Thoughts on Waskom, TX

In God’s providence, He put together a team to help Waskom, Texas become the first sanctuary city for the preborn by resolution and by ordinance. He raised up a visionary who saw danger approaching, a scribe who penned two solid documents, the resolution and ordinance, and a proclaimer to rally the church and the city to adopt these history making documents. Amazingly, this happened within the space of two weeks.

The resolution was passed and, in that sense, Waskom, TX made history in Texas by declaring itself a “sanctuary city” for the preborn. Of course, this has only rhetorical value as it lets the world know where they stand in defense of the preborn. The failure, however, came on the ordinance end.

Though, they were given a clean bill that would have made Waskom a sanctuary city with the added teeth of enforcement, they went with the legal counsel of a lawyer who promised to defend the city. It weakened the bill and turned it from a solid abolitionist ordinance to a “pro-life” compromised ordinance. It declawed the mechanisms of enforcement and put it off until Roe. Vs. Wade is overturned. It is a trigger ordinance riddled with exceptions.

There was some good, however, that came out of this effort. The news of what happened went viral. Over 300,000.000 people saw the headline that read, “Texas border town declares itself sanctuary city for the unborn: ‘Here we will no longer murder our babies.’”

It was like a massive drop card that reached hundreds of millions of people. Our main ideas went forth. To most people, this was a fresh concept of ending the holocaust at the local level. It has spread since then to other cities and counties.

Another thing, I personally was blessed by, even though the city council backed off on the solid ordinance, they did count the cost and were willing to pay a price. They don’t have the money to defend themselves against massive lawsuits if sued. Their own city attorney considered the resolution and ordinance “unconstitutional” and refused to defend the city.

Despite these two glaring challenges, they still voted unanimously for them both. Though this city did not go all the way, Waskom, TX still has gone farther than any other city to represent God’s heart and demand for justice on the behalf of the preborn.

The last good take away from this venture in Waskom is the lawyer who compromised the ordinance in some ways, strengthened it in other ways. As we move forward, we will be able to present better resolutions and ordinances for cities, counties, and states to be true sanctuary jurisdictions for the preborn.

IN KING JESUS’ SERVICE,

Rev. Rusty Lee Thomas

National Director, Operation Save America

Explanation of the Origin of the Waskom, Texas Ordinance

by Pastor Jon Speed

WASKOM

I was asked to craft an ordinance for the City Council of Waskom, Texas which would end any possibility of abortion in Waskom. Mark Lee Dickson of Right to Life of East Texas approached the mayor In Waskom and Mark in turn reached out to me.  I was asked because of my experience working on Sanctuary Cities for the Unborn, largely in cooperation with End Abortion Now.

The nature of this document is necessarily a critique.  In critiquing the ordinance, I want to make one thing very, very clear to the brave people of Waskom, Texas.  This is not a critique of you.  I would not think of doing that.

When the city council met on Tuesday night, it was made very clear that their actions expose them to lawsuit.  A lawsuit that could run into the millions of dollars.  Waskom does not have that kind of money.  Their mayor has said that if they lose, he will quit his post as mayor before he has anything to do with paying any abortionist that kind of money.  Waskom’s city attorney has stated flatly that he does not agree with this ordinance and believes it to be unconstitutional (as if abortion is constitutional to begin with; it is not).

After all of that, Waskom voted to approve both the proclamation (in its original form, unedited) and the ordinance (in its highly edited form).  The people of Waskom are very new to the fight to end abortion.  They cannot be blamed for the changes to the ordinance which are self-defeating or inconsistent.  We must be careful to praise them, to support them and to pray for them as the perfect media (and perhaps legal) storm is about to be released on them for simply trying to do the right thing.  They are doing what they are being advised to do by legal counsel that has experience arguing on the Supreme Court level and has experience working directly with sitting SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas.  Honestly, what are the odds that they are going to take the word of a bookselling pastor from Syracuse, New York over that pedigree?

I stand with Waskom, despite the problems in the ordinance.  I stand ready to assist them when they are ready to make changes.

MOTIVE

My motive had nothing whatever to do with trying to end Roe.  My motive had everything to do with trying to IGNORE Roe on the local level and to abolish abortion locally.  That must be the goal of every Sanctuary City for the Unborn in the United States.  The Supreme Court may go pound sand.  They abandoned their right to comment on the issue when they upheld Roe.  They have lost their moral authority.  Roe is an evil decision (not a law) that is responsible for the murder of more than 60 million babies in this country alone.

