Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has scored a significant legal victory in his ongoing effort to prevent the City of San Antonio from using public funds to support out-of-state travel for abortions. A state appellate court has ruled in favor of Paxton’s request to stop implementation of the city’s controversial “Reproductive Justice Fund,” halting its abortion travel assistance program while litigation continues.
At the heart of the legal dispute is a $100,000 appropriation made by the San Antonio City Council to help individuals access abortion services in states where the procedure remains legal. The fund was part of a broader city initiative focused on reproductive healthcare access, but quickly became the target of legal action by the state’s top law enforcement officer.
Attorney General Paxton filed a lawsuit last year, arguing that the city’s program violated Texas’s Constitution—specifically the Gift Clause, which restricts the use of public funds for private purposes. He also contended that the program was in direct conflict with Texas’s pro-life statutes, which have banned most abortions since the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022.
“There is absolutely no legal authority in Texas that allows a city to fund abortion travel,” Paxton said in a statement following the court’s decision. “Taxpayer dollars should not be used to facilitate the killing of unborn children in other states. I will continue to fight against any attempt to circumvent our state’s pro-life laws.”
A lower court had previously ruled against Paxton, allowing the city to move forward with the program. But the Attorney General swiftly appealed, and the Fifteenth Court of Appeals has now granted a temporary injunction—effectively freezing the fund and barring the city from disbursing any money while the legal battle continues.
The ruling is a temporary but significant development. It prevents San Antonio from carrying out the program for the time being, but does not yet represent a final verdict on the legality of the initiative. The case is expected to continue making its way through the court system.
City officials and abortion rights advocates have pushed back against the lawsuit, arguing that the program was a lifeline for residents needing access to care no longer available in Texas. They maintain that helping residents travel for legal medical procedures in other states falls within the city’s rights and responsibilities.
Supporters of the fund see it as part of a broader effort to protect bodily autonomy and reproductive health in a post-Roe landscape. Opponents, led by Paxton, argue that such initiatives not only break Texas law, but betray the values of voters who have repeatedly supported pro-life measures at the state level.
As the case continues, the court’s decision to halt the program is being hailed by conservative leaders as a victory for Texas’s pro-life legal framework. Meanwhile, abortion rights groups are expressing concern about what they see as growing efforts by the state government to block even indirect access to abortion.
