Firm That Beat Governor May Lose Funds : Government: Law group that won a suit over budget for family planning clinics calls action ‘political retaliation.’ A federal agency says the lawyers backed clinics that ‘promote abortion.’

The public interest law firm that successfully challenged Gov. George Deukmejian’s decision to slash funding to the state’s family planning clinics now faces a cut in its own funding, a move that the law firm contends is “political retaliation.”

California Rural Legal Assistance recently received a letter from a federal agency announcing that it intends to reduce the poverty law firm’s funding by up to $450,000. The federal Legal Services Corp. said CRLA violated a ban prohibiting federally funded law firms from using public funds in abortion cases. CRLA contends that the issue was about family planning, not abortion.

The federal cut would force layoffs of nine of CRLA’s 54 attorneys unless other sources of funding are found, said Jose Padilla, CRLA’s director.

CRLA filed suit last year against the state to restore $24 million in family planning funds that Deukmejian had slashed in a budget veto. The family planning clinics provide health care to thousands of poor women, and the loss of funding created a statewide controversy.

The case particularly rankled the governor because the suit, which was under appeal, was successful in the lower courts. In January, Deukmejian, bowing to pressure from fellow Republicans, put an end to what had been an embarrassing political issue by allowing a $20-million family planning bill to become law without his signature.

But CRLA did not have long to savor its victory. The next day, Legal Services faxed CRLA a letter announcing that it was sending four officials from Washington to begin an investigation into whether the law firm was involved in abortion litigation. The agency gave CRLA one business day’s notice to prepare for the investigation, said Joel Diringer, a CRLA staff attorney who filed the lawsuit against the state.

“If they can’t punish poor women, they’re going to punish their representatives,” Diringer said. “Because of our success in defeating one Republican administration, another Republican administration is now retaliating.”

Terrance Wear, president of Legal Services, said he intends to cut CRLA’s funding because family planning clinics, which the firm represented, “promote abortions.”

Diringer said the funding cut is harassment by “right-wing ideologues.” He said family planning clinics are prohibited by state law from providing or promoting abortions. They simply discuss all options with pregnant women, including adoption, keeping the baby and abortion, he said.

Legal Services is a private, nonprofit organization established by Congress in 1974 to provide legal help to low-income people. But former President Ronald Reagan appointed a board of directors with a majority that was remarkably hostile toward its own agency. In 1988, the board hired two outside law firms to lobby Congress to cut its own budget. And the next year, the board paid a former Reagan Administration lawyer to draft a memorandum that contended the federal agency was unconstitutional.

Many in Congress were outraged that while Legal Services was cutting funding to law firms that represented the poor, it was paying high-priced lawyers to dismantle its own agency.

Reagan and many in his Administration frequently criticized poverty lawyers and claimed that they used government funds to promote a liberal agenda. In seven out of eight budgets, Reagan recommended no funding for Legal Services.

President Bush appointed an entirely new board in January, but Wear, a holdover from the Reagan era, will not be stepping down until next month. Wear, a former staff member on a committee headed by Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), said it was his decision to propose the funding reduction for CRLA.

Wear said his actions are motivated by “federal law,” not ideology, and proposed the funding cut because the firm “ran afoul of the statutes on abortion.”

Wear proposed cutting CRLA’s budget by up to 9.95%. A 10% reduction, he acknowledged, would entitle CRLA, under Legal Services bylaws, to a full hearing before the agency’s board of directors.

The poverty law firm’s only recourse is to respond in writing to the charges in Wear’s letter. CRLA officials said they plan to request a full hearing anyway--before an independent hearing examiner--but if they are refused, they will file suit against the agency.

CRLA, which has 15 field offices throughout the state, receives 80% of its funding from Legal Services.

CRLA and the National Health Law Program filed suit last year against the state on behalf of four plaintiffs: the Economic Opportunity Commission of San Luis Obispo, which sponsors a family planning clinic, two patients at the clinic and Dr. Dan Lickness, who works there as a volunteer.

The suit alleged that the $24 million cut from the state’s 500 clinics violated state welfare law that provides for family planning services to all women who request it.

Lickness, who is a member of two anti-abortion organizations and is “personally opposed to abortion on demand,” said he would not work at a clinic that promotes abortion. Family planning clinics, he said, prevent abortions by preventing unwanted pregnancies.

The family planning clinics throughout the state provide an array of services for poor women, including birth control services, Pap smears to detect cervical cancer, breast exams and tests for sexually transmitted diseases and the AIDS virus.

Janice Wolf, program supervisor for the San Luis Obispo family planning clinic, said her clinic gives pregnant women a sheet of paper listing all their options.

“We’re publicly funded and according to both state and federal guidelines we have to give women all the options,” she said. “If we left one of these options out we’d be violating our own funding regulations.”