Sign up for TPR Today, Texas Public Radio's newsletter that brings our top stories to your inbox each morning.
The San Antonio City Council voted 6-5 to approve a first step in a process that could end with spending $100,000 on downstream reproductive health care services, which will likely include out-of-state abortion travel.
The San Antonio Metropolitan Health District will now begin an expedited procurement process where the 10 organizations that applied to receive a portion of the $500,000 Reproductive Justice Fund will be able to apply for additional funding specifically for downstream services.
Metro Health will then make recommendations to the council, and the council will have the final say in June — potentially with a newly elected set of council members and mayor.
Members from some of those 10 reproductive health care-focused organizations, along with many council members who supported the item on Thursday, specified that they wanted the money to be used for out-of-state abortion travel.
“My organization, Sueños Sin Fronteras, is uniquely positioned to provide the logistical and compassionate support needed for undocumented San Antonians to travel out of state for care, ensuring they can safely navigate these processes without added fear, stigma or isolation,” Sueños Sin Fronteras Co-Executive Director Laura Molinar said during the meeting’s public comment period.
After the Reproductive Justice Fund did not support abortion-related services, five council members — led by District 6 Councilmember and mayoral candidate Melissa Cabello Havrda — signed a letter calling for the city to add additional funds to support residents seeking abortions.
Mayor Ron Nirenberg also indicated his desire to do more at the time, signaling an apparent majority on council in favor of the new funding.
On Thursday, Cabello Havrda responded to critics on the council and in the public who spoke against supporting out-of-state abortion travel.
“Y’all can talk all the political rhetoric you want about public safety, fiscal responsibility, fear of lawsuits,” she said. “I got one job up here, and it’s to protect the people that I represent.”
The council’s approval on Thursday doesn’t mean the city is on a sure path to paying for out-of-state abortion travel or other abortion-related services.
Organizations who reapply for the additional funding may not include abortion services in their applications, those who do may not be recommended by Metro Health, and city council may not select organizations offering those services in their final vote, especially if a new council and mayor are in place by then.
In a virtual meeting Metro Health held with the 10 organizations eligible for this new round of funding in March, nine of the 10 organizations said they would be interested in additional funding for downstream services. Four of those indicated interest in using additional funds specifically to support out-of-state abortion travel, with one of those saying they would only have interest in it if the city were to provide them legal protection for undertaking the service.
Other downstream services include STI testing, at-home pregnancy tests, transportation to prenatal care, and emergency contraception.
Councilmembers Manny Peláez, John Courage, and Marc Whyte from the three Northside districts 8, 9, and 10 have all been outspoken against using tax dollars for abortion-related assistance; Peláez and Courage are both running for mayor, and both have said their opposition comes despite their personal pro-choice positions. All three voted no on Thursday, along with District 4 Councilmember and mayoral candidate Adriana Rocha Garcia and District 7 Councilmember Marina Alderete Gavito.
Peláez said he could not support allocating $100,000 for abortion-related services because of the fallout he believes will come with it. “What we’re doing today, for $100,000 we’re buying a lawsuit and injunction that will be granted by some judge out there,” he said. “And the cost of that lawsuit will eclipse the $100,000 by many orders of magnitude.”
Whyte said his opposition was about more than his personal views against abortion. “I think this violates the law as we sit here right now, and it most certainly is going to violate the pending law in the [Texas] Senate, authored by Sen. Donna Campbell, that is almost certain to pass,” he said.
City Attorney Andy Segovia responded to Whyte’s comments. “There is nothing before council today that violates local, state, or federal law,” he said.
Senate Bill 33 is a proposed law in the Texas Legislature which would prohibit local governments like San Antonio from doing exactly what it’s contemplating — using taxpayer resources to support abortion assistance entities or provide logistical support for obtaining an abortion. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick has deemed it one of 40 priority bills in the Texas Senate.
SB33’s current language, which could be changed before passage if it is passed, sets an effective start date for the law in September 2025. That could leave a potential window open for the council to disburse a portion or all of the funds before that deadline.
City Manager Erik Walsh said the city’s ability to do that would depend on how the organizations propose to use the money.
The city will likely face lawsuits from anti-abortion groups, as it did for the initial $500,000 RJF, and possibly the state itself following the vote to pursue using taxpayer funding for abortion-related services.
Attorney General Ken Paxton sued the City of Austin in September over a similar fund that is providing support for out-of-state abortion travel. That lawsuit is ongoing.
A statement from the city attorney’s office said it would follow state law. “As always, the City will comply with applicable law, including proposed bills that may be ultimately passed by the Legislature,” the statement said.
