I can hardly believe I’m writing this in 2021, but last week, I found myself voting against a local measure that would designate my university town as a “Sanctuary City for the Unborn.” This ordinance essentially criminalizes abortion at any stage of pregnancy, categorizing it as murder. In Texas alone, 22 cities, along with two in Nebraska, have sought similar designations. Up until now, the largest city to do so was Big Spring, TX, with a population of just over 28,000.
Lubbock, TX—a university town renowned for Texas Tech University, Buddy Holly, and its unique position as one of the few small cities in rural West Texas—boasts a population of 258,862, making it nearly ten times larger than Big Spring. With this new law, we have become the largest city in the U.S. to adopt a “Sanctuary City for the Unborn” policy. However, a critical question looms: Are those supporting this measure genuinely pro-life, or merely pro-birth?
Driving through our city, you’ll encounter countless signs urging residents to “Vote for Life” in favor of the ordinance. These signs are plastered on homes, street corners, businesses, and churches. Lubbock has a significant churchgoing demographic, and it seems every corner holds a place of worship, all urging their communities to support a measure that would strip women of their rights over their own bodies.
What Does Voting for Life Truly Signify?
What does voting in favor of this ordinance truly signify? Does it encompass the responsibility of caring for a woman who unexpectedly finds herself pregnant and unprepared? What about the balance of life between mother and child—should the mother’s life be sacrificed for the sake of the child? How do we address cases of sexual assault, where the mental trauma could deeply affect a woman’s life?
And after the baby arrives, what does a “yes” vote mean then? How do we address our already strained social services, which have been desperately seeking foster homes, especially since the onset of COVID? What about parents who cannot support their children without government aid? Consider the children who enter households rife with abuse—Lubbock County has one of the highest child abuse rates in the state. How are we safeguarding both mother and child post-birth?
These questions weigh heavily on my mind as I reflect on the “Vote for Life” signs scattered throughout the city. A friend who supported the measure recently posed a thought-provoking challenge: to be genuinely pro-life means taking action beyond simply voting yes—such as fostering, donating, or volunteering. While I stand in stark opposition to her views, I commend her call for true pro-life advocacy rather than mere pro-birth sentiments, often rooted in religious obligation.
Protecting Life Beyond Birth
Tonight, I received a flyer from the “Vote for Life” campaign 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 ensuring access to quality medical care for both mother and child before and after birth. It’s about guaranteeing that children enter the world into environments equipped to support them throughout their childhood and into adulthood. It’s about providing proper nourishment, clothing, housing, and education. It’s about addressing the needs of parents and newborns in a country where paid maternity or paternity leave is not mandated. It also involves considering the mental health of mothers and ensuring survivors of sexual assault have choices regarding their bodies.
The situation brings to mind an episode of “The Handmaid’s Tale,” where a flashback reveals a woman pleading with her husband to sign a prescription for birth control. This illustrates the troubling reality that women are often seen as needing others—partners, neighbors, community members, and politicians—to make decisions about their own lives. Healthcare professionals shouldn’t have to fear legal repercussions for offering the best care to their patients.
Shifting the Focus to Support
Instead of investing time, energy, and resources into pro-birth initiatives, we should focus on better educating, supporting, and assisting women who might not be prepared for motherhood. If a child is to be brought into the world, we must prioritize initiatives that support both the mother and child throughout their lives.
Ultimately, no one else should dictate what is best for me, my life, or my body. Women deserve options to determine what is right for them, just as healthcare providers should have the freedom to act in their patients’ best interests without fear. What works for one woman may not apply to another, making it unrealistic and harmful to impose a one-size-fits-all solution on such a deeply personal issue.
As a proud mother who welcomed a rainbow baby into a loving marriage, I recognize my privilege and feel a responsibility to advocate vocally for what is right. Many women lack the resources or support I have; some may face pregnancy under dire circumstances, such as sexual assault.
By championing pro-choice policies, I believe I am, in fact, advocating for life. This means educating young people about sex and birth control, providing affordable healthcare to women, and empowering them to make informed decisions about their bodies. I urge anyone who thinks that supporting the Sanctuary City ordinance equates to supporting life to reconsider what that truly entails. If it’s just a matter of casting a vote, can we genuinely claim to be pro-life, or are we merely pro-birth? What does it mean to support life for both mother and child?
Tonight, I voted against an ordinance that ultimately passed with significant support, but I question whether those in favor truly understand the implications of their vote. Unless we, as a society, have the necessary resources and support systems in place for mothers and children—not just at birth, but throughout their lives—then a “yes” vote fails to genuinely uphold the value of life. If a mother endures mental anguish from being compelled to carry a pregnancy to term, can we truly say we are supporting life? We must address the core issues surrounding what it means to vote for life.
Further Reading
For further insights on related topics, you may find this post on home insemination informative, or visit this authoritative source for expert guidance. Additionally, WebMD offers excellent resources on pregnancy and home insemination.
Search Queries:
- Home insemination techniques
- Understanding Sanctuary City laws
- Pro-life vs pro-birth debate
- Support for pregnant women
- Child welfare resources
In summary, the recent push for Lubbock to become a “Sanctuary City for the Unborn” raises critical questions about what it truly means to be pro-life. The focus should shift from merely opposing abortion to providing comprehensive support for mothers and their children before and after birth. Real pro-life advocacy involves ensuring women have choices, access to healthcare, and the means to raise their children in safe, supportive environments.