Based on Wisconsin’s response to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and the precedent of the right of local municipalities to ignore Federal decisions on the Constitution (the repeal of the 19^th Amendment in 1933), local municipalities have the right and responsibility to ignore murderous Supreme Court decisions.  When Roe is codified in U.S. law (it will be) they will be right to ignore that law as well.

 

A NOTE ON THE PROCESS

 

I have no legal training.  I am an idea guy on this Sanctuary City concept.  In God’s Sovereignty He has placed me in a position where I am speaking to activists across the nation who are addressing their city councils on the issue of abortion.  Therefore, when I wrote this ordinance, I did the only thing I could think of.  I took an existing ordinance in Waskom, a regulation of sexually oriented businesses, and re-wrote it to abolish abortion in Waskom.

We decided to write an official proclamation for the city as well.  This proclamation was unanimously voted on, without any changes.  The bulk of this document is from the resolution passed by Roswell, New Mexico.  I added the material on the Constitution and the final statement regarding the Texas legislature.

 

A RESOLUTION TO MAKE WASKOM, TEXAS A “SANCTUARY CITY FOR THE UNBORN”

 

WHEREAS, the Declaration of Independence, the founding document of the United States of America, states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”  Life being the first of these declared rights; and

WHEREAS, the preamble of the United States Constitutions “secure[s] all of the blessing of Liberty to ourselves and our ‘Posterity’”, which is defined as “Descendants; children, children’s children, etc. indefinitely…” and “in a general sense, succeeding generations…” (Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828); and

WHEREAS, said Constitution states in the 14^th Amendment, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (emphasis ours); and

WHEREAS, as recently as March 2017, the American College of Pediatricians published an Abstract stating that “The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception – fertilization. At fertilization, the human being emerges genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult state and in its zygotic state is one of form, not nature”; and

WHEREAS, each and every innocent human life is unique and precious to God; and

WHEREAS, human life begins at the moment of conception and continues, uninterrupted, until the moment of natural death; and

WHEREAS, innocent human life must always be protected and preserved; and

WHEREAS, the protection of all human life is important to the people of the City of Waskom; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY OF WASKOM, TEXAS, that we declare that innocent human life, including fetal life at every stage of gestation, must always be protected and that Society must protect those who cannot protect themselves.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council that it declare its opposition to any compromise by the Texas Legislature on abortion.

 

The Original Ordinance Submitted to Waskom June 1, 2019

 

ORDINANCE ABOLISHING ABORTION WITHIN THE CITY OF WASKOM, MAKING VARIOUS PROVISIONS AND FINDINGS RELATED THERETO, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

WHEREAS, the City Alderman of the City of Waskom hereby finds that the United States Constitution has established the right of self-governance for local municipalities;

WHEREAS, surgical and chemical abortion is the ending of a human life, and is murder “with malice aforethought” since the baby in the womb has its own DNA, its own heartbeat and its own brainwaves;

WHEREAS, these babies are the most innocent among us and deserve equal protection under the law as any other member of our American posterity as defined by the United States Constitution;

WHEREAS, Texas SB-22 allows local municipalities the right to prohibit abortions within their municipalities;

WHEREAS, to protect the health and welfare of all residents within the City of Waskom, the City Council has found it necessary to abolish human abortion within the city limits.

NOW, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WASKOM, TEXAS, THAT:

A.  Definitions

1. “Abortion” means the death of a child as the result of action taken before or during the birth of the child with the intent to cause the death of the child.

(a)  Including chemical abortifacients such as the morning after pill, the RU-486 and the Plan B pill.

(b)  Including surgical abortions at any stage of pregnancy.

(c)  Including saline abortions at any stage of pregnancy.

(d)  NOT including accidental miscarriage which is an act of God.

2. “Child” means a natural person from the moment of conception until 18 years of age.
3. “Pre-born child” means a natural person from the moment of conception who has not yet left the womb.
4. “Abortionist” means any person, medically trained or otherwise, who causes the death of the child in the womb.

(a)  Including obstetrics\gynecologists medical professionals who perform abortions of any kind for any reason.

(b)  Including any other medical doctor who performs abortions of any kind for any reason.

(c)  Including any nurse practitioner who performs abortions of any kind for any reason.

