'Sanctuary City for the Unborn’ ordinance rejected in Comanche, Texas​

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this guest post are solely those of the author.

On Wednesday, June 17, the City Council of Comanche, Texas (pop.4,294) rejected a Sanctuary City for the Unborn (SCFTU) ordinance that would have further protected pregnant mothers and their unborn children from the violence of abortion. The vote was 3-1.

While Mayor Mary Boyd was supportive of the passage of the measure, the mayor could only vote if there was a tie, and there was no tie. Councilmembers Jackie Escobar-Gutierrez, Jimmy Cuellar, and Mayor Pro-Tem Esmeralda Cumba all cast their votes against the measure, and Councilman Rick Griffith cast the lone vote in favor of the measure. Councilman Shane Stalnacker did not vote, as he was absent from the specially-called meeting.

The failed vote came as a shock to many in conservative Comanche County, where 86.78% voted Republican in the November 2024 Presidential Election.

Comanche resident Crystal Morin shared:

“The vote made by our Comanche City Council does not represent us, and it does not represent those unborn children who have no voice. I refuse to believe that I live in a city out-of-step with the pro-life beliefs and values of the State of Texas. I want to be a voice and help save lives and do the right thing and stand up for those unspoken voices.” 

Ironically, the vote by the Comanche City Council came just four days after delegates to the Republican Party of Texas 2026 Party Convention in Houston adopted “Protect Life” as one of their eight legislative priorities for lawmakers. One of the strong pro-life planks adopted at the convention read:

Abortion is not healthcare; it is homicide. Until the abolition of abortion is achieved, we support laws that restrict and regulate abortion, including but not limited to . . . Supporting the right of Texas political subdivisions to protect mothers and their preborn children in their communities by passing enforceable city or county ordinances that further ban abortions within their county or city limits, closing loopholes in state abortion laws.

The Proposed Comanche SCFTU Ordinance

Had the pro-life measure been adopted, the Comanche SCFTU Ordinance would have provided the strongest level of protection for pregnant mothers and their unborn children from the tragedy of abortion. The ordinance would have:

1. Prohibited elective abortions and the aiding or abetting of elective abortions within the City of Comanche by extending the private enforcement mechanism of the Texas Heartbeat Act from the point of detectable heartbeat to the point of fertilization.

2. Prohibited elective abortions on residents of the City of Comanche – regardless of where the abortion takes place.

3. Prohibited abortion traffickers and abortion trafficking organizations from trafficking women, including minors, through the City of Comanche for abortions across state lines.

4. Prohibited abortion-inducing drugs from being mailed into the City of Comanche by the creation of a localized private right of action, serving as an additional deterrent against out-of-state abortion pill distributors.

5. Recognized any organization involved in the mailing and receiving of abortion inducing drugs and abortion paraphernalia as criminal abortion organizations in violation of the federal Comstock Act and prohibited such organizations from doing business within the City of Comanche.

6. Prohibited Texas waste management companies from transporting through the City of Comanche the remains of dead babies that have been aborted at abortion facilities outside the State of Texas and brought back into Texas for disposal as trash in landfills.

The ordinance would have been enforced the same way as the Texas Heartbeat Act, not by law enforcement but by giving private citizens the ability to file a lawsuit against any individual or organization in violation of the ordinance.

The County Attorney Goes To City Hall

Prior to the vote of the Comanche City Council, residents of Comanche addressed the city council during the public comment portion of the meeting. The vast majority opposed passage of the ordinance.

The loudest member of the public opposing the measure was Comanche County Attorney Molly Odgers. The county attorney, who ran as a Republican, was elected to the office in the November 2024 General Election and sworn in for her first term in January 2025.

At the meeting, Odgers questioned whether the ordinance was “necessary, prudent, and in the best interests of the citizens of Comanche.”

To Odgers, the City of Comanche was addressing a matter they did not need to address – brought about by outside individuals and organizations. Odgers stated:

“Our city government should be focused on addressing the needs and concerns of local residents, not advancing the agenda of outside organizations or individuals who have little stake in the long-term consequences for our community.”

In making such statements, Odgers appeared unaware that this measure was the result of Comanche residents seeking to have their city council consider it for the past 7 years.

