How SCFTU Work
Sanctuary Cities for the Unborn (SCFTU) laws rely on a few key tactics that show up again and again:
The defining feature of SCFTU ordinances is their reliance on something called a “private civil enforcement mechanism.”
Rather than police or other city officials enforcing the law, these ordinances allow regular, everyday citizens to file lawsuits against anyone they suspect has violated the ordinance. This enforcement structure is incredibly important.
Let us explain why:
What “Civil Enforcement” Means:
Almost anyone can file a lawsuit. From religious extremists to nosy neighbors and abusive partners, nearly anyone can file this type of civil lawsuit. This is an intentional lack of accountability because:
There is NO evidence required to file a civil suit against someone. The burden of proof is on the person being sued to prove their innocence***; it’s up to you to prove that you’re not guilty of “aiding and abetting” abortion. And the kicker? Even if you are able to prove your innocence, your accusers don’t lose anything. You would still be responsible for attorneys fees or other court costs, regardless of the verdict.
***In fact, if you are sued, the ordinance lists restrictions on what you can use for your defense. SCFTU pass in your town and didn’t make the news? Sorry, you’re not allowed to use “I didn’t know it was illegal,” in court. The ordinances goes say that you can’t even use The Constitution in your defense! 🚩🚩🚩
It does not matter if the abortion happened in a state where the practice is legal.
Yes, you read that right. Live in a Ban State, but have the ability to travel elsewhere? You can still be sued even if you traveled out of state. Even your doctor can be sued. Anyone involved from physician to your babysitter could be liable.
It does not matter if the person filing the lawsuit was personally affected.
There is a legal term thrown around in many abortion-related lawsuits: “standing.” Standing, or locus standi, is the capacity of a party to bring a lawsuit in court. Legally speaking, someone usually has to demonstrate a sufficient connection to and harm from the action being challenged. This ordinance challenges what a “sufficient connection” means.
For example, imagine your loved one needs to travel out of state for care. You decide to help pay for a plane ticket or gas money. You don’t perform a procedure, you don’t even order pills. Just some quick $$$. Unfortunately, your neighbor sees a suspicious Venmo transaction and disapproves. Under normal legal standards, that neighbor hasn’t been harmed; they don’t even know your friend. They weren’t involved in any way, and suffered no injury. They shouldn’t have the standing to sue you simply because they disagree with your decision. But under a SCFTU ordinance, your nosy neighbor doesn’t need to prove they were personally harmed, they only need to allege that you violated the ordinance.
Even if you didn’t actually assist someone in their exercising their right to choose, you can still be sued for intending to do so.
Take the previous example. You don’t perform a procedure, you don’t order pills, you don’t even recommend a clinic. But even if you intended to, you could be sued. What does this look like in real life? It looks like surveillance. Bank account transactions, search history, and message histories can be called into question, even if you never hit send. Now the most personal matters of your life are drawn out into public court, all because of someone is suspicious of you just going about your life.
Multiple lawsuits can be filed by different people for the same alleged conduct (AKA double/triple jeopardy).
Again, the language used in the ordinance is vague on purpose. Depending on its interpretation, you can be sued over and over again for just one violation. Did you send your friend a sweet and supportive text after you sent the Venmo? That’s considered to be two separate events according to SCFTU, and YES - according to the ordinance, emotional support is considered behavior that “aids and abets” abortion. Can you imagine getting penalized in court for bringing a casserole to your friend after a medical procedure?? Just imagine show some lawsuit-hungry asshole can turn a meal train into a meal ticket. It’s unconscionable.
This “civil enforcement” model was intentionally designed to avoid constitutional review while shielding local governments from accountability at the same time. Meaning, the very folks who are writing and enacting these laws, can’t be held accountable when your rights are taken away from you. The ultimate goal is to attract ideologically-motivated individuals who want to punish those with different views. Their goal is to create even more fear and uncertainty around our already confusing laws, while forcing communities to spy and report on their neighbors. This is the same blueprint written into Texas’ SB 8 law (Fun fact: SCFTU and SB 8 are both written by the same gross men who are obsessed with everyone’s bodies, but we’ll get to that later…)
How Fear Becomes the Enforcement Tool
These ordinances rarely see courtrooms because fear does most of the work. The harm begins quietly, in everyday moments that never make the news: a parent hesitating before helping their child travel for medical care; a friend deleting a text offering a ride to an appointment; a volunteer stepping back from a mutual aid group because they can’t risk even the possibility of being sued; a nonprofit pulling resources and information “just to be safe”; a city official choosing silence over scrutiny.