(d)  Including any personnel from Planned Parenthood who perform abortions of any kind for any reason.

(e)  Including any remote personnel who instructs abortive women to perform self-abortions at home via internet connection.

(f)  Including any pharmacist or pharmaceutical worker who sells chemical or herbal abortifacients.

5. “City” shall mean the city of Waskom, Texas.
6. “Person” shall mean an individual, partnership, corporation or other entity including the preborn child inside of the womb upon gestation.
7. “Residential area” shall mean a single family, duplex, townhouse, multiple family or mobile home district or where any one has a home in which they live.
8. “Residential use” shall mean a single family, duplex, multiple family, or mobile home park, mobile home subdivision and campground used as a residence.
9. “Residence” shall mean a structure that is adapted for the overnight accommodation of persons, and includes:

(a)  Each separately secured or occupied portion of the structure; and

(b) Each structure appurtenant to or connected with the structure.

10. “Pharmacy” shall mean a store where medicinal drugs are bought and sold, whether it be a physical storefront or an internet-based business.
11. “Obstetrics\gynecologist” shall mean a medical practitioner who specializes in childcare and the care of women who are pregnant.
12. “Chief” shall mean the Chief of Police in the City of Waskom or his designated agent.
13. INTENT AND PURPOSE:
14. It is the purpose of this ordinance to abolish human abortion and thereby promote the health, safety and general welfare of all the residents of the City; to protect and preserve the quality and character of the City and to prevent the building and operation of abortion clinics and services within the City.
15. ABORTION BAN
16. Abortion in all forms and at all stages of pregnancy are hereby banned in the City of Waskom, Texas.
17. No business that intends to perform abortions of any kind may be built in the City of Waskom, Texas.
18. No business may sell chemical abortifacients such as the morning after pill, RU-486, or the Plan B pill.
19. No resident of Waskom, Texas may procure an abortion within the city limits.
20. We declare Waskom, Texas to be a Sanctuary City for the Unborn.  It is a sanctuary from the unjust ruling of Roe v. Wade and preborn human life shall receive equal justice.

 

1. ENFORCEMENT
2. The Chief of Police, or his designee, shall have the power to administer and enforce the provisions of these regulations upon presentation of proper identification to the owner, agent or tenant in charge of any premises where an abortion is thought to have occurred.  The Chief of Police, or his designee, may enter for the purposes of inspection in investigation to insure compliance with the terms of this ordinance, any building, structure, or other premises where the accused abortion provider is located, at any time it is occupied.
3. A person who provides abortions commits an offense if he refuses to permit a lawful inspection of the premises by a representative of the City Secretary, their designee, or the Chief of Police at any time it is occupied.
4. However, when the City Secretary, his/her designee, or the Chief of Police, or his/her designee, is denied permission to inspect any premises, inspection shall be made only under the authority of a warrant issued by a Magistrate authorizing the inspection for violation of this ordinance.  In applying for such a warrant, the Chief of Police, or his/her designee, shall submit an affidavit to the Magistrate setting forth his belief that a violation of this ordinance exists with respect to the premises sought to be inspected and the reasons for such belief.  If the Magistrate finds that probable cause exists for a search of the premises, such warrant describing the premises with sufficient certainty to identify the same.  A warrant so issued shall constitute authority for the Chief of Police, or his designee, to enter upon or inspect the premises described therein.
5. UNLAWFUL ACTS:
6. FALSE OR FRAUDULENT STATEMENTS—It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly make any false, fraudulent or untruthful statement, either written or oral, or in any way knowingly conceal any material fact or to give or use any assumed name or fictitious name other than the one duly filed for record in compliance with the Assumed Business or Profession Name Act (Texas Business and Commerce Code Annotated, Chapter 36).
7. IT SHALL BE A VIOLATION of this ordinance for any person to act as an abortionist in the City of Waskom, Texas.  To include obstetric\gynecologists, doctors, nurse practitioners, pharmacists and their staff,
8. IT SHALL BE A VIOLATION of this ordinance for any person to procure an abortion in the City of Waskom, Texas.  This includes any pregnant mother and any father or other party who attempts to coerce a pregnant mother to have an abortion under duress.  This includes any form of abortion in any private residence or residential area.
9. IT SHALL BE A VIOLATION of this ordinance for any person to strike a pregnant mother in such a way as to cause an abortion in the City of Waskom, Texas.
10. IT SHALL BE A VIOLATION of this ordinance for any person inside of the city limits of Waskom, Texas to give instruction over the telephone, by use of the internet, or any other means regarding self-administered abortion.
11. ENFORCEMENT AND INJUNCTON:

A person who performs, causes or coerces an abortion to be performed is subject to a suit for injunction as well as prosecution for criminal violations.

