Court Again Rejects Curbs on Abortions : Women: The decision is a major victory for pro-choice groups. It is the first in California since the U.S. Supreme Court gave states more power on the issue.

The California Supreme Court, in its first action since the U.S. Supreme Court gave states more power to curb abortion, on Thursday rejected a legislative attempt to impose sweeping restrictions on Medi-Cal abortions for low-income women.

In a major victory for abortion-rights groups, the state high court refused to review a ruling by the Court of Appeal striking down the limits as a violation of the state Constitution. Similar restrictions have been invalidated by the courts every year since first enacted in 1978 and have never taken effect.

Only Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas and Justice Edward A. Panelli voted to hear the case--two short of the required number. Among the five court members declining to vote for review was Justice Joyce L. Kennard, its newest and only woman member.

While the court under Lucas has twice before refused to consider the funding question, there had been widespread speculation that it now might do so in light of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling last July easing the way under the federal Constitution for states to regulate abortion.

That ruling, however, did not affect the state Constitution and its guarantee of the right to privacy, which has been interpreted by California courts to broadly protect the right to abortion.

The restrictions on state-financed abortions, included in the 1989-90 Budget Act signed by Gov. George Deukmejian, permit funding only when pregnancy endangers the life of the mother; when pregnancy results from rape or incest; when the mother is unmarried, under 18 and a parent has been notified, or when the mother would give birth to a severely deformed child.

According to authorities, the limits would have effectively denied state funding for about 90% of the 80,000 abortions performed annually under the Medi-Cal program.

Attorneys for the groups that challenged the limits hailed Thursday’s action as a potentially decisive blow against renewed efforts to restrict abortion in California.

They said also it was the clearest indication to date that the court--although more conservative than its predecessor under Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird--plans to defer to past rulings upholding abortion rights.

“Unlike the signals we are getting from the U.S. Supreme Court, we are receiving a message from the California Supreme Court that it intends to follow the 20 years of precedent giving independent state protection to abortion,” said Margaret C. Crosby, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California.

Crosby added that she expects anti-abortion legislators next year to give up their quest to implement funding restrictions.

“We’re optimistic that this is the last year we’ll have to bring this lawsuit,” she said.

Janet B. Carroll, legislative director for the California Pro-Life Council, expressed dismay with the court’s action but said she is confident that the restrictions would be enacted again next year.

“Five of the justices will be on the ballot next year in retention elections, and they may want to put off considering the issue of abortion until after the vote,” Carroll said. “We’re very disappointed . . . but sometimes practical politics . . . gets in the way.”

State Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp, who for two years has refused to defend the restrictions in court, said the high court’s refusal to hear the issue seemed to reflect acceptance of past rulings upholding abortion rights.

“They’ve refused to take it up and basically put their stamp of approval . . . on existing law,” he told reporters in San Francisco.

The court’s action came as Deukmejian, moving on another front in the highly charged battle over abortion, disclosed that his Administration will not seek state high court review of another ruling that has blocked enforcement of a new law requiring unmarried minors to get parental or judicial consent for abortions.

In that case, a state Court of Appeal last month upheld an injunction preventing the law from taking effect, pending trial on its validity. Van de Kamp said then that he would not appeal the decision but instead would defend the law’s constitutionality at a trial at an as-yet-undetermined date.

A group of 47 state legislators then asked Deukmejian to direct other state attorneys to ask the high court to lift the injunction. But the governor, in a letter to Assemblyman Philip Wyman (R-Tehachapi), declined to do so. He noted that the Administration was not a party to the suit and that by seeking to intervene, a final decision on the law’s constitutionality might be further delayed.

Deukmejian noted his own support of the legislation and told Wyman, “I share your desire to see the law implemented as quickly as possible.”

The Legislature’s funding restrictions were most recently struck down in August when an appeal panel, citing a 1981 ruling by the state Supreme Court, concluded that the limits violated the state constitutional rights to privacy and equal protection of the law.

The panel found also that the limitations violated a constitutional provision requiring bills to cover only a “single subject.” The lawmakers improperly used the Budget Act, which is used for appropriations, to attempt to make substantive changes in other statutes that authorize unrestricted abortions under the Medi-Cal program, the court said.

In an appeal to the high court, lawyers for the state Department of Health Services urged the justices to overturn the 1981 ruling on the grounds that it conflicted with several other decisions, including the U.S. Supreme Court holding in July.

The state’s refusal to pay for certain abortions does not restrict a woman’s constitutional right to obtain an abortion, the department said, and the 1981 decision was wrong in concluding that if the government paid for some medical services it must pay for all of them.

The July ruling by the federal high court made clear that the government may lawfully assert “a compelling state interest” in protecting a fetus, the state lawyers said.

In reply, lawyers for the civil rights and health care groups that brought suit challenging the restrictions urged the justices to leave the appeal court ruling intact.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling, based on the federal Constitution, did not alter California constitutional prohibitions against limits on abortion funding, the attorneys said. While the Legislature could lawfully refuse to fund all Medi-Cal services, it cannot pick and choose among those services, they said.