Court Halts Enforcement of State Abortion Curbs

The state Court of Appeal on Wednesday temporarily blocked enforcement of a controversial state budget provision that would cut off family planning money to any organization that “performs, promotes or advertises abortions.”

In response to a suit filed by private family planning agencies, the court ordered state officials to ignore the abortion restrictions until an Aug. 14 hearing to determine whether or not to make the temporary order permanent.

The order by the 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco was issued “solely to preserve the status quo and is not meant to reflect a determination of the merits of the petition,” wrote Presiding Justice J. Anthony Kline.

Before the court issued its order, state Director of Health Services Kenneth W. Kizer explained that the abortion restrictions would be interpreted in a way that would result in “the least possible disruption of family planning services.” He said the prohibition on issuing family planning contracts to clinics and hospitals that perform abortions would not apply to programs run by the counties or by University of California hospitals.

He said UC and the counties are arms of state government and therefore are not “organizations” as defined in the budget’s abortion restrictions.

All agencies would be allowed to make abortion referrals as long as they do not advocate abortion ahead of other alternatives.

But the family planning groups participating in the lawsuit contended that the department’s interpretation of the restrictions could disrupt services at some of the state’s largest providers of family planning services.

The limits on abortion-related services at family planning clinics were left in the final printed version of the new state budget by mistake after legislators agreed to delete them.

Despite appeals that he remove the abortion restrictions, Gov. George Deukmejian refused and argued that leaving them untouched was “the right thing to do.”

Within days of the governor’s action, Planned Parenthood, the Los Angeles Regional Family Planning Council and Ann Crouse, a low-income woman who depends on a state-supported clinic for family planning services, asked the court to strike down the contested budget section.

They argue that the abortion restrictions violate the intent of the Legislature when it voted for the budget and that the use of the budget to alter existing statutes violates the state Constitution. The suit also contends that the abortion provision violates the constitutional rights of women to obtain information needed to decide whether or not to end a pregnancy.

Contracts in Mail

All three appellate court justices agreed to a hearing on whether to block enforcement of the anti-abortion restrictions. But Justice Allison M. Rouse disagreed with his colleagues’ decision to temporarily hold up enforcement of the decision until the legal questions are settled.

This year the Office of Family Planning is expected to spend $34 million to provide family planning services to 500,000 low-income people. The money goes to public and private agencies that provide such services as contraceptive prescriptions, pregnancy testing and treatment for infertility.

The court action occurred shortly after state health officials began sending out new contracts to many of the more than 200 public and private agencies that provide family planning services to low-income men and women.

Those contracts include the contested abortion restrictions.

“If we lose the lawsuit we’ll ignore it (the anti-abortion provision),” said the department’s Gino Lera. “But if they sign and we win, they’d better conform.”