A year ago, the city council was fighting over a $500,000 fund that most members of the city council Hope could be used, in part, to help women access abortion.
On the day council was set to adopt the city's 2024 annual budget, District 10 Councillor Marc Whyte refused to vote on the spending plan because of the fund, which was a small fraction of the city's $3.7 billion budget.
But the Reproductive Justice Fund was barely mentioned. budget discussions this year — and no money was added to it as some council members had hoped.
The article continues below this ad
The city has remains to be solidified how the fund, which will be administered by the San Antonio Metropolitan Health District, will be spent.
The council is expected to discuss in October which nonprofits could receive money from the fund and how they could use it. The funds likely won't be allocated until 2025.
While the controversy centers on money earmarked to seek out-of-state abortions, the fund is also supposed to pay for pregnancy tests, emergency contraception, doula training and programs to alleviate food insecurity.
A misunderstanding
In June, it appeared the fund could nearly double in fiscal year 2025, which begins Oct. 1. Junda Woo, Metro Health’s chief medical officer, told board members at a meeting that $400,000 would be set aside for the coming year.
After the meeting, Woo told reporters that she had made a mistake — she meant $500,000 — and that she simply meant the fund was being rolled over from this year to next year because no money had been disbursed.
RELATED: Council approves nearly $4 billion budget, with mix of cuts, money for police, hiring of ACS
The article continues below this ad
This message never reached the council.
District 5 Councilwoman Teri Castillo, the fund's most vocal and longest-serving advocate, said she was disappointed when she learned days before the council was set to adopt the 2025 budget Thursday that no additional dollars were being added.
“It’s a little frustrating,” Castillo said at a budget meeting before the Sept. 19 vote, adding that she would have pushed for increased funding if she had seen the bigger picture.
Castillo said she could look for more dollars when the issue comes back to council in October.
The lack of funding has angered local abortion rights advocates.
The article continues below this ad
Makayla Montoya Frazier, co-executive director of the Buckle Bunnies Fund, which helps women access out-of-state abortions, said in a Tuesday post on X that she was kicked out of City Hall while trying to advocate for the Reproductive Justice Fund.
“The reason we were here is because they broke their word about including this tax in this year’s budget,” his message read. “The bastards were upset that they were handed a folder with postcards from their constituents!”
A city spokesperson said Montoya Frazier was returned “to the public area of City Hall.”
The city does not allow visitors to enter most parts of the building, including council members' offices, without an escort. It is unclear from the city's post and comments where Montoya Frazier was at City Hall.
The article continues below this ad
The creation of the Reproductive Justice Fund was called for by several reproductive rights groups, including Jane's Due Process, AVOW, Sueños Sin Fronteras and the Lilith Fund.
These groups and the Buckle Bunnies Fund formed the San Antonio Reproductive Justice Coalition, which aims to improve access to abortion and reproductive health care.
The group issued a press release Friday evening criticizing the city for failing to contribute to the Justice Fund.
Anti-abortion groups sued San Antonio over the Reproductive Justice Fund last fall under Texas Senate Bill 8, a near-total abortion ban that took effect in 2021.
The article continues below this ad
The law allows individuals to sue anyone they suspect of “aiding or abetting” a person seeking an abortion after fetal heart activity is detected, which typically occurs around the sixth week of pregnancy.
A Bexar County judge dropped the trial But the plaintiffs have appealed. The case is pending before the Fourth Court of Appeals.
