Senate Has Annual Abortion Fight, OKs Budget Plan

The Senate on Friday approved and sent to the Assembly a preliminary $45-billion version of the new state budget, but not until the upper house had engaged in its perennial debate over abortion funding.

The spending plan, which exceeds Gov. George Deukmejian’s budget proposal by $457 million, passed 35 to 1, receiving both Republican and Democratic support.

The lopsided vote is deceiving, considering the immense difficulties that budget writers face in producing a final legislative version of the budget in time to meet their June 15 constitutional deadline.

Assembly Version Defeated

On Thursday, Republicans in the Assembly joined a group of five rebellious Democrats to defeat their house’s version of the budget. Normally the Assembly would have routinely passed the budget so it could have been rejected by the Senate and placed in a conference committee. Opponents of the Assembly budget, which is $619 million more than the governor’s, say it needs to be cut back.

Not only do lawmakers face the task of bringing their budget closer to the total sought by Deukmejian, but they have the added pressure of finding $800 million in new revenues before then can bring the budget into balance.

The problem stems from a $1-billion-a-year drop-off in income tax receipts due to an apparent miscalculation of the level of revenues that would be produced by tax legislation enacted last year.

To counter the problem, Deukmejian had proposed raising $800 million by boosting individual and corporate income taxes, but in a major turnabout Friday he withdrew that proposal because of opposition from both Republicans and Democrats.

On top of those problems, voters next Tuesday will decide Proposition 72, an amendment to the Constitution that requires the state to establish an ongoing budget reserve of just over $1 billion, shift general budget dollars into highway programs and make revisions in the voter-approved spending limit. Budget officials estimate that if the measure passes, it will require that $680 million be shifted into the reserve and transportation programs.

The debate on abortion centered on an amendment that would have prohibited the state from financing abortions in the $6-billion Medi-Cal program except in cases where the pregnancy is due to rape, incest or would endanger the life of the mother.

Proposal Tabled

The amendment, backed by Republicans and a handful of Democrats, was defeated when majority Democrats voted 18 to 15 to table the proposal.

Opponents of the amendment argued that restrictions have been inserted in the budget for 10 straight years and have always been overturned by state courts on the grounds that they discriminate against poor women. “We are beating a dead horse,” said Sen. Barry Keene (D-Benicia).

Sen. John Doolittle (R-Rocklin) introduced the amendment, which said that one-third of the more than 300,000 surgical abortions performed in California each year are paid for with Medi-Cal funds.

Sen. Diane Watson (D-Los Angeles) attacked Doolittle during the floor debate for inserting what she termed “racist” language in his amendment that said some commercial abortion centers “target black and Hispanic minorities and have even expressed racist motivations for their abortion activities.”

Watson, who is black, called the statement “a lie.” She said “this kind of language in an amendment appeals to the basest instincts. It is emotion-rousing, and it is despicable.”

Sen. Alfred E. Alquist (D-San Jose), who will represent Senate Democrats in budget negotiations, said the spending plan, though higher than the governor’s, “is barely adequate to meet minimum needs” of the state. Alquist said he expects the conference committee to begin work next week.