Stage Set for Showdown on Family-Planning Funds : Sacramento: The Legislature overwhelmingly backs restoration of $20-million cut by the governor. A veto override is a possibility.

Setting the stage for a possible veto override, the Assembly on Thursday overwhelmingly approved and sent to Gov. George Deukmejian a bill to restore $20 million in family-planning funds that he struck down last year.

The bipartisan 65-8 vote on the controversial issue follows a similarly lopsided vote in the Senate. If the governor vetoes the bill to restore funds to California’s 500 clinics for poor women, proponents promise a vigorous campaign to bring the issue to an override vote in the Legislature.

A gubernatorial veto override requires a two-thirds majority of both houses--or 54 votes in the Assembly and 27 in the Senate. A successful override would be the first of a Deukmejian veto in his two terms as governor.

As the financial pinch on the clinics serving 500,000 women statewide continues, the issue is a long-standing point of contention between Deukmejian and legislators--growing in number--who favor restoration of the funds. Deukmejian’s cut of clinic funds from $36 million down to $12 million has also been successfully challenged in lower courts and is now before the state Supreme Court--a development that has especially rankled the governor.

Deukmejian has criticized the Legislature for trying to rush the bill that would restore $20 million for the program, under which women receive treatment, screening and advice on health and reproductive matters including family planning. The governor has wanted the Legislature to wait until the issue has been resolved by the courts. He has complained that the court ruling “goes to the issue” of a governor’s constitutional powers.

However, Assemblyman Bruce Bronzan (D-Fresno), chairman of the Health Committee and author of the restoration bill, indicated there is scant sentiment for further delays.

“This is such a stronger vote than anyone would have imagined when we came in here this morning,” Bronzan said. “ . . . I think it would be hard for the governor not to recognize the strong feelings on the part of the Republicans. I think he will find a way to sign it.”

He added that he thinks he already has the necessary votes to override in the Senate--where the vote for restoring clinic funds was 30 to 5 on Tuesday--and is only “two or three votes away” in the Assembly.

A press spokesman for the governor, Tom Beermann, declined to say what Deukmejian will do with the legislation.

“The governor will review the bill and take action based on the merits,” Beermann said. “At this point, an override is not a consideration” influencing the governor.

Deukmejian has 12 days in which to sign, veto or allow the bill to become law without his signature. The earliest he could receive it would be today.

Historically, casting a vote to pass a bill and casting a vote to override a veto are two vastly different actions. A vote to override is especially difficult for members of the governor’s own political party.

In the past, a solid Assembly GOP bloc has made Deukmejian immune from being overridden, but Thursday’s vote on the family-planning issue--with 22 affirmative Republican votes--indicated that the bloc could be cracking.

In the Senate, some vote counters privately indicated that if the governor vetoes the bill, the action probably would be overridden, provided that the Democrats stick together and enough Republicans break away from their lame-duck party leader on an issue that they believe is very popular with constituents. Senate Republicans generally are more independent than their Assembly counterparts.

Assembly GOP floor leader Ross Johnson of La Habra, who did not vote on the measure, said: “George Deukmejian has never been overridden and I do not expect he will be overridden on this bill. We will continue to negotiate in good faith on this issue.”

But Johnson conceded that the size of the bipartisan vote was a “clear message that a great many Republicans support the idea of family planning and are satisfied with the language of this bill.”

Asked why he abstained from voting on the legislation, Johnson said he was “torn” on the issue.

In his opening remarks, Bronzan said, “This is an issue that won’t go away. It gets worse. Thirty-seven clinics have closed their doors. One-half-million women in California are served by this program.

“If these funds aren’t restored, there will be an additional 56,000 unwanted pregnancies and 22,000 of these will terminate in abortions.”

He said the bill guarantees that no family-planning funds would go for abortions or abortion services.

But an opponent, Assemblyman Philip Wyman (R-Tehachapi), charged that the “so-called restrictions on abortions are a factual sham.”

Another foe, Assemblyman Nolan Frizzelle (R-Huntington Beach), joined Deukmejian in arguing that the vote should be delayed until after the courts act on the lawsuit filed by opponents of the governor’s family-planning funds cutback.

A lower court judge ordered Deukmejian to restore the money last December, but appeals by the state held up release of the funds. The Supreme Court has yet to act.

Here is the roll-call vote by which the Assembly voted 65 to 8 to restore family-planning funds vetoed by the governor from the state budget:

Democrats for (43): Areias, Los Banos; Bane, Tarzana; Bates, Oakland; Bronzan, Fresno; Burton, San Francisco; Calderon, Whittier; Campbell, Richmond; Chacon, San Diego; Clute, Riverside; Connelly, Sacramento; Cortese, San Jose; Eastin, Union City; Eaves, Rialto; Elder, San Pedro; Epple, Norwalk; Farr, Carmel; Floyd, Carson; Friedman, Los Angeles; Hannigan, Fairfield; Harris, Oakland; Hauser, Arcata; Hayden, West Los Angeles; Hughes, Los Angeles; Isenberg, Sacramento; Johnston, Stockton; Katz, Sylmar; Klehs, Castro Valley; Lempert, San Mateo; Margolin, Los Angeles; Moore, Los Angeles; Murray, Paramount; O’Connell, Carpinteria; Peace, La Mesa; Polanco, Los Angeles; Roos, Los Angeles; Roybal-Allard, Los Angeles; Sher, Palo Alto; Speier, South San Francisco; Tanner, Baldwin Park; Tucker, Inglewood; Maxine Waters, Los Angeles; Norm Waters, Plymouth; Speaker Brown, San Francisco.

Republicans for (22): Allen, Cypress; Bader, Pomona; Bentley, El Cajon; Chandler, Yuba City; Filante, Greenbrae; Frazee, Carlsbad; Hansen, Santa Rosa; Harvey, Bakersfield; Hill, Whittier; Hunter, San Diego; Jones, Fresno; Kelley, Hemet; LaFollette, Northridge; Lancaster, Covina; McClintock, Thousand Oaks; Mojonnier, Encinitas; Nolan, Glendale; Pringle, Garden Grove; Quackenbush, Saratoga; Statham, Oak Run; Woodruff, Yucaipa; Wright, Simi Valley.

Democrats against: None.

Republicans against (8): Baker, Danville; Dennis Brown, Los Alamitos; Frizzelle, Huntington Beach; Leslie, Carmichael; Lewis, Orange; Mountjoy, Monrovia; Seastrand, Salinas; Wyman, Tehachapi.

Absent or not voting (7): Costa (D-Fresno); Felando (R-San Pedro); Ferguson (R-Newport Beach); Johnson (R-La Habra); Vasconcellos (D-Santa Clara). Two Assembly seats are vacant.

Times staff writer Carl Ingram contributed to this story.