Commentary : Saving the Office of Family Planning Would Save Money in Long Run

Marie G. is 31. She has seven children and she is poor. I met her at a Planned Parenthood clinic where she is a patient. Like the rest of us, rich, poor and middle income, she has plans for her life, dreams that she hopes will lead her to better circumstances.

Becoming pregnant again isn’t part of that plan, and yet the agencies that she has used to provide her with birth control face futures as uncertain as she faces. That’s because Gov. George Deukmejian in January proposed eliminating the state Office of Family Planning in order to trim the budget to meet the then-projected deficit. OFP is the only source of public funds for more clinics that treat the poor who are seeking family planning assistance. Using $78 of OFP funds, our clinic can give Marie a gynecological exam, cancer screening and a year’s worth of birth control supplies.

The first half of 1989 has been tumultuous for reproductive rights. The OFP cut was announced as the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services, an abortion test case that could change the laws regarding legalized abortion.

Marie doesn’t know much about the Webster case. To her, abortion is not the primary issue. “I don’t want an abortion,” she told me. “I just don’t want to get pregnant.” For women coping with the harsh realities of poverty, birth control is essential, which means the Office of Family Planning is essential.

Marie’s perspective on the fate of OFP reduces the issue to its essential element: debate over abortion is moot if pregnancy is prevented. Because people are demonstrably unwilling to give up the physical act that leads to pregnancy, abstinence from sexual activity is not a viable plan for prevention. That leaves birth control as the only practical method for attempting to prevent unwanted pregnancies and the host of medical, social and moral issues that surround these unhappy events.

Meanwhile, there are the politicians in Sacramento who are grappling with the question of reinstating the OFP budget. They are less interested in social and moral dilemmas than they are in dollars--taxpayers’ dollars, in fact. After all, it’s not the job of elected officials to worry about individuals like Marie. Their charter is to see to it that the decisions made bring the greatest good to the most people.

Fair enough. Ignore the 500,000 Maries of this state who utilized OFP-funded programs last year. Set aside the emotional arguments about reproductive rights. Look, instead, at the economics of the issue.

Are the taxpayers of California getting a decent return for the money that’s being invested in the Office of Family Planning? The answer is yes. For every dollar spent on family planning, $11.20 is saved in future medical and welfare costs, according to a study released in April by the Institute for Health Policy Studies at UC San Francisco. You see, OFP dollars are not limited to birth control methods and exams, but include other family planning services such as counseling, education and sterilizations.

So, spend one dollar today on preventing a pregnancy and you won’t spend $11.20 on social costs that begin with the delivery of an unwanted child. Delivering the baby is the least of the items on this list. Poor mothers don’t have access to adequate prenatal care, and their babies run higher risks than non-poverty children of having medical problems at birth. That $11.20 includes the ongoing cost of care for babies born ill and with birth defects. That money also includes such tax-funded programs as day care, foster care, and welfare. It does not include the cost of dealing with abused children because at present there are no statistical links between unwanted pregnancies and child abuse.

With or without a deficit, it’s an obvious choice for money-conscious legislators and the governor as well. Spending the proposed $34.6 million on family planning services this year will save at least $400 million in future costs. Our officials have the option of saving their successors the pain of trying to rectify a major fiscal mistake.

But this issue is not that clear cut. From January’s projected budget deficit, we have now moved into this month’s projected budget surplus of about $1 billion. Under the circumstances, it should be a simple matter for the people in power in Sacramento to reinstate funding and even add dollars to the OFP budget. However, Proposition 98, approved by voters last November, says that 40% of all unbudgeted surplus funds must go to education. There are indications that Proposition 98 could provide a smoke screen for indecisive politicians--both in the governor’s mansion and in the Capitol--to hide behind. This is the group of politicians that doesn’t want to become caught up in the issue of reproductive rights by advocating retention of the OFP budget. Instead, they might choose to declare that the matter has been taken from their hands by the dictates of Proposition 98, thereby letting the proposed cut stand.

That would be wrong. Proposition 98 allows them not only to reinstate the $34.6 million, but to increase it. Given the UC San Francisco study, it’s the smartest money they could spend.

Just ask Marie. She’d agree.