Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton secured a legal win that halted San Antonio’s plan to use taxpayer money to pay for out-of-state abortion travel, and the city dropped the fund after a court issued a temporary injunction.
In April 2025 San Antonio set aside $100,000 for a so-called Reproductive Justice Fund that would help residents cover travel and related costs for abortions carried out outside Texas. The move was framed as a way to get around Texas’ laws protecting unborn life, and it immediately drew a legal challenge from the state attorney general.
Paxton’s office filed suit against the city, arguing the appropriation violated the Gift Clause of the Texas Constitution by channeling public dollars to private activity. A state Court of Appeals responded by entering a temporary injunction to stop any dispersal of the funds, and the city subsequently abandoned the program rather than continue the fight in court.
Paxton spoke directly to the issue and the motive behind the enforcement, saying: “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,” said Paxton. “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.”
This decision follows a pattern. In September 2024 Paxton took similar action against Austin after that city approved a program with an annual budget reportedly around $400,000 to help residents travel for abortions. Both interventions highlight how state officials are using constitutional rules to block municipal efforts to subsidize abortion access beyond state borders.
From a Republican perspective the case is about two clear principles: protecting unborn life and defending taxpayers from having their money used for politically charged private services. Local governments that try to repurpose public funds for private medical procedures risk running afoul of long-standing constitutional restrictions, and Paxton’s office has been aggressive about enforcing those limits.
The legal argument centers on the Gift Clause, which prevents governments from transferring public assets to private parties without proper authorization and public purpose. Attorneys general and state officials argue that paying travel and medical costs for abortions performed out of state amounts to an unconstitutional subsidy of private conduct, and courts have the responsibility to weigh whether such programs meet the constitutional test.
Practically speaking, this ruling leaves municipal leaders with a choice: either stay within clear legal bounds when crafting assistance programs or invite lawsuits that can force them to walk back policies at taxpayer expense. The San Antonio action will likely be cited by other states and by municipal attorneys as a cautionary example when budget committees consider programs that could be interpreted as funding private medical services.
Expect more litigation in jurisdictions where city leaders try to expand access to services that state law limits or forbids. As the post-Roe legal landscape continues to evolve, conflicts between local policy preferences and state constitutional constraints will keep playing out in courtrooms across the country.
