Pro-Choice Problems Creep into Rural Texas
You don’t expect that a rural, west-Texas town to be a hotbed of partisan politics. Unfortunately, progressive tendencies showed up to a city council vote on Thursday night in the small town of Coahoma, Texas.
Courtesy of Mark Lee Dickson
At just under 1,000 residents, many in the mainstream media would probably write off Coahoma and other similar towns as “backward” or “boomer rubes.” All of the truly “woke” folks will know this not to be true—that towns like these better represent the nation than coastal elites.
Unfortunately, the downvoting council members have taken a page from the playbook of those Don-Lemon elites and have ushered danger into their community—especially for the most vulnerable among us.
In a 3-against, 1-abstaining, 1-absent vote, the council of Coahoma voted to not make their city a sanctuary for the unborn. In doing so, they keep their city open to the intrusion of future abortion clinics. Mayor Warren Wallace cited the fear of litigation against Coahoma if the city adopted this ordinance.
Fortunately, an anonymous and reliable source reports to CRIT-LARGE that a notable attorney has agreed to represent the city at no cost to the taxpayers if they happened to be sued for enacting the proposed Sanctuary City for the Unborn Ordinance. This information was made known to Mayor Wallace. Furthermore, the residents of Coahoma and other small towns across Texas can rest assured they have the support of state legislators as well. Nine Texas policymakers including both representatives and senators have signed a letter of support for the ordinance in question. (That letter can be found following the end of this article.)
One citizen, however, expressed her disdain for those pushing the ordinance. In a comment on Facebook following the vote, she quoted Bible verses on judgment to defend her support of the council vote:
Article continues below
From Facebook
Unfortunately, the proliferation and destigmatization of abortion lie in notions like the ones in the comment above. A vote over abortion has only a tenuous relationship to Scripture on judgment. Certainly, the central issue is the taking of a life, rather than the alleged judgment cast onto a mother seeking an abortion (or city council members?)—both of which can have their actions judged by their fellow Christians and eventually, God in heaven. I am reminded of Luke 17:3.
Furthermore, what the commenter does not understand is that in forbidding the law from declaring if a woman can have an abortion or not, she takes the pro-choice stance, instead of the pro-life mantle she, herself, claims. Ma’am, if the decision to abort is not for you, personally, I understand, and that is respectable; but if a woman is to make her own decision on whether or not to abort, instead of the law, this is a position in favor of choice. Ma’am, please review your stance, one way or the other.
If we are to ensure the pro-life position is the only position any God-fearing individual can take up, we have to make sure pro-lifers are educated and our arguments are understood as the reasonable, biblical ones that they are. Becoming educated on life-positive (and legal) ordinances such as this one is a good first step. Hopefully we can derive lessons from the council’s mistake and look back on the events in Coahoma as a small, pro-choice anomaly in the otherwise pro-life Lone Star State.
The letter signed by various Texas state representatives can be found below:
