Tim Pawlenty has been touting his record of opposition to abortion and funding for Planned Parenthood, but this hard-line on abortion is somewhat new. One acquaintance of Pawlenty’s says that his “pro-life” stance is faked, and a report by Mother Jones on Thursday demonstrates that Pawlenty approved a “dizzying increase” in funds for Planned Parenthood and other family planning agencies — according to a local paper at the time — during his two terms as governor, as well as cutting abstinence-only programs.

In April, Pawlenty said funding for Planned Parenthood should end.

“Washington has a massive spending problem, and we need to set priorities,” he said. “Recent undercover videos show that employees of America’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, aided alleged human traffickers wishing to exploit young girls. Yet, they continue to receive significant taxpayer funding. That should come to an end.”

But it’s not just Planned Parenthood that Pawlenty wants to yank funding from. In a June interview with religious right radio host and lawyer Jordan Sekulow, Pawlenty said he wants to defund any organizations “that are involved in” abortions.

Sekulow asked him, “If you were president and Congress would pass a law in the House and Senate to de-fund Planned Parenthood, would you sign the law?”

Pawlenty responded:

“Yes. I have been strongly pro-life. In fact, the National Review Online, which is of course a conservative publication, did an article about the 2012 candidates and the headline was — the point of the article was — that, based on results and not just rhetoric, I’m the most pro-life candidate running in the race. And so I don’t think taxpayer money should be used to fund organizations that are involved in performing abortions. I think most Americans would agree with that and I strongly would agree with that and would lead those efforts. Beyond that, I’ve got a record of results in this area in Minnesota — having proposed and signed a Women’s Right to Know bill, having proposed and signed legislation on positive alternatives to abortion, a fetal pain bill, and much more. And the pro-life group in Minnesota — the leading one and all the other ones — have said I was the best governor in the modern history of the state on these issues.”

But a report from Mother Jones on Thursday questions Pawlenty’s anti-abortion bonafides.

Over the course of Pawlenty’s career as governor, he increased funding to family planning groups — including those that performed abortions or referred clients to clinics that performed abortions — from $3.8 million to $5 million.

Pawlenty also rejected abstinence-only sex education funding from the federal government in 2008 (though he asked for it back in 2010 as he geared up for a presidential campaign).

The reason for his shifting stance on funding for Planned Parenthood and other family planning organizations may have been revealed in an article by Shawn Lawrence Otto in MinnPost last week. Otto was mulling a run for state Senate in the late 1990s as a Republican and asked his friend Tim Pawlenty about campaigning. Pawlenty has some advice on abortion politics:

Pawlenty is a very talented guy, and I respected his opinion. His first question was, “What’s your position on choice?” I hadn’t ever been asked the question quite so pointedly. “You’ve got to take a stand on that first,” he said. “Well,” I said, “OK. I don’t like abortion; I think it’s a really tough personal decision, but not something the government should be getting into one way or the other, so I guess I’m pro-choice.”

He looked at me over his lunch and said, “Well personally, so am I, but here’s the thing. You’ve got to find a way to get your mind around the language of saying ‘pro-life.’ It’s in how you phrase it.”

I’ve since learned I’m not the only one Pawlenty has said this to.

Minnesota legislators introduced a bill on Monday that would ban state family planning money from going to any organization that offers abortion services, advocates for the right to choose an abortion, counsels pregnant women that abortion is an option or is affiliated with any organization that engages in those activities. In fact, under the bill, family planning dollars cannot be used to refer women to abortion services even if they are explicitly seeking those services. The bill introduced on Monday is the twelfth anti-abortion rights bill introduced so far this session.

The bill states that organizations that receive state family planning funding “may provide nondirective counseling relating to pregnancy but may not directly refer patients who seek abortion services to any organization that provides abortion services.”

Many organizations that receive such funding offer referrals for women who are seeking abortion services, but under the bill, those organizations would be banned from mentioning abortion.

The bill puts a large list of restrictions on family planning services. The funds cannot be used to subsidize abortion services or administration expenses indirect to abortion services. The funds cannot go to organizations that are affiliated with an organization that provides abortion services or has ever said that “abortion is considered part of a continuum of family planning services, reproductive health services, or both,” either in writing or by oral statement. Any organization receiving family planning funds would be barred from publicly advocating for the legality or accessibility of abortion.

The bill seems to particularly target Planned Parenthood clinics throughout the state. Most family planning funds in Minnesota go to county public health departments and smaller Planned Parenthood clinics in Greater Minnesota that do not perform abortions.

Under the bill, any organization or clinic with “the same or a similar name” to one that provides abortion services, referrals for abortion services or advocates for the legality of abortion would be prohibited from receiving family planning funds.

SF1224 was introduced by Republican Sens. Dan Hall of Burnsville, Paul Gazelka of Brainerd, Gretchen Hoffman of Vergas, Michelle Benson of Ham Lake and Sean Nienow of Cambridge.

Republicans in the House and Senate have offered 11 bills, in addition to SF1224, that would in some manner curtail reproductive rights including five bills that ban women on state-sponsored health plans from using that plan to obtain an abortion, five bills to ban abortion after 20 weeks gestation and a bill to prevent minors from seeking an abortion without parental consent. Legislators have also offered a bill to create a “Choose Life” license plate to help fund adoption services.

