Project Destiny Amarillo is a General purpose PAC established by local citizens for the purpose of campaigning for and passing the proposed Sanctuary City for the Unborn (SCFTU) ordinance. This group has arisen from a grassroots initiative of individuals, business leaders, non-profit organizations, ministries and churches and has a local leadership team and an army of local volunteers passionate about defending the defenseless. Project Destiny Amarillo views the unborn as image-bearers of Christ who are worthy of the same protections that all Amarillo citizens benefit from… namely, the right to LIFE!
A Sanctuary City for the Unborn is a city that has recognized the problem of abortion impacting their jurisdiction and has passed an ordinance prohibiting abortion in a way which addresses the problem of abortion impacting their jurisdiction.
The Amarillo SCFTU ordinance was written by Mark Lee Dickson and Attorney Jonathan F. Mitchell. Dickson and Mitchell have written more than 100 ordinances for cities and counties throughout the United States and have seen the passage of over 80 ordinances. Jonathan F. Mitchell is a constitutional attorney who clerked for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, served as the Solicitor General of Texas and is the architect of the Texas Heartbeat Act.
In Section 8-6-1, Definitions, the ordinance
gives the guiding definitions for the proposed
ordinance. Abortion is defined to mean “the
act of using, prescribing, administering,
procuring, or selling of any instrument,
medicine, drug, or any other substance,
device, or means with the purpose to
terminate the pregnancy of a woman, with
knowledge that the termination by any of
those means will with reasonable likelihood
cause the death of an unborn child.”
The definition goes on to say, “The term does
not include: In vitro fertilization or fertility
treatments of any type; the use, prescription,
administration, procuring, or selling of Plan B,
morning-after pills, intrauterine devices, or any
other type of contraception or emergency
contraception; or an act performed with the
purpose to: Save the life or preserve the
health of the unborn child; remove a dead
unborn child caused by spontaneous abortion;
or remove an ectopic pregnancy, the
implantation of a fertilized egg or embryo
outside of the uterus.”
The Supreme Court of the United States did
not say that the issue of abortion was only to
be dealt with at a state level. On June 24,
2024, the Supreme Court of the United States
ruled in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health
Organization, “The Constitution does not
confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are
overruled; and the authority to regulate
abortion is returned to the people and their
elected representatives.”
Notice that the Supreme Court of the United
States did not say that the authority to
regulate abortion is returned to the States, but
they said the authority to regulate abortion is
returned “to the people and their elected
representatives.” That is at all levels of
government: local, state, and federal.
Amos 5:15 reads, “Hate evil, and love good,
and establish justice in the gate; it may be that
the LORD, the God of hosts, will be gracious
to the remnant of Joseph.” If abortion
trafficking is happening on our roads and
abortion-inducing drugs are being mailed into
our city, it is not just a state problem but a
local problem as well.
Thankfully, the State of Texas saw this coming.
Even before the Supreme Court’s ruling, Texas
made it clear that cities like Amarillo can regulate
or prohibit abortion in a manner that is at least as
stringent as the laws of Texas. Section 5 of the
Texas Heartbeat Act amended the Texas Code
Construction Act to include the following provision: “A statute may not be construed to restrict a
political sub- division from regulating or prohibiting
abortion in a manner that is at least as stringent as
the laws of this state unless the statute explicitly
states that political subdivisions are prohibited from
regulating or prohibiting abortion in the manner
described by the statute.” This can be found in
Texas Government Code § 311.036(b), which is
referenced in the ordinance.
This explicitly allows municipalities to restrict
abortion in ways that go beyond the current
state laws of Texas. This was added to the
laws of the State of Texas, in part, to allow
cities and counties to help close “loopholes''
found in the abortion laws of the State of
Texas between legislative sessions.
The ordinance is enforced the same way the Texas Heartbeat Act is, through a private enforcement mechanism allowing private citizens to file civil lawsuits against anyone in violation of the ordinance. The ordinance cannot be enforced by the city or by law enforcement in any way.
No. The ordinance is clear that the mother of the unborn child cannot be sued for an abortion.
The ordinance would not “turn neighbor against neighbor” any more than a noise ordinance would turn “neighbor against neighbor.” The “private enforcement mechanism” seeks to “love our neighbor” by seeking to protect pregnant mothers and their unborn children from “bad neighbors” in the abortion industry seeking to rob our mother neighbors of motherhood and end the lives of our unborn neighbors by abortion.
Yes. The ordinance does have a statute of limitations. The ordinance reads, “Notwithstanding any other law, a person may bring an action under this section not later than the sixth anniversary of the date the cause of action accrues.”
