The possibility of funding travel to other states for abortion procedures has been the source of debate – and a lawsuit – for San Antonio City Council.
SAN ANTONIO — A year after earmarking the use of $500,000 in General Fund dollars to address reproductive and sexual health gaps, San Antonio City Council voted this week to award nearly the totality of that sum to four local organizations.
None of that Reproductive Justice Fund money is being distributed to help women travel out of state to get an abortion, the possibility of which was the dominant subject of debate among council members last year – and briefly again on Thursday – in the aftermath of Texas implementing its near-total abortion ban in 2022. But some council members appear in favor of a future vote on that controversial topic, including the city’s top leader.
“I do believe we are missing part of the intent that was initiated (with) this particular fund,” said Mayor Ron Nirenberg, who supported the measure as passed. “It leaves open an unaddressed issue that is critically important. I would support a conversation after this to allocate dollars specifically toward those services.”
City Council debated over the merits of using taxpayer dollars to fund out-of-state travel for abortion procedures as recently as last month, when Metro Health formally recommended that money be awarded to Latched Support Inc., Empower house SA, the San Antonio AIDS Foundation and the Young Women’s Christian Association of San Antonio—none of which proposed helping women travel out of state when they submitted their plans this summer.
City leaders were scrutinized for considering funding such an inititaive, to the point that eight organizations joined together to sue the city last year. In February 2023, a federal judge ruled that Texas funds which pay for travel and procedures out of state were likely safe from criminal prosecution.
Junda Woo, the medical director at Metro Health, recommended in April that at least some of the money be used to fund travel for women to receive an abortion outside Texas. That money didn’t make it to October’s final recommendations.
On Thursday, some council members – including Manny Pelaez of District 8, John Courage of District 9 and Marc Whyte of District 10 – said they didn’t agree with funding out-of-state travel for abortions, though two of them still supported the measure as proposed.
But others, including Councilman Jalen McKee-Rodriguez, expressed disappointment that none of the money will ultimately support travel. McKee-Rodriguez took issue when Whyte challenged his colleagues by saying he didn’t believe they were being “honest with the public” regarding their aims over the last year.
“I explicitly asked for the fund to include travel for abortion, so to sit here and act like any of us were disingenuous about this fund is wrong and false,” McKee-Rodriguez said, directing his comments to Whyte. “I supported this fund because I wanted to provide resources that would make that difficult and costly journey a little bit easier.”
The second-term councilman said the issue of reproductive justice remains important not only for women, but the “trans and non-binary people who have been excluded from this conversation (and) who can also carry a pregnancy.” He also noted that harassers may have prevented nonprofits from offering to use the money to fund out-of-state travel for procedures.
Councilwoman Sukh Kaur, the representative for District 1, said she would have supported adding money for out-of-state travel in the name of comprehensive health care. She shared that a friend of hers was forced to carry a dead baby in her womb for four weeks “because they wouldn’t give her mifepristone.”
“I believe all of us were in favor of comprehensive women’s health. That includes whatever it means for a women, even if that is travel for (an) abortion,” she said. “We all said that and were very clear.”
Whyte, in his comments, said he supported women’s health care but would abstain from the proposed allocation because of the initial priority to fund out-of-state abortion access.
The Reproductive Justice Fund distribution went on to pass 9-1, with Councilwoman Marina Alderete Gavito absent.
So what will the money fund?
The same four organizations Metro Health recommended giving money to at the October briefing were ultimately awarded a combined total of $499,179.24.
The bulk of that money – 59%, or a little over $295,000 – is meant to be used for providing prenatal support for 100 people in the form of doulas, mental health services, midwife visits, rent and utility assistance. The allocation will also help 800 people get screened for STIs.
The remaining money will go towards a variety of services, including providing free contraception, resources for STI care, STI education curriculum for 5,000 high school students and reproductive health workshops.
The San Antonio AIDS Foundation is receiving $180,000, the biggest allocation out of all four groups. Empower House was awarded nearly $164,000, Latched Support $99,350 and the Young Women’s Christian Association $56,000.
Six other organizations were vying for money but ultimately weren’t awarded. A coalition of representatives from Metro Health, United Way of San Antonio, United Way of Bexar County and Pay It Forward SA worked to evaluate their bids, considering the groups’ qualifications, plans for Reproductive Justice Fund money and proximity to San Antonio, among other factors.
“Texas faces a significant challenge in addressing the health needs of women, with the state leading the nation in uninsured women approximately one in four,” Metro Health Director Claude Jacob told City Council in October. “This solicitation requested proposals to provide up to promote reproductive justice through community capacity building, health care navigation, as well as reproductive and sexual health care services.”
The money is intended to fund services through Nov. 30, 2025.
Local organizations respond
San Antonio Archbishop Gustavo García-Siller said in a statement shared to Facebook that he supported the allocations as approved by City Council, specifically that no money would be going towards funding travel for abortion procedures.
“I continue to encourage Catholics and others to pray for an end to abortion and to build up a culture of life,” García-Siller said. “I again strongly encourage council members to use public funds to support women and prenatal care efforts which strengthen families in our community.”
The San Antonio Family Association (SAFA), which was part of the 2023 lawsuit, called Thursday’s vote a “bittersweet victory,” satisfied that no dollars were allocated for providing travel out of Texas for procedures but disagreeing with the decision to provide money for contraception.
“We know we will win, and they know it too,” SAFA President Mike Knuffke said in a release, referring to the still-alive lawsuit that’s been caught in the court system for months. “This victory will help stop abortion travel in Texas. This is the frontline battle, and Christ calls us to fight for the lives of innocent babies.”