Texas Attorney General Halts San Antonio Abortion Funding

San Antonio, Texas – Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton faced significant legal challenges this week as an appellate court halted the city of San Antonio from using taxpayer funds for out-of-state abortion travel. The ruling, delivered by a unanimous panel from the Fifteenth Court of Appeals, comes amid ongoing disputes regarding abortion funding in the state, which has become a contentious issue following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in June 2022.

In the ruling, the justices prohibited San Antonio from distributing any portion of a $100,000 funding allocated to the Reproductive Justice Fund while an appeal is pending. This fund was created by the city council to assist local groups in providing reproductive health services, but Paxton has asserted that the fund violates the state constitution by permitting out-of-state abortion funding.

The appellate court’s decision reflects a broader legal climate in Texas, where local authorities and the AG’s office are navigating newly implemented laws and protections concerning abortion services. The seven-month-long push to allocate funds for out-of-state travel for abortion-related care has already led to contention between San Antonio officials and state governance.

In August 2022, the San Antonio City Council initiated efforts to support abortion funding, including receiving $20 million from CPS Energy earmarked for abortion travel. To further bolster this effort, they created the Reproductive Justice Fund in 2023, which initially allocated $500,000 for services provided by non-profit organizations. However, none of the funds were designated explicitly for transport to out-of-state abortions.

City officials indicated a desire to explore additional funding for “downstream services,” which could include assistance for residents traveling outside of Texas for abortions, leading Paxton to label the initiative as “abortion tourism.” The city had also queried local non-governmental organizations about their interest in pursuing such funding, resulting in nine groups expressing interest, with three specifically targeting out-of-state abortion services.

Both local authorities and the Texas Attorney General’s office have framed their positions based on conflicting interpretations of state law regarding funding for abortion services. City representatives argued that as no funds have yet been dispensed, they remain compliant with state regulations. Conversely, Paxton maintains that allowing such funding is unconstitutional.

Interestingly, a lower court had previously ruled in favor of San Antonio’s stance, but the appellate court reversed that decision, highlighting that the potential for harm from disbursing the contested funds is substantial and not merely theoretical.

This ruling aligns with Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s pro-life legislative agenda, further reflecting the state’s commitment to restrictive abortion measures.

In another legal challenge for Paxton, a separate ruling from a Travis County judge temporarily blocked new reporting requirements that he imposed on district attorney offices in counties with populations exceeding 400,000. These new rules mandated district attorneys to submit case files and performance reports to the AG’s office, with failure to comply risking charges of official misconduct.

The lawsuit against these requirements was filed by Dallas County DA John Creuzot and others, arguing that the rules impose undue burdens on local prosecutors and infringe upon their autonomous authority. The temporary injunction, which preserves the operational integrity of district attorneys, will remain effective while the case is litigated further.

The broader trial concerning the new reporting requirements is slated for December 8, and Paxton is expected to appeal the recent ruling that blocks these new accountability measures.

As legal battles between local authorities and the Texas Attorney General’s office continue to unfold, both sides are preparing for a protracted struggle over the future of abortion-related services in Texas. With significant ramifications on both local governance and the rights of citizens to access necessary health services, the outcomes of these legal disputes will likely influence the ongoing conversation about reproductive rights in the state.