These ordinances are written vaguely on purpose: so people are left guessing where the line is. And when the cost of being wrong, or even ignorant, could mean public exposure, financial ruin, or years of legal stress, many decide it’s safer to do nothing at all. Even when enforcement is unlikely, uncertainty alone is enough to silence speech, fracture organizing, and push care underground. Over time, neighbors start policing each other, conversations shrink, and fear replaces solidarity. Not because people have stopped caring, but because SCFTU makes compassion feel dangerous.
WTF is “Aiding and Abetting”?
One of the most dangerous and revealing features of SCFTU ordinances is their use of the phrase “aiding and abetting.” Because these ordinances cannot actually prevent abortions from happening, they shift their focus to punishing the people around them instead. Rather than openly punishing pregnant folks, SCFTU expands its reach to target advocates, support networks, friends, family members, and anyone who helps someone navigate their options. While anti-abortionists claim this language only applies to so-called “abortion traffickers,” the ordinances are written broadly enough that nearly any act of assistance, information-sharing, or logistical support can be framed as illegal.
This ambiguity is not accidental. When people cannot clearly tell what behavior might expose them to a lawsuit, many choose silence and inaction. And that chilling effect is how these laws are designed to do their damage.
Organizers, Advocates, and Volunteers
For organizers and volunteers, “aiding and abetting” can be interpreted to include the basic work of community education and mutual support. Hosting informational meetings, sharing clinic or hotline information, answering questions online, tabling at events, connecting people to resources, or even helping coordinate logistics are all legally risky under SCFTU. The ordinance sometimes specifically prohibits this type of resource-sharing, which is meant to leave people with no guidance and no options. This is a gross violation of the First Amendment.
Family Members + Loved Ones
SCFTU ordinances deliberately blur the line between activism and care, placing family members at risk for simply supporting someone they love. Helping pay for travel, taking time off work to accompany someone, offering childcare, or even emotional support can be framed as “aiding and abetting.” In moments of crisis families are forced to weigh compassion against fear of legal retaliation. This can lead to mistrust in relationships, or worse, scare someone from acting in a timely manner during the midst of a medical emergency like a miscarriage.
Friends + Neighbors
For friends and neighbors, the risk shows up in everyday acts of kindness. Offering a ride, or a place to stay, help navigating appointments, or even basic support like meals or childcare could also be considered “aiding and abetting.” In smaller towns where privacy is limited and people know one another, SCFTU can make even quiet, personal acts of help feel exposed. This pushes people to withdraw from helping altogether, or forces them to potentially make a costly legal risk.
Healthcare Workers + Medical Professionals
Healthcare workers in Texas are already working under FOUR overlapping abortion bans, each with its own penalties, exceptions, and legal gray areas. SCFTU piles on yet another layer of confusion and uncertainty on top of an already dangerous situation. Doctors are forced to second-guess what they can legally say and recommend, even in emergency situations. In moments where minutes matter, providers may hesitate to consult lawyers instead of acting, because if they help too soon it could expose them to criminal penalties too, not just civil ones. We’ve seen how this plays out in Texas, where patients like Amanda Zurawski and Lauren Miller were denied timely, life-saving medical care because doctors’ hands were tied by these abortion laws. SCFTU worsens this crisis by reinforcing a system where legal risk outweighs medical judgment, leaving providers trapped between their duty to care for patients and a web of laws designed to punish them for doing so.
By using the phrase “aiding and abetting,” SCFTU ordinances intentionally collapse care, stifle free speech, and frame community support into something that can be framed as criminal. These laws do not just target imaginary “abortion traffickers,” they are designed to make ordinary people afraid to help, speak, or show up for one another, leaving those in crisis isolated when they need support the most.
