None of the four nonprofits slated to receive funding from San Antonio’s Reproductive Justice Fund will use the money to help women with abortions, City Council member 2 said after hearing a recommendation from city staff. the name said on Wednesday.
The $500,000 fund, which has already been sued by anti-abortion groups against the city, will be used for other reproductive health services and initiatives, including medical navigation, contraceptives, prenatal support and sexually transmitted disease education. Very likely.
“There is a passion to bring these services to our district, which I think is great and I appreciate it,” said Councilman Jalen Mackey Rodriguez (D2). “But we lost the plan and we lost the purpose of this fund.”
Mayor Ron Nirenberg has signaled support for a separate fund to pay for transportation for out-of-state abortions, but it’s unclear where that money would come from in a tough fiscal year.
Almost all abortions are prohibited in Texas, with narrow exceptions to save a pregnant person’s life or to prevent “serious impairment of a major bodily function.” About 35,500 Texans traveled for an abortion in 2023, according to the Guttmacher Institute, an abortion advocacy group.
Councilwoman Teri Castillo (D5), who first proposed the fund last year along with abortion activists and health care access providers, said she was not disappointed in the services and contracts that city staff ultimately recommended funding. said. The majority of her colleagues agreed.
Councilman Terry Castillo (D5) presents his recommended funding for a $500,000 reproductive justice budget item to the San Antonio City Council. Credit: Scott Ball / San Antonio Report
Of the 10 organizations that applied for funding, only two included abortion access as part of their proposal, city officials said. And two other applicants who have experience providing access to abortion and sought to create the fund, Sueños Sin Fronteras and Janes Due Process, included their services in their proposal to the city. I didn’t include it.
“We can’t force (them) to apply or include it in the application,” Castillo told the San Antonio Report after the council meeting. “I was really surprised that not more applicants wanted to include (access to abortion) in the (proposal), given that this was a priority for the people defending this.”
Jane’s Due Process and Sueños Sin Fronteras did not respond to requests for comment Wednesday afternoon.
“We will provide an additional $500,000 to cities in the state where women lack access to health care. It is important that women have access to contraceptives, sexually transmitted disease testing (and) sex education. ” Castillo said. “This is $500,000 that the City of San Antonio would not have invested if it weren’t for the community supporting the Reproductive Justice Fund.”
proposed spending plan
According to recommendations from the San Antonio City Health Department, only 6% of the funding ($30,550) will address so-called “upstream” causes, or root causes of limited access to reproductive health, such as housing and food insecurity. It will be used to “Midstream” needs such as birth control and doula training would receive 35%, or $174,170.
Almost 60% of the funding ($295,279) will go to direct services such as prenatal support if someone is already pregnant. The breakdown of approved contracts is as follows:
Health care access awareness and workshops:
Doula training, contraception, and STI education:
Prenatal support and STD testing:
Empower House: $148,279 San Antonio AIDS Foundation: $147,000
City Councilwoman Melissa Cabello-Havrda (D-6) said that abortion access (which means help finding abortion pills and transportation to get medication from out of state) was a staff recommendation. He said he was “disappointed” that it was not included.
Havrda said that while he was grateful that other services would receive more funding, “I think this is a safe recommendation. It’s flimsy, it’s not substantive and I think it’s a safe recommendation. I regret not taking a bigger stand.”
Statewide controversies and lawsuits over these publicly funded initiatives may have had a chilling effect on abortion access proposals, she said.
Last month, the city of Austin was sued by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton over $400,000 in abortion travel funds.
San Antonio Family Association (SAFA), Texas Right to Life, and other anti-abortion plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in their official capacity against the city of San Antonio, Nirenberg and City Manager Eric Walsh in October. They argued that the fund violated the state’s abortion law, which allows anyone to file a civil lawsuit against individuals or organizations that support abortion. The case was dismissed because the funds had not yet been disbursed, but the plaintiffs are pending an appeal.
Protesters held signs opposing abortion while the City Council debated the Reproductive Justice Fund. Credit: Scott Ball / San Antonio Report
“SAFA will respect taxpayer funds and stop this unethical and immoral abortion tourism and ‘emergency contraception’ at least until the City Staff’s recommendations are codified by the City Council in a subsequent A session.” “Funding is a not-so-gentle euphemism for chemical abortion,” SAFA’s Patrick von Doren said in a statement.
Cabello Havrda, who is considering a run for mayor, is “not concerned” about filing a lawsuit against the city, she said. “Do I believe that will happen? Yes… (but) we can’t make decisions based on potential litigation. I have to do what’s right for my community.”
to be continued …
Council conversation went on for a while about how proposals would be scored and selected. Some pointed to flaws in the process. But ultimately, how the money is spent will depend on a vote by the City Council, which could be scheduled for next month, city officials said.
But Nirenberg proposed that Congress separate the debate about funding abortion access from the vote.
“I think we should move forward with approving these contracts,” he told colleagues during the meeting. “All we need to do is accept the difficult decisions we have to make in this community: whether the city of San Antonio allocates funds for abortion transportation (or) travel services.”
He doesn’t know where that money will come from specifically, but rather than prolonging the already year-long process to allocate this money, another conversation is an opportunity to vote yes or no on the issue. There is a possibility that it will become.
“If people are uncomfortable with doing it, they can vote against it, but people who want it can vote for it… and we can move on.” he said. “Councilman Mackie Rodriguez said we missed the plot. I agree.”
City Councilman Mark White (D-10), who says he personally opposes abortion, shook his head in disbelief and left the meeting after the mayor finished.
“Pandering” and “politics” came to mind as he listened to Nirenberg, White said.
Residents don’t want their tax dollars going to abortions, he says.
“If we do that, we’re going to get sued, and we’re going to spend more taxpayer money defending that lawsuit,” he said before returning to the ongoing meeting. said.
White City Council members John Craige (D-9) and Manny Pelaez (D-8) said they do not support a deal that would use public funds to pay for transportation for out-of-state abortions.
