San Antonio Reproductive Justice Fund likely won’t pay for abortion travel

The San Antonio Reproductive Justice Fund will likely not pay for San Antonians’ travel for out-of-state abortions.

None of the four organizations the Metropolitan Health Department recommended to receive portions of the $500,000 fund proposed using city dollars for abortion travel. Only two of the ten total organizations that applied for funding proposed using the money for that purpose.

District 6 Councilmember Melissa Cabello Havrda was one of several Council members who expressed their frustration with the recommendations.

“This recommendation, to me, is watered down based on our council feedback,” she said. “We had a chance to really help — we have a chance to really help women, and we’re choosing a safe, unsubstantial recommendation.”

District 2 Councilmember Jalen McKee-Rodriguez said they had completely lost track of why they had passed the Reproductive Justice Fund in the first place.

“When we proposed this fund, and when members of our community came out to advocate for this fund and asked us to support them in this, it was not about STIs, it wasn’t about acupuncture, it wasn’t about insurance, it was a response to the Dobbs decision, the abortion ban and our resolution in support of reproductive justice,” he said. “That was the reason that this was proposed in the first place.”

Metro Health recommended that the council allocate $180,000 to the San Antonio AIDS Foundation, $164,000 to Empower House SA, $100,000 to Latched Support Inc., and $46,000 to the Young Women’s Christian Association of San Antonio.

Recommended services include wraparound prenatal support for 100 people, free contraception and STI care, and messaging about how to access low-cost healthcare.

Some council members said if organizations didn’t apply for funding for abortion travel, there wasn’t anything the city could do to make them. They emphasized the importance of moving the money out the door quickly over a year after it was approved.

“And this fund, as we moved it forward and why I feel we need to move it forward as it is right now, is because there are women that are waiting,” District 3 Councilmember Phyllis Viagran said.

District 10 Councilmember Marcy Whyte, the most conservative member of council and the most vocal opponent of using tax dollars for abortion travel, appeared to take a victory lap after Metro Health’s recommendations did not include abortion travel.

“We put the list of services up there that city council asked for, and we got the responses that we got,” he said. “And now that I guess there’s some folks that are unhappy related to the responses that we got, we want to attack the process. I’m not sure that that’s helpful.”

San Antonio Mayor Ron Nirenberg said the city council should approve Metro Health’s recommendations and then move towards a process to allocate funds directly for the purpose of abortion travel.

“Let’s move forward … with the funding recommendations as they stand today, but let’s also have a subsequent conversation,” Nirenberg said. “Councilman McKee-Rodriguez said we missed the plot. I agree. This is really the issue — we would have moved forward on this [Request for Proposal] a long time ago if the travel services weren’t part of the conversation.”

City Manager Erik Walsh let council members know they have the authority to do as they wish when they vote on allocating the funds, regardless of Metro Health’s recommendations.

“Any contract that’s before council, you all can choose ultimately to move and make a change, right?” he said. “We go through a process, the council has complete discretion because you ultimately vote on it.”

Several council members, including McKee-Rodriguez, suggested they may do just that when the council eventually votes on the allocation.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued the city of Austin last month over $400,000 the Austin City Council allocated for abortion travel, arguing it was an illegal use of city funds.

Anti-abortion groups sued San Antonio after the city council first approved the Reproductive Justice Fund last year over concerns tax dollars would be used for abortion travel. That suit was dismissed at the trial court level in April, but that ruling is being appealed.