AUSTIN (KXAN) — After state laws restricted abortion access in Texas, the City of Austin established a fund for nonprofits helping women access out-of-state abortions in August 2024. The nonprofits — Jane’s Due Process and Fund Texas Choice — helped more than 1,000 Texan women secure abortions over the past year.
Then, state leadership took notice.
The Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 33, which prohibits local governments from using taxpayer dollars on abortion-related expenses, just months after Austin’s fund was established. The bill, which supporters say help standardize the state’s policies to reflect Texan’s pro-life beliefs, effectively abolishes Austin’s fund.
“Texas has made it clear through our elected officials that we’re a pro-life state and taxpayer funding for abortion travel or logistics violates both the law and the will of the people,” said Amy O’Donnell, a spokesperson for pro-life nonprofit Texas Alliance for Life.
But Austin Mayor Pro Tem Vanessa Fuentes, who led the charge to create the fund, said the state legislature is “taking away a safety net” by enacting SB33.
“It really is forcing women into dangerous practices, and it’s endangering women in our lives,” Fuentes said.
Now, the nonprofits are left with fewer resources to help ensure women in Texas can access reproductive health care. JDP director Lucie Arvallo said that Austin women will be forced to navigate the complex health care system with less support — and less money.
“It really creates this vicious cycle of pushing that care further out of reach for young people —and then increasing that cost,” she said.
‘Focused on providing resources’
Austin first established its reproductive justice fund in 2019, using municipal funding to fund practical support for abortion access, such as travel and lodging. It was the second city in the nation to establish such a fund, according to the National Institute for Reproductive Health. But first iteration of the fund was shuttered after the 2022 Supreme Court Dobbs decision triggered Texas’ abortion ban.
Fuentes said she decided to re-establish the $400,000 fund in 2024 after recognizing that “Austinites now have to travel out of state for abortion care.” The money did not fund the abortion procedure itself, instead going towards practical support for women seeking reproductive health care.
“Our reproductive logistical fund was focused on providing resources, travel, logistics, counseling, mental health services — really, those wraparound supports that women need when having to confront the tough decision of going out of state to receive basic access to healthcare,” Fuentes said.
For Arvallo, the funding was a game changer.
“It trickles down to our community,” she said. “It means we’re able to serve more Travis County residents than we otherwise would be able to, because the demand and cost is increasing exponentially.”
Arvallo estimates that it costs $1,500 for each woman to travel out of state and receive abortion health care. Anna Rupani, director of Fund Texas Choice, wrote that the organization similarly spends $1,300 on each case.
“This reproductive justice fund was so crucial as a service — especially for young people in Austin and Travis County — because you’re helping to fill that almost insurmountable gap for young people that are having to navigate thousands of miles of travel at hundreds of dollars for a procedure,” Arvallo said.
Challenges at the Capitol
Immediately after the fund was established, it faced pushback.
Former Austin City Council member Don Zimmerman sued Austin just days after the council approved the funding allocation, claiming that it violates the Texas Constitution. Attorney General Ken Paxton announced his own suit a month later.
“No city in Texas has the authority to spend taxpayer money in this manner,” Paxton said in a statement. “In this case, the City of Austin is illegally seeking to use public funding to support travel expenses for out-of-state abortions.”
O’Donnell said Austin’s fund was an effort to “undermine our state’s pro-life laws.” She pointed to Senate Bill 22, which the state legislature passed in 2019 to prohibit municipal funding for abortion providers.
“Cities can’t ignore state laws just because they don’t like it,” she said. “The majority of the will of the voters in Texas had voted pro-life legislators into place who bring pro-life laws forward that reflect the will of the people.”
O’Donnell said Texas Alliance for Life worked with State Sen. Donna Campbell to develop SB 33 over the 2024 session, closing the “loophole” left by SB 22. Campbell declined an interview request for this article.
Now, cities are officially prohibited from using taxpayer dollars to support women seeking abortions in any capacity — rather than simply prohibiting funding for abortion providers.
“Taxpayer funding for abortion travel doesn’t reflect the will of the people,” O’Donnell said. “It just doesn’t align with the values of our state.”
Polling from the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas at Austin shows that while a growing number of Texans believe abortion regulations should be “less strict” in the state, this percentage remains one to seven points below 50 percent.
Fuentes believes the bill contradicts Austin’s values, saying the legislation constitutes “state overreach.”
“It’s another example of how the state legislature is more focused on taking away access — taking away services — than providing care for Texans all over our state,” she said.
‘Having to wind down services’
SB 33 is set to take effect on Sept. 1, leaving the City of Austin rushing to comply with the new legislation.
“We, of course, are meeting with city leaders to understand what can we do that’s still legally compliant with the new law,” Fuentes said. “Until then, we’re having those conversations on what can be done with the existing funds that have been allocated but not distributed just yet.”
While Rupani declined to comment on the future of FTC’s relationship with the city, Arvallo said JDP is “in the process of amending our contract” to comply with SB 33. Both organizations will continue to help women secure abortions, but with a more limited scope after municipal funding is revoked.
“We are having to wind down services starting July 31,” she said. “Any funds remaining in the $100,000 contract are going to have to be diverted into other compliance services.”
“The unfortunate reality is our funding doesn’t match the pace of the need, and so we’re going to have to turn away more people without this funding,” Arvallo added.
O’Donnell emphasized that there are still many resources for Texas women who choose to give birth, pointing to the extensive support provided by Medicaid.
“Medicaid pays for over half of the births in Texas,” she said. “That’s a lot of assistance for families in Texas to choose life, and so that’s one way that families in Texas can receive support.”
But with the incoming cuts to Medicaid from the Big Beautiful Bill — which jeopardizes coverage for nearly 300,000 Texans, according to estimates from the Congressional Budget Office — women may soon find themselves with even fewer options. The bill, signed into law by President Trump in early July, aims to reduce federal spending by cutting funding for Medicaid.
Despite the narrowing of health care options, Arvallo said both JDP and FTC will continue to fight for Texans’ access to reproductive health care.
“Even if Jane’s Due Process and Fund Texas Choice don’t have the funds available to support you, we will find an abortion fund that can,” she said. “Because regardless of who is in power, at the state government, at the federal government, on the bench at SCOTUS, we are going to be here to support every individual we can.”