Introduction

Plato once said that mankind is simultaneously capable of censoring injustice and committing it.[1] On October 13, 2022, the Huntsville City Council passed Resolution No. 22-844 about the city’s abortion policy. The Council introduced, amended, and passed a resolution stating the city resources will not be used in investigating and prosecuting abortion-related crimes. The original resolution (full text found below) deprioritized criminal investigations regarding “pregnancy outcomes.” The amendment to the final version (full text found below) was introduced as a result of the arguments provided by John Hamilton (City Administrator, Mayor’s Office). The resolution sponsor, Frances Akridge, mentioned the original resolution intended to prevent the Huntsville Police Department from engaging in “witch-hunts” against women “in need of crucial health care services.” The final vote was 4-1, with Jeannie Robinson as the only council member to vote against the resolution. Devyn Keith, John Meredith, Francis Akridge, and Bill King voted for the resolution.

What does it mean?

The Alabama Human Life Protection Act prohibits abortion as a matter of state law. The city of Huntsville has apparently set itself against the law of Alabama that was passed by the majority of the state legislature. This resolution suggests that the city supports abortion, but it is unclear what it all means. It’s as much about how the city regards abortion as it is about how to legally permit it. On the one hand, the original draft appears to be political virtue signaling since mothers were not and are not under threat of prosecution for aborting their babies in Alabama. An attempt to guarantee and protect mothers from prosecution who are not threatened with prosecution is nothing more than nominalist sophistry. On the other hand, this resolution takes the form of a legal document in which there is a conflict between the Huntsville resolution and the Alabama law. The original Huntsville resolution emphasized that women were protected from prosecution. The Alabama state law also says that mothers are not liable while saying that doctors can be persecuted.[2] The final version of the resolution announces that the city leaders are willing to defy state law and refuse to arrest abortion doctors. The resolution slouches toward clarity.

The third “whereas” of the original resolution is concerned with a woman’s “fear of prosecution” in the situation of “pregnancy” (Resolved point b). Is pregnancy prosecutable? No. Is suffering a miscarriage prosecutable? No. What is prosecutable? According to the state of Alabama, unlawful abortion is a class A Felony. But it is the doctor rather than the mother who is liable. Alabama Section 26-23H-5 says, “No woman upon whom an abortion is performed or attempted to be performed shall be criminally or civilly liable.”

The resolution high-horses about the value women bring to “professional,” “business,” “artistic,” “educational,” “medical,” “governmental,” “civic,” and “religious” communities. The pernicious assumption is that abortion contributes to the value women bring to the community and that prohibiting abortion detracts from the value women bring to the community. How in the name of the Nine Gods does eliminating a precious child enhance the value of the child’s mother? The surest way to cultivate the value of women is to make them more of a maker, not less. Mother Teresa said, “By abortion, the mother does not learn to live, but kills even her own child to solve her problems, And, by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. That father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion.”

How does abortion increase the value of the city of Huntsville? For example, are abortions necessary for Huntsville to remain active in global competition? The answer is no. But even IF abortion did boost the local economy, Huntsville would be poorer for it. Mother Teresa explains, “To me, the nations with legalized abortion are the poorest nations. The greatest destroyer of peace today is the crime against the unborn child.” The value of a place is not increased when the weakest among them are endangered by city council resolutions. If abortion doctors are given the green light to kill preborn children, what is left of Huntsville to be destroyed?

How does the Alabama legislature look upon a municipal resolution to withhold funds for the enforcement of a duly-passed statute creating a Class A Felony?[3] What if Huntsville decided to pass a resolution not to spend resources prosecuting other Class A Felonies, such as murder, kidnapping 1st degree, rape 1st degree, robbery 1st degree, burglary 1st degree, and arson 1st degree. Would such a resolution hold up legally? What kind of chaos would ensue if all local governments were allowed to pick and choose which state laws—Class A Felonies, no less—they chose to enforce?

New Precedents

The resolution establishes two precedents for the city of Huntsville.

Precedent #1

First, the city leaders have established a precedent that they think they must interpose on behalf of its citizens if the state of Alabama passes a law that the City Council deems unjust. They have set themselves as the test of opposing elements. The problem is that while interposition is biblically warranted,[4] it is only so in cases where the weak and innocent (preborn babies) need protection from the strong and ghoulish (complicit abortionists). Huntsville, however, has positioned itself in a surprisingly immoral way by protecting the strong and ghoulish abortion doctors from the threat of the weak and innocent preborn babies. Resolution No. 22-844 can never amount to a normative guide for city employees because it does not relate to God’s higher law on the supreme matters of life, death, murder, and parenthood.

Precedent #2

Second, the original resolution attempted to establish a precedent that city-funded operations won't keep track of pregnancies (except as required by federal/state law). The legal effect of the resolution would have been that any city supervisor or employee would be liable if they generate records of pregnancy.