A person commits an offense if the person violates any provision or term of this ordinance.

1. PENALTY.

That any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed guilty, and upon conviction, shall be punished by a fine not less than One Billion Dollars ($1,000,000,000) for each offense, and each violation shall constitute a separate offense.

1. EFFECTIVE DATE

This ordinance shall go into immediate effect upon majority vote within the Waskom, Texas City Council meeting.

 

OBSERVATIONS

Give me a break, it was my first attempt at this.

A local municipality does not have the right to bring penalty on capital crimes in Texas.  Therefore, it becomes an issue of a fine.  The problem in writing this is deciding what price you place on human life?  I went with a billion dollars because the figure was big enough to exceed the average medical malpractice insurance.  I believe the value of human life to be much higher.  The strengths of this ordinance as it stood was that it established the personhood of the baby in the womb from the point of fertilization, dealt with chemical abortion (the most common form), allowed for a very stiff penalty for abortion, and defined all forms of abortion as we know it right now as criminal acts.

The weaknesses were either legal or extraneous language lifted from the other ordinance.  Of course, the fact that abortion was not able to be prosecuted as murder by a city in Texas made it errant as well.

The Final Version of the Ordinance

ORDINANCE OUTLAWING ABORTION WITHIN THE CITY OF WASKOM, DECLARING WASKOM A SANCTUARY CITY FOR THE UNBORN, MAKING VARIOUS PROVISIONS AND FINDINGS RELATED THERETO, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

WHEREAS, the City Alderman of the City of Waskom hereby finds that the United States Constitution has established the right of self-governance for local municipalities;

WHEREAS, a surgical or chemical abortion is the purposeful and intentional ending of a human life, and is murder “with malice aforethought” since the baby in the womb has its own DNA, and at certain points in pregnancy has its own heartbeat and its own brainwaves;

WHEREAS, these babies are the most innocent among us and deserve equal protection under the law as any other member of our American posterity as defined by the United States Constitution;

WHEREAS, the Supreme Court erred in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), when it said that pregnant women have a constitutional right to abort their pre-born children, as there is no language anywhere in the Constitution that even remotely suggests that abortion is a constitutional right;

WHEREAS, constitutional scholars have excoriated Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), for its lack of reasoning and its decision to concoct a constitutional right to abortion that has no textual foundation in the Constitution or any source of law, see John Hart Ely, The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade, 82 Yale L.J. 920, 947 (1973) (“Roe v. Wade . . . is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.”); Richard A. Epstein, Substantive Due Process By Any Other Name: The Abortion Cases, 1973 Sup. Ct. Rev. 159, 182 (“It is simple fiat and power that gives [Roe v. Wade] its legal effect.”); Mark Tushnet, Red, White, and Blue: A Critical Analysis of Constitutional Law 54 (1988) (“We might think of Justice Blackmun’s opinion in Roe as an innovation akin to Joyce’s or Mailer’s. It is the totally unreasoned judicial opinion.”);

WHEREAS, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a lawless and illegitimate act of judicial usurpation, which violates the Tenth Amendment by trampling the reserved powers of the States, and denies the people of each State a Republican Form of Government by imposing abortion policy through judicial decree;

WHEREAS, the recent changes of membership on the Supreme Court indicate that the pro-abortion justices have lost their majority;

WHEREAS, to protect the health and welfare of all residents within the City of Waskom, including the unborn, the City Council has found it necessary to outlaw human abortion within the city limits.

NOW, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WASKOM, TEXAS, THAT:

A.  DEFINITIONS

1. “Abortion” means the death of a child as the result of purposeful action taken before or during the birth of the child with the intent to cause the death of the child. This includes, but is not limited to:

(a)  Chemical abortions caused by the morning-after pill, mifepristone (also known as RU-486), and the Plan B pill.

(b)  Surgical abortions at any stage of pregnancy.

(c)  Saline abortions at any stage of pregnancy.

(d)  Self-induced abortions at any stage of pregnancy.

