Abortion Funds See Dwindling Donations as Demand and Cost Rise

posted in: All news | 0

When the one-two punch of Senate Bill 8—a 2021 Texas law that barred nearly all abortion care —and the U.S. Supreme Court’s subsequent decision to overturn Roe v. Wade befell Texans, Blanca Murillo felt like she was on the brink of hopelessness. Murillo had spent her entire career in the reproductive rights movement in Texas, and, as the development director with The Lilith Fund, the oldest abortion fund operating in the state, she worried for the many clients her group serves. 

Abortion funds like Lilith work on the frontlines of abortion care, providing financial assistance for the procedure or for travel, hotel stays, and childcare. The nonprofit, grassroots groups—often under the radar relative to large national organizations like Planned Parenthood—serve as a critical bridge to help largely low-income people of color access out-of-state care. And their hands are full under Texas’ strict abortion bans: More than 28,000 people are now forced to flee the nation’s second-most populous state annually. 

But Murillo’s despair soon shifted to hope when her group was met with a massive swell of what some call “rage donations,” sparked by anger against both SB 8 and the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson decision. While Lilith’s yearly budget hovered around $1 million before the back-to-back historic attacks on abortion rights, the group saw its coffers skyrocket to more than $6 million afterward. “People were understandably enraged and wanted to help. I was in awe of how much everyone cared at that time,” said Murillo. 

However, those “rage donations” have dried up—not just for Lilith Fund, whose revenue has fallen by half, but for five additional Texas funds the Observer spoke with. Mirroring a nationwide “crisis,” dwindling donations to Texas—home to more abortion funds than any other state—have left groups struggling to keep up with demand. 

After Dobbs, for the first time in its history, The Lilith Fund was able to give some assistance to every client who requested it, but now the future feels uncertain. 

“It’s such a gift to be able to help everyone that calls us, but we don’t know how long that’s sustainable,” said Murillo. “There’s definitely the fear of, can we actually keep this going? Will we have to start turning people away or changing operations?”

May 3, 2022, demonstration in Austin (Gus Bova)

While funds grapple with a decrease in donations, the price for abortion care is rising, creating a perfect storm. Living under abortion bans, Texans are frequently forced to travel 500 to 1,500 miles for the procedure—and sometimes more—adding substantial cost to their medical care. For instance, last year Lilith Fund clients traveled an average of 1,012 miles, with the most miles traveled by a client totaling nearly 4,200—and the group says those figures are only rising this year. 

Travel time for residents in banned states like Texas has increased from roughly 2.8 hours to more than 11 hours, and travel costs jumped from an average of $179 to $372, according to a study published in the American Journal of Public Health earlier this year that tracked access in 14 states. Of course, those costs vary and may be a modest estimate for some Texans who need to spend more than a thousand dollars in travel, say abortion fund leaders. More than half of those surveyed by researchers said their abortion care required an overnight hotel stay, while just 5 percent said the same prior to the bans. The National Network of Abortion Funds (NNAF) similarly found that practical support expenses—like travel, lodging, and childcare—increased by 30 percent in the past year. 

The price of the procedure itself is also on the rise: Costs grew by 37 percent from 2022 to 2024, according to data from NNAF. Texas groups say this is in part due to the many logistical barriers imposed by bans that force pregnant patients to delay care and undergo abortion later in pregnancy, when it becomes more expensive and more difficult to secure, especially as some clinics do not perform abortion into the second trimester. Out-of-state clinics have also found themselves spread thin, as they now see double the number of patients that they did before the end of Roe, according to the Guttmacher Institute

Overall, demand is increasing with funds nationwide seeing 56 percent more requests than before the historic loss of abortion access. 

As intake coordinator with the Texas Equal Access Fund, a North Texas-based group, Charlie Hughes hears the heightened stress from callers who are forced to trek long miles for care, primarily to New Mexico, Kansas, and Colorado. Appointments that were previously available within a day or two now could take two or three weeks, said Hughes. About 60 percent of the fund’s callers are already parents and must also secure childcare, adding another obstacle. 

Like other funds, Hughes’ group saw donations jump 120 percent post-SB 8 and Dobbs and was able to support more callers in the three years that followed than in its entire 20-year history. Then came the decline, leaving the fund with an “unsustainable burden.” In June, the Texas Equal Access Fund received about 500 requests for help and was only able to fund 87 of them.

“[Callers] need to travel farther and the procedure is costing more, and so we need to find more funding while our donations decline—it’s a stressful situation all around,” Hughes said.

