Whole Woman's Health et al v. Jackson et al

Filing 19

MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Law in Support by Alamo Women's Reproductive Services, Alamo City Surgery Center PLLC, Brookside Women's Medical Center PA, Erika Forbes, Frontera Fund, Fund Texas Choice, Allison Gilbert, Houston Women's Clinic, Houston Women's Reproductive Services, Jane's Due Process, Daniel Kanter, Bhavik Kumar, Lilith Fund, Inc., North Texas Equal Access Fund, Planned Parenthood Center for Choice, Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center, Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services, Marva Sadler, Southwestern Women's Surgery Center, The Afiya Center, Whole Woman's Health, Whole Women's Health Alliance. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A. Gilbert Declaration, #2 Exhibit B. Kumar Declaration, #3 Exhibit C. Ferrigno Declaration, #4 Exhibit D. Klier Declaration, #5 Exhibit E. Lambrecht Declaration, #6 Exhibit F. Linton Declaration, #7 Exhibit G. Hagstrom Miller Declaration, #8 Exhibit H. Braid Declaration, #9 Exhibit I. Rosenfeld Declaration, #10 Exhibit J. Barraza Declaration, #11 Exhibit K. Sadler Declarationb, #12 Exhibit L. Zamora Declaration, #13 Exhibit M. Jones Declaration, #14 Exhibit N. Rupani Declaration, #15 Exhibit O. Connor Declaration, #16 Exhibit P. Williams Declaration, #17 Exhibit Q. Kanter Declaration, #18 Exhibit R. Forbes Declaration, #19 Exhibit S. Mariappuram Declaration)(Hebert, Christen)

Exhibit O

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Civil Action No. __________

AUSTIN REEVE JACKSON, et al.,
Defendants.
DECLARATION OF KAMYON CONNER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
I, Kamyon Conner, declare as follows:
1.

I am the Executive Director of the North Texas Equal Access Fund (“TEA Fund”),

a nonprofit corporation incorporated under Texas law and based in Dallas, that provides financial
and emotional support for low-income abortion patients in northern Texas. Our mission is to foster
reproductive justice, which includes removing barriers to abortion access through community
education.
2.

My primary responsibilities as Executive Director are working with our Board of

Directors to help ensure the implementation of our mission; managing our budget, including
fundraising; and overseeing our programmatic work, including supervising staff and volunteers.
3.

I have provided services at TEA Fund for nearly fifteen years, first as a volunteer

fielding calls to our Helpline, and then as a Board Member and Intake Coordinator. In the latter
roles, I helped shape the mission and strategies of the organization based on our clients’
experiences.

1

4.

I provide the following testimony based on personal knowledge acquired through

my service at TEA Fund, including consultation with staff and Board members, and review of the
organization’s business records.
TEA Fund’s Services
5.

TEA Fund has seven staff members and over 125 volunteers. We primarily serve

people living in northern Texas. In 2020, our Helpline received over 10,500 calls from Texans
seeking help paying for an abortion. Most of our callers are referred by abortion providers in the
state. The calls came from 110 counties in Texas, many of them rural. Seventy percent of the
callers were Black, indigenous, or people of color. Indeed, the majority of Texas abortion patients
identify as Black or Latina—communities that already face inequities in access to medical care.
At least 50% of our callers had a child. Almost all were more than six weeks pregnant.
6.

A caller can qualify for assistance based on their financial circumstances, the

amount of financial aid they have been able to obtain from other sources, and the cost of their
abortion care. When a caller qualifies, TEA Fund sends a financial voucher to the abortion provider
with whom the caller’s appointment is scheduled and pays the provider after the abortion is
completed. The average amount for a voucher is $330 and varies based on gestational age.
7.

In 2020, TEA Fund provided over $400,218 to assist 1,218 Texans in obtaining

abortions. Unfortunately, budgetary constraints prevent us from providing funding for every caller
who needs it and from covering the full cost of the abortion for the callers we can help. In 2020,
we were unable to provide any financial assistance at all to three-quarters of the people who
requested it.
8.

To help address clients’ other needs, such as transportation, lodging, and meals, we

coordinate with organizations offering practical support for obtaining an abortion. TEA Fund has

2

a social worker who follows up with clients soon after their scheduled abortion appointment. Each
year, we learn that some clients never made it to their abortion provider because they were unable
to meet travel expenses even with our contribution towards the cost of the abortion itself.
9.

Last year, TEA Fund introduced a textline that provides information about where

to get an abortion, how to get help paying for care, and how to connect to practical support
networks. TEA Fund also has a virtual Client Companion Program, through which our volunteers
provide emotional support to abortion patients during their medication abortion at home or their
in-clinic abortion procedure. TEA Fund’s Caller Engagement Program organizes people
throughout Texas to advocate for meaningful abortion access.
10.

TEA Fund provides these services to people seeking abortion care in Texas to

express and effectuate its deeply held belief that abortion is a fundamental part of healthcare and
that restrictions on abortion access discriminate against people with low incomes, young people,
people in rural areas, and people of color.
Impact of SB 8 on TEA Fund and its Clients
11.

