A new fund aimed at improving reproductive health access received broad support from San Antonio City Council members on Wednesday, but three members said they were opposed to using any of the money to transport people out of state to obtain abortions.
Council will not decide on how to spend the $500,000 fund until it votes on contracts with organizations that apply for the funding, a process that is slated for the fall, City Attorney Andy Segovia said.
Much of the debate hinged around the legality of using a portion of the fund to transport people seeking abortions to states where they are legal.
“No decision is being made today,” Segovia told council members. “And whenever the council makes a decision on how that money will be spent, we’ll be compliant with the law.”
Anti-abortion groups, many of which are involved in an ongoing lawsuit challenging the legality of San Antonio’s fund, gathered outside council chambers for two consecutive press conferences and vowed to continue to push against using any public funds toward “illegal abortions.”
The city’s $3.7 billion fiscal year 2024 budget approved in September included the controversial $500,000 “Reproductive Justice Fund.” Councilwoman Teri Castillo (D5) proposed the fund, but at the time it was unclear whether that money could go to groups that help people access medical abortions through the mail or travel out of state to receive abortions.
“Unfortunately, the San Antonio City Council is doubling down,” said John Seago, president of the anti-abortion advocacy group Texas Right to Life. “Elective abortion is an injustice. It is a bigger, stronger party using violence to take the life — to cause the death — of a smaller, weaker party.”
Under current law, it is not illegal to pay for someone’s transportation out of state to obtain an abortion, said Junda Woo, medical director of the city’s health department, but it is possible that could change.
“There was one case … that says that that transportation is legal,” she said. “But of course, it could be appealed [or] things could happen in between, so that’s what the City Attorney’s Office is keeping tabs on.”
The city’s health department recommended splitting up the fund into three parts: addressing the “upstream,” or the root causes of limited access to reproductive health such as housing and food insecurity, addressing “midstream” needs such as sex education, and “downstream” needs including direct services like providing contraception, home pregnancy tests and transportation to prenatal appointments as well as abortion services.
Request for proposals
The health department, which will administer the funds, will “synthesize” council feedback gathered on Wednesday and release a request for proposals this summer, Woo said.
There will be preference given to applications that address demographic health inequities among people of color and gaps in services in low-income areas, she said.
“There’s an inverse correlation between income and unintended pregnancy,” Woo told the council. “Meaning the higher my income, the lower my chances of having an unintended pregnancy.”
Council will have another chance to provide feedback on the types of programs they would or would not support before the requests are formally released.
“These funds should be used to help women make choices about their bodies, about their health and about their futures,” Councilwoman Melissa Cabello Havrda (D6) said, “and that includes access to options they can only get outside of Texas — to be clear, traveling out of state to obtain an abortion.”
San Antonio would not be the first city to fund abortion access, Woo said. New York City, Seattle, Portland, Columbus and St. Louis have similar funds, though St. Louis’ program was blocked by a judge.
Makayla Montoya Frazier, one of the founders of the Buckle Bunnies Fund that provides support services — including transportation — for people seeking abortion, said several factors play into how much it costs to provide that care.
Depending on how far along they are and other considerations, it costs on average $1,000 or more, not including the cost of the procedure, Montoya Frazier said. “We’ve seen things go as far as $20,000 … it’s the hotel, the flight, the food, the Ubers, making sure [there is] child care, it’s lost wages — full wraparound services. So it’s not just about abortion.”
The Buckle Bunnies Fund and other abortion support organizations Jane’s Due Process, Avow, Sueños Sin Fronteras and the Lilith Fund — organizations that may apply for funding — distributed a joint statement in support of the Reproductive Justice Fund during the council meeting.
“Reproductive Justice is a human-rights framework that asserts the right to determine whether or not to have children, the right to have children, and the right to parent children in safe and sustainable environments,” the reproductive rights coalition wrote.
Transportation for abortion
Councilmen Marc Whyte (D10), John Courage (D9) and Manny Pelaez (D8) said they would not support funding transportation for out-of-state abortions.
“Abortion is not a city issue,” Whyte said during the council meeting, adding that the city should focus on public safety an infrastructure issues. Whyte abstained from voting on the budget in September because of the Reproductive Justice Fund’s inclusion. He also spoke at the press conference Wednesday organized by Texas Alliance for Life and San Antonio Family Association.
“While the arguments today did not seem in our favor, the fight will continue,” he told reporters. “We will continue to take our message to the people of San Antonio, and we will have them communicate with these council members and let them know that the citizens of San Antonio do not want their money used to send folks out of San Antonio and out of the state of Texas to receive abortion services.”
Whyte was joined by nearly every Republican elected officeholder in the county, including Commissioner Grant Moody (Pct. 3) and state Reps. John Lujan and Mark Dorazio, who huddled afterward to talk strategy.
The next vote could happen close to the November election, in which Republicans across the country, including former President Donald Trump, are already distancing themselves from their party’s most stringent anti-abortion policies.
Both Courage and Pelaez, who are running for mayor in 2025, agreed that the city should stay out of it.
“I don’t think the city council and the city government should be involved in a decision about enabling somebody to have an abortion,” said Courage, who previously voted in favor of a resolution in support of abortion rights.
Pelaez, who voted against that resolution, said the city should avoid the “lightning rod” issue of abortion. As council members, they should not wade into issues that “unnecessarily divide the community. There’s no more divisive issue in America right now than this.”
It’s a similar stance to the one he ultimately took on the defunct ceasefire resolution.
San Antonio Family Association, Texas Right to Life and other anti-abortion plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in October against the City of San Antonio as well as Mayor Ron Nirenberg and City Manager Erik Walsh in their official capacities, arguing that the fund would violate the state’s abortion law, which allows anyone to file civil lawsuits against individuals or groups who assist people in getting an abortion.
Nearly all abortions are banned in Texas, with narrow exceptions to save the pregnant person’s life or prevent “substantial impairment of a major bodily function.”
The city has asked for the suit to be dismissed and the plaintiffs’ deadline to submit a response to the judge is Thursday, city spokeswoman Laura Elizabeth Mayes said.
The case is still in its preliminary hearing stage, Seago said, but Texas Right to Life has begun collecting “evidence” that abortion advocates that are potential fund recipients are violating state law by helping people obtain abortions.
“We know this is a baseless lawsuit that wastes taxpayer dollars and undermines the will of the City of San Antonio,” the reproductive rights coalition stated.
Mayes confirmed that the city has been billed “$135,000 to date defending against this frivolous lawsuit.”