Despite the measure not having the support of the county attorney, the measure did have the support of conservative Senators and Representatives from across the State of Texas. In August 2023, now-House Speaker Dustin Burrows and 19 other Texas Senators and Representatives penned a letter “To Texas City Councils, County Commissions, and Local Officials” in encouraging Texas cities and counties to pass ordinances outlawing abortion. The letter from conservative elected leaders across Texas stated:

Currently there are over 50 political subdivisions in Texas which have passed local ordinances prohibiting abortion within their jurisdictions. As elected officials who voted for state legislation allowing these local actions, we are thrilled to see this wave of pro-life action at the local level and hope to see these ordinances continue to spread across our state – even in a post-Roe Texas.

While it is true that abortion is outlawed in the entire State of Texas, from the point of conception, our work is far from over. Right now, throughout the State of Texas, women are being trafficked across our borders by abortion traffickers funded by abortion trafficking organizations still operating in our state. As a result, these women are being abused and traumatized by abortion across our Texas–New Mexico border and sent back to Texas for our cities and counties to deal with the aftermath taking place in our homes, our schools, our churches, and our hospitals.

The Sanctuary for the Unborn ordinances seek to protect these institutions by putting safeguards in place to protect men, women, and their children for years to come. These ordinances, which seek to close as many loopholes as possible, do not penalize women who seek or undergo abortions, but place the penalty on the party who most deserves it – the abortionist and the industry profiting from the unjust procedure, including abortion traffickers.

During her lengthy 600+ word speech against the ordinance, County Attorney Odgers said nothing about the real and pressing problems of abortion trafficking and abortion-pill trafficking that are impacting pregnant mothers and their unborn children. Instead, Odgers argued that the ordinance “could expose the City to significant legal and financial risk” and accused those promoting the ordinance of “advancing a broader political agenda rather than protecting the financial interests” of the City of Comanche. 

In making such statements, Odgers did not mention the last time a city in Texas was sued over a SCFTU ordinance, which was the City of Lubbock on May 17, 2021. Two weeks later, on June 1, 2021, Federal District Judge James Wesley Hendrix ruled in Lubbock’s favor. The outcome of that lawsuit became a part of history.

In "The Story of Abortion in America: A Street-Level History 1652–2022," published by Crossway in 2023, Marvin Olasky and Leah Savas wrote:

The day the ordinance went into effect, a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that Planned Parenthood could not sue the city of Lubbock because the city had no role in enforcing the ordinance. To challenge the constitutionality of the ordinance, the abortion business would have to first violate the ordinance and then wait for a lawsuit, which could be costly.

So Planned Parenthood complied with the ordinance and halted the abortions in Lubbock. [Attorney Jonathan F. ] Mitchell later noted that it was the first time since Roe v. Wade that an abortion ban had survived a court challenge.

A total of 78 political subdivisions in Texas – 57 cities and 21 counties – have passed similar ordinances since the last lawsuit was filed. The cities of Eastland, Cisco, Abilene, San Angelo, Mullin, Clyde, and Ranger are just a handful of the many cities that have passed such ordinances since Lubbock. Texas’ SCFTU ordinances were not written to get cities sued, but to prevent cities from ever being successfully sued. 

Wins and Losses

Odgers inquired how many cities have rejected SCFTU ordinances. While the majority of Texas political subdivisions (cities and counties) that took a final vote on the SCFTU ordinances adopted the measure, a small minority of cities and an even smaller minority of counties did not. That has almost always been the result of local leadership having a pro-choice majority or acting on bad advice from attorneys whose beliefs and values were not aligned with conservative Texas values.

The breakdown of the numbers is as follows:

• 83.47% (101) of all political subdivisions in Texas that took a final vote on the ordinance adopted it and kept it, while 16.53% (20) rejected it and still reject it.

• When looking only at cities in Texas, 81.63% (80) adopted and kept the measure, while 18.37% (18) rejected it and still do.

• Among counties in Texas, 91.30% (21) adopted the measure and kept the measure, while 8.70% (2) rejected the measure and still reject the measure.

The Bottom Line

While the Comanche City Council rejected this opportunity to further outlaw abortion, the fight is far from over. Those interested in learning more about the Comanche SCFTU Initiative are encouraged to check out Abiding Life Fellowship’s web page devoted to the measure and read the research packet provided to the mayor and city council. 

Citizens interested in seeing their city or county pass an ordinance further prohibiting abortion, carefully written within the framework of their state and local laws, are encouraged to sign the online petition.