No. The ordinance only allows lawsuits for violations that have taken place AFTER the ordinance has been passed and AFTER the ordinance goes into effect, not before.
Yes. The ordinance allows for abortions in the case of a medical emergency. Medical emergency is defined to mean “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” (Section 8-6-1).
No. Under Section 8-6-1’s definition of abortion, the ordinance states, “The term does not include… the use, prescription, administration, procuring, or selling of Plan B, morning-after pills, intrauterine devices, or any other type of contraception or emergency contraception.”
No. The ordinance addresses miscarriages in Section 8-6-1, under the definition of abortion, by stating, “The term does not include… an act performed with the purpose to… remove a dead unborn child caused by spontaneous abortion.”
No. The ordinance addresses ectopic pregnancies in Section 8-6-1, under the definition of abortion, by stating: “The term does not include… an act performed with the purpose to… remove an ectopic pregnancy, the implantation of a fertilized egg or embryo outside of the uterus.”
No. Under Section 8-6-1’s definition of abortion, the ordinance states, “The term does not include: In vitro fertilization or fertility treatments of any type.”
The abortion pill (mifepristone) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) in 2000 to be prescribed to a woman in person in a regimen along with a second drug called misoprostol. It was later put under a safety system known as REMS (Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies), so the FDA could monitor the risks. The in-person requirement for dispensing the drug was lifted by the FDA in 2016. Today, due to multiple changes by the FDA to the REMS safety requirements, women and teens are now able abort their babies at home, a term often referred to as a "self-managed" abortion. Live Action News reports that the REMS (Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies), require that prescribers of the abortion pill are to have the “[a]bility to assess the duration of pregnancy accurately” and the “[a]bility to diagnose ectopic pregnancies.” Yet, when prescribers knowingly place women at risk by choosing not to assess either the duration of pregnancy or an ectopic pregnancy via the no-test protocol, it appears that nothing is done about it; there are no penalties. So-called "Medication abortions" (abortions are not medicines) now account for well over 60% of all abortions, and these percentages have risen dramatically in recent years. This number is likely underreported as abortion pills which are shipped illegally are likely not being tracked or recorded. In some instances, underground abortion pill syndicates are dispensing the drug with few consequences. Still, 642,000 abortion pills were legally dispensed in the US last year alone, according to data published by the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute. That data did not include abortion pill sales which “take place outside of the formal health care system” or which are “mailed to people in states with total abortion bans.” Currently, even though some states require parental consent for abortion, due to mail order options, minors can obtain the deadly drugs. These “self-managed abortions” also have little to no medical oversight. Texas law prohibits abortions, still women are free to travel to other states to obtain abortions. In addition, due to some states enacting abortion shield laws which protect abortion providers when they ship abortion pills into states where the drugs are restricted or banned, women can illegally obtain abortion pills by mail. While women may not be seeking abortion pills at so-called medical facilities in Texas, community abortion networks, out-of-state abortion providers protected under shield laws, and unregulated websites have filled this void thereby creating loopholes in current law. Sadly, widespread availability of medically unsupervised abortion pills has the potential to hide coercion by sex traffickers or others who can simply obtain the drugs online since the pregnant woman is no longer required to present in person to get them.
No. The ordinance is not a “travel ban” but an ordinance prohibiting abortion trafficking.
Abortion trafficking can be defined as the act of transporting a pregnant mother and her unborn children from one place to another, often across state lines, for the purpose of an elective abortion. While the pregnant mother being trafficked may or may not be a willing participant in the act, the unborn child is most certainly always an unwilling participant.
Abortion trafficking is addressed in two parts of the proposed Amarillo Sanctuary City for the Unborn Ordinance. The first prohibition on abortion trafficking is found in Section 8-6-3 entitled, “Prohibit Elective Abortions On Residents of Amarillo, Texas.” The second prohibition on abortion trafficking is found in Section 8-6-4 entitled, “Prohibit Abortion Trafficking of an Unborn Child.”
No. The ordinance cannot be enforced by the city or law enforcement in any way, including checkpoints or traffic stops. The ordinance is enforced through a private civil action.
No. The ordinance is clear that the mother of the unborn child cannot be sued for traveling to obtain an abortion.
No. The ordinance seeks to protect unborn children by prohibiting the trafficking of pregnant women across state lines for the purpose of procuring an elective abortion, while protecting the right of pregnant women to travel across state lines for any purpose in accordance with the rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States. The federal Mann Act has long prohibited the trafficking of women across state lines for an immoral purpose, and this does not infringe the constitutional right to travel because it penalizes those who traffic other individuals across state lines and imposes no penalty on the woman being trafficked, who remains free to travel through the city of Amarillo and across state lines as she wishes. Prohibitions on abortion trafficking no more infringe the constitutional right to travel than prohibitions on sex trafficking. See 22 U.S.C. § 7102(12).
