Editor’s Note: The following was originally published by Mark Lee Dickson of Sanctuary Cities for the Unborn as a Facebook post. It is reprinted here with the author’s permission. Minor edits have been made for clarity.
OBGYN Nurse Practitioner Jennifer Graham, with Women’s Healthcare Associates, recently encouraged her friends and followers to vote “No Way On Prop A” in a public Facebook post. She asked her followers to take the time to read what she had written carefully, as she spoke from her own experience. I found the amount of misinformation in her post, as well as the spread of such a post, to be extremely concerning and worthy of a detailed response.
It should be noted that the proposed Amarillo Sanctuary City for the Unborn (SCFTU) Ordinance was written by the same people who authored SCFTU Ordinances that have been adopted in over 50 Texas cities and counties over the last six years. Amarillo is not the first city with a medical community to have considered such an ordinance. These ordinances have been passed in cities with hospitals, cities like Big Spring, Lubbock, Levelland, Abilene, San Angelo, Plainview, Athens, and Odessa.
It should also be noted that the authors of these ordinances were also involved in the Texas Heartbeat Act, a law that covers every hospital in the State of Texas. Every medical professional is already required to be in full compliance with the Texas Heartbeat Act, the Human Life Protection Act, and the pre-Roe v. Wade abortion statutes. I say this because many of the complaints made by Graham in her post appear to be complaints she may have to already existing state laws.
CLAIM #1: Graham states, “This proposition is misleading in its presentation as a pro-life policy. While it claims to protect life, the specific provisions actually jeopardize women’s health, limit necessary medical interventions, and impose punitive measures on both patients and healthcare providers. It does not promote the well-being of either mother or child, but instead enforces harmful and restrictive practices. Proposition A in Amarillo, while presented as a pro-life policy, raises significant concerns regarding women’s health, patient autonomy, and the role of medical professionals.”
Response: The proposed Amarillo SCFTU Ordinance is a pro-life measure in line with the pro-life laws and policies of the State of Texas. The ordinance does not jeopardize women’s health or limit necessary medical interventions, it does not impose punitive measures on pregnant mothers and legitimate healthcare providers. Abortionists and those who aid them are not legitimate healthcare providers. If this ordinance passes and you are an abortionist or someone intentionally helping an abortionist violate this law, then you have every reason to be concerned that you could be sued if you are found to be in violation of the ordinance by intentionally assisting in the murder of unborn children. The proposed ordinance seeks to promote the well-being of both the pregnant mother and her unborn child by taking elective abortion off of the table completely. Elective abortions are not helpful, but harmful to the life and health of pregnant mothers and their unborn children.
CLAIM #2: Graham states, “The proposition includes provisions for criminalizing women who have obtained abortions, even retroactively for up to six years prior to the legal changes. This raises serious ethical and legal questions, particularly in cases involving medical necessity.”
Response: This is not true. The proposed Amarillo SCFTU Ordinance does not “criminalize women who have obtained abortions,” is not retroactive, and does allow for abortions in cases of a medical emergency.
1. The proposed Amarillo SCFTU Ordinance does not “criminalize women who have obtained abortions.” The ordinance is clear that the mother of the unborn child cannot be sued for traveling to obtain an abortion or for having an abortion. In every section where a mother could be held liable, the ordinance is clear to state, “Under no circumstance may the mother of the unborn child that has been aborted, or the pregnant woman who seeks to abort her unborn child, be subject to prosecution or penalty or civil liability.” In addition to this, when addressing the private right of action in Section 8-6-8, the Amarillo SCFTU Ordinance reads, “Notwithstanding any other law, a civil action under this section may not be brought: against the woman upon whom the abortion was performed or induced or attempted to be performed or induced in violation of this ordinance, or against a pregnant woman who intends or seeks to abort her unborn child in violation of this ordinance.”
2. The proposed Amarillo SCFTU Ordinance is not retroactive. 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. In no way can the ordinance be interpreted to be retroactive.
3. The proposed Amarillo SCFTU 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).
CLAIM #3: Graham claims, “The proposition would require women with ectopic pregnancies—a life-threatening condition—to delay treatment until the fallopian tube ruptures, placing the mother’s health at grave risk. Ectopic pregnancies are not viable, and delaying intervention has no medical benefit for the fetus but significantly endangers the mother.”
