State Delays Cutbacks in Prenatal Care

California authorities Tuesday agreed not to cut off prenatal care for thousands of illegal immigrant women until the issue is reviewed by a federal judge.

Gov. Pete Wilson has announced plans to end the prenatal assistance as part of the state’s compliance with the new federal welfare act. Opponents say the move is little more than a back-door attempt to implement Proposition 187.

Proposition 187, passed by California voters two years ago, would ban most public assistance to illegal immigrants. But most of the measure has been blocked by U.S. District Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer in Los Angeles.

In a telephone conference with the judge, state lawyers pledged to put off any move to terminate the prenatal benefits at least through next Wednesday. “It’s status quo between now and Wednesday,” said John Sugiyama, the senior assistant attorney general who is handling the case.

Under the Medi-Cal program, the state offers prenatal care to poor women, including periodic checkups and fetal monitoring. The state spends about $67 million a year providing that care to illegal immigrants.

While not disputing the health benefits of prenatal care, Wilson has long argued that California can ill afford it. And on Tuesday, he issued a scorching condemnation of opponents’ contentions as “frivolous” and “grasping at straws.”

The issue arose after a coalition of groups, led by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, asked the judge to issue a temporary restraining order barring the planned state cutoff of prenatal care to illegal immigrants.

Advocates for the poor say the expenditure is a small price to pay to safeguard the health of the women and their children, who would be citizens if born in this country.

The groups cited legislative testimony last week by Douglas Porter, an official of the Department of Health Services, that authorities would act “imminently” to cut prenatal care for undocumented women--seemingly putting the state on a collision course with the Proposition 187 case.

The activists said the state’s plan is a clear violation of Pfaelzer’s 1994 injunction. The critics say the governor’s threatened action not only violates the federal injunction, but also a provision of the California Constitution requiring an appellate court ruling before such implementation may proceed.

During the telephone conference, lawyers said, the judge withheld action and gave the state until next week to submit papers explaining why authorities should be allowed to proceed.