The core intention of the ordinance is simple: to protect the most vulnerable among us - unborn children. This ordinance aims to prevent the organized transportation of pregnant women across state lines specifically for elective abortions, while ensuring the rights of these women are fully respected. This is balanced enforcement. The ordinance respects individual creeds and ensures that the ordinance is applied fairly and justly. It does not involve invasive measures such as checkpoints or traffic stops. It protects pregnant women. Expectant mothers are explicitly protected from being sued for traveling to obtain an abortion. The anti-trafficking component of the ordinance takes a stand for ethical considerations and the protection of unborn children, while ensuring that women’s rights and freedoms are upheld. It is a balanced approach that seeks to address a complex issue thoughtfully and responsibly.
The Comstock Act was an anti-obscenity law
passed by Congress in 1873. While some
provisions of the Comstock Act relating to
pornography and contraception have been
declared invalid by the past rulings of the United
States Supreme Court, the provisions prohibiting
the mailing and receiving of abortion-inducing
drugs and abortion paraphernalia found in 18
U.S.C. §§ 1461-1462 have never been ruled
against and are still viewed as the law of the
land. Although these federal statutes do not
explicitly outlaw abortion, these federal statutes
do serve as a “de facto” federal abortion ban
since every abortion facility and abortion-inducing
drug distributor in America is in violation
of these federal statutes.
The fact that the Biden-Harris Administration is
not currently enforcing these federal statutes
does not change the fact that these federal
statutes are still the law of the land and could be
enforced by a future administration. Section
8-6-6 of the Amarillo SCFTU Ordinance would
prohibit organizations who are violating these
federal laws prohibiting the mailing and receiving
of abortion-inducing drugs and abortion
paraphernalia from doing business in, and
receiving grants from, the City of Amarillo –
regardless of who is in the White House or what
their enforcement policy is on 18 U.S.C. §§
1461-1462.
Yes. The ordinance prohibits the transporting of the remains of unborn children, killed by abortion by out-of-state providers, through Amarillo. The ordinance also prohibits the disposal of those remains within the City of Amarillo. Aborted children are not trash to be processed and thrown away by a medical waste company. No dead baby should ever end up in a dump.
On the very first page of the ordinance there is
a finding educating the public about the Texas
Alternatives to Abortion program (now known
as Thriving Texas Families Program) funded
by the State of Texas.
The Fifth Finding reads, in part, “In addition to
the life-affirming services which are already
being provided by organizations in the city of
Amarillo, the Texas Alternatives to Abortion
program is in place, which promotes childbirth
and provides support services to pregnant
mothers and their families, adoptive parents,
and parents whose lives have been affected
by miscarriage or loss of a child.” The finding
lists the website for the Texas Pregnancy Care
Network (TPCN).
According to Texas Health and Safety Code §
54.004, the program’s services “are available to
a resident of the state who is: (1) a pregnant
woman; (2) the biological father of an unborn
child; (3) the biological parent of a child who is
36 months of age or younger; (4) an adoptive parent of a child who is 36 months of age or
younger; (5) an approved adoptive parent of an
unborn child; (6) a former participant who has
experienced the loss of a child; (7) a parent or
legal guardian of a pregnant minor who is a
program client; (8) the parent, legal guardian, or
adult caregiver of a child who is 36 months of
age or younger; and (9) a parent who
experienced a miscarriage or loss of a child not
more than 90 days before the parent begins
participation in the services offered through the
program.”
In speaking about the program, Texas
Pregnancy Care Network’s Executive Director
Nicole Neeley shared, “The Thriving Texas
Families Program sets out that it promotes
childbirth as an alternative to abortion, and all
the organizations we contract with do so by
providing counseling, classes, material
assistance, and referrals supporting eligible
clients through pregnancy and up to 36
months postpartum.”
Explaining the parameters for their
government funded program, Neeley
continued, “Not every interaction an
organization in our network has with a client
falls under the scope of the program, and
therefore organizations in our network do not
receive payment for every interaction they
have with a client. While organizations can
give clients material assistance, they cannot
receive payment for doing so unless the client
also receives counseling or classes that
benefit their pregnancy or parenting situation.
Furthermore, we limit the amount of material
assistance an organization in our network can
give to a client. Therefore, not every diaper or
case of formula qualifies for a payment in our
network.”