The term “abortion” does NOT include accidental miscarriage.

2. “Child” means a natural person from the moment of conception until 18 years of age.
3. “Pre-born child” means a natural person from the moment of conception who has not yet left the womb.
4. “Abortionist” means any person, medically trained or otherwise, who causes the death of the child in the womb. This includes, but is not limited to:

(a)  Obstetricians/gynecologists and other medical professionals who perform abortions of any kind for any reason.

(b)  Any other medical doctor who performs abortions of any kind for any reason.

(c)  Any nurse practitioner who performs abortions of any kind for any reason.

(d)  Any personnel from Planned Parenthood or other pro-abortion organizations who perform abortions of any kind for any reason.

(e)  Any remote personnel who instruct abortive women to perform self-abortions at home via internet connection.

(f)  Any pharmacist or pharmaceutical worker who sells chemical or herbal abortifacients.

5. “City” shall mean the city of Waskom, Texas.
6. DECLARATIONS
7. We declare Waskom, Texas to be a Sanctuary City for the Unborn.
8. Abortion at all times and at all stages of pregnancy is declared to be an act of murder with malice aforethought, subject only to the affirmative defenses described in Section C.3.
9. Organizations that perform abortions and assist others in obtaining abortions are declared to be criminal organizations. These organizations include, but are not limited to:

(a) Planned Parenthood and any of its affiliates;

(b) Jane’s Due Process;

(c) The Afiya Center;

(d) The Lilith Fund for Reproductive Equality;

(e) NARAL Pro-Choice Texas;

(f) National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health;

(g) Whole Woman’s Health and Whole Woman’s Health Alliance;

(h) Texas Equal Access Fund;

4. The Supreme Court’s rulings and opinions in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000), Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. 2292 (2016), and any other rulings or opinions from the Supreme Court that purport to establish or enforce a “constitutional right” to abort a pre-born child, are declared to be unconstitutional usurpations of judicial power, which violate both the Tenth Amendment the Republican Form of Government Clause, and are declared to be null and void in the City of Waskom.
5. UNLAWFUL ACTS
6. ABORTION — It shall be unlawful for any person to procure or perform an abortion of any type and at any stage of pregnancy in the City of Waskom, Texas.
7. AIDING OR ABETTING AN ABORTION — It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly aid or abet an abortion that occurs in the City of Waskom, Texas. This includes, but is not limited to, the following acts:

(a) Knowingly providing transportation to or from an abortion provider;

(b) Giving instructions over the telephone, the internet, or any other medium of communication regarding self-administered abortion;

(c) Providing money with the knowledge that it will be used to pay for an abortion, or the costs associated with procuring an abortion;

(d) Coercing a pregnant mother to have an abortion against her will.

3. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES — It shall be an affirmative defense to the unlawful acts described in Sections C.1 and C.2 if the abortion was:

(a) In response to a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that, as certified by a physician, places the woman in danger of death or a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless an abortion is performed.

(b) In response to a pregnancy caused by an act of rape, sexual assault, or incest that was reported to law enforcement;

The defendant shall have the burden of proving these affirmative defenses by a preponderance of the evidence.

4. CAUSING AN ABORTION BY AN ACT OF RAPE, SEXUAL ASSAULT, OR INCEST — It shall be unlawful for any person to cause an abortion by an act of rape, sexual assault, or incest that impregnates the victim against her will and causes her to abort the pre-born child.
5. PROHIBITED CRIMINAL ORGANIZATIONS — It shall be unlawful for a criminal organization described in Section B.3 to operate within the City of Waskom, Texas. This includes, but is not limited to:

(a) Offering services of any type within the City of Waskom, Texas;

(b) Renting office space or purchasing real property within the City of Waskom, Texas;

(c) Establishing a physical presence of any sort within the City of Waskom, Texas;

1. PUBLIC ENFORCEMENT
2. Neither the City of Waskom, nor any of its officers or employees, nor any district or county attorney, nor any executive or administrative officer or employee of any state or local governmental entity, shall take any steps to enforce this ordinance against a person or entity that commits an unlawful act described in Section C, unless and until the Supreme Court overrules Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), and permits states and municipalities to once again enforce abortion prohibitions.
3. If (and only if) the Supreme Court overrules Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), a person who commits an unlawful act described in Section C shall be subject to the maximum penalty permitted under Texas law for the violation of a municipal ordinance governing public health, and each violation shall constitute a separate offense.