According to the original resolution, “City … personnel … will not … provide information to anyone about pregnancy outcomes.” Notice how absurdity runs free when abortion nests within a city’s borders. If the original resolution was passed and enforced equitably, then city employees would be unable to spread the word that Jane’s baby was born over the weekend, or that Tatyana had a miscarriage and will be out of the office this week. What is the statute of limitations on discussing pregnancy outcomes? Since all children are “pregnancy outcomes,” every employee will be forbidden from speaking about children and grandchildren in the office. Indeed, every city employee is a pregnancy outcome. How can they obey the prohibition and walk around the office at the same time?

Furthermore, would Huntsville Hospital healthcare workers have to fear prosecution if they kept track of a patient’s pregnancy? Would the policy of the original Resolution No. 22-844 apply to the Healthcare Authority Board of the city of Huntsville? Did the board intend to follow the policy? If they did, how would this be implemented? Would the policy apply to the city’s fire or rescue personnel?

The last paragraph of the resolution briefly states how Resolution No. 22-844 will impact the police. Has the Huntsville Chief of Police briefed the city to what extent the police can follow the policy or how this policy will obstruct regular criminal investigations? Has the city communicated its intent to not resource investigations into the crime of abortion with the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency or with the Governor’s office? Is the City of Huntsville required to cooperate with federal or state law enforcement investigations as a condition for receiving grants or other funding? Does Resolution No. 22-844 restrict the authority of the Huntsville Police Department to arrest an abortion doctor who has violated state law?

This sets not only a bad precedent but an unenforceable one. Bad and unenforceable precedents are better broken than kept. City employees can serve as mediating authorities and refuse to enforce Resolution No. 22-844.

Conclusion

We’ve received an X-ray of the loyalties of the City Council that reveals a case of Dobbs whiplash. Since abortion is wrong, the defenders of abortion are wrong, even if they operate with democratic sympathy. Resolution No. 22-844 is a new policy inaugurated with the avowed object and confident promise that doctors won’t be prosecuted for performing an abortion. The intended effect, therefore, is to permit doctors to perform abortions in Huntsville. The question is one of local importance and we cannot help dealing with it. The subject cannot be avoided. The politics of abortion is upon us and has attached to the local body politic. Since the law is a tutor, the effect of Resolution No. 22-844 is to teach. What does it teach?

First, the original version teaches mothers that there is no fear of prosecution for killing their unborn baby. Second, the final version teaches abortion doctors that they are not mean fellows for turning the living into the unliving. Resolution No. 22-844 argues each into the belief that abortion is a legal and moral good. In sum, Resolution No. 22-844 teaches poltroonery. It is a consuming nuisance that suggests that someone like Dr. Ulrich Klopfer is free to operate in Huntsville, Alabama.

RESOLUTION NO. 22-844 (ORIGINAL VERSION)

WHEREAS, Huntsville has distinguished itself as a city that recognizes the value that women bring to our professional, business, artistic, educational, medical, governmental, civic, and religious communities; and

WHEREAS, Huntsville is in active global competition for the talent and contributions that women bring to our community and every sector of the economy; and

WHEREAS, healthcare providers must be free to carry out the medical procedures most appropriately indicated for any given patient scenario without fear of prosecution and so that women and girls do not experience unnecessary pain, suffering and risk of serious illness or death.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that it is the policy of the City of Huntsville that, except to the extent otherwise required by state or federal law, city resources, including funds, personnel, or equipment, will not be used to:

a. Create any record of any information related to an individual’s pregnancy or health care;

b. Provide information to anyone about pregnancy outcomes unless such information is provided to defend the patient’s right to reproductive care or the healthcare provider’s right to provide such care; or

c. Conduct surveillance or use any device, hardware, or software for the purpose of determining the purpose of a woman’s appointment with her physician.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that it is the policy of the City of Huntsville that investigation of or support for the prosecution of any allegation, charge, or information relating to a pregnancy outcome or any party thereto will be the lowest priority for law enforcement personnel, except in cases of conduct that is intentional or criminally negligent to the health of the pregnant person seeking care, where coercion or force is used against the pregnant person, or where the pregnancy outcome is not the crime being investigated but seeking evidence of another crime, such as sexual assault.

RESOLUTION NO. 22-844 (FINAL VERSION)WHEREAS, Huntsville has distinguished itself as a city that recognizes the value that women bring to our professional, business, artistic, educational, medical, governmental, civic, and religious communities; and

WHEREAS, Huntsville is in active global competition for the talent and contributions that women bring to our community and every sector of the economy; and

WHEREAS, healthcare providers must be free to carry out the medical procedures most appropriately indicated for any given patient scenario without fear of prosecution and so that women and girls do not experience unnecessary pain, suffering and risk of serious illness or death.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that it is the policy of the City of Huntsville that, as it relates to Alabama House Bill 314, municipal resources shall only be used in accordance with the provisions of the subject law and the enumerated rights and restrictions defined therein.

[1] The full quote: “Mankind censures injustice, fearing that they may be the victims of it and not because they shrink from committing it.”

[2] “It shall be unlawful for any person to intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion,” Section 26-23H-4

[3] “An abortion performed in violation of this chapter is a Class A felony” and “An attempted abortion performed in violation of this chapter is a Class C felony.” Section 26-23H-6.

[4] See The Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrates: A Proper Resistance to Tyranny and a Repudiation of Unlimited Obedience to Civil Government by Matthew Trewhella.