The San Antonio City Council debated how to use money from the $500,000 Reproductive Justice Fund on Wednesday, which they established during last year’s budget process in response to the end of Roe v. Wade and the outlawing of abortions in Texas. At least six members of the city council, a slim majority, support using the money to pay for travel for out-of-state abortion care.
None of the funds have been spent yet, and the city council made no decision on how to spend the money during Wednesday’s meeting. They won’t take that vote until later this year, after they’ve received proposals from nonprofits requesting the funding.
After the city established the Reproductive Justice Fund last year, it was quickly sued by the San Antonio Family Association and Texas Right to Life, anti-abortion groups that argued it was illegal for taxpayer dollars to be sent to nonprofits that would facilitate traveling out of the state for an abortion.
The city asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit, given that no decision has been made about how the funds will be used, according to reporting by KSAT.
District 6 Councilwoman Melissa Cabello Havrda was the only member of the city council to explicitly call for it on Wednesday.
“My firm commitment is that these funds should be used to help women make choices about their bodies, about their health, and about their future,” she said. “That includes access to options that they can only get outside of Texas; to be clear, traveling out of state to obtain abortions.”
District 10 Councilman Marc Whyte, District 8 Councilman Manny Pelaez, and District 9 Councilman John Courage were the only members of the city council to clearly come out against using the money for out-of-state abortion travel. Courage and Pelaez have both announced their formal intention to run for mayor next year.
Dr. Junda Woo, the San Antonio Metropolitan Health Medical Director, presented her department’s recommendations for how to use the funds to the city council on Wednesday.
Those recommendations included supporting food and housing access, sexual education for youth, home pregnancy tests, emergency contraception, and transportation for abortion care.
Woo said her department recommended that only $100,000 of the $500,000 fund be used for so-called “downstream” efforts like emergency contraception and transportation for abortion care.
“Public health is always going to emphasize the upstream initiatives as a way to reduce the need for downstream care,” Woo said.
Anti-abortion protestors were inside city hall and held press conferences outside the building denouncing the idea that taxpayer funds might be used to facilitate abortions.
Whyte, Bexar County Precinct 3 Commissioner Grant Moody, and a staff member from U.S. Congressman Tony Gonzales’ office stood with representatives from Texas Alliance for Life after the meeting ended to voice their opposition.
Whyte, who abstained on last year’s city budget vote because of the Reproductive Justice Fund, took a firm stand during the city council discussion.
“Depending on the comments of my fellow council members, we have an opportunity to avoid what I believe would be a really dark, dark day in the history of the city of San Antonio later this fall,” he said. “And that would be if we vote to approve any contract that uses public dollars to promote abortion services.”
In a statement signed by the abortion funds Sueños Sin Fronteras, Buckle Bunnies Fund, Lilith Fund, AVOW, and Jane’s Due Process, they called on the city council to move quickly to get funding out the door to support reproductive health.
“[The Reproductive Justice Fund] was a monumental win in our community that exemplified our power to push back against oppressive Texas policies and advocate for solutions rooted in our self-determination,” the statement said. “Any unnecessary delay in implementing and distributing these funds has a human cost.”
In February, District 5 Councilman Teri Castillo expressed her frustration that city council had still not voted on how to use the money from the fund when it was so desperately needed.
The abortion funds’ statement also responded to the lawsuit over the Reproductive Justice Fund — several of the abortion funds have themselves been sued over their support for abortion care.
“This lawsuit is an attempt to use the legal system to intimidate abortion advocates and prevent critical services in the process,” it said.
Several members of city council repeated the point that there were 26,310 rape-related pregnancies in Texas in the 16 months after the state legislature effectively banned abortion in the state, according to a JAMA Internal Medicine study. Texas law makes no abortion exception for pregnancies that are the result of rape or incest.
District 2 Councilman Jalen McKee-Rodriguez said that figure was important, but that abortion access should not only be limited to cases of rape.
“Honestly, we aren’t owed an explanation as to why someone may choose to have or not have a baby, to build a human,” he said. “If someone doesn’t want to carry a fetus they should not have to.”
Several council members suggested that they renew the Reproductive Justice Fund in the upcoming budget negotiations with an even larger pool of money.
A judge has yet to decide whether to dismiss the lawsuit facing the city. The city council will vote on how to spend the fund’s $500,000 in the fall.
Gabriella Alcorta-Solorio contributed to this report.
