None of the four nonprofits that are poised to receive funding from the City of San Antonio’s Reproductive Justice Fund would use the money to help women obtain abortions — the entire point of the controversial fund, two council members said Wednesday after they heard city staff’s recommendations.
The $500,000 fund — which has already drawn a lawsuit against the city from anti-abortion groups — will likely be spent on other reproductive health services and initiatives, including health care navigation, contraceptives, prenatal support and STI education.
“There’s an eagerness to get these services to our constituency, I think that’s great [and] I appreciate that,” Councilman Jalen McKee-Rodriguez (D2) said. “But we’ve lost the plot, and we’ve lost the purpose of this fund.”
Mayor Ron Nirenberg signaled support for a separate fund that would pay for transportation for out-of-state abortions, but it’s unclear where that money would come from in a tight fiscal year.
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.” About 35,500 Texans traveled for an abortion in 2023, according to abortion advocacy organization Guttmacher Institute.
Councilwoman Teri Castillo (D5), who originally proposed the fund alongside abortion activists and medical access providers last year, said she was not disappointed in the services and contracts that city staff ultimately recommended funding. A majority of her colleagues agreed.
Only two out of the 10 organizations who applied for the funding included abortion access as part of their proposals, city officials said. And two other applicants that have experience in providing abortion access who called for the creation of the fund — Sueños Sin Fronteras and Jane’s Due Process — did not include that service in their proposals to the city.
“We can’t force [them] to apply and include that in their application,” Castillo told the San Antonio Report after the council meeting. “I was really surprised not to see as many applicants to include [abortion access] within their [proposals], given that this was something that was a priority for folks championing it.”
Jane’s Due Process and Sueños Sin Fronteras did not respond to a request for comment Wednesday afternoon.
“An additional $500,000 for a city in a state that has women [who] lack access to health care and ensuring that they have access to contraceptives and STI testing [and] sex education is important,” Castillo said. “That’s $500,000 that the City of San Antonio would not have invested otherwise without community advocating for the Reproductive Justice Fund.”
Proposed spending plan
Under the San Antonio Metropolitan Health Department recommendations, just 6% of the fund — $30,550 — would be used to address the so-called “upstream,” or the root causes of limited access to reproductive health such as housing and food insecurity. The “midstream” needs, such as contraception and doula training, would receive 35% or $174,170.
Nearly 60% of the funding — $295,279 — would be used for direct services such as prenatal support once somebody is already pregnant. Here’s a breakdown of the approved contracts:
Health care access awareness and workshops:
- Young Women’s Christian Association (YWCA) of San Antonio: $15,000
- Empower House: $15,550
Doula training, contraception and STI education:
- YWCA: $41,000
- San Antonio AIDS Foundation: $33,000
- Latched Support: $100,170
Prenatal support and STI testing:
- Empower House: $148,279
- San Antonio AIDS Foundation: $147,000
Councilwoman Melissa Cabello Havrda (D6) said she was “disappointed” that abortion access — meaning help finding abortion pills or transportation to obtain one out-of-state — wasn’t included in staff’s recommendations.
While she’s thankful that the other services will receive more funding, Havrda said, “I think this is a safe recommendation. It’s watered down, it’s unsubstantial and I’m disappointed that we didn’t take a bigger stand.”
It’s possible that statewide controversy and lawsuits surrounding these publicly-funded initiatives had a chilling effect on abortion access proposals, she said.
The City of Austin was sued by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton over its $400,000 abortion travel fund last month.
The San Antonio Family Association (SAFA), Texas Right to Life and other anti-abortion plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in October against the City of San Antonio, as well as Nirenberg and City Manager Erik Walsh in their official capacities. They argued 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. Since the money hadn’t been spent yet, the case was dismissed, but the plaintiffs have a pending appeal.
“SAFA will continue our lawsuit to respect taxpayer monies and indefatigably protect children and their mothers at least until the city staff recommendation is codified by Council in the subsequent A Session or as long as necessary to stop this unethical and immoral abortion travel and ’emergency contraception’ funding that is a not so gentle euphemism for chemical abortions,” Patrick Von Dohlen of SAFA said in statement.
Cabello Havrda, who is considering a run for mayor, is “not concerned” about drawing lawsuits against the city, she said. “Do I believe it will happen? Yes … [but] we cannot make decisions based on potential lawsuits. I have to do what’s right for my community.”
To be continued …
Council’s conversation waded for a time into the way that the proposals were scored and selected. Some suggested the process was flawed. But ultimately, how this money is used will be up to a City Council vote, which might be scheduled next month, city officials said.
But Nirenberg suggested that council separate the conversation about funding abortion access from that vote.
“I think we should move forward with approving these contracts,” he told his colleagues during the meeting. “We just need to own up to a difficult decision that we need to make in this community; whether or not the City of San Antonio is going to allocate funds to abortion transportation [or] travel services.”
He does not know where that funding would come from specifically, but a separate conversation could be an opportunity vote up or down on the issue, rather than prolonging an already year-long process to allocate this fund.
“If folks are uncomfortable with doing that, they can vote against it, but folks that do want it can vote for it … and then we can move on,” he said. “Councilman McKee-Rodriguez said we missed the plot. I agree.”
Councilman Marc Whyte (D10), who says he is personally opposed to abortion, shook his head in disbelief and walked out of the meeting after the mayor concluded.
“Pandering” and “politics” came to mind as he was listening to Nirenberg, Whyte said, “and a real lack of being in touch with the citizens in our community.”
Residents don’t want to see their tax dollars spent on abortions, he said.
“We would get sued for it if we did it, then we’d spend more taxpayer money having to defend that lawsuit,” he said before returning to the ongoing meeting.
Councilmen Whyte, John Courage (D9) and Manny Pelaez (D8) have said they would not support contracts that use public dollars to fund transportation for out-of-state abortions.
