Judge Upholds Wilson Ban on Prenatal Care

A federal judge in San Francisco has rejected a challenge to Gov. Pete Wilson’s plans to cut state-funded prenatal care for tens of thousands of illegal immigrants in California.

The Tuesday ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Illston does not ensure the end of subsidized prenatal care for illegal immigrants starting Jan. 1, as Wilson plans. Two more challenges to the cutoff are pending in state courts, and another federal lawsuit is being contemplated.

The suit, filed in June by eight pregnant illegal immigrants, alleged that last year’s sweeping federal welfare law requiring state governments to end most nonemergency aid to illegal immigrants violated states’ rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Congress allowed states to override the ban by passing their own laws to approve aid, but Wilson has blocked such efforts in California.

Illston, a Clinton administration appointee, dismissed the suit, ruling that federal lawmakers in 1996 were clear in their intent to bar illegal immigrants from most public aid.

“Congress intended to deny undocumented immigrants public benefits in order to remove an incentive for illegal immigration,” the judge said. She did not address the states’ rights issue.

Wilson applauded the ruling as “a common-sense decision supporting state taxpayers who for too long have borne the costs of providing benefits to those who have no legal rights to be in this country.”

Since 1988, the Medi-Cal program has provided state funds for checkups and other prenatal aid for illegal immigrant women. According to state figures, that assistance cost $83.7 million in 1996-97 and helped about 70,000 women.

The Wilson administration plans to end such benefits on Jan. 1 for new applicants and on Feb. 1 for current recipients.

Critics charge that cutting prenatal care will increase infant mortality, birth abnormalities and illness, and cause emergency-room visits that will ultimately cost taxpayers more than preventive care.

An appeal of this week’s ruling is possible, said Thomas Saenz, regional counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, who represented the losing side.

One possible strategy for future suits, Saenz said, is to challenge the benefits denial as a violation of equal-protection guarantees in the Constitution. In 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court guaranteed illegal immigrant children access to public primary and secondary education by voiding a Texas law that restricted their school attendance.

A ruling is expected shortly in a separate lawsuit pending in Superior Court in Oakland, challenging the plan on several grounds. Another suit, in Los Angeles County Superior Court, argues that the plan does not provide illegal immigrants adequate access to immunizations and treatment for infectious diseases, which Congress exempted last year.

Times staff writer Dave Lesher in Sacramento contributed to this story.