Fanwood Council: Override Christie's Veto of Family-Planning Funding

At the urging of Assemblywoman Linda Stender (D-Fanwood), the Fanwood Borough Council voted 5-1 Tuesday to urge state lawmakers to override Gov. Christie's veto of $7.5 million in family planning funding. Stender was a primary sponsor of the bill that would have restored those funds.

For the full story on the bill and the veto, click here.

The state funds, supplemented by a 90 percent federal match for Medicaid recipients, had paid for gynecological exams, cancer screenings, HIV and sexually transmitted infection tests, contraception, sexual education and counseling and other health services for uninsured and low-income patients.

Christie eliminated the funding – without prior announcement – from the state budget in March. He then vetoed the bill that would have restored the funding July 23.

Christie, who ran as a conservative, anti-abortion Republican, justified his opposition to the family-planning funds on fiscal grounds. "I don't believe it's an appropriate expenditure of money," he said June 23, during his monthly call-in radio show on New Jersey 101.5 FM. "It's my opinion."

Stender, family-planning advocates, federal health administrators and public health experts, however, have argued that the veto was ideologically, not economically, motivated.

"There's more going on here than funding," said Triste Brooks, CEO of Planned Parenthood of Greater Northern New Jersey, which operates 10 health centers in seven counties, including two in Union County. "It's his opinion, he said. What experience as a prosecutor gives him the background in women's healthcare to make that decision? I'm not going to pretend to know where his view is coming from. But it's not fiscal."

At the meeting of the Borough Council Tuesday night, Stender and council members carefully avoided any discussions of ideology. The assemblywoman did, however, excoriate Christie's economic argument.

"When you consider the fact that he vetoed…a nine-to-one federal match, that defies logic," Stender said. "When we don't have these funds, they end up in emergency rooms, which costs us exponentially more. "

Councilman Robert Manduca, who criticized the resolution when it was first introduced at the council's agenda meeting last Tuesday, reiterated his opposition to the measure.

"Planned Parenthood endorses abortion; Assemblywoman Stender seeks funds for Planned Parenthood," he said.

Stender and Mayor Colleen Mahr were quick to point-out that the family planning funds supported 58 clinics across New Jersey, not just Planned Parenthood centers. Stender also emphasized that the funds could not be used for abortions, including the so-called "abortion pill," which medically terminates a pregnancy within the first trimester. "This is very specific funding for very specific services that is audited by the state," she said.

Manduca nevertheless maintained his opposition to the measure. He argued that even if the family planning bill did not directly fund abortion, it freed other moneys in clinics' budgets to pay for those services. "The funds were fungible," he said.

He also argued that the resolution was misleading: "One of the things that [the family–planning bill funded] is a book called It's Perfectly Normal, which teaches masturbation for kids as young as 10. I don't think it's appropriate to take people's money and use it to support something they think is morally wrong. It is not something this council should be doing."

Councilman Mike Szuch also expressed reservations about the resolution and the funding bill. "I partially agree with Councilman Manduca that this is not the place to decide," he said. But he emphasized the funding bill's potential cost to residents. "At this time in our budget, there's a time to look at, 'Where this money is coming from?' It's money from our pockets, which is there because of taxes."

Stender explained that the bill to restore the family planning funds proposed appropriating the money from the State Employees Prescription Drug Program. That program had budgeted for a 10 percent increase in costs, Stender said, but the legislature's Office of Legal Services – a non-partisan research office – found that costs would rise only 4 percent. The bill proposed that the state budget 6 percent for the drug program, then redirecting 2 percent of that amount for the family planning funds.

"That would provide enough for family planning," Stender said.

Councilwomen Joan Wheeler and Katherine Mitchell, Council President Russell Huegel and Mahr often nodded as Stender spoke. They expressed firm support for the resolution.

""When people don't have healthcare when they need it, it sets precedents all the way," Mitchell said. "The children need special schooling, they need all kinds of services…that normal kids of normal birth weights don't need. I think we are being pennywise and pound foolish."

After about a half-hour of discussion, the council put the measure to a vote. It passed 5-1, the lone dissenting vote coming from Manduca.

"I will take this to my colleagues," Stender said. Although the veto override now appears doubtful, the assemblywoman said she will continue seeking the votes needed to restore funds for family planning.

For the full story on the veto and its affect on local residents, click here.