Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton commended a ruling by the state’s 15th Court of Appeals on Friday. This decision temporarily prohibits San Antonio from employing taxpayer money to finance out-of-state abortion travel.
“Under absolutely no circumstances should any Texas city be funding out-of-state abortion travel, and I will continue to work tirelessly to end this cruel, unlawful, and morally bankrupt program,” Paxton declared in a public statement, according to the Washington Examiner. Paxton, who is set to challenge Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, in the state’s GOP primary next year, further stated, “Forcing Texas taxpayers to subsidize abortion tourism is a profound insult to our state’s pro-life values and our laws protecting the unborn.”
The case hinges on a San Antonio City Council ordinance that allocated $100,000 to the city’s Reproductive Justice Health Care Fund to aid costs associated with traveling for abortions. Paxton had previously sued the city in April, arguing it was illegal for the city to use money for a purpose that contravenes the state’s anti-abortion laws and the state constitution’s gift clause, which forbids the misapplication of public funds for private purposes.
The three-panel appeals court made no decisive statement on the merits of the case but noted there were serious doubts about the constitutionality of the proposed distributions. The San Antonio Reproductive Justice Fund in 2024 distributed $500,000 to non-governmental organizations providing city residents with services including doula training, tests for sexually transmitted diseases, contraception, and reproductive health workshops. However, none of this funding was allocated for out-of-state abortion travel. Consequently, the City Council allocated an additional $100,000 for services, including out-of-state abortion travel.
Reports from the San Antonio city attorney’s office indicate disappointment with the decision, which it labeled as “unprecedented in nature.” The office revealed in a statement that the City is exploring its options.
We should note that Paxton also sued the city of Austin last September for establishing a similar program, which allocated $400,000 in public funds for abortion travel. That lawsuit is ongoing.
To conclude, this case raises important questions about the use of public funds and the interpretation of state law. As the legal proceedings continue, the public needs to stay informed and attentive to developments.