Do the laws of the State of Texas already give “any person” the right of civil action against “anyone that aids or abets” an abortion by providing abortion-inducing drugs or by transporting them across state lines to an abortion provider?

In an Amarillo City Council Forum Message Board, Mayor Cole Stanley wrongly implied that the laws of the State of Texas already give “any person” the right to bring a civil action against “anyone who aids or abets” an abortion by providing abortion-inducing drugs or by transporting them across state lines to an abortion provider. 

That is untrue. The Texas Heartbeat Act only allows civil actions to be brought in response to post-heartbeat abortions performed by Texas-licensed physicians. Most out-of-state abortionists are not licensed to practice medicine in Texas. 

In addition, the Texas Heartbeat Act applies only to abortions performed in Texas, not abortions performed in other states. There is currently no way under state law for anyone to sue someone who aids or abets an out-of-state abortion unless: (1) The abortion was performed by a Texas-licensed physician; (2) The abortion occurred after a fetal heartbeat was detectable; AND (3) The abortion was a drug-induced abortion in which one or both of the abortion-inducing drugs was swallowed or ingested in Texas.

Response by Mark Lee Dickson and Attorney Jonathan F. Mitchell, authors of the proposed Amarillo Sanctuary City for the Unborn Ordinance

If SB 8 (Texas 87th Legislative Session) only addresses abortions taking place after a detectable heartbeat, why are supporters of the Sanctuary City for the Unborn Initiative arguing that it can be used to support cities outlawing abortion from the point of conception?

Section 5 of the Texas Heartbeat Act amends the Texas Code Construction Act to include the following provision: 

“A statute may not be construed to restrict a political subdivision 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.” Tex. Gov’t Code § 311.036(b). 

This explicitly allows municipalities to restrict abortion in ways that go beyond the current state laws of Texas.

Response by Mark Lee Dickson and Attorney Jonathan F. Mitchell, authors of the proposed Amarillo Sanctuary City for the Unborn Ordinance

What does the proposed Amarillo Sanctuary City for the Unborn Ordinance do that our current state law does not already do? 

A lot. Current state law does nothing to punish individuals who traffic pregnant women across state lines for the purpose of abortion. It only outlaws and criminalizes abortions that occur within Texas. State law has no provisions protecting the unborn residents of our state who are taken to other states and murdered by out-of-state abortion providers. Current state law also has no provisions enforcing the federal Comstock Act’s prohibitions and the shipment and receipt of abortion-related paraphernalia.

Response by Mark Lee Dickson and Attorney Jonathan F. Mitchell, authors of the proposed Amarillo Sanctuary City for the Unborn Ordinance