I understand that Texas Senate Bill 8 (“SB 8”), which is scheduled to take effect on

September 1, 2021, would ban the provision of abortions at approximately six weeks of pregnancy,
prohibit aiding or abetting such abortions, and prohibit intending to aid or abet such abortions. I
also understand SB 8 to enable private parties to sue individuals and entities who engage in such
activities for a minimum of $10,000 per abortion performed in violation of the ban.
12.

If SB 8 prevents Texas abortion providers from offering abortion care after six

weeks gestational age, almost all our clients would need to leave the state for care. This would
mean traveling even greater distances than they already do; increased transportation costs,
including air fare; increased lodging and childcare costs; more lost wages; a greater risk of losing

3

their jobs; and greater difficulty maintaining the confidentiality of their abortion or pregnancy. In
my experience, these challenges would be overly burdensome for nearly all our clients and
insurmountable for some. If SB 8 takes effect, TEA Fund intends to shift its resources to the costs
of out-of-state abortion care and to add a practical support budget for each client. Even this is
unlikely to ensure abortion access for our most vulnerable clients, however.
13.

When Texas sharply curtailed abortion access at the start of the COVID-19

pandemic last year, our clients faced long wait times for an appointment and often traveled long
distances out of state to reach a provider legally authorized to perform abortions. The resulting
financial burdens, including more expensive procedures due to the later gestational age of the
pregnancies, made it even more difficult for them than usual to meet the costs associated with outof-state travel. So, we coordinated with abortion funds in New Mexico to provide food and other
resources to Texans traveling to a provider there. Despite our best efforts, several Texans were
unable to leave the state and carried to term.
14.

TEA Fund believes that SB 8 is unconstitutional and thus invalid. If it takes effect,

however, I expect individuals or organizations opposed to abortion access to sue us for providing
assistance, including financial support, to Texans seeking abortion care after six weeks of
pregnancy. We have already been targeted for our efforts to ensure abortion access for all Texans
regardless of circumstance. Last year, seven towns in Texas enacted ordinances drafted by the
Director of Right to Life of East Texas declaring themselves “sanctuary cities for the unborn”;
branding us, along with other abortion funds, as “criminal organizations”; and attempting to bar
us from operating in the towns. After we challenged the ordinances in federal court as violations
of our First Amendment rights to free expression and association, the towns revised the ordinances
to make it clear that we could continue our work in support of equitable abortion access throughout

4

Texas. In response to a defamation suit we brought with other abortion funds against the Director
of Right to Life of East Texas, he stated: “Abortion is the murder of innocent unborn human beings.
The Lilith Fund and other abortion-aiding organizations all take part in the murder of innocent
unborn human beings.”1 Since we brought the defamation suit, there have been twelve countersuits
filed against us and other abortion funds by individuals opposed to abortion access. We were also
targeted for our services and message when a former Austin City Council member sued the City
of Austin in 2020 for indirectly allocating funds to TEA Fund to carry out its mission.
15.

Lawsuits filed pursuant to SB 8 against FTC would undermine our ability to serve

our clients because we lack the resources to defend against the suits. This is true even if we were
to divert our limited staff time and organizational funds to doing so. I understand that lawyers
typically charge hundreds of dollars per hour for their services. We had to raise money to retain
lawyers to represent us in the defamation lawsuits discussed above. To date, TEA Fund has neither
been able to secure commitments from attorneys to represent us on a pro bono basis if we are sued
under SB 8, nor have we been able to raise additional funds to pay for legal services. It is my
understanding that attorneys who represent us in an SB 8 lawsuit cannot recover their costs or fees
from the plaintiffs or the state even if successful, but SB 8 states they could be held liable for the
plaintiffs’ costs and attorney’s fees in some circumstances.
16.

TEA Fund is also a plaintiff in a federal lawsuit in the Western District of Texas to

challenge the constitutionality of certain abortion restrictions. That case is captioned Whole
Woman’s Health Alliance v. Paxton, No. 1:18-cv-500-LY. In that case, as in this one, our attorneys

1

Robin Y. Richardson, Defamation lawsuit filed against Right to Life East Texas Director, Tyler Morning
Telegraph (July 16, 2020), https://tylerpaper.com/news/local/defamation-lawsuit-filed-against-right-to-life-easttexas-director/article_eb2431f7-070a-53bf-89a2-5bc98d57acac.html.

5

are representing us on a pro bono basis because they have the opportunity to recover their fees
from the state under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 if TEA Fund is a prevailing party.
17.

As Executive Director of TEA Fund, I am also concerned that the likelihood of

being sued by individuals or organizations opposed to abortion access will chill our volunteers or
staff from continuing on in their roles at the organization.
18.

By preventing us from helping vulnerable Texans obtain abortion care in their state

and forcing us to shift to out-of-state financial support that will be largely inadequate for our
clients, SB 8 would frustrate our mission.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
and correct.
Dated: July 12, 2021

Kamyon Conner

6