After several months of debating the passage of a Sanctuary City for the Unborn (SCFTU) Ordinance, the “pro-life” city council of Rolla, Missouri (pop. 19,943) rejected the measure in a 6-5 vote on Tuesday, January 22, 2025. The ordinance, designed to be enforced through a private enforcement mechanism, would have required compliance with federal abortion-related laws. Specifically, the ordinance would have required compliance with 18 U.S.C. §§ 1461–62, prohibiting the shipping or receiving of abortion-inducing drugs or abortion-related paraphernalia, and 18 U.S.C. § 1531, prohibiting the performing or the aiding or abetting of a partial-birth abortion.

When the ordinance was first introduced to the city council on November 18, 2024, some council members questioned if they even had the ability to pass such a measure. However, on December 16, 2024, that issue was put to rest when Missouri Assistant Attorney General Dominic Barceleau testified before the Rolla City Council. Barceleau shared, “The Attorney General’s position is that state law does not prohibit cities from regulating abortion in a way that is consistent with state and federal law.”

The measure saw both support and opposition across the city. Joe Dalton, the Co-Founder and CEO of Rolla Pregnancy Resource Center, wanted to see the Rolla City Council adopt the SCFTU Ordinance. Dalton shared, “These pills are coming into Rolla right now. So now you go to the internet and order them. No consultation, no nothing, and they show up here. That’s a problem. That’s scary to me.” Hailey Kramer, a family nurse practitioner at Planned Parenthood Rolla Health Center, wanted to see the Rolla City Council reject the SCFTU Ordinance. Kramer shared, “Rolla residents support access to reproductive health, and they made that clear in the recent Amendment 3 votes. It would truly be tragic if an ordinance like this ended up pushing healthcare further out of reach for more residents.”

Please follow LifeNews on Rumble for the latest pro-life videos.

During the November election, a slight majority of 51.08% (2,126) of voters in Rolla voted for Amendment 3, with 48.92% (2,036) voting against it. While the city was clearly divided on Amendment 3, many citizens believed Rolla City Council members were all “pro-life” and would boldly pass a SCFTU Ordinance.

Arguing for the Ordinance

On the night of January 21, 2025, Councilman Josh Vroman laid out his argument as to why the Rolla City Council should pass the SCFTU Ordinance. Vroman argued that the Council had been “delegated the power to preserve the safety, health, peace, good order, comfort, convenience, morals, and welfare of all inhabitants within the City of Rolla,” and that this ordinance requiring compliance to federal abortion-realated laws was good for everyone in the City of Rolla – born and unborn. Vroman did not see the passage of the proposed ordinance as erasing Amendment 3, but reigning in Amendment 3 to work within the confines of federal pro-life laws. Vroman pointed out that the ordinance was consistent with “Rolla’s history of aligning local ordinances with federal standards,” referencing ordinances passed by the city aligning with federal statutes like the Fair Housing Act (FHA), the Americans with Disability Act (ADA), federal statutes on firearms, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).

When it came to creating a private right of action, Vroman explained, “Because this is an ordinance introduced by the City of Rolla under the authority granted to us from chapter 77 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri, we have the implied authority to choose how to enforce this ordinance. We are choosing to empower citizens through a private enforcement mechanism, rather than relying on government enforcement. This allows citizens to directly address violations of the ordinance without burdening city resources.” Vroman was also clear that nothing in the proposed ordinance would change the standard of care currently being provided by healthcare professionals for pregnant mothers in Rolla, Missouri, stating that the proposed ordinance gives exemptions for ectopic pregnancies, miscarriages, birth control, fertility treatments, Plan B, and procedures done to save the life of the mother or to preserve the life or health of her unborn child.

Arguing Against the Ordinance

While much of Councilman Vroman’s presentation answered the objections of those on council who were opposed to the measure, it appeared that several council members had already made up their minds. Councilman Matt Fridley, who had already complained at a previous council meeting that the proposed ordinance was creating negative press and problems such that individuals may not want to live in the community, wanted to see the discussion over – indefinitely. Fridley expressed frustration that the measure put the entire city council in a position where they had to look at their own faith and stated that this was a matter that should be addressed at the state level and not the local level. Fridley stated, “This needed to be taken care of at the state level and it should have been done the right way. And if it didn’t happen there, then it is the law. So for you to ask me to look at my own faith and vote for this . . . yet think about the law, which I have to follow as well. It is a dichotomy that just creates all kinds of controversy in my character and for me. I think the smart thing to do is to table this so I’m making a motion to table this and remove it.” Councilman William Hahn II quickly seconded Fridley’s motion.

Councilman and Mayor Pro-Tem Kevin Greven also wanted the City of Rolla to abandon the discussion, arguing that the issue should be dealt with not at the local level, but at the state or federal level. Councilwoman Tina Balch put forth a different reason for opposing the ordinance, as she appeared to buy the false narrative that pro-life laws already tied the hands of medical professionals in her community. Balch said she felt like the measure created more confusion about medications that are used for other medical purposes and did not want to make things more difficult for healthcare providers in the City of Rolla.

