City Council divided on how to spend money from controversial Reproductive Justice Fund
SAN ANTONIO — City Council still needs to decide how it wants to spend half a million dollars in what's called the Reproductive Justice Fund.
In a heated discussion Wednesday, City Council for the first time received Metro Health's recommendations on the organizations the money should go towards.
The five hundred thousand dollars was earmarked in September 2023, as a part of Fiscal Year 2024's budget proposal . It was a response to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022 which overturned Roe v. Wade, effectively stripping the constitutional right to abortion nationwide and leaving the issue up to state governments. Texas has banned abortions since 2021, after the passage of Senate Bill 8. The legislation prohibits abortion after six weeks of pregnancy with the only exception to save a mother's life.
The goal of the fund was to help women access reproductive healthcare, including out of state abortions. In April, Metro Health identified multiple health gaps , including access to contraception, access to prenatal care, screenings and care for sexually transmitted infections, and access to abortions.
"Texas faces a significant challenge in addressing the health needs of women, with the state leading the nation in uninsured women approximately one in four," said Dr. Claude Jacob, director for Metro Health. "This solicitation requested proposals to provide up to promote reproductive justice through community capacity building, health care navigation, as well as reproductive and sexual health care services."
Of ten organizations that applied, Metro Health believes YWCA, the San Antonio Aids Foundation, Empower House, and Latched Support were best suited to receive money from the reproductive justice fund. The organizations provide education, resources, and support for women.
A majority of councilmembers supported Metro Health's recommendations.
"Why I feel we need to move it forward as it is right now is because there are women that are waiting," said Phyllis Viagran, councilwoman for District 3. "There are women that are contemplating what to do next, and I think they need their city to tell them, we support you. We want to help."
Not a single organization that was chosen provided travel to abortion care. It's a point the city has been highly scrutinized over. Less than a month after the reproductive justice fund was approved, eight organizations filed a lawsuit against the city. Despite the backlash, many council members still wanted part of the reproductive justice fund to fund travel to abortion care.
With that goal not met, Jalen McKee-Rodriguez, councilman for District 2, emphasized his disappointment when funding travel to abortion care was not included.
"It [The Reproductive Justice Fund] was a response to the DOB decision, the abortion ban, and our resolution in support of reproductive justice," he said. "That was the reason that this was proposed in the first place. We've lost the plot and we've lost the purpose of this fund, and there's a huge, huge gap in what this fund is going to be provided versus what it was supposed to be intended for."
Councilwoman Melissa Cabello Havrda for District 6 echoed similar points, though she believes Metro Health ignored council's points from June when choosing which organizations will receive the funding.
"This recommendation to me is watered down based on our council feedback," she said. "We had a chance to really help. We have a chance to really help women, and we're choosing a a safe, unsubstantial recommendation. I see no real power movement in this recommendation and if that's showing our level of commitment? I would be disappointed in this, I am disappointed in this."
