Scherlen holds another meeting to discuss abortion ordinance concerns

Amarillo City Councilmember for Place 3 Tom Scherlen held another public meeting last week to have citizens voice their concerns about issues that affect the city. Much like the last meeting, they discussed a proposed abortion ordinance for the city. This meeting had more citizens arguing to impose the ordinance than the previous meeting, which featured primarily pro-choice citizens.

The meeting started off with a tense exchange between Scherlen and John Barrett, one of the 11 initialing committee members for the abortion ordinance petition that was filed in December. At the heart of the discussion were comments made by Scherlen in previous interviews about the lack of need for the ordinance due to abortion law in Texas.

In an online interview, Barrett blasted Scherlen for spreading misinformation about the ordinance. The heart of the issue was what the ordinance does that the state law does not do. Barrett took issue with Scherlen questioning the constitutionality of the ordinance on CNN. He said the Texas Heartbeat Act does not properly address abortion travel outside of the state and abortion-inducing drugs. He alleges that Texas law encouraged communities to go beyond the state law.

Barrett also derided Scherlen’s criticism of the Lubbock County Commissioners for the way it passed its version of the abortion ordinance. The vote passed with only three members voting with two abstaining. Both commissioners stated concerns about the county regulating abortion. There was also a call for more time to review the ordinance, which failed 3-2.

One member at the meeting applauded the idea behind the ordinance because it would outlaw abortion from the conception of a child. She felt it was a double protection for the unborn.

“There are many overreaches in this ordinance,” Scherlen said. “I believe in small government, and it should not be a dictatorship. I believe that the Supreme Court overturning Roe vs. Wade and the Texas Heartbeat Act were good things.”

Many members of the meeting cited Bible passages as a reason for the passage of the ordinance, one saying that the opposite of pro-life is not pro-choice but pro-death. Another lamented a failed abortion that she says left her unable to have children and assertions that Planned Parenthood was pushing abortion to harvest fetal tissues rather than serving the needs of the women it works with.

A detractor of the ordinance said that more focus should be placed on taking care of the children that are in the community rather than restricting women’s reproductive rights.

Lindsay London, co-founder of the Amarillo Reproductive Freedom Alliance, said that her group stands in full opposition to the ordinance, which would restrict women's reproductive rights.

“I hear so many people speak to their faith and deeply held beliefs that I respect; however, we have separation of church and state in this country,” London said. “Christians do not have a right to impose their belief system on the rest of us who do not fall in line with that belief or ideology. I believe that abortion is the right of the mother, and this ordinance is completely taking away the sovereignty of the woman to determine her future.”

Barrett pushed back, saying there is no guarantee of separation of church and state in federal law.

London also said that taking the right of abortion travel for women from abusive relationships and many other factors that would cause them to seek abortion is very damaging to women.

The conversation then went into an argument about women's regret for having abortions, and that this ordinance prevents women from being forced to have an abortion. According to the Turnaway Study conducted by the University of California San Francisco ( https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/01/416421/five-years-after-abortion-nearly-all-women-say-it-was-right-decision-study ), which studied more than 650 cases across 21 states, women who had abortions were no more likely than those that were denied abortion access. The report concluded that abortion does not increase a woman’s risk of suffering depression or suicidal ideation, and that five years later, 95% say they made the right decision.

Some critics of the study felt that a group of women were left out of the study due to having obtained medication abortions. Other groups have asserted the study was flawed because most women who feel good about an abortion would respond with anecdotal evidence that might contradict the study.

Barrett argued that the city councilmembers all ran as pro-life and, therefore, should support the ordinance being proposed. He said they were asked about this at debates, but Scherlen pushed back, saying that the first time he saw this ordinance was in October and would never have promised to support it for the city.

Another citizen felt that this ordinance was inappropriate for the city government to press upon its citizens and dictate morality.

“Here is where I come from on this subject; this county has some of the highest child mortality in the state,” Scherlen said. “I would love to see Amarillo work with our health system to include prenatal, post-natal, and everything in between. What we are talking about is the cause of this problem. I wish we would use a lot of effort to make life better for our young mothers, rather than trying to legislate this on a city level.”

Barrett replied that there needs to be a voice for the unborn.

“The one thing I do not hear anybody saying is who speaks for the unborn baby and what rights that they have,” Barrett said. “That womb is a sacred vessel, and that baby rests in that womb. Who speaks for that child?”

Barrett also derided those that call for a rape exception due to the small percentage of abortions due to rape. He said that there is only two to three percent of women that require an abortion. He also gave an anecdotal tale of his sister keeping a baby from a gang rape, advocating that women in this situation should carry to term with adoption as an option.

“We still want to argue for our right to live a responsibility-free life and have wanton relations. That is what it boils down to,” Barrett added.

Another citizen supporting the ordinance said that if we have killed as many babies through abortion as claimed, then an apology is owed to Hitler for the death of millions of Jewish people.

One citizen argued that the council should not allow any residents of Amarillo to use abortion-inducing medication within the city or allow residents to travel outside of the city to obtain an abortion. While the group considers abortion murder, they do not see the mother who chooses to get one as guilty in her decision, while anyone who helps her with her travel should be subject to the proposed ordinance.

“We as a council were trying to come up with a solution that would work for the community, but it was decided that there was going to be no solution with this petition,” Scherlen said. “This was going to be Mark Lee Dickson’s ordinance or nothing. At that point, the city council backed off and stopped trying to work something out that would work for everybody.”

Scherlen said that he was glad to get input from the community, and the council is now awaiting the petition to act.

This article originally appeared on Amarillo Globe-News: Scherlen has tense exchange with petitioners of abortion ordinance