This article contains references to blood and abortion.
During its Aug. 2 meeting, San Marcos City Council addressed the petition brought forth by Mano Amiga and Ground Game Texas to decriminalize marijuana and held discussions regarding protection of abortion rights in San Marcos.
It was during the meeting that signatures from Mano Amiga campaign were officially recognized by council members, forcing them to make a decision whether or not they would pass the ordinance or place it on the Nov. 8 ballot for the public to vote on.
Representatives of Mano Amiga and the public made comments urging the council members to let the citizens carry this ordinance out by voting.
Eric Martinez, policy director for Mano Amiga, expressed that leaving the decision to the people would show just how popular and supported this ordinance truly is.
“One might ask, ‘why not pass it now and save the lives of people who are being wrapped into the criminal legal system every moment as we speak?’ Another might say, ‘well, this initiative is 10% of the registered voters plus the action of Council,’” Martinez said. “If you send it to the ballot box this November, and there is an astounding turnout, and it is passed by well over 50% of the vote, you will know that the will is that much greater.”
On the current ordinance drafted by Mano Amiga, the possession of up to 4 ounces would not receive punishable action. This sparked concerns among councilmembers Saul Gonzales and Mark Gleason.
“I had some constituents reach out to me that are sympathetic of the person walking around with a joint, walking around with a small amount of marijuana, that would probably vote for a small amount,” Gleason said. “But when you get into the, what I would call, larger amounts — four ounces is not an insignificant amount of money — then, I had some constituents that may vote ‘no’ on that because of the amount that might vote for it with smaller amounts.”
Mayor Hughson asked City Lawyer Michael Cosentino if the verbatim could be changed. He expressed that it could not, and that there are three options to navigate a situation like this.
“You have the option of passing the ordinance exactly the way it was attached to petition or putting on the ballot,” Cosentino said. “There’s another alternative, which gets even more complicated, which is to put the origins as submitted by the voters on the ballot and put your own different ordinance on the ballot, and whichever one gets the most votes wins.”
Councilmember Alyssa Garza, one of the members to shut down this idea, explained that the council must listen to the majority of San Marcos residents.
“I don’t know how many folks you spoke to Mr. Gleason, but over 10,000 people signed the petition that had the verbiage on it. And so, I think that that’s indicative of how the community stands right now,” Garza said.
Councilmember Garza did not stand alone on her position. Councilmember Jude Prather also saw no issue with the drafted ordinance.
“I have a lot of respect for the people that went out there and did all the hard work and knocked on all the doors and got thousands upon thousands of our citizens to sign a petition to do this, but I don’t think we should have competing ballot languages. I think we’ve just kind of mucked it up,” Prather said.
The proposition to go on the ballot against Mano Amiga’s verbiage in order to lower the allowed ounces was shut down by a 6-1 vote.
Councilmember Maxfield Baker then discussed abortion rights for the residents of San Marcos and the goal to protect those who seek services since the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
A San Marcos resident, who The University Star chose not to name, shared her personal experience surrounding abortions.
“As I speak, I’m still bleeding from the illegal abortion I just had. I did not find out I was pregnant until seven weeks because of spotting during what I thought would have been my period,” she said.
The resident said the procedure took place at a free clinic that advertised itself as a bipartisan facility. However, it turned out to be a pro-faith facility that did not present medical termination options to her.
“I told them I was in a verbally and emotionally toxic ‘situationship’ with what would have been the father, and I’m not ready to have a child, and they still made me hear the heartbeat. I’m so scared to get a medical checkup to make sure I passed the fetus properly and safely, because I’m afraid they’ll arrest me for handling it the way I did,” she said.
The Guarding the Right to Abortion Care for Everyone (GRACE) Act was proposed by Councilmember Baker as a way to prohibit prosecution on abortions in San Marcos. The GRACE Act would do this by preventing city funds being used to investigate abortion procedures and making enforcing criminal laws in these situations the lowest priority.
In July, San Marcos Chief of Police Stan Standridge signed an administrative directive that follows a similar process to what the GRACE Act entails.
The administrative directive states that the department shall not investigate elective abortion-related crimes unless an abortion or attempted abortion causes the life or serious injury, unrelated to a lawful medical procedure, to the expectant mother. It goes on to explain the complexities of what Texas law enforcement are having to deal with right now while waiting for measures to be sorted out at the state legislative level.
The administrative directive shows that for the time being, SMPD personnel is not interested in devoting city resources to investigate abortions.
Councilmember Baker, along with other councilmembers, believes the education portion of GRACE Act and how to get in contact with resources ought to be a bigger focal point.
The city plans to address this in the near future by providing useful links to resources on its website.
The San Marcos City Council meets at 6 p.m. every first and third Tuesday of each month. For more information, visit the City Council website.
This article has been edited to remove the name of the resident who spoke about her abortion during public comment.