Neeley also went on to address the
misconception that faith-based organizations
could not take part in the Alternatives to
Abortion / Thriving Texas Families Program. “Lastly, we work with many organizations that
can and do provide spiritual counseling,
although they must seek the client’s consent
and keep those services separate from
government funded services as is required by
our contract with the state.”
Neeley concluded, “We have over 180
locations across the state of Texas that report
they do so much more for clients than what
they receive payments for and that receiving
payments under this program does not get in
the way of serving their clients but helps them
flourish as organizations so they can help
Texas families thrive.” For more information
about TPCN, please visit their website www.texaspregnancy.org
Nightlight Christian Adoptions (aka Special
Delivery Adoptions) provides adoption services
to women in need and to families in the Texas
Panhandle. They believe the pre-born baby has
value and that adoption is a viable option for
women facing a difficult decision for her and her
baby. Any initiative that seeks to protect the
pre-born aligns with their values. They are
always ready and willing to provide counseling to
any woman considering abortion. For more
information, please visit their website https://nightlight.org/
Hope Choice Pregnancy Center offers free and
confidential pregnancy and mentoring services to
all of their clients, free pregnancy testing and
sonograms, a variety of different classes for
parents, a variety of different maternity resources
including clothing for pregnant mothers and their
newborn children, diapers, and baby formula,
and a 24-hour helpline. Regarding the ordinance,
Hope Choice believes “the ordinance would do
many wonderful things for our community. The
ordinance would prevent a bio waste company
within the city limits from disposing of aborted
babies being shipped into Amarillo from out of
state. The ordinance would declare Amarillo a
Sanctuary City for the Unborn which would mean
abortion cannot be done in the city limits. The
ordinance would also prohibit the abortion pill
being mailed to Amarillo residents.” Hope Choice
encourages people to read through and
understand the sections of the ordinance related to "Abortion Trafficking” and the “Private Right of
Action. Both of these subjects are heavily
addressed throughout this informational packet.
For more information, please visit their website https://hopechoice.com/
Joseph’s Project believes that human life is
sacred. They offer life-affirming support to
women dealing with unplanned pregnancies in
addition to adoption referrals and prenatal
classes. Joseph’s Project in Amarillo is one of
the 180 locations across the state of Texas
benefiting from the resources provided by the
Thriving Texas Families Program. For more
information, please visit their website https://cctxp.org/programs/josephs-project/
In return for its favored tax-status, a charitable
nonprofit promises the federal government that it
will not engage in “political campaign activity”
and if it does, IRS regulations mandate that the
charitable nonprofit will lose its tax-exempt
status. This prohibition against political campaign
activity (defined as “supporting or opposing a
candidate for public office”) is SEPARATE from
lobbying or legislative activities, which charitable
nonprofits ARE permitted to engage in.
A church is allowed to take positions on issues
that are important to it and its congregation. Such
“issue advocacy” can even touch on topics that
are central to a political campaign without
running afoul of the rules.
Attorney Jonathan F. Mitchell has committed to representing the City of Amarillo at no cost to the city and taxpayers for any litigation that may arise from the passage of the proposed ordinance.
A local pro-abortion group in opposition to the
ordinance claims that the Amarillo SCFTU
Ordinance threatens their constitutional right to
freedom of speech and attempts to punish them
with lawsuits when they exercise that right. The
ordinance is clear that it does not prohibit
“speech or conduct protected by the First
Amendment of the United States Constitution,
as made applicable to the states through the
Supreme Court of the United States’
interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment
of the United States Constitution, or by article 1,
section 8 of the Texas Constitution.” It says this
exact same phrase four different times
throughout the ordinance. It also is clear that it
does not prohibit “any speech or conduct of a
pregnancy resource center that does not offer
abortions or provide abortion referrals or
abortion-doula services, which is made in the
context of providing counseling to a pregnant
woman who seeks their services.”
Lastly, under Section 8-6-8, Private Right of
Action, the Amarillo SCFTU ordinance reads,
“This section may not be construed to impose
liability on any speech or conduct protected by
the First Amendment of the United States
Constitution, as made applicable to the states
through the United States Supreme Court’s
interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment of
the United States Constitution, or by article 1,
section 8 of the Texas Constitution.”
All that being said, as long as local, state, and
national abortion groups are exercising speech
or conduct that is protected by the First
Amendment of the United States Constitution
then they should not have anything to worry
about.
The only reason why they should have
something to worry about is if their speech falls
under one of the exceptions: such as speech that
would incite someone to commit an illegal act or
an immediate threat to the physical safety of
others, or one of the other relevant exceptions.
This ordinance was not written to restrict
anyone’s freedom of speech, but to protect
unborn children who have no voice and whose
physical safety is in danger everyday by those
who wish to commit violence towards them.