Wilson Disagrees With Ruling on Abortion : Pregnancy: He vows to try to help clinics that forgo U.S. funding rather than comply with counseling ban.

Gov. Pete Wilson said Friday that he “disagrees strongly” with a U.S. Supreme Court decision banning abortion counseling in federally funded clinics and pledged to try to help California clinics that forfeit federal money rather than comply with the ruling.

At the same time, Wilson proposed a $15-million increase in his state budget for family planning services, which would be in addition to a $10-million boost he has already recommended. He said the proposal was long-planned and not a reaction to the high court’s decision.

The Republican chief executive said he would understand if California clinics turned down federal funds to preserve their right to counsel women about abortions.

“I don’t think any of us should have to be in this position,” Wilson told reporters after a ceremony in his office honoring four youths for bravery and public service. “I disagree strongly with the decision. If it’s an accurate interpretation of the law, then the law ought to be changed.”

The ban on abortion counseling upheld by Thursday’s 5-4 ruling was first proposed by the Ronald Reagan Administration in 1988. Under the rules, clinics subsidized by federal tax dollars may not help pregnant women find an abortion clinic or tell them that abortion is an option.

The decision has been praised by opponents of abortion, who have long argued that taxpayer-subsidized clinics have improperly used government money to promote abortion. Advocates of abortion rights have said the ruling will deprive poor and unknowing women of a medical option to which they are legally entitled.

Of about 500 family planning clinics in California, 200 receive the federal funds affected by the court ruling, according to Kassy Perry, associate secretary of health and welfare for the state. Perry said the clinics share about $10 million a year.

Ironically, the state’s contracts with clinics that receive California tax dollars require the agencies to inform pregnant women that abortion is among the options they can consider. Now, if the clinics funded by both state and federal money comply with the state requirement, they will run afoul of federal regulations.

“To qualify for federal funds, it seems we can no longer mention abortion,” said Sima Michaels, senior executive associate of the Los Angeles Regional Family Council, an umbrella agency for government-subsidized family planning.

“But for state funds, we are required to mention abortion. We get twice as much state funding as federal funding. So, I guess does that mean we’re supposed to counsel the first two women about abortion and skip the third?”

“On first review, it appears the two requirements are inconsistent,” Perry said.

Wilson has long supported a woman’s right to an abortion. But he voted against federal funding for abortion while he was in the U.S. Senate, arguing that there were other financial sources for poor women.

Last week, the governor said he wanted to make the birth control device known as Norplant widely available to teen-age girls and drug-abusing women.

Wilson said that if California clinics decide they must give up their federal money, he “would try to assist them. For those in the business of providing family planning counseling, to be cut off from at least this aspect of it really does not make much sense.”

But the governor said his proposed $25-million increase in the state family planning budget is not intended to make up for the federal funds. The clinics now receive $36 million in state money. He said he hopes that the 70% increase will help prevent unintended pregnancies that add to welfare costs and could fuel future budget shortfalls like the nearly $15-billion gap he and the Legislature are trying to close.

The governor believes unintended pregnancies contribute to much of the state’s soaring health and welfare costs. According to the state Health and Welfare Agency, more than half of the women in the state’s biggest welfare program--Aid to Families with Dependent Children--first gave birth as teen-agers.

“There are any number of people who are biologically capable of being parents who are otherwise not very well equipped to do the job, and we are contending with their failure,” Wilson said. “That is a great part of the cost of state government these days.”

The $15 million Wilson proposed Friday would be divided among three programs. One would get $5 million and target children aged 12 to 14, urging them to avoid sexual activity. The second program would get $8 million to encourage teen-agers who are already having sex to use birth control. The other program would use $2 million to help pregnant and parenting teens stay in school.

Brian Johnston, director of the National Right to Life Committee’s California office, praised Wilson for allocating more money to pushing abstinence. But Johnston said he was disappointed by the governor’s willingness to spend more state money to promote abortion.

“It’s disturbing to see a governor who is willing to use abortion as a form of birth control and to use our rather meager state funds to do that,” Johnston said. “Millions have been spent in California and nationally on family planning and all that has come of it is an increase in the rate of pregnancy and an increase in the rate of abortion.”

State Sen. Edward R. Royce (R-Anaheim), an opponent of abortion, said he would oppose any Wilson move to replace the lost federal funds with California money, but predicted the Democratic-dominated Legislature would vote with the governor.

“A significant percentage of taxpayers philosophically and morally object to their tax dollars being used to promote abortion,” Royce said.

But David Alois, associate executive director of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, commended Wilson for trying to help the clinics. He added that his organization’s affiliates probably will not change their ways--with or without additional state funds.

“We are going to continue providing services the way we’ve always provided services, providing comprehensive information and referrals,” he said.

Times staff writer Laurie Becklund contributed to this article.

ABORTION ADVICE: Clinics plan to continue advice and fight court ruling. B1