SAN ANTONIO – This story has been updated with clarification on the April 2025 council vote and more information on the status of the fund.
Attorney General Ken Paxton is claiming victory over San Antonio and its controversial Reproductive Justice Fund.
Recommended Videos
However, his announcement comes nearly four months after the city already said the fund, due to a change in state law, would not be used to help women seeking abortions travel to get legal, out-of-state procedures.
“Following Attorney General Paxton’s aggressive legal action and the passage of Senate Bill 33, which bans taxpayer funds from being used to fund abortion-related activities, the City of San Antonio has capitulated and has officially ended abortion tourism programs,” a Friday morning news release from his office stated.
Paxton is currently running for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate.
The city council created a $500,000 pot of money in 2023 after the Supreme Court decided to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022. Initially, the fund was intended to include out-of-state travel costs for abortion seekers due to abortions almost being entirely banned in Texas.
However, after out-of-state travel funds didn’t make the cut to get any of that money, the council voted in April 2025 to move ahead with putting another $100,000 toward “downstream services.”
Paxton immediately sued the city shortly after the second vote. Though the case was dismissed from district court, he appealed to the 15th Court of Appeals, which ordered the city in June to refrain from distributing any of the money pending the outcome of the appeal or further court orders.
In the meantime, the Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 33 in May 2025, and Gov. Greg Abbott signed it into law in June. The bill prohibits cities and other government entities from providing public money to help with logistical support for women seeking abortions.
After the law took effect in September, the city asked for the appeal to be dismissed.
“The City has always intended that the Fund comply with the law in all respects,” its attorneys wrote. “To that end, considering the above-referenced change in the law, the City will not vote to allocate any part of the Fund to support out-of-state travel for abortions. Thus, there is no longer a live controversy to resolve in this proceeding.”
The 15th Court of Appeals dismissed the case in an Oct. 9 ruling.
The city was also sued separately by anti-abortion groups shortly after the fund was first created. A state district court judge dismissed that case in April 2024, and the 15th Court of Appeals upheld its decision in June 2025.
As of a June 20, 2025 KSAT report, the city had spent about $500,000 defending the Reproductive Justice Fund.
The city does not appear poised to spend anymore money on the Reproductive Justice Fund.
Though travel support for abortion seekers was one of the options for the additional $100,000 in funding, other possible uses included home pregnancy tests, emergency contraception, subsidized doulas, STI testing and treatment, and transportation to prenatal care.
However, a city spokesman told KSAT on Monday the council’s vote in April had been to initiate a solicitation process. Since that process was never completed due to the lawsuit and Senate Bill 33, he said, the $100,000 was never spent or reallocated from its original spot in the budget.
The City Attorney’s Office issued the following statement after KSAT initially published this story:
“This litigation was both initiated and abandoned by the State of Texas. In other words, the City did not drop any claims; the State of Texas, through the Texas Office of the Attorney General, dropped its claims.
The City has always been clear that it would follow the law when it comes to the Reproductive Justice Fund. The City believed the law, prior to the passage of SB 33, allowed the uses of the fund for out-of-state abortion travel that were discussed publicly. After SB 33 became law and no longer allowed those uses, the City did not proceed with the procurement of those specific uses—consistent with its intent all along that it would follow the law. It’s unfortunate that the Texas Attorney General has suggested otherwise with a misleading notice of nonsuit and associated press release."
City Attorney's Office
Read more: