The Austin City Council’s decision to spend taxpayer money on abortion access services is under fire, drawing criticism from abortion opponents and triggering a lawsuit within a day after members passed the measure.

Former Council Member Don Zimmerman on Wednesday sued the city for designating $150,000 of its $4.2 billion budget for abortion access services. Zimmerman is seeking to block the city from spending money on such services after the council appears to have sidestepped a new state law prohibiting taxpayer money from being sent to abortion providers.

The line item, which was brought as a budget amendment by Council Member Delia Garza, was part of the multibillion-dollar budget the council approved Tuesday. The money has been hailed by abortion rights groups as the first of its kind nationwide while pilloried by anti-abortion organizers as a political stunt and way to circumvent state law.

During this year's legislative session, state lawmakers passed Senate Bill 22, which banned cities, counties and other government entities from doing business with abortion providers. Prior to the bill's passage, the City Council approved a 20-year extension to its $1-a-year lease of city property to Planned Parenthood in East Austin.

If left standing, the budget rider could be a road map for progressive urban centers in the South to combat conservative state laws that erect barriers to abortion.

"I know there’s been talk about whether this is in response to SB 22, but I want to make it clear: I don’t make decisions based on what the Legislature wants, I make decisions based on what our community needs," Garza said.

Council members and representatives from abortion rights groups such as Fund Texas Choice, Lilith Fund and NARAL Pro-Choice Texas said they would be in touch with leaders in other cities to see if they would pursue similar action.

"This is just the beginning," said Council Member Paige Ellis, a co-sponsor of the abortion access amendment. "We hope to lead by example as we have done on many other issues."

But others criticized the city's tactics.

"I'm not surprised the city of Austin would manipulate a recently passed law (SB 22) to use taxpayer dollars to pay for transportation and lodging to those seeking an abortion," said the author of the bill, state Sen. Donna Campbell, R-New Braunfels.

Conservative religious advocacy group Texas Values called the city's move "appalling."

"If the city really wants to help women, they should lower their taxes and stop killing innocent children,” Nicole Hudgens, Texas Values director of policy, said in an emailed statement.

Zimmerman's suit acknowledges that Austin appears to have found a loophole by providing money for travel, child care, doulas and case management support to women seeking to terminate a pregnancy as opposed to directly funding abortion providers.

The suit says the state should block the spending because of a 1961 Texas law that made it illegal to help anyone get an abortion. The law was passed 12 years before the landmark Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade, but has remained on the state's books despite being unconstitutional.

Zimmerman said Roe v. Wade had no bearing on the 1961 law and that the council's decision to fund abortion access services was just another instance of the left-leaning body foisting its politics on Austin taxpayers.

"They are always trying to put more money behind their ideological preferences," Zimmerman said. "The progressives are always trying to make taxpayers pay for their progressive ideologies."

Council Member Greg Casar, another co-sponsor of the city budget amendment, said the lawsuit was farcical.

“I didn’t know if I was reading a lawsuit or if it was a satire piece in The Onion," Council Member Greg Casar said on a press conference call Thursday. "The lawsuit reads like Zimmerman just stepped out of a misogynist time machine, and he doesn’t realize that things like abortion, interracial marriage and birth control are suddenly all legal now.”

A statement from a city of Austin spokeswoman said the lawsuit was a disappointment.

“This policy direction does not violate state law and we are prepared to defend both the City and Mayor Adler in Court,” the city's emailed statement read.

No hearings have been scheduled for the suit, which was filed in a Travis County state District court late Wednesday.