Similarly, per-client cost more than tripled post-Dobbs for Jane’s Due Process, an abortion fund that connects teenagers with care. While the group previously centered its legal work on helping teens navigate judicial bypass for abortions, they’ve since had to shift to funding flights, lodging, transportation, and the procedure itself, with an average cost of $1,500 per caller.

“We continue to be underfunded while the demand—and the stakes—grow,” said Lucie Arvallo, the fund’s executive director. “And it’s not as if the attacks on abortion have slowed down in Texas, we still deeply need investment, possibly now more than ever.” 

Smaller than some of their counterparts in major cities, the Frontera Fund in the Rio Grande Valley serves a population within 100 miles of the Texas-Mexico border. The fund saw its modest annual budget of about $11,000 balloon to more than $650,000 from individual donations driven by 2022-era outrage. That infusion was instrumental in helping Frontera dramatically change its operations from assisting just eight callers per year in getting out-of-state care to 30 callers a month. Today, the budget has dipped by more than 70 percent as demand remains. 

“We’ve had to put limits on our services,” said Zaena Zamora, Frontera Fund’s executive director. “I worry we’ll have to downsize our already small fund, and just really hope we’ll never have to close.”

Last year, The National Abortion Federation, which runs a hotline that helps cover procedure costs, cut back funding for those who qualify for its financial assistance program from 50 percent of the cost of care to 30 percent due to fewer incoming donations. 

Abortion funds largely attribute the sizable drop off in contributions to abortion rights seemingly fading from the spotlight.

“Abortion was all over the news after SB 8 and then Dobbs, and getting so much attention at the time,” said Anna Rupani, executive director of Fund Texas Choice. “We are so grateful for the rush of donations, but now that there isn’t as much focus on abortion, I’m not sure people realize this is an ongoing, long-term need.”

Aggressive and intrusive legal attacks on abortion funds from anti-abortion activists and state leaders including Attorney General Ken Paxton may have also had a chilling effect on potential donors. Funds were forced to pause operations for nine months in 2023 before a court ultimately blocked an effort from Paxton encouraging district attorneys to criminally prosecute the funds.

Multiple leaders told the Observer they’ve heard first-hand from donors and foundations that philanthropy has shifted to political advocacy groups, candidates, ballot initiatives, and clinics in non-banned states. (Historically, abortion funds already receive just a small fraction of overall foundation support for reproductive rights compared to other abortion-related groups.) 

In an op-ed in The Nation signed by 30 local abortion funds across the country—including five in Texas—leaders criticized the priorities of “well-funded” mainstream national reproductive rights organizations, who are “disconnected” from the needs of on-the-ground grassroots groups directly serving their communities. “Local funds have been put in a position to disproportionately hold the weight of abortion access while being abandoned based on their more radical and staunch values,” leaders wrote. “Now is not the time to put policy advocacy and wealth hoarding over material support.”

For some donors, Texas—and the South—feels like a futile investment. 

“The irony of that logic to me is that you would think the groups that have withstood so many attacks on abortion and found a way to remain resilient and still standing would be the ones you would want to invest in,” said Rupani. “It’s pretty frustrating.” 

And the attacks here rarely cease: During this year’s regular legislative session, Republicans took aim at abortion funds by curtailing city governments’ ability to partner with them to provide residents with practical support services. Bills filed for the ongoing special session include a proposal that would criminalize anyone who helps a teen travel for abortion without parental consent; a measure that could subject all funds to criminal prosecution; and a proposal that would empower private citizens to sue manufacturers or health providers who mail or prescribe abortion pills—a revival of a measure that failed during the regular session. That last bill, SB 6, passed out of a Senate committee on Monday. (While progress on these bills has been slowed by the Democrats’ quorum break to protect voting rights, further dismantling abortion care is a priority for both Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick and Governor Greg Abbott, who has the power to call legislators back for multiple special sessions.) 

With a mixture of gratitude for the initial boost in funding and fear of the future under depleting resources, Hughes offers a gentle reminder.

“I think some people assume that, because abortion is illegal in Texas, they don’t need to support abortion rights here—but in fact the opposite is true,” said Hughes. “We are still helping hundreds of Texans get the care they need, against all odds. Just because Texans don’t have the right to abortion in their state doesn’t mean they are not deserving of access.”

The post Abortion Funds See Dwindling Donations as Demand and Cost Rise appeared first on The Texas Observer.

Why many Americans are rethinking alcohol, according to a new Gallup poll

posted in: All news | 0

By LINLEY SANDERS, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Fewer Americans are reporting that they drink alcohol amid a growing belief that even moderate alcohol consumption is a health risk, according to a new Gallup poll released Wednesday.