Provided, that no punishment shall be imposed upon the mother of the pre-born child that has been aborted.

3. If (and only if) the Supreme Court overrules Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), a corporation or entity that commits an unlawful act described in Section C shall be subject to the maximum penalty permitted under Texas law for the violation of a municipal ordinance governing public health, and each violation shall constitute a separate offense.
4. PRIVATE ENFORCEMENT
5. A person or entity that commits an unlawful act described in Section C.1 or C.2, other than the mother of the pre-born child that has been aborted, shall be liable in tort to any surviving relative of the aborted pre-born child, including the child’s mother, father, grandparents, siblings or half-siblings, aunts, uncles, or cousins. The person or entity that committed the unlawful act shall be liable to each surviving relative of the aborted pre-born child for:

(a) Compensatory damages, including damages for emotional distress;

(b) Punitive damages; and

(c) Costs and attorneys’ fees.

There is no statute of limitations for this private right of action.

2. Any private citizen may bring a qui tam relator action against a person or entity that commits or plans to commit an unlawful act described in Section C, and may be awarded:

(a) Injunctive relief;

(b) Statutory damages of not less than two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) for each violation, and not more than the maximum penalty permitted under Texas law for the violation of a municipal ordinance governing public health; and

(c) Costs and attorneys’ fees;

Provided, that no damages or liability for costs and attorneys’ fees may be awarded or assessed against the mother of the pre-born child that has been aborted. There is no statute of limitations for this qui tam relator action.

3. No qui tam relator action described in Section E.2 may be brought by the City of Waskom, by any of its officers or employees, by any district or county attorney, or by any executive or administrative officer or employee of any state or local governmental entity.
4. SEVERABILITY
5. Mindful of Leavitt v. Jane L., 518 U.S. 137 (1996), in which in the context of determining the severability of a state statute regulating abortion the United States Supreme Court held that an explicit statement of legislative intent is controlling, it is the intent of the City Council that every provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word in this ordinance, and every application of the provisions in this ordinance, are severable from each other. If any application of any provision in this ordinance to any person, group of persons, or circumstances is found by a court to be invalid or unconstitutional, then the remaining applications of that provision to all other persons and circumstances shall be severed and may not be affected. All constitutionally valid applications of this ordinance shall be severed from any applications that a court finds to be invalid, leaving the valid applications in force, because it is the City Council’s intent and priority that the valid applications be allowed to stand alone. Even if a reviewing court finds a provision of this ordinance to impose an undue burden in a large or substantial fraction of relevant cases, the applications that do not present an undue burden shall be severed from the remaining provisions and shall remain in force, and shall be treated as if the City Council had enacted an ordinance limited to the persons, group of persons, or circumstances for which the statute’s application does not present an undue burden. The City Council further declares that it would have passed this ordinance, and each provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word, and all constitutional applications of this ordinance, irrespective of the fact that any provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word, or applications of this ordinance, were to be declared unconstitutional or to represent an undue burden.
6. If any provision of this ordinance is found by any court to be unconstitutionally vague, then the applications of that provision that do not present constitutional vagueness problems shall be severed and remain in force, consistent with the declarations of the City Council’s intent in Section F.1
7. No court may decline to enforce the severability requirements in Sections F.1 and F.2 on the ground that severance would “rewrite” the ordinance or involve the court in legislative activity. A court that declines to enforce or enjoins a city official from enforcing a subset of an ordinance’s applications is never “rewriting” an ordinance, as the ordinance continues to say exactly what it said before. A judicial injunction or declaration of unconstitutionality is nothing more than a non-enforcement edict that can always be vacated by later courts if they have a different understanding of what the Constitution requires; it is not a formal amendment of the language in a statute or ordinance. A judicial injunction or declaration of unconstitutionality no more “rewrites” an ordinance than a decision by the executive not to enforce a duly enacted ordinance in a limited and defined set of circumstances.
8. If any federal or state court ignores or declines to enforce the requirements of Sections F.1, F.2, or F.3, or holds a provision of this ordinance invalid on its face after failing to enforce the severability requirements of Sections F.1 and F.2, for any reason whatsoever, then the Mayor shall hold delegated authority to issue a saving construction of the ordinance that avoids the constitutional problems or other problems identified by the federal or state court, while enforcing the provisions of the ordinance to the maximum possible extent. The saving construction issued by the Mayor shall carry the same force of law as an ordinance; it shall represent the authoritative construction of the ordinance in both federal and state judicial proceedings; and it shall remain in effect until the court ruling that declares invalid or enjoins the enforcement of the original provision in the ordinance is overruled, vacated, or reversed.
9. The Mayor must issue the saving construction described in Section F.4 within 20 days after a judicial ruling that declares invalid or enjoins the enforcement of a provision of this ordinance after failing to enforce the severability requirements of Sections F.1 and F.2. If the Mayor fails to issue the saving construction required by Section F.4 within 20 days after a judicial ruling that declares invalid or enjoins the enforcement of a provision of this ordinance after failing to enforce the severability requirements of Sections F.1 or F.2, or if the Mayor’s saving construction fails to enforce the provisions of the ordinance to the maximum possible extent permitted by the Constitution or other superseding legal requirements, as construed by the federal or state judiciaries, then any person may petition for a writ of mandamus requiring the Mayor to issue the saving construction described in Section F.4.
10. EFFECTIVE DATE

