Family planning a big loser in N.J. budget

TRENTON - Family-planning centers that largely serve low-income women would lose all of their state funding - $7.5 million - under the budget Gov. Christie proposed Tuesday.

The cut, one of many in Christie's plan, falls in line with his clearly stated goal of slashing spending, but also appears to be one of the few early actions on social issues from a governor who so far has focused on making New Jersey affordable.

In this instance, it seems Christie's socially and fiscally conservative views may have come together as the governor, who opposes abortion, cut state expenses and eliminated a program long criticized by antiabortion groups.

Michele Jaker, executive director of the Family Planning Association of New Jersey, said the cut could cost clinics federal dollars and would result in more unwanted pregnancies. She said studies had shown that every $1 spent on family planning saved taxpayers $4 in other costs.

"It makes absolutely no sense fiscally," Jaker said. "Because of that, I can only think that it's a social-policy decision, and it's clearly out of line with what most New Jerseyans want or expect."

The family-planning agencies provide gynecological care, screenings for breast and cervical cancer, contraception, care for sexually transmitted infections, and HIV tests, sometimes at no cost to needy patients, Jaker said. Some provide abortions, but he said state and federal funding had not been used for that procedure.

Christie has emphasized that, with a nearly $11 billion projected deficit, he had to make difficult choices to balance his budget. His office would not comment for this article.

Marie Tasy, executive director of New Jersey Right to Life, said family-planning agencies had failed to prevent abortions. Her organization has been seeking the cut for years.

The agencies "have been part of the problem and not the solution," Tasy said. "This is long overdue. I think Gov. Christie should be commended to take this step to stop rewarding failure with our tax dollars."

While the state money may not go to abortion, Tasy said, money is fungible.

The $7.5 million represents 20 percent of the family-planning centers' 2009 funding, according to the Family Planning Association. Jaker estimated that the agencies would serve 40,000 fewer patients in 2010.

"It's literally devastating to us," she said.

The agencies helped 136,000 people last year, mostly women. Of those, 70 percent had no health insurance and an additional 20 percent were on Medicaid, Jaker said.

If the number of patients falls, so will federal funding, she said.

"A large portion of the people we see are trying not to get pregnant. We're a provider of last resort," she said. If patients can't get access to the clinics, "you're going to see an increase in unintended pregnancies, and you're going to see an increase in abortion."

The funding has been in the state budget for more than a decade, Jaker said.

But Tasy said the support had failed. She said that, while state aid to family-planning agencies had grown from $4 million in fiscal 2002 to $7.5 million, New Jersey's teenage abortion rate remained among the highest in the nation.

"They have continued to throw more money at Planned Parenthood for years," Tasy said, "while the abortion rate has gone up."

Other facilities, she said, provide the same services as family-planning agencies.

In criticizing the state's high rate of teenage abortions, Tasy cited 2005 data from the Guttmacher Institute, which studies sexual and reproductive health. Data from the same year, however, show that New Jersey's abortion rate had declined 5 percent from 2000, though it was still nearly double the national average.

Jaker said Planned Parenthood was only part of the association, and she stressed that state funding had provided other services, not abortion.

"This has nothing to do with abortion, and this has nothing to do with abortion services," Jaker said. "Family planning is known to reduce the abortion rate."

During last year's gubernatorial race, Democrats tried to paint Christie as too far right for New Jersey's voters.

State Sen. Loretta Weinberg (D., Bergen), who ran against Christie as a lieutenant governor candidate and who cochairs the women's legislative caucus, said women's health "is not something they should be asked to sacrifice."

"To have completely wiped that out of the budget is something that I don't think is going to be acceptable to the women of the state of New Jersey," Weinberg said.

The Democratic-controlled Legislature must review the budget before it becomes law.