Councilwoman Megan Johnson shared that although she was extremely pro-life and worked really hard to educate people against Amendment 3, which she saw as manipulative, she had extensively researched the proposed ordinance and reached the conclusion that the ordinance “gives false hope to” pro-life individuals. Believing the proposed ordinance lacked “practical enforcement” Johnson said, “I think that, you know, there is not a way to enforce it. 70 cities and 8 counties and there has not been one citizen action. There really is no enforcement behind it.”

Johnson then turned to the founder of the SCFTU Initiative, seated in the audience, and stated, “It bothers me, as someone who is pro-life, that comes into my community and gives false hope. That bothers me. That runs right through me because I love this community and I love the citizens in it and I will bend over backwards for them. And so it bothers me, all of us who have been kicked in the stomach with Amendment 3, and then to bring false hope to us? That breaks my heart. And I’m also deeply troubled by what’s happening behind the scenes, because you know, there is a lot of manipulation and there’s a lot of manipulation towards council members.” Johnson did not state specifically if she believed the city council and citizens of all 70 cities and 8 counties that had passed ordinances had been manipulated into supporting pro-life ordinances.

Continuing her critique, Johnson also questioned which council members had spoken with Jonathan F. Mitchell, who co-wrote the proposed ordinance. Attorney Jonathan F. Mitchell, a former Solicitor General of the State of Texas and the architect of the Texas Heartbeat Act, sent the Rolla City Council a letter offering to represent the city at no cost to the city and taxpayers for any litigation that might come as a result of passing the proposed ordinance. While Johnson did not take time to contact Mitchell and ask questions about the ordinance, Councilmembers Josh Vroman, Mattias Penner, Nathan Chirban, Steve Jackson, and Victoria Steen did.

Lastly, Johnson stated, “Another thing that has bothered me is I have heard statements like individuals that do take a stand and show courage, when it comes time for them to be re-elected or whatnot, that not only will people pray for us but that they’ll put their pocketbooks out and I am not good with that. I want to protect life as much as possible, but I truly believe that this gives us false hope.” Days before the January 21 council meeting, Johnson admitted that she was concerned about her re-election in April. In Ward 2, where she serves, a total of 55.79% (342) voted for Amendment 3, while only 44.21% (271) voted against the measure.

Although Johnson said she had done extensive research, several statements she made after the council meeting appeared to prove otherwise. While admitting she had read sections about the success of the private enforcement mechanism in books like Roe: The History of a National Obsession by Mary Ziegler, published by Yale University Press, and The Story of Abortion in America by Marvin Olasky and Leah Savas, published by Crossway Publishers, Johnson said she was unaware of the private enforcement mechanism’s role in the success of Lubbock’s SCFTU Ordinance or the Texas Heartbeat Act – which both books addressed thoroughly. The chapter in Olasky and Sava’s book was even called, “A New Enforcement Mechanism.”

Councilman Robert Kessinger’s position on the pro-life measure was also a surprise to many in the room. For months Councilman Kessinger had led a discussion on removing fluoride from the water within the City of Rolla. Many expected Kessinger to be supportive of the SCFTU ordinance, especially since he had argued earlier in the meeting that fluoride should be removed from the water because it could harm pregnant mothers and their unborn children. Unfortunately, Kessinger appeared to be more concerned about fluoride harming pregnant mothers and their unborn children than abortion-inducing drugs harming pregnant mothers and their unborn children. Councilman Kessinger said, “I think that this is a really tough situation that we are in right now. I feel like I would do anything for the pro-life movement that was productive, but I don’t feel like this is productive. I think that passing this ordinance would be a sugar high. We would feel great and hi-five each other and hug and have a great time and the reality is we would sit down and have a sugar crash.”

In the end, a majority of the Rolla City Council did exactly what the ACLU of Missouri had advised them to do. In a letter sent January 3, 2025, ACLU Director Tori Shafer, who was also one of the driving forces behind Amendment 3, strongly recommended “that the City Council decline to act on this proposal and reject the ordinance in its entirety.” The six council members voting against the ordinance were: Megan Johnson, Matt Fridley, William Hahn II, Robert Kessinger, Kevin Greven, and Tina Balch. The five council members voting for the pro-life ordinance were: Mattias Penner, Josh Vroman, Nathan Chirban, Steve Jackson, and Victoria Steen. Tellingly, every council member who took time to hear from Jonathan Mitchell voted in favor of the proposed ordinance.

The SCFTU Initiative Continues Throughout Missouri

Despite the loss, pro-life residents in Rolla and in cities across Missouri are not giving up on the desire to see their cities go as far as they possibly can to protect pregnant mothers and their unborn children from the horrors of abortion-inducing drugs. Missouri residents who wish to see their city take action are encouraged to sign the online petition found on the SCFTU Initiative website.

LifeNews Note: Mark Lee Dickson lives in Texas and serves as a Director with Right to Life of East Texas and the founder of the Sanctuary Cities for the Unborn Initiative.

The post Rolla, Missouri Rejects “Sanctuary City for the Unborn” Ordinance appeared first on LifeNews.com.