Reflections on the “Sanctuary City for the Unborn” Vote

cartoon pregnant woman in pink clothes with coffee

I’m astonished to report that, just last week, I cast a vote against a local proposal to establish my university town as a “Sanctuary City for the Unborn.” This ordinance would classify abortion at any stage of pregnancy as murder. To date, 22 cities in Texas and two in Nebraska have attempted to enact similar measures. The largest of these prior to now was Big Spring, TX, with a little over 28,000 residents.

Lubbock, TX, home to Texas Tech University and known for its association with Buddy Holly, has a population nearing 258,862—nearly ten times that of Big Spring. With this new law, we have become the largest city in the United States to adopt a “Sanctuary City for the Unborn” designation. Yet, this leads to a pivotal question: Are those who supported the ordinance genuinely advocating for life, or are they merely endorsing a pro-birth stance?

The Signs of Advocacy

As you navigate through our town, you’ll encounter numerous signs proclaiming “Vote for Life. Vote for the ordinance.” These messages are everywhere—from homes and businesses to churches. Lubbock has a significant churchgoing population, and these institutions are urging their communities to endorse a proposal that removes women’s rights to make decisions about their own bodies.

What Does Voting for Life Mean?

What does voting in favor of this ordinance mean in reality? Does it imply offering support to women who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant and lack access to necessary medical resources? How do we address scenarios where the mother’s life is at risk in comparison to that of the unborn child? What about cases of sexual assault that can leave lasting psychological scars on the mother?

Once the child is born, what does a yes vote signify? How will we address the strain on our already overburdened social services, which are desperately in need of foster homes, especially since the onset of Covid? What support exists for those who can’t provide for their children without government assistance? What about children entering homes rife with abuse, which is a serious issue in Lubbock County? How can we ensure the well-being of both mother and child after birth and throughout the child’s development?

These are just a few of the many questions that trouble me as I consider the implications of all the “Vote for Life” signs around town. A friend who supports the ordinance recently expressed her own struggle with the meaning of her vote, suggesting that to truly embody pro-life principles, one must actively contribute—whether by fostering, donating, or volunteering. Although I stand in stark opposition to her view, I appreciate her call for those who support the ordinance to engage in meaningful action, rather than simply voting yes.

Beyond the Moment of Birth

Tonight, I received a flyer from the “Vote for Life” group stating, “This is not political—we simply want to protect life. It’s about standing up for defenseless babies and their mothers.” As a woman and a mother, I can’t help but feel that protecting life extends far beyond the moment of birth. It encompasses access to adequate medical care for both mother and child throughout pregnancy. It involves ensuring that the child enters a world where they will be cared for and supported, with access to resources for a successful upbringing. It’s about guaranteeing that children are nourished, clothed, housed, and educated, and that parents receive the necessary support for new babies in a country that lacks mandated paid parental leave. It’s essential to consider the mental health of the mother and to ensure that survivors of sexual assault have autonomy over their own bodies.

This discussion reminds me of a scene from “The Handmaid’s Tale,” where the protagonist, June, pleads with her husband to authorize her birth control prescription—highlighting the reality that women are often denied the ability to make their own choices and must rely on others for decisions regarding their bodies. Healthcare professionals shouldn’t have to fear legal repercussions for delivering care that is crucial for a woman’s health.

Supporting Women and Families

Rather than channeling efforts into pro-birth initiatives, we should prioritize educating and supporting women who may not be prepared for motherhood. If they choose to bring a child into the world, our focus should be on providing the necessary support for both mother and child.

Ultimately, no one other than the individual should dictate what is best for their own life and body. Women deserve options to make informed decisions, and healthcare providers should be free from fear of legal action when offering essential care. What may work for one woman may not be applicable to another; it is unrealistic and unsafe to assume that every situation is identical and that all women should conform to the decisions of others without the necessary support.

As a privileged mother who welcomed a rainbow baby into a loving marriage, I recognize how fortunate I am. Many women lack the resources and support I have. They may face unhealthy circumstances or pregnancies resulting from trauma.

Advocating for Comprehensive Support

By championing pro-choice principles, I genuinely believe I am supporting life. This means advocating for comprehensive education on sex and birth control, ensuring affordable access to medical care for women of childbearing age, and empowering women to make informed decisions about their bodies. I urge everyone who believes that voting for a Sanctuary City ordinance equates to supporting life to reflect on the broader implications of their vote. If it boils down to merely checking a box on a ballot, can one truly claim to be pro-life, or are they just pro-birth? What does it mean to support life for both the mother and the child?

Tonight, I voted against an ordinance that ultimately passed by a significant margin. However, I question whether those who were in favor truly grasp the ramifications. Unless our society can ensure adequate resources and structures to support mothers and children—not just at birth but throughout their lives—a yes vote does not equate to supporting life. If a mother faces mental health challenges as a result of being compelled to carry a pregnancy to term, then we aren’t genuinely supporting life. If decisions are made for others without acknowledging their individual circumstances, we fail to promote life. Instead of pushing for stricter abortion laws, we need to address what it truly means to vote for life.

Resources for Further Exploration

If you’re interested in exploring more about the intricacies of pregnancy and home insemination, check out this excellent resource. For those considering options for assisted reproduction, consider this reliable provider. And to stay engaged with related topics, visit this insightful blog post.

Search Queries

Conclusion

In summary, the recent vote to classify our university town as a “Sanctuary City for the Unborn” raises critical questions about the meaning of being pro-life. As the largest city to adopt such an ordinance, we must critically examine the implications of our decisions on women’s rights, healthcare, and the support systems necessary to genuinely promote life for both mothers and their children.

Keyphrase: Sanctuary City for the Unborn

Tags: [“home insemination kit”, “home insemination syringe”, “self insemination”]