Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has declared victory in his legal battle against San Antonio after the city terminated a program that used taxpayer dollars to fund out-of-state abortion travel.
The city’s decision to end its Reproductive Justice Fund support for abortion-related travel comes after months of legal challenges from Paxton’s office, which claimed the program violated state law and Texas’ pro-life stance. The program had allocated $100,000 in public funds to cover expenses for women seeking abortions outside Texas, where the procedure is largely banned.
A Battle Over “Abortion Tourism”
“Texas respects the sanctity of unborn life, and I will always do everything in my power to prevent radicals from manipulating the system to murder innocent babies,” Paxton stated following the announcement. “It is illegal for cities to fund abortion tourism with taxpayer funds. San Antonio’s unlawful attempt to cover the travel and other expenses for out-of-state abortions has now officially been defeated.”
Paxton’s lawsuit against the city had argued that the Reproductive Justice Fund violated the Texas Constitution’s “gift clause” by inappropriately using public money. His office characterized the program as “abortion tourism” — a term that has become increasingly common in the post-Roe legal landscape as states with abortion bans grapple with residents traveling to other states for the procedure.
The legal victory for Paxton follows earlier action by Texas’ 15th Court of Appeals, which had temporarily blocked San Antonio’s efforts to distribute the funds. That court decision prompted Paxton to issue a statement declaring, “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.”
Clash Between Local and State Policies
What’s at stake here extends beyond a single city program. The case highlights the growing tensions between Texas municipalities attempting to protect abortion access and state officials determined to enforce and extend abortion restrictions.
In earlier comments about San Antonio’s program, Paxton had argued that the city was deliberately circumventing state law. “Not only is this a flagrant misuse of public resources, but it also attacks the pro-life principles of our state,” he asserted. “I will not remain passive while wayward cities utilize taxpayer money to bypass state legislation and endanger the lives of unborn children.”
The passage of Senate Bill 33 appears to have strengthened Paxton’s legal position, though city officials have not publicly detailed their reasoning for ending the program.
For abortion rights advocates, the decision represents another setback in Texas, where accessing abortion services has become increasingly difficult since the state’s near-total ban took effect. Meanwhile, opponents of abortion rights are celebrating the development as reinforcement of Texas’ stance against any public funding connected to abortion services — even when those services occur beyond state lines.
As this legal battle concludes, the question remains whether other Texas cities might attempt similar programs, or if Paxton’s victory will effectively end municipal efforts to fund out-of-state abortion travel throughout the state.