A record high percentage of U.S. adults, 53%, now say moderate drinking is bad for their health, up from 28% in 2015. The uptick in doubt about alcohol’s benefits is largely driven by young adults — the age group that is most likely to believe drinking “one or two drinks a day” can cause health hazards — but older adults are also now increasingly likely to think moderate drinking carries risks.

As concerns about health impacts rise, fewer Americans are reporting that they drink. The survey finds that 54% of U.S. adults say they drink alcoholic beverages such as liquor, wine or beer. That’s lower than at any other point in the past three decades.

FILE – Beer is displayed in a cooler at a store June 19, 2023, in Milwaukee. (AP Photo/Morry Gash)

The findings of the poll, which was conducted in July, indicate that after years of many believing that moderate drinking was harmless — or even beneficial — worries about alcohol consumption are taking hold. According to Gallup’s data, even those who consume alcohol are drinking less.

The federal government is updating new dietary guidelines, including those around alcohol. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, government data showed U.S. alcohol consumption was trending up. But other government surveys have shown a decline in certain types of drinking, particularly among teenagers and young adults.

This comes alongside a new drumbeat of information about alcohol’s risks. While moderate drinking was once thought to have benefits for heart health, health professionals in recent years have pointed to overwhelming evidence that alcohol consumption leads to negative health outcomes and is a leading cause of cancer.

Growing skepticism about alcohol’s benefits

Younger adults have been quicker than older Americans to accept that drinking is harmful, but older adults are coming around to the same view.

Related Articles


Tennessee town approves deals to turn closed prison into immigration detention facility


Today in History: August 13, East Germany closes Berlin border


Police in Southern California find $30K worth of Labubus stolen from warehouse


Man admits trying to smuggle 850 protected turtles valued at $1.4 million to Hong Kong


35 Union Pacific train cars derail near Texas town, no injuries reported

About two-thirds of 18- to 34-year-olds believe moderate drinking is unhealthy, according to the new poll, up from about 4 in 10 in 2015. Older adults are less likely to see alcohol as harmful — about half of Americans age 55 or older believe this — but that’s a substantial increase, too. In 2015, only about 2 in 10 adults age 55 or older thought alcohol was bad for their health.

In the past, moderate drinking was thought to have some benefits. That idea came from imperfect studies that largely didn’t include younger people and couldn’t prove cause and effect. Now the scientific consensus has shifted, and several countries recently lowered their alcohol consumption recommendations. Earlier this year, the outgoing U.S. surgeon general, Vivek Murthy, recommended a label on bottles of beer, wine and liquor that would clearly outline the link between alcohol consumption and cancer.

The federal government’s current dietary guidelines recommend Americans not drink or, if they do consume alcohol, men should limit themselves to two drinks a day or fewer while women should stick to one or fewer.

Gallup’s director of U.S. social research, Lydia Saad, said shifting health advice throughout older Americans’ lives may be a reason why they have been more gradual than young adults to recognize alcohol as harmful.

“Older folks may be a little more hardened in terms of the whiplash that they get with recommendations,” Saad said. “It may take them a little longer to absorb or accept the information. Whereas, for young folks, this is the environment that they’ve grown up in … in many cases, it would be the first thing young adults would have heard as they were coming into adulthood.”

The government is expected to release new guidelines later this year, under the directive of health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has promised big changes. Kennedy has not hinted at how the alcohol recommendations may shift.

Drinking rates fall to decade low

Slightly more than half of Americans, 54%, report that they drink alcohol — a low in Gallup’s data that is especially pronounced among women and young adults.

Young Americans’ alcohol consumption has been trending downward for years, accelerating the overall decline in alcohol consumption. In sharp contrast with Gallup’s findings two decades ago, when young adults were likeliest to report drinking, young adults’ drinking rate is now slightly below middle-aged and older adults.

Americans’ reported drinking is among the lowest since the question was first asked in 1939. For most of the last few decades, at least 6 in 10 Americans have reported drinking alcoholic beverages, only dipping below that point a few times in the question’s history.

Americans who drink alcohol are consuming less

Even if concerns about health risks aren’t causing some adults to give up alcohol entirely, these worries could be influencing how often they drink.

The survey found that adults who think moderate drinking is bad for one’s health are just as likely as people who don’t share those concerns to report that they drink, but fewer of the people with health worries had consumed alcohol recently.

About half of those who worry moderate drinking is unhealthy said they had a drink in the previous week, compared with about 7 in 10 who did not think drinking was bad for their health.

Overall, only about one-quarter of Americans who drink said they had consumed alcohol in the prior 24 hours, a record low in the survey. Roughly 4 in 10 said that it had been more than a week since they had poured a drink.

Associated Press writer Amanda Seitz contributed to this report.