This ordinance shall go into immediate effect upon majority vote within the Waskom, Texas City Council meeting.

EVALUATION

Before I examine the problems with the bill from an abolitionist perspective, let’s look at the strengths.  There are several.

1.  The ordinance very clearly spells out the personhood of the baby in the womb and defines abortion as murder.

2. The ordinance spells out that the baby in the womb deserves “equal protection” under the law. Unfortunately, it does not deliver on this statement.3.  The ordinance spells out in detail why Roe v. Wade is, “…a lawless and illegitimate act of judicial usurpation, which violates the Tenth Amendment by trampling the reserved powers of the States, and denies the people of each State a Republican form of government by imposing abortion policy through judicial decree.”

   4.  The ordinance very clearly bans all forms of abortion as we have it right now, including chemical abortions.

   5.  The ordinance declares well-known abortion providers as “criminal organizations” and bans them from the City of Waskom.  It does not allow these organizations to have any sort of presence in Waskom.

3. The ordinance makes driving an abortive mother to a clinic, giving remote instructions on self-abortion, knowingly paying for an abortion or coercing a woman to have an abortion against her will as crimes.
4. The ordinance would allow family members the right to sue the abortive woman for compensatory damages, punitive damages and costs. There would be no statute of limitation on such lawsuits.8.  The ordinance goes into effect the same day that the City Council approves it.  It is in force now.

   As strong as the language is in places, the weaknesses of the ordinance are glaring and counter-productive.  If the ordinance is passed and meets all legal challenges, it still leaves the door open for: 1) the regulation of abortion and 2) the potential codifying of abortion on the same basis in which Roe v. Wade was enacted in the first place.

WEAKNESSES

1. The ordinance contradicts itself flatly. It states, “WHEREAS, these babies are the most innocent among us and deserve equal protection under the law as any other member of our American posterity as defined by the United States Constitution” on page 1.  It then neglects to give any criminal penalty for the abortive mother.  How exactly is this, “…equal protection under the law”?  People outside of the womb have their day in court if they are murdered.  These babies will not in the case of the woman who paid the hit-man to do the job.2.  The ordinance includes a section called “Affirmative Defenses.”  In other words, defenses for those who the ordinance defines as murderers.   What murders are allowable in this ordinance?  Well, it’s the usual cast of characters for a typically pro-life piece of legislation.  The ordinance has exceptions for the health of the mother and for rape\incest which is reported to law enforcement.

Besides the fact that the “health of the mother” exception is a medical fallacy and that the justice of allowing babies to be summarily executed for the crime of their fathers is reprehensible at best, there is another reason that these exceptions are counter-productive.   These exceptions are what GAVE us Roe v. Wade in 1973.  And they gave us these exceptions in familiar territory.  Texas.

If you research the judicial finding of the Roe v. Wade decision, it was these exceptions, before abortion on demand was wrongly considered Constitutional, that opened the door for the Supreme Court to support abortion.  Roe claimed to be a rape victim.

So here is the irony. Imagine legal counsel trying to write an ordinance that could challenge Roe while allowing the exceptions that GAVE us Roe to remain in the ordinance!  I may not be legally trained, but am I the only one who sees a problem here?  Texas is an open carry State, so it ought to know a little something about the dangers of shooting oneself in the foot.  Apparently not, in this case.

