California city won’t pursue abortion ban after all

Temecula will not consider a ban on abortion, as council members on Tuesday night, Sept. 27, rejected a council member’s proposal to discuss making the municipality a “sanctuary city for Temecula’s unborn.”

The five members of the Temecula City Council heatedly discussed the pro-life resolution suggested earlier this month by Council Member Jessica Alexander. It debated whether to bring back for a later vote her proposal that would have emphasized Temecula’s stance as a city against abortions and sought to ban the procedure within the city.

But the council voted 4-1 — with Alexander as the lone member supporting her suggestion — not to bring the issue back on a future council agenda.

Alexander — the director of Temecula’s Birth Choice Center, a pregnancy resource nonprofit organization — emphasized Tuesday that she was “not here to make a law,” but to ask for a city resolution letting “everyone know where we stand.”

Alexander did not use the word “ban” when proposing to make Temecula a “sanctuary city” at the council’s Sept. 13 meeting nor did she use it Tuesday. When first proposing the idea, she advocated for “a resolution to be a sanctuary city for protecting Temecula’s unborn.” She also said at that meeting that the city should be “known as a safe haven, not as an abortion sanctuary. Let the world know that Temecula stands for life, from womb to tomb.”

Tuesday’s vote came the same day that Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a slate of reproductive health care bills, which ranged from increasing access to birth control to ensuring protections for women who seek lawful abortion services in California.

Speaking from the dais Tuesday, Alexander made clear her support of a pro-life, anti-abortion, resolution in Temecula. As she spoke, Alexander played a video on mute from Live Action, a national pro-life nonprofit group, that showed a developing fetus in a womb. She later held up a small figurine of a fetus to make her points.

“Gov. Newsom has forced California, which includes our city Temecula, to be a sanctuary state for abortion,” Alexander said. “It is our duty as city council members to uphold the oath we took to the Constitution and protect the rights of our citizens, seen and unseen. I am asking this body today to create a resolution that affirms Temecula stands for life, from conception to natural death.”

The resolution, had it gone to a vote and passed, would have violated state law, said the California Attorney General’s office, which had already sent a warning to the city that included a statement that it could consider legal action against Temecula.

The California constitution currently protects abortion access in the aftermath of the Supreme Court ruling in June that overturned the nearly half-century-long constitutional right to abortion.

The basic definition of a resolution is to state what we stand firm on. It is our duty as city council members to set the standard for what our city stands for,” Alexander said Tuesday. “I do not want Temecula to be known as a dark abortion state.”

In Orange County, a similar resolution was proposed last month in San Clemente by City Council Member Steve Knoblock, but was removed from the agenda and not voted upon.

Alexander told her colleagues that “as a council, we are called to protect the public. What greater love can we show than to fight for the sanctity of life of the most helpless and innocent, which are our unborn neighbors? By creating this resolution, we are taking a stand for life and holding it up (as) sacred.”

In the emotional discussion that followed, other council members expressed their views.

Council Member Zak Schwank addressed Alexander directly, saying that her recent actions — including opposing a city proclamation that declared June as Pride Month — affect the “business of the city.” Potential businesses, tourists, and residents are reconsidering coming to Temecula, Schwank said, “because of (Alexander’s) unwelcoming threatening and personal grandstanding.”

“It’s really concerning that you’d be willing to put (Temecula) at risk for lawsuits, creating more headlines from Southern California and beyond,” he said. “And the city’s being mocked on late-night television. We’re already seeing the damage your bombastic words are doing to our city, and I believe it will have a lasting negative impact on our city — both as a place to visit and ultimately, economically.”

Several on the dais — including  Mayor Matt Rahn and Council Member Maryann Edwards — said they share pro-life beliefs. But they were concerned with the way Alexander’s pro-life resolution was first presented at the Sept. 13 meeting.

200 people in the Temecula council chamber or watching in the lobby. Many protested pro or con in the plaza earlier. pic.twitter.com/JDIiNif7xn

— David Allen (@DavidAllen909) September 28, 2022

Rahn said the proposal was unclear, and wanted clarity in the future on how Temecula brings forth future city resolutions and proclamations.

“How do we move forward on something like this without in some regard disenfranchising a portion of our community? That’s the challenge,” said Rahn, a Republican who is running to represent the 71st Assembly District in the Nov. 8 election. “Arguably, every community has to struggle with its own identity and its own moral center.”

Later, Edwards made a motion not to put the abortion issue on a future agenda. Edwards said she already believes Temecula is a “sanctuary city, without using it in the legal sense, that will cause us to get sued by the state of California. And I don’t want to go there.”

“Temecula provides safe havens for people to get counseling and support … Temecula has also been funding Birth Choice Temecula for a number of years,” she said.

Alexander countered earlier in the discussion by citing a city resolution that condemns racism passed in summer 2020, before she was elected to the council.

Temecula’s Resolution 2020 says the city supports “the fair and equal treatment of all human beings, denouncing racism in all its forms, and declaring its commitment to the advancement of equity, diversity and inclusion,” Alexander said. “Where’s the equity and inclusion for these babies? Where’s the fair treatment?”

City Clerk Randi Johl said the city received 122 emails, with 84% opposed to Alexander’s proposed resolution, and 22% supporting it.

Creation of the One Temecula Valley Political Action Committee was also announced in a Tuesday news release because of Alexander’s proposal “as a response to a very real and dangerous threat to local governance posted by a religious group with extremist views.”

PAC leader Jeff Pack said the group, which is still gathering its paperwork, is forming because of “a combination” of things in southwest Riverside County — from Alexander’s actions in office to formation of the conservative Inland Empire Family PAC that is backing Christian conservative candidates for three school boards in the November election.

“This just further damages the city’s reputation and makes a mockery of what we are as a community,” Pack said by phone Wednesday, Sept. 28.

On Tuesday night, about 200 people packed Temecula’s council chambers, an overflow room and the City Hall lobby area combined. At least 100 people were outside in the plaza and Town Square Park area. Some demonstrated with “Bans off our Bodies” signs and “Give Life a Chance in Temecula” signs.

Residents appeared split during the hour-long, emotionally charged public comments on the proposal.

Speaking to Alexander, Jennifer Krumm accused her of “turning her back on women,” and pleaded with her to “not take away women’s rights.”

“Who are you keeping safe?” Krumm asked. “Who’s being forced to have abortions, anywhere in the U.S. or nearby?”

Samantha Nguyen asked about how the city, should it enact an abortion ban, would provide resources – from paid leave to lowering the costs of diapers – to pregnant women.

Melanie Roth called an anti-abortion resolution “oppression,” and said she was concerned that the city would be “jumping before the gunshot” in November, when Californians will vote on Prop. 1, which would enshrine protections for abortion rights in the state, essentially making it into a sanctuary state.