Trump will visit the Kennedy Center on the day honorees are announced

posted in: All news | 0

By ANNIE MA and HILLEL ITALIE, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump is set to make an announcement Wednesday at the Kennedy Center, where this year’s honorees for its annual award are being revealed.

Trump avoided the Kennedy Center Honors during his first term after artists said they would not attend out of protest. This year, the Republican president has taken over as the Kennedy Center’s new chairman and fired the board of trustees, which he replaced with loyalists.

Related Articles


VA hospitals are finding it harder to fill jobs, watchdog says


Andrew Cuomo swipes at Zohran Mamdani over a classic New York topic: rent


National Guard rehearsed show of force against immigration raid protesters, general testifies


Trump’s nominee to oversee jobs, inflation data faces shower of criticism


Former aide to Eric Adams pleads guilty to soliciting straw donations for mayor’s campaign

In a Truth Social post on Tuesday, Trump teased a name change for the center, formally the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, and said it would be restored to its past glory.

“GREAT Nominees for the TRUMP/KENNEDY CENTER, whoops, I mean, KENNEDY CENTER, AWARDS,” Trump wrote. He said work was being done on the site that would be “bringing it back to the absolute TOP LEVEL of luxury, glamour, and entertainment.”

“It had fallen on hard times, physically, BUT WILL SOON BE MAKING A MAJOR COMEBACK!!!” he wrote.

In a statement on its social media feed, the Kennedy Center said it is “honored” to host Trump, who will be visiting for the third time since January, and hinted that he would announce a construction project.

“Thanks to his advocacy, our beautiful building will undergo renovations to restore its prestige and grandeur,” the venue said. “We are also excited to be announcing this year’s INCREDIBLE slate of Kennedy Center Honorees.”

It is unclear how this year’s honorees were chosen, though Trump had indicated he wanted a more active role. Historically, a bipartisan advisory committee selects the recipients, who over the years have ranged from George Balanchine and Tom Hanks to Aretha Franklin and Stephen Sondheim. A message sent to the Kennedy Center press office asking how this year’s honorees were selected wasn’t returned Tuesday.

The Kennedy Center did post this on social media, however: “Coming Soon … A country music icon, an Englishman, a New York City Rock band, a dance Queen and a multi-billion dollar Actor walk into the Kennedy Center Opera House …”

In the past, Trump has floated the idea of granting Kennedy Center Honors status to singer-songwriter Paul Anka and Sylvester Stallone, one of three actors Trump named as Hollywood ambassadors earlier this year. Anka was supposed to perform “My Way” at Trump’s first inaugural and backed out at the last moment.

The Kennedy Center Honors were established in 1978 and have been given to a broad range of artists. Until Trump’s first term, presidents of both major political parties traditionally attended the annual ceremony, even when they disagreed politically with a given recipient.

Prominent liberals such as Barbra Streisand and Warren Beatty were honored during the administration of Republican George W. Bush, and a leading conservative, Charlton Heston, was feted during the administration of Democrat Bill Clinton.

In 2017, after honoree Norman Lear declared that he would not attend a White House celebration in protest of Trump’s proposed cuts to federal arts funding, Trump and first lady Melania Trump decided to skip the Kennedy Center event and remained away throughout his first term. Honorees during that time included such Trump critics as Cher, Lin-Manuel Miranda and Sally Field.

Since taking office for a second time, Trump has taken a much more forceful stance on the Kennedy Center and inserted himself into its governance. Besides naming himself chairman and remaking the board, he also has indicated he would take over decisions regarding programming at the center and vowed to end events featuring performers in drag.

The steps have drawn further criticism from some artists. In March, the producers of “Hamilton” pulled out of staging the Broadway hit musical in 2026, citing Trump’s aggressive takeover of the institution’s leadership. Other artists who canceled events include actor Issa Rae, singer Rhiannon Giddens and author Louise Penny.

House Republicans added an amendment to a spending bill that Trump signed into law in July to rename the Kennedy Center’s Opera House after Melania Trump, but that venue has yet to be renamed. Maria Shriver, a niece of the late President Kennedy, a Democrat, has criticized as “insane” a separate House proposal to rename the center after Trump.

Recipients of the Kennedy Center Honors are given a medallion on a rainbow ribbon, a nod to the range of skills that fall under the performing arts. In April, the center changed the lights on the exterior from the long-standing rainbow to a permanent red, white and blue display.

Italie reported from New York.

Tennessee town approves deals to turn closed prison into immigration detention facility

posted in: All news | 0

By ADRIAN SAINZ, Associated Press

MASON, Tenn. (AP) — Officials in a rural Tennessee town voted Tuesday to approve agreements to turn a former prison into an immigration detention facility operated by a private company, despite loud objections from upset residents and activists during a contentious public meeting.

