Texas AG Ken Paxton suing city of Austin over abortion travel funds

Paxton abortion travel funds lawsuit

Texas AG Ken Paxton is suing the city of Austin over abortion travel funds.

AUSTIN, Texas - Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed a lawsuit against the city of Austin over abortion travel funds.

Since abortions cannot legally be performed in Texas, women who are seeking the procedure are forced to travel out-of-state for it. Ken Paxton argues this use of public funds violates the state's constitution.

Gina Ortiz Jones is the founder of Find Out PAC and a former Undersecretary of the Air Force.

"This is a waste of taxpayer money," said Gina Ortiz Jones. "These lawsuits that frankly are working to scare women, scare doctors into not getting the care."

The reproductive health grant has allotted $400,000, which was approved by the city in its annual budget.

Amy O'Donnell is the communications director at Texas Alliance for Life.

"They are far better educating and pointing women towards the help and support and hope available than just advocating for them to take the lives of their unborn children," said O'Donnell.

Some city officials expressed their frustrations with Ken Paxton's lawsuit on social media.

"Texans are with us on this issue," said Jones. "90% of folks support abortion to save the life of the mother, right? I mean, it's the Texas Supreme Court and Attorney General Paxton that are out of step with where Texans are."

"Polls have long shown that both Democrats and Republicans largely oppose their tax dollars going towards this kind of funding, and that just shows how out of touch the city of Austin is with the wishes of their taxpayers," said O'Donnell.

The money is intended to support Austinites traveling to get access to abortion procedures, including reimbursements for airfare, fuel, hotel, and food expenses.

Ken Paxton is seeking a temporary restraining order to pause the use of funds while the litigation proceeds. He is protesting that the city's payment and use of taxpayer money in this matter do not serve a 'legitimate public purpose.'