city limits – making it illegal for abortion traffickers to use any roads or runways within the city limits
(5) prohibit any person within the city limits from knowingly paying for or reimbursing the costs associated with obtaining an elective abortion performed on another person – regardless of the location of the abortion
(6) prohibit the transport of the remains of unborn children who have been killed by an elective abortion from any abortion provider into the city limits, or to dispose of such remains within the city limits, and
(7) prohibit organizations seeking to profit off of the murder of innocent children from operating or doing business within the city limits.
Conservative frustration over small town Texas residents trying to circumvent anti-abortion laws throughout the state is what is driving this “abortion trafficking” movement, which has attempted to merge the pro-life movement with the concept of interstate travel. But the result has technically been a massive failure in terms of legal logistical branding, considering that no one is being “trafficked” to procure an abortion against their will.
Correct legal semantics do not seem to matter to the majority of people in these small towns, who are eager to embrace the “anti-murder” rhetoric often espoused by Christian Conservatives. For well over an hour on a hot summer eventing, the people of Llano — a town of about 3,400 deep in Texas Hill Country — approached the podium to speak out against abortion. The procedure is currently illegal in Texas, but the residents’ concerns were based on rumors that people were still driving women on Llano roads to reach abortion clinics in other states. The people of Llano claim their city has a responsibility to “fight the murders.”
“This really is building a wall to stop abortion trafficking,” said Mark Lee Dickson, the anti-abortion activist behind the effort. A “baby murdering cartel” was coming for the pregnant women of Central Texas, Dickson told a group of about 25 Llano citizens in the town library a month before the City Council meeting. “By trains, planes and automobiles, I say we end abortion trafficking in the state of Texas,” he said.
By Dickson’s definition, “abortion trafficking” is the act of helping any pregnant woman cross state lines to end her pregnancy, lending her a ride, funding, or another form of support. While the term “trafficking” typically denotes a lack of consent or coercion, Dickson claims that his definition applies to all people seeking abortions because “the unborn child is always taken against their will.”
Dickson brought along a laminated map of Texas to Llano, with black and red Sharpie markings denoting each of the 51 jurisdictions across the state that had passed ordinances to become what he calls a “sanctuary city for the unborn.” On August 21, the City of Llano debated the adoption of the new ordinance and the mayor read a letter which had been received from Senators and Representatives across the State of Texas that assured the people of Llano that they had legal standing to pass such a law.
Ultimately, Llano Council Members determined that although the city attorney had found the proposed ordinance “enforceable” and despite the support of state legislators, the law could create a lawsuit for the city and possibly “turning neighbor against neighbor.” For this reason other council members agreed to table the ordinance in a 4-1 vote; but it still remains on deck for passage at any time. Llano Mayor Bishop told the Daily Tribune, “(The ordinance) will be before the council again, and probably after some other research and exploration, I think it will pass.”
One could argue that in a small town where word of mouth is everything, the actual law is not what persuades someone, but rather the majority which is using the threat of brute force. For example, under the tabled proposed ordinance, a husband who doesn’t want his wife to get an abortion could threaten to sue the friend who offers to drive her to the appointment, while the woman seeking the abortion would be exempt from any punishment.
While abortion rights advocates say the ordinance effort is merely a ploy to scare people out of seeking the procedure, there is a strong argument to be made that the intimidation tactics are working. No one has been sued under the existing “abortion trafficking” laws that exist, which means we have no reference for how a court might rule. The possibility of passing such a law also lends more power to the fear of what an ordinance like this actually means, and how it might be enforced in a small town, where the patriarchy is firmly in control. Even without the direct passage of the ordinance, the chilling effect of the threat of the law might be enough to scare people away from assisting anyone with abortion travel.
Amee Vanderpool writes the SHERO Newsletter, is an attorney, published author, contributor to newspapers and magazines, and an analyst for BBC radio. She can be reached at avanderpool@gmail.com or follow her on Twitter @girlsreallyrule.
Paid subscriptions and one-time tributes embedded in each article allow me to keep publishing critical and informative work that is sometimes made available to the public — thank you. If you like this piece and want to support independent journalism further, you can forward this article to others, get a paid subscription or gift subscription, or donate as much as you like today.
So if the people in these towns have large families, how do they have time to police the streets to make sure women aren't getting abortions? If they don't have very large families, are they not having sex? The school districts must be enormous! Or are these like the conservative Catholic women I have known who except themselves from the no-contraception rule?
I don't ever hear these people claiming that THEY have 10 children, and they can afford their every need by working a job in Llano, Texas. At the truck stop/gas station where they sell such delicious coffee?
These fervent defenders of the unborn fetus don't make sense. Of course there are the other obvious discrepancies, like their lack of support for maternal and child care, substandard school systems, low wages for caregivers, and the expense of child care.
I suspect that a lot of this goes back to the plantation owner's stance on no state-funded education. Why white people in the South tolerated the competition from free labor, and turned their anger and frustration into a hatred of those forced to provide the free labor is a mystery to me.
But Texas schools continue to be some of the worst in the nation. Since there's a lack of knowledge about science, you'd guess that mysticism and religion fill in the blanks, but Texas Christians are darn picky about what neighbors they love as themselves.
It's really annoying that idiots are driving the bus