High Court Refuses to Intercede in Case Limiting State-Paid Abortions

SAN FRANCISCO —  The California Supreme Court, rejecting an unusual request from the Deukmejian Administration, refused Thursday to intercede in a legal challenge to newly enacted restrictions on state-funded Medi-Cal abortions for the poor.

The justices, in a brief order issued with no dissents, declined to take over a case pending before the state Court of Appeal that was brought by civil rights and women’s groups opposing funding limitations passed by the Legislature and signed into law by Gov. George Deukmejian.

The appellate court over the years has repeatedly and quickly struck down abortion-funding restrictions. The high court’s action means that state funding will almost certainly continue into the fall.

State attorneys representing Kenneth W. Kizer, state director of health services and one of the defendants in the suit, had asked the high court to transfer the case to itself and decide the issue immediately because of what they called its “indisputable statewide importance.”

Officials conceded that one of the reasons for seeking intervention by the justices was that the recent change in the court’s makeup might result in funding restrictions being upheld for the first time.

With three new justices replacing former Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird and two other court members, who were defeated by the voters in November, appointees of Gov. George Deukmejian now hold five of seven court posts.

There has been considerable speculation that the new and more conservative court may eventually overturn a Bird court ruling in 1981 declaring limits on state-funded abortions unconstitutional.

Thursday’s action came even before attorneys for the groups opposing the restrictions had filed briefs opposing transfer of the case from the Court of Appeal.

“The court acted without any formal opposition from us,” noted Margaret C. Crosby of the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California. “This helps confirm our optimism that even though we may have new justices, they will respect court precedent.”

New Restrictions

State attorneys had asked the justices to consider overturning a stay issued by the Court of Appeal barring the state from implementing the new restrictions. They urged also that the high court overturn the 1981 Bird court ruling.

The case now will be heard by an appellate court here, with a decision expected by late fall. A subsequent appeal to the high court would almost certainly follow.

Lawyers representing Kizer in the case were not immediately available for comment.

Limitations on state-funded abortions for low-income women have been enacted repeatedly in recent years but always overturned in the courts. Meanwhile, about 80,000 women have continued to receive Medi-Cal abortions annually.

In the current case, the Legislature, enacting the 1987-88 state budget, barred abortions in the Medi-Cal program except where the mother’s life is in danger, a pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, the unborn child is severely abnormal or an unmarried female under 18 gives her parents five days’ notice before the operation.

In other actions Thursday, the justices:

- Dismissed a case that the court under Bird had agreed to review. The case raised the question of whether the state could be held liable for damages by a Medi-Cal patient, who claims that the program’s cost-containment measures resulted in the loss of her leg.

The action reinstated an appellate court ruling holding the state program immune from liability in such circumstances. The case had been the first to come before the high court raising the issue of potential liability for an agency accused of negligence, when the injury to a patient is attributed to efforts to control health-care costs.

The case was brought in Los Angeles Superior Court by lawyers for Lois J. Wickline, a Medi-Cal patient who contended that physicians were forced to amputate her leg after the state refused to approve the extended hospitalization her doctor had recommended.

- Dropped from its docket another case in which the Bird court had agreed to decide whether Jerry Plotkin, one of 52 Americans held hostage in Iran, was a “public figure” for purposes of a libel suit he brought against the Daily News of Los Angeles.

Under U.S. Supreme Court decisions, public figures must meet the heavy burden of showing a newspaper knowingly published a false article or did so with “reckless disregard for the truth.” A private party bears the less difficult burden of proving only that a newspaper was negligent.

It had been anticipated that a ruling in the case could clarify state libel law standards for news articles involving subjects of public interest.

Thursday’s action clears the way for trial in a suit brought by Plotkin against the Daily News over an article quoting unnamed law enforcement officials as saying Plotkin had been suspected of dealing in drugs.

The newspaper contended that Plotkin was a public figure because he had voluntarily thrust himself into the spotlight by making public statements during his captivity.

The new court, under Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas, has dismissed more than two dozen cases in which the old court had granted reviews.