(The Center Square) – Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued San Antonio officials Friday, alleging the city’s use of taxpayer money to fund transportation for women in Texas to have abortions out of state is unconstitutional.  

“The City of San Antonio is blatantly defying Texas law by using taxpayer dollars to fund abortion tourism,” Paxton said. “Beyond being an egregious misuse of public funds, it’s an attack on the pro-life values of our state. I will not stand by while rogue cities use tax dollars to circumvent state law and take the innocent lives of unborn children.”

The lawsuit was filed in the District Court of Bexar County and names the city of San Antonio, its mayor and city manager as defendants. 

This is the second time the city has been sued for its abortion transportation activity; the first was filed by prolife groups last year. 

After the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022, returning the issue of abortion to the states, Texas’ abortion prohibition laws went into effect. Not only is abortion banned in Texas with some exceptions, but state law prohibits anyone from transporting or funding transportation services for abortions and allows civil suits to be filed against violators.

Undeterred by the threat of legal action, the San Antonio City Council passed a resolution in support of abortion in August 2022 and later received more than $20 million from publicly owned CPS Energy “to fund abortion travel,” The Center Square reported.

In 2023, the city council created the Reproductive Justice Fund (RJF) and a line item in its $3.96 billion 2024 budget to fund it. The city council also allocated $500,000 for the RJF to cover travel costs for residents to have abortions outside of Texas, referred to as “downstream services,” or what Paxton refers to as “abortion tourism.” 

Pro-abortion groups, Jane’s Due Process, AVOW, the Buckle Bunnies Fund, Sueños Sin Fronteras, and the Lilith Fund for Reproductive Equity all support the RJF.

Several prolife groups, including the San Antonio Family Association, sued to stop the city “from providing taxpayer money to any organization that pays for abortion travel or that procures elective abortions for Texas residents.” 

A district court ruled against them; they appealed to the Fourth Court of Appeals.

After being sued, city council members next requested another $100,000 for “downstream services.” 

Six months later, Paxton sued, arguing, “Under Texas law, cities have no authority to use public money to assist people in circumventing Texas’s pro-life protections.” 

The lawsuit states that city officials are “using taxpayer money” to “fund an illegal abortion procurement scheme,” appropriating $100,000 to its RJF “specifically to pay for pregnant women to travel for out-of-state abortions.”

The lawsuit asks the court to declare that city officials are violating the Texas Constitution’s gift clause through the scheme and requests the court to issue a temporary and permanent injunction prohibiting the city from spending any taxpayer money on it. It also asks the court to prohibit the city from allocating taxpayer money for abortion-related services in the future.  

The lawsuit is among several Paxton has filed in defense of the state laws banning abortion.

Last fall, he sued Austin officials for similar reasons, arguing that city officials appropriating funding for abortion travel violated the Texas Constitution’s gift clause and represented an ultra vires action, The Center Square reported.

More recently, he sued and secured an injunction against three Houston area abortion providers who illegally performed abortions and claimed to practice medicine and provide so-called medical services without a license, The Center Square reported.

(The Center Square) – Hugo and Helene are rare, as is the ever-dangerous tornado outbreaks that sometimes plague the South. Charlotte, regardless of frequency, remains in a dangerous gap every day.

U.S. Rep. Tim Moore, R-N.C., has introduced the Radar Gap Elimination Act as a vehicle to close it. Bipartisan support includes Reps. Deborah Ross, D-N.C., and Pat Harrigan, R-N.C.

Charlotte is among the nation’s 15 largest cities by population. Moore’s proposal would bring modernization to the National Weather Service, he says, and “close dangerous gaps in high-risk areas like Charlotte.”

“The devastation of Hurricane Helene showed us just how important accurate weather data is to saving lives and hardening communities to minimize damage from upcoming storms and natural disasters,” Moore said. “Charlotte is one of the most populated regions in the country without full radar coverage, creating a blind spot that puts families at risk and hampers emergency response. I’m proud to lead the Radar Gap Elimination Act to close these critical gaps by prioritizing new radar in underserved areas and transitioning to new technology that can better detect severe weather.”

In a release, Moore said House Resolution 2646 “directs the National Weather Service to replace aging NEXRAD radar infrastructure and prioritize the deployment of Phased Array Radar in locations that are more than 75 miles from existing radar coverage. These upgrades will allow meteorologists to detect severe weather closer to the ground, particularly in areas where traditional radar fails to capture low-level storm activity.”

The National Weather Service is in evaluation of a new radar system replacing the Next-Generation Radar system, colloquially called NEXRAD. Moore said it is estimated PAR stations could be built by the end of the decade.

NEXRAD gets blind spots from the curvature of the Earth. For example, a distant NEXRAD station will have trouble on flash flood-causing storms, and F0 and F1 tornadoes at lower altitudes, a release says. That delays warnings and jeopardizes life, Moore said.

Ross said, “Every second counts when severe weather strikes, and this legislation will close the dangerous radar gap in our state and modernize our radar systems, ensuring our communities aren’t left in the dark when extreme weather hits.”

(The Center Square) – California did not materially comply with the requirements for seven of the 22 federal programs the state auditor examined, including “pervasive” noncompliance in its unemployment benefits program, which could put essential federal funding at risk.

“This report concludes that the State did not materially comply with certain requirements for seven of the 22 federal programs or clusters of programs (federal programs) MGO audited, including one program for which the noncompliance was pervasive,” wrote Deputy State Auditor Linus Li. “Additionally, although MGO concluded that the State materially complied with requirements for the remaining federal programs it audited, the State continues to experience certain deficiencies in its accounting and administrative practices that affect its internal controls over compliance with federal requirements.”

The audit found that even in 2023 — years after the state made $55 billion in fraudulent COVID lockdown-era benefits payments — the state likely made “potentially ineligible payments” of nearly $200 million. The audit also found that of 138 pandemic unemployment assistance claimants that were tested, 91, or 66%, had verification issues. 

“While Gavin Newsom chases the national spotlight, Californians are left with an administration that can’t accomplish the basic functions of government,” said California State Assembly Minority Leader James Gallagher to The Center Square. “The federal government is right to take a look at this spending and decide if it’s appropriate to keep throwing resources at an administration that treats it like Monopoly money.”

Last year, the state’s Legislative Analyst’s Office said the state’s unemployment fund runs a structural deficit of $2 billion per year, beyond the $20 billion debt and $1 billion in annual interest payments to the federal government. Because the unemployment fund is paid for by payroll taxes on employers and their employees, the LAO said payroll taxes would need to rise from $42 per employee making $46,800 or more per year, to $889.20, or over 21 times higher than the existing base payroll tax.