(The Center Square) – Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued San Antonio officials Friday, alleging the city’s use of taxpayer money to fund transportation for women in Texas to have abortions out of state is unconstitutional.
“The City of San Antonio is blatantly defying Texas law by using taxpayer dollars to fund abortion tourism,” Paxton said. “Beyond being an egregious misuse of public funds, it’s an attack on the pro-life values of our state. I will not stand by while rogue cities use tax dollars to circumvent state law and take the innocent lives of unborn children.”
The lawsuit was filed in the District Court of Bexar County and names the city of San Antonio, its mayor and city manager as defendants.
This is the second time the city has been sued for its abortion transportation activity; the first was filed by prolife groups last year.
After the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022, returning the issue of abortion to the states, Texas’ abortion prohibition laws went into effect. Not only is abortion banned in Texas with some exceptions, but state law prohibits anyone from transporting or funding transportation services for abortions and allows civil suits to be filed against violators.
Undeterred by the threat of legal action, the San Antonio City Council passed a resolution in support of abortion in August 2022 and later received more than $20 million from publicly owned CPS Energy “to fund abortion travel,” The Center Square reported.
In 2023, the city council created the Reproductive Justice Fund (RJF) and a line item in its $3.96 billion 2024 budget to fund it. The city council also allocated $500,000 for the RJF to cover travel costs for residents to have abortions outside of Texas, referred to as “downstream services,” or what Paxton refers to as “abortion tourism.”
Pro-abortion groups, Jane’s Due Process, AVOW, the Buckle Bunnies Fund, Sueños Sin Fronteras, and the Lilith Fund for Reproductive Equity all support the RJF.
Several prolife groups, including the San Antonio Family Association, sued to stop the city “from providing taxpayer money to any organization that pays for abortion travel or that procures elective abortions for Texas residents.”
A district court ruled against them; they appealed to the Fourth Court of Appeals.
After being sued, city council members next requested another $100,000 for “downstream services.”
Six months later, Paxton sued, arguing, “Under Texas law, cities have no authority to use public money to assist people in circumventing Texas’s pro-life protections.”
The lawsuit states that city officials are “using taxpayer money” to “fund an illegal abortion procurement scheme,” appropriating $100,000 to its RJF “specifically to pay for pregnant women to travel for out-of-state abortions.”
The lawsuit asks the court to declare that city officials are violating the Texas Constitution’s gift clause through the scheme and requests the court to issue a temporary and permanent injunction prohibiting the city from spending any taxpayer money on it. It also asks the court to prohibit the city from allocating taxpayer money for abortion-related services in the future.
The lawsuit is among several Paxton has filed in defense of the state laws banning abortion.
Last fall, he sued Austin officials for similar reasons, arguing that city officials appropriating funding for abortion travel violated the Texas Constitution’s gift clause and represented an ultra vires action, The Center Square reported.
More recently, he sued and secured an injunction against three Houston area abortion providers who illegally performed abortions and claimed to practice medicine and provide so-called medical services without a license, The Center Square reported.