The five-member Board of Aldermen in Mason, plus Mayor Eddie Noeman and Vice Mayor Reynaldo Givhan, met in a fire station garage to discuss converting the closed West Tennessee Detention Facility into a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center run by CoreCivic Inc.

Also present were a few dozen vocal, angry members of the public who oppose allowing ICE to house immigrants in Mason who have been taken into custody as President Donald Trump pushes for mass deportations. Trump has touted a Florida detention facility where allegations of mistreatment of detainees have drawn lawsuits from civil rights advocates and environmental groups.

Darryle Dowell speaks during a meeting of town officials considering agreements to turn a closed prison into an immigration detention facility on Tuesday, Aug. 12, 2025, in Mason, Tenn. (AP Photo/Adrian Sainz)

The first vote of the meeting resulted in approval for a contract with CoreCivic to resume operating the facility, which was closed in 2021 after President Joe Biden ordered the Department of Justice to stop renewing contracts with private detention facilities. Trump reversed that order in January. The second vote, to approve an agreement with ICE, also passed.

It is not immediately known when the facility will reopen.

Mayor points to job-generating potential

Noeman said he wanted to reopen the shuttered prison to bring jobs and economic development to the town, which has struggled with financial problems and needs infrastructure improvements. With a population of about 1,300, Mason is located about 40 miles northeast of Memphis. When it was open, the prison was the town’s largest employer and an important economic engine.

Noeman, an Egyptian-American immigrant and a longtime business owner in the town, called turning the closed prison over to CoreCivic and ICE a “win-win situation,” which led to a cascade of loud boos.

“It’s nothing personal about any immigrant,” Noeman said, adding moments later that “to give jobs to the people is what I’m looking for.”

Related Articles


Why many Americans are rethinking alcohol, according to a new Gallup poll


Today in History: August 13, East Germany closes Berlin border


Police in Southern California find $30K worth of Labubus stolen from warehouse


Man admits trying to smuggle 850 protected turtles valued at $1.4 million to Hong Kong


35 Union Pacific train cars derail near Texas town, no injuries reported

At times, Noeman argued with attendees, questioning whether they actually live in Mason and telling them “you don’t know what you’re talking about.”

Before the meeting, board member Virginia Rivers told The Associated Press that she does not support turning the prison into an ICE facility because “I don’t like what ICE stands for, how they treat the people.”

During the meeting, she noted that some immigrants without criminal records are being swept up by immigration agents and separated from their families. She said approving the contracts would make Mason “complicit in the abusive treatment of immigrants.”

“We as officials of the town of Mason that were elected by the citizens should consider the consequences and the hurt that this would cause our local community, our neighbors, Tennessee schools and many families,” Rivers said.

CoreCivic said in a statement that the ICE facility would create nearly 240 new jobs, and it is currently advertising openings for detention officers at a pay rate of $26.50 per hour. The facility would also generate about $325,000 in annual property tax revenue and $200,000 for Mason that could be used for schools, infrastructure improvements and other projects, the company said.

“The services we provide help the government solve problems in ways it could not do alone — to help create safer communities by assisting with the current immigration challenges, dramatically improve the standard of care for vulnerable people, and meet other critical needs efficiently and innovatively,” CoreCivic said.

CoreCivic has faced dozens of lawsuits in Tennessee

In 2022, Mason reached a deal with the state of Tennessee after it attempted to take over the city’s finances following years of alleged mismanagement. Some members of the public who spoke at the meeting said Mason is a majority-Black town with a history of being ignored and treated with disrespect.

One of the speakers, Charles Watkins, noted that CoreCivic was the operator of the prison under its previous name, Corrections Corporation of America.

“How is it that we can consistently let these organizations come into Black communities and then just somehow overwhelm us with the few dollars that they throw on the table as crumbs while they take the majority of the take back to wherever they came from?” Watkins said.

Tennessee’s corrections agency has fined CoreCivic $44.7 million across four prisons from 2022 through February, including for understaffing violations. Records obtained by AP also show the company has spent more than $4.4 million to settle about 80 lawsuits and out-of-court complaints alleging mistreatment — including at least 22 inmate deaths — at four Tennessee prisons and two jails from 2016 through September 2024.

The state comptroller released scathing audits in 2017, 2020 and 2023.

The Brentwood, Tennessee-based company has defended itself by pointing to industrywide problems with hiring and keeping workers.

Associated Press writer Jonathan Mattise contributed from Nashville, Tennessee.