Appellate Court Voids Ban on Abortion Clinic Funds

A state appeals court has struck down as unconstitutional a controversial legislative provision that sought to keep $34 million in state money from going to clinics that perform or promote abortions.

In a unanimous ruling Friday, the Court of Appeal here ruled the anti-abortion amendment to the 1985-86 Budget Act violated the constitutional bar against legislation that has more than a single subject.

The amendment, sponsored by conservative Sen. H. L. Richardson (R-Glendora), sought to block family planning funds to “any group, clinic, or organization which performs, promotes, or advertises abortions.”

Clerical Error Seen

A legislative committee had voted to delete the language from the Budget Act. But when the law was adopted in June, the amendment remained in, apparently the result of a clerical mistake.

Gov. George Deukmejian left the amendment intact, saying the abortion funds restriction was “the right thing.”

That, in turn, prompted the suit by Planned Parenthood, the American Civil Liberties Union and feminists that resulted in Friday’s ruling.

In an opinion by Justice J. Anthony Kline, the court concluded that the rider substantially amended the Family Planning Act, which requires that information about pregnancy and birth control be made widely available.

At the same time, the justices rejected the state’s contention that the language merely clarified the Family Planning Act, thus did not violate the single subject rule.

‘Manifest Restriction’

“Quite the contrary,” Kline wrote, “its prohibition on the granting of family planning funds to any group, clinic, or organization which performs, promotes or advertises abortions is a manifest restriction of activities authorized under the Family Planning Act.”

The state Department of Health Services had written to recipients of the money telling them that the new restrictions would be imposed.

However, the appellate court issued an order in July blocking enforcement of the cuts, pending this ruling.

“It was a bad idea to start with,” said Planned Parenthood attorney JayAllen Eisen. “I’m glad the court had the wisdom to invalidate it. I hope this is the end of it.”

Eisen said, however, that he expects an appeal by the state.

Opinion Reviewed

A spokesman for the Department of Health Services, the agency that was the main defendant in the suit, declined comment, pending a review of the opinion.

In its ruling, the court indicated that even if such a change in the Family Planning Act were constitutional, legislation advocating the restriction would have to be presented in its own bill.

“While it is true . . . that the single subject rule is to be construed liberally to uphold legislation, it is also true . . . that the annual budget bill is particularly susceptible to abuse of that rule,” Kline wrote. “It is a necessary and often popular bill which is certain of passage. If a ride can be attached to it, the ride can be adopted on the merits of the general appropriation bill without having to depend on its own merits for adoption.”