Both Sides Plot Next Moves After Justices’ Decision on Abortion : Reaction: Opponents plan ‘stings’ to make sure clinics obey the law. Family planners may forgo federal funds or simply break the law.

Sometime soon, a 19-year-old woman will seek advice at a South Bay family planning clinic. She will say she is pregnant and ask where she can get an abortion. If she gets an answer, she will call the authorities.

“Hopefully, with the Supreme Court ruling, all I’ll have to do is say abortion, and they’ll say, ‘We can’t help you,’ ” said the woman, an opponent of abortion who spoke Friday on condition of anonymity. “But it needs to be done, to make sure these (clinics) are abiding by the law that has been handed down.”

The undercover campaign, announced last week by abortion opponents, is only part of the local reaction to Thursday’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling that upholds federal regulations barring federally funded family planning clinics from telling pregnant women that abortion is an option.

On the other side of the issue, abortion rights advocates are scrambling to persuade Congress to enact legislation overturning the ruling, which upholds strict regulations issued during the final year of the Reagan Administration.

At stake, they say, are millions of dollars in federal funding that are the lifeblood of 10 family planning clinics in the South Bay. The clinics cater mainly to the area’s poor and provide not only programs to counsel pregnant women, but also prenatal services, AIDS testing, low-cost gynecological care and other reproductive health care.

Clinic officials said Friday that the impact of the 5-4 ruling is not likely to take effect for at least 60 days, but already both sides are bracing for action on the latest front in the abortion war.

And perhaps nowhere in Los Angeles is the battle likely to be as heated as in the South Bay, where organizations such as the South Bay Pro-Life Coalition have not only picketed abortion clinics, but have also demonstrated outside the homes of local doctors who perform abortions and outside private businesses that rent meeting rooms to feminist groups.

“We’re extremely excited about this ruling,” said J. T. Finn, the coalition’s director, adding that a “team” of abortion opponents--including the 19-year-old, who is not actually pregnant--will be spot-checking clinics to make sure they comply with the law.

Finn added that he believes that the ruling will create a “huge hurdle” for Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles, which is seeking this year to open its first South Bay clinic in Torrance.

“Now that the Supreme Court has recognized it is morally wrong to use our tax money to promote abortion, Planned Parenthood will have a difficult time surviving financially, . . . “ Finn said.

But Marie Paris, spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles, said the agency does not expect to be thrown off-balance by the ruling or by “plants” from opposing groups. Only about $300,000 of the chapter’s $5.8-million budget this year came from federal grants, she said. Planned Parenthood clinics, she added, are accustomed to dealing with imposter clients who call in an effort to time demonstrations for days when abortions are scheduled.

“(Groups such as Finn’s) are very vocal, but very much a minority in the South Bay,” Paris said. “We have thousands of supporters in the South Bay, and our phones have been ringing off the hook from people asking what they can do to help.”

Consequently, she said, Planned Parenthood is preparing to do without federal money, if necessary, in order to continue informing pregnant clients that their options include abortion.

Established family planning clinics in the area, however, are far less sanguine about the ruling. The Los Angeles Regional Family Planning Council disbursed about $2.2 million in federal money this year to the area’s 10 federally funded clinics, accounting for as much as two-fifths of some agency budgets.

For example, the Women’s Health Care Clinic at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center--the area’s largest family planning center--got about 40% of its funding this year from the federal government, said Dr. Anita Nelson, medical director.

“It’s going to have a profound impact,” Nelson said, adding that the court ruling has created a moral dilemma for clinic workers.

“We’re going to be asked to withhold information from patients, to give them half-truths,” Nelson said. “We’re not going to tolerate that. None of us wants to compromise patient health, and so the question becomes, ‘Am I going to practice good medicine, or obey the regulations?’ ”

Nelson, also a member of the regional family planning council board, said none of the local agencies have decided yet what their strategy will be.

“We’re not going to lie to our patients, and we’re not going to compromise care,” she said. That, she said, means either finding a way to do without federal funds or simply disobeying the law. The latter option, she added, has been discussed among regional board members.

Opponents of the Supreme Court ruling are hoping, however, that Congress will overturn the regulations within the 60 to 90 days it will take for the necessary paperwork and legal interpretations to be passed from the federal government down to the clinic level.

Two bills are pending in Congress that would render the high court ruling moot. A survey Friday of the South Bay’s congressional delegation showed that, of the five congressmen whose districts include the South Bay, all favor the legislation except Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Long Beach). Democratic Sen. Alan Cranston favors it as well. Republican Sen. John Seymour could not be reached for comment.

Rohrabacher, a conservative, said he opposed the bills because “the taking of a life should not be made with government funds, or without government funds.”

But Rep. Mel Levine (D-Santa Monica), a co-sponsor of the House bill, said the chances of a legislative bailout “are better than they were 24 hours ago.”

“I think the (Supreme Court) opinion is outrageous,” he said. “It’s an attack on free speech and a disgraceful retreat by the court.” The ruling, he added “will galvanize the outrage, which is entirely appropriate.”

Times staff writer George Hatch contributed to this story.

South Bay Clinics Receiving Funds

The following family planning clinics in the South Bay were given federal funds in 1990-91.

Private nonprofit clinics

South Bay Free Clinics in Gardena, Manhattan Beach: $138,871

Wilmington Community Free Clinic: $42,942

Harbor Free Clinic in San Pedro: $76,524

County-funded clinics sharing $1.99 million in federal funds

Women’s Health Care Clinic at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center

Curtis R. Tucker Health Center in Inglewood

Harbor Clinic in San Pedro

Lawndale Clinic

Wilmington Clinic

Avalon Clinic