In 2019, Waskom, Texas became the first so-called “Sanctuary City for the Unborn.” It’s a phrase which is as harmful as it is misleading. The Waskom effort was spearheaded by Mark Lee Dickson and Jonathan Mitchell, the former being a prominent anti-abortion pastor affiliated with Right to Life of East Texas, and the latter being the lawyer who helped orchestrate this legal approach and others seeking to restrict access to abortion. [1] The legal framework has since taken various forms, depending on the city or county where these so-called “sanctuary cities for the unborn” have been established, but most involve local councils passing ordinances that effectively ban abortion within their town limits, often invoking the federal Comstock Act. [2] Importantly, these ordinances are not a post-Roe phenomenon—they were gaining traction well before Roe fell in 2022, preparing local geographies for a time when federal protections for abortion would no longer exist. Now, more than 80 cities and counties have adopted similar laws, especially in states like Texas, where near-total abortion bans are already in place. [3]

But if the majority of “sanctuary cities for the unborn” are in states that are already hostile to abortion access, why are these ordinances necessary? A major reason cited by proponents, is their potential to restrict travel, support, and funding for abortion care. The placement of these “sanctuary cities for the unborn” is deliberate; in Texas, many are strategically located along highways or near borders with states such as New Mexico, where abortion remains accessible. These laws are part of a broader effort seeking to effectively ban support for abortion travel. [3] Many of these ordinances rely on citizen reporting and private lawsuits as their sole enforcement mechanism, increasing the risk of criminalization for abortion seekers and encouraging neighbors to act as surveillance agents. [4] Some ordinances have even been designed to appeal to anti-abortion judges such as Matthew Kacsmaryk from Amarillo, Texas, a federal judge known for his history of anti-LGBTQ+, anti-immigrant and anti-abortion rulings. [5] Anti-abortion groups believe they may ultimately rule in favor of an abortion travel ban case that could be escalated to the Supreme Court.

The ultimate goal of the “Sanctuary Cities for the Unborn” movement is clear: to ban abortion nationwide by creating a legal quandary that rises through federal courts to the enforcement of the Comstock Act, even if it means turning private citizens into enforcers of these restrictions [6]. Many of the ordinances don’t explicitly ban abortion; instead, they take a more indirect approach by urging local governments to revive the Comstock Act. This outdated law prohibits the mailing, importation, or transportation of “obscene or crime-inciting” materials, including “any drug, medicine, article, or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion,” effectively banning both medication and procedural abortions. [7] These ordinances have been wielded as tools to target pro-abortion organizations. In 2020, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against seven “Sanctuary Cities for the Unborn” on behalf of the Texas Equal Access Fund and the Lilith Fund. These abortion rights groups were labeled “criminal organizations” under the ordinances, effectively barring them from offering services, renting or buying property, or maintaining any presence in these cities. [8] This sweeping approach to enforcement has not only increased risks for abortion seekers but also jeopardized those who support, advocate for, and assist them.

These ordinances have a profound impact on the safety and trust within communities. Many weaponize private citizens to monitor their neighbors and sue anyone who is seen or suspected to be passing through their town to access abortion care. The fear of being surveilled by community members alongside the state forces abortion seekers to be extremely cautious about whom they confide in. In many ways, these ordinances are more about creating a climate of intimidation than enforcing abortion bans. Abortion opponents want to sow fear and confusion, making people uncertain about their rights and unsure whom they can turn to for guidance. These ordinances also pose a direct challenge to the constitutional right to travel—an infringement that anti-abortion advocates are well aware of. [9] It’s precisely why they avoid labeling them as “travel bans,” opting instead for misleading terms like “trafficking ordinances” to obscure their true intent: a nationwide abortion ban, a concept we explored in our previous webinar “They Want to Ban Travel for Abortion Seekers.”

As pro-abortion advocates, it’s more crucial than ever to stay engaged with local governments. We cannot allow the voices of a small group of anti-abortion extremists to overshadow the reality that the majority of Americans support access to abortion. While these developments may seem bleak, there is hope in resisting these ordinances. In Amarillo, Texas—a traditionally conservative town—the local government recently voted in November 2024 against one of these measures, heeding the expertise of doctors and community members who understood the harm it would bring to their community. [9] This victory underscores the importance of local advocacy and the power of informed, determined voices to push back against extremism and protect access to safe and legal abortion care, even in the most challenging environments.

Sources:

1. https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/whos-bankrolling-these-prominent-abortion-rights-opponents/
2. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/09/pastor-push-national-abortion-ban-sanctuary-cities-for-the-unborn
3. https://www.thenation.com/article/society/sanctuary-for-the-unborn-abortion-travel-bans-amarillo/
4. https://www.law.georgetown.edu/gender-journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2021/11/The-Texas-Heartbeat-Act-…-by-Meredith-Johnson.pdf
5. https://www.texastribune.org/2023/03/15/federal-judge-amarillo-abortion-fda/
6. https://americanoversight.org/behind-the-scenes-of-abortion-travel-bans/
7. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/09/pastor-push-national-abortion-ban-sanctuary-cities-for-the-unborn
8. https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/25/politics/aclu-sues-texas-sanctuary-cities-unborn-abortion/index.html
9. https://msmagazine.com/2024/06/10/amarillo-abortion-travel-ban/