Texans rally in Austin to protest the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade in 2022.Bob Daemmrich/Zuma

The city of Amarillo, in the Texas Panhandle, has become one of the strongholds of the anti-abortion movement in that state and across the country, in part because its only federal judgea far-right Trump appointee, has been so willing to rubber-stamp conservative challenges to reproductive health options like the abortion pill And birth control for minors. So when far-right activists hatched a plan to put a local measurement On the ballot that would have essentially banned anyone from using Amarillo roads to travel for abortions, supporters assumed it would easily pass.

But on Tuesday, Amarillo voters surprised prognosticators by resoundingly defeat the measure, Proposition A, 60 percent to 40 percent. It’s a rare victory for abortion rights in one of the most restrictive states in the country, even though the overall national election results were a disaster for the future of reproductive rights across the country. the United States, with the Republicans now controlling power. White House and Senate. The House of Representatives remains up for grabs.

The result in Amarillo is particularly surprising given the city’s staunchly conservative record: in the two counties that Amarillo encompasses, more than 70 percent of voters voted for Donald Trump in Tuesday’s election.

But apparently the ban was too broad, even for some of those voters. This would apply to anyone who drives a patient seeking an abortion to an appointment using city roads, or who provides financial assistance to anyone passing through the city to receive abortion care outside of the city. the state. Even someone simply offering directions to the nearest out-of-state clinic could be held liable.

“We are incredibly excited and relieved,” said Courtney Brown, co-founder of the association. Amarillo Reproductive Freedom Alliancesaid to me shortly after the vote totals came in. “It proves that when you sit down with people across the aisle, even those who are pro-life, and explain what these bans actually do in practice, they realize how harmful they are. .”

The travel ban is the brainchild of two influential anti-abortion strategists: East Texas activist and pastor Mark Lee Dickson and the former Texas solicitor general. Jonathan Mitchell. Dickson is the leader of the so-called “sanctuary for the unborn» movement, which has so far persuaded about 80 local governments in seven states to pass ordinances banning abortion in their jurisdictions. Mitchell is the architect of 2021 State Senate Bill 8, also known as Heartbeat actwhich banned abortions after six weeks of pregnancy and included a “bounty hunter” provision putting enforcement in the hands of private citizens rather than governments. SB8 played a vital role in aiding the overthrow Roe v. Wade in 2022, after which Texas imposed a total ban on abortion. Current law makes it a crime to perform an abortion, with penalties of up to life in prison and no exceptions for rape, incest or life-ending fetal abnormalities.

But even with these draconian laws, Texans continued to have abortions, either by purchasing abortion pills from online suppliers – illegal in the state but difficult to apply– or traveling out of state. According to the Guttmacher Institute, since 2023 some 35,000 Texas patients have been forced to travel elsewhere to undergo the procedure, primarily to New Mexico and Colorado, where abortion remains legal throughout pregnancy, or to Kansas, where it is permitted. legal up to 22 weeks.

Mitchell and Dickson therefore launched new attacks on several related fronts. They began pushing for a “local ban on abortion trafficking”, based on Dickson’s argument that “The unborn child is always taken against their will.“And they began to look for ways to revive the Comstock Actan 1873 anti-vice law that prohibits the “sending or receiving” of any abortion-related material, including pills. The so-called “zombie law” could not be enforced until Roe deer was in force, but it was never repealed by Congress; resurrecting him would amount to a national ban on abortion.

Amarillo, located in the largely rural Panhandle region of Texas, was considered a “trophy” for abortion advocates because of its prime location on Interstate 40, an hour’s drive from New Mexico, where more than 14,000 Texans sought abortion care last year and passage to Colorado. Thanks to its proximity to legal abortion states, Dickson told me in August, he deemed Amarillo the “abortion trafficking hub” of Texas.

Amarillo is also home to a federal court where a Trump-appointed anti-abortion extremist sits. Matthew J. Kacsmaryk is the sole judge, meaning he decides any federal lawsuit filed there. Formerly a lawyer for Christian Right Law FirmKacsmaryk has a history of rule against reproductive rights – helping launch a lawsuit against FDA regulation of the abortion drug mifepristone in Supreme Court; decision that adolescents must have parental consent to use prescription contraception; and calling the Victorian-era Comstock Act “important public policy” this must be interpreted “clearly”. Far-right litigators seeking to block Biden administration policies have been criticized for “shopping judge” in Kacsmaryk’s courtroom, knowing they can count on him to be on their side.

The 18 pages The measure Dickson and Mitchell crafted was incredibly broad, banning not only the transportation of people seeking abortions in or through the city, but any conduct that “knowingly aids or abets an elective abortion” on any Amarillo resident, regardless of where the procedure takes place. Borrowing from SB 8’s “bounty hunter” provision, the ordinance allows almost anyone to bring a civil action to enforce the ban, with a potential payout of $10,000 in damages per violation , encouraging Texans to turn on each other.

The order also contains a ban on “possession or distribution” of abortion pills under the Comstock Act. Mitchell, the mastermind behind many anti-abortion trial And intimidation tactics against abortion supporters – hoped the ordinance could give the city the opportunity to sue the FDA over its regulation of mifepristone after the Supreme Court dismissed a case brought by anti-abortion doctors last June.

First, Dickson and his allies attempted to persuade the self-described “pro-life” Amarillo City Council to adopt the ordinance, but failed by a 4-1 vote in June, with local leaders citing their lack of authority to regulate interstate travel. Anti-abortion activists then successfully launched a petition to add the ordinance to the November ballot, effectively forcing the decision on voters.

When Brown and five friends learned that the abortion travel ban was going to be enforced in their community, they immediately took action, creating the Amarillo Reproductive Freedom Alliance base in 2023. They spent the next year organizing in the community to convince conservative voters that the ban would not only infringe on bodily rights, but many other constitutional rights as well.

Dickson attributes the ban’s defeat to a “disinformation campaign” led by the group – and even the city’s conservative mayor – and vowed not to give up. “Amarillo is truly the new Alamo of the pro-life movement in Texas,” he said in a statement. “The fight is far from over in the city of Amarillo.”

Meanwhile, Brown suspects Dickson and Mitchell will continue to impose travel bans in cities near Amarillo and perhaps elsewhere. “We remain vigilant to also protect the rights of other citizens around us,” she said. “We remain ready to fight.”