Response: This is not true. The proposition would not require a woman with an ectopic pregnancy to have treatment delayed. 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.”
The proposed Amarillo SCFTU Ordinance allows for the removal of an ectopic pregnancy at any time, just like all other pro-life laws throughout the State of Texas.
Amarillo resident Lizzy Nash Sharp commented on Graham’s post, “Ectopic pregnancies are not included in the ban . . . Life-saving measures will always be provided to women. The ban also does not extend to any fertility treatments or even plan B.” Sharp gets the ordinance right. The removal of an ectopic pregnancy has never been prohibited in any of the SCFTU ordinances, including the 30+ versions that were drafted for the City of Amarillo dating back to December 2021.
CLAIM #4: Graham claims, “The proposition mandates that women carrying fetuses with conditions such as anencephaly—a condition in which the baby is born without parts of the brain and skull—carry the pregnancy to term, despite the knowledge that the infant will not survive long after birth. This places an emotional and physical burden on the mother with no chance of a positive outcome for the child.”
Response: Since she is an OBGYN nurse practitioner, I hope Jennifer Graham is obeying the laws of the State of Texas that already require her to treat babies with anencephaly as any other patient deserving of care.
The fact that a baby with anencephaly is not likely to live long outside of the womb is not a “green light” for Texas medical professionals to end the life of that baby while they are in the womb. Mothers are encouraged to treasure the time they have with that baby, regardless if that time is only a few minutes, a few hours, or 28 months.
Amarillo resident Robert Keys shared a heartfelt comment on Graham’s post. He wrote, “My grandson was born with Anencephaly. Yes some say he won’t be born alive. Well praise God that we enjoyed him and was blessed for 22 months before God took him home. He got to experience the beach and the mountains. His dad wrote a blog about this little one’s life which was shared world-wide. His parents were special people which didn’t see this as a burden. Yes he had to have 24/7 care which was accomplished with many caring, loving nurses and with many family members and friends!”
This is a beautiful testimony. 22 months of a child being a blessing to God and others on this earth. We do not intentionally kill babies just because they have birth defects or they might not live long — period. It is not safer for the mother and it sure is not safer for her child. We thank God for the baby’s life, however long that baby’s life may be.
The passage of this ordinance will not change the standard that has already been set under the pro-life laws of the State of Texas or the recent unanimous 9-0 ruling of the Supreme Court of Texas in Zurawski v. State of Texas on May 31, 2024.
CLAIM #5: Graham claims, “The proposition could compel healthcare providers to report patients who have had abortions, potentially leading to the revocation of medical licenses and imprisonment for professionals who refuse to comply. This would severely damage the patient-provider relationship, compromise patient confidentiality, and undermine trust in the healthcare system.”
Response: This is not true. The proposed ordinance does not compel or require healthcare providers to “report patients who have had abortions,” just as the current laws of the State of Texas do not compel or require healthcare providers to “report patients who have had abortions.”
The proposed ordinance does not allow for the “revocation of medical licenses and imprisonment for professionals who refuse to comply.”
CLAIM #6: Graham claims, “Rather than safeguarding life, this proposition threatens the well-being of women and imposes punitive measures on both patients and healthcare providers. It represents a concerning overreach of government control into personal and medical decision-making.”
Response: Abortion, not this proposition, is what threatens the well-being of pregnant mothers and the well-being of their innocent unborn children. As it has been stated before, the ordinance is clear that the mother of the unborn child cannot be sued for an abortion. The only way a healthcare provider could be sued is if that healthcare provider was intentionally assisting in the murder of an unborn child. Telling medical professionals that they cannot assist others in the killing of unborn children is not government overreach, just as telling plantation owners that they could not own slaves was not government overreach. Abortion has been outlawed in the state of Texas and unborn children are starting to be recognized as human beings who are worthy of being treated as such.
In Conclusion
It is my hope that Jennifer Graham will realize that she was mistaken and do her part to dispel the misinformation that she has been responsible for spreading. For more information on the proposed Amarillo Sanctuary City for the Unborn Ordinance and the Vote for Life, be sure to visit www.projectdestinyamarillo.com.