There was an attempt to strengthen the “health of the mother” exception by demanding that a physician testify that the abortion is needed to save the life of the mother.   Medically, abortion is not required to save the life of the mother, but the delivery of the baby will save it.  You don’t have to murder the baby to save the mom’s life.  Presumably, no physician would testify that the abortion was necessary.  Presumably.  Of course, there are physicians who are pro-choice and who ignore the facts to arrive at their position.  This proviso is no guarantee of a guilty verdict in such a case.

The rape exception as an affirmative defense is morally repugnant.  Despicable.  Immoral.  It boils down to this: when do you execute a child for the crime of the father?  In Waskom, you do it when the father is a rapist.  How is such an exception a comfort to an abortive mother?  Murdering a son or a daughter is not therapeutic.

Regarding the rape exception, the fact that abortion in cases where rapes are NOT reported to law enforcement, you have a strange moral\legal quagmire since most rapes are not reported for a variety of reasons, one of which is the disbelief of law enforcement and the shame of reporting a rape when they are reported at all.  Rather than further muddy this morally clear issue, it can be removed altogether by removing the rape exception.

2.  While I am glad that the ordinance allows for some lawsuits for those involved, I cannot agree with making them contingent upon the overturning of Roe and retroactive.  Neither can I agree with the idea that the abortive mother is the victim in abortion, which is assumed with this exception to enforcement.  The victim is the one that does not come out of the abortion clinic or the womb after the appointment.  Anyone who has spent any time in front of an abortion clinic doing sidewalk ministry knows that the women who go there are not victims most of the time.  Yes, there are those who are brought there by coercive boyfriends and husbands.  There are those who are brought there by their pimps and forced to have an abortion under duress.

Most abortive women, more than 90%, are there because of issues of convenience.  Their lives are not threatened.  They have not been raped.  They have not been coerced.  Equal justice means giving equal justice to the true victims of abortion—the dead babies.

This weakness is bolstered, but only slightly, by allowing lawsuits against the abortive mother in the meantime.  Yet it is not just.  Justice would require equal penalty for the crime.  We do not limit justice to suing murderers.

In addition to being unjust, it presupposes an authority that a Supreme Court decision does not have.  Roe v. Wade is not law.  It is a legal decision.  It has no authority in a town in Texas which wants to outlaw abortion.  The City Council of Waskom has the right and duty of rejecting Roe.

A WORD TO ABOLITIONISTS

Like you, those of us who have been working to persuade Waskom to abolish human abortion are disappointed with the finalized ordinance.  We worked hard, late into the night, and under much stress.  We pled with the legal counsel and the city council to do the right thing.  Yet this is where we are.

Where do we go from here?  We could abandon the city in bitterness and discouragement.  We do not believe that is acceptable for several reasons.  First, we promised we would stand with them in this fight.  We cannot go back on our word.  Second, we have a door of opportunity here to educate the people of Waskom on the Biblical principles of interposition and the doctrine of the lesser magistrate.  Third, we have an opportunity to spread those same concepts far and wide through the media circus that has already begun.

The legal counsel that Waskom is following is qualified from a typical SCOTUS adhering philosophy.  He is so well qualified that I think that people will be surprised when they find out who he is.  However, we recognize that he is deeply entrenched in the lie of judicial supremacy.  He is doing what he has been trained to do, at a very high level.  While we respect his experience, we do not agree on a presuppositional level.

You can state that this is compromise and that we are not true abolitionists.  If you do, you are ignoring the facts of the case.  God has Sovereignly placed us in this position, and we plan on using the opportunity He has given to spread the message of abolition throughout the country.

Conclusion

The people of Waskom, Texas have shown unusual courage and resolve.  They are not only willing to make a proclamation, but they are willing to back it up with real law at their own risk.  Ultimately, it is up to them to decide what they wish to do.  It is not up to activists from New York or lawyers aspiring to positions in Washington, D.C.  It is up to the people.  They can instruct their legal counsel to do as they wish, not as he wishes.  In order to do that, it is a matter of education on the issues that gave us Roe in the first place.  I hope that there is ample opportunity to educate the good people of Waskom on principles of abolition.  It is not too late.

Jon Speed

Pastor, Christ is King Baptist Church (Syracuse, NY)

Co-Producer, Babies Are Murdered Here

Co-Signed

Rusty Thomas (Operation Rescue\Operation Save America)