Again stirring controversy on Capitol Hill is a measure in the U.S. House budget bill that would prevent federal funds from going to Planned Parenthood and cut Title X family planning funds. Potential presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty told anti-abortion rights group the Susan B. Anthony List that he supports defunding Planned Parenthood. Meanwhile, Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken signed a letter opposing the provision.

“Washington has a massive spending problem, and we need to set priorities,” Pawlenty told SBA List on April 1. “Recent undercover videos show that employees of America’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, aided alleged human traffickers wishing to exploit young girls. Yet, they continue to receive significant taxpayer funding. That should come to an end.”

Pawlenty has in the past refused family planning dollars at the state level. Minnesota’s other potential presidential candidate, Rep. Michele Bachmann, has stated her position against funding for Planned Parenthood numerous times.

Meanwhile, Klobuchar and Franken are among 41 senators who signed a letter urging Senate leadership to oppose cuts to Planned Parenthood and family planning funds.

“We… oppose the provision in the House-passed Continuing Resolution that cuts Planned Parenthood health centers off from federal funds used to provide cancer screenings, birth control and other preventive health care services to three million Americans every year,” the letter states. “Without access to these services, many of these women will be unable to get preventive screenings, be at far greater risk for diseases such as cancer and will face more unintended pregnancies.”

Senate Republicans are working to defund family planning programs in Minnesota and prevent the state from accepting federal family planning dollars. The health and human services budget bill slashes money for programs that provide services to families either seeking to become pregnant or to prevent becoming pregnant. Those funds cannot be used to perform abortions or provide referrals to abortion services. The move mirrors a push by Republicans at the federal level to defund Planned Parenthood. Along with county public health departments, Planned Parenthood clinics in Minnesota are a major beneficiary of family planning funds.

The Health and Human Services Omnibus bill would repeal statute 145.925, which is the state’s family planning grant program. Those grants support county health departments, Planned Parenthood clinics and other community clinic throughout the state.

The omnibus bill not only stops funding for the state family planning grant program but also prohibits the state from accepting federal grants for family planning.

“The state shall not appropriate state funds or accept federal funds for family planning special projects or family planning services,” the omnibus bill states.

According to the Minnesota Department of Health, the Family Planning Special Projects Grants, one of the programs proposed for elimination, provided services to more than 40,000 people from July 2008 to June 2009. Counseling services were provided to 28,728 people, and 24,096 Minnesotans received exams, prescriptions and other medical services. Two-thirds of those people had income levels at the federal poverty line and 83 percent had incomes less than 200 percent of the poverty line.

The grant programs include birth control education and counseling, child-spacing counseling, screenings for breast and cervical cancer, community education events and testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

The program cost about $10 million last biennium and has been in place since 1978.

Also slated for elimination is the Minnesota Family Planning Program, a Medicaid State 1115 Waiver Program Demonstration Project. The federally supported program allows low-income women to enroll in a family planning health care program that covers the cost of contraception services, voluntary sterilization services, birth control counseling and testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections. Update: The repeal of federally supported family planning programs has been removed from the bill.

In Montana, Republicans have proposed a similar policy of eliminating family planning, and they’re doing it because they don’t want money going to Planned Parenthood. At the federal level, House Republicans have proposed elimination of family planning dollars in a move to defund Planned Parenthood.

Neither the federal government nor Minnesota allow abortion services to be paid for with family planning funds.

The health and human services omnibus bill is currently being heard in committees, and could see a vote on the Senate floor this week.

If the group’s assertion is correct, the programs cost taxpayers more than $200,000 per woman successfully treated.

Data released by the Minnesota Department of Health show a slight drop in abortions among women on medical assistance between 2006 and 2007, the most current year that data is available. Medical providers were reimbursed by the state for 3,914 procedures in 2007 compared to 3,937 in 2006, a drop of 0.6 percent.

MCCL says Positive Alternatives, a state program that encourages women to carry their pregnancy to term, was responsible for the decrease.

Positive Alternatives awards grants to 37 groups, many of which are religion-based. The Highland LifeCare Center, Inc., in St. Paul, for example, tells pregnant women, “Having an abortion may affect more than just your body and your mind — it may have an impact on your relationship with God. What is God’s desire for you in this situation? How does God see your unborn child? These are important questions to consider.”

In a press release titled, “Positive Alternatives helped to save lives, reduce taxpayer funded abortions in 2007,” MCCL executive director Scott Fischbach said, “Positive Alternatives is making a real difference for pregnant women in need. The DHS report is more proof that women are receiving the help they need to successfully face the challenges of unexpected pregnancy without resorting to abortion.”

But reproductive health advocates aren’t buying that reasoning.

“MCCL’s statement … is disingenuous at best and is probably due to a decrease in unintended pregnancies,” said Linnea House, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota.

House added that if MCCL is correct, then the figures demonstrate a colossal cost to taxpayers. The difference between 2006 and 2007 is 23 abortions among low-income women, and the Positive Alternatives program costs $4.75 million every two years, she pointed out.

“Their numbers show that this is an investment of $206,521 per woman,” said House. “By comparison, an investment in family planning programs, programs the MCCL has consistently fought against, helps nearly 50,000 women and every dollar invested will save the state at least $5 in return.”

Kathi Di Nicola, communications director for Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota, agreed that the decrease is more likely attributable to family planning programs.

“We would attribute the decrease to fewer unintended pregnancies, which is likely the result of increased access to affordable, accessible family planning,” she said.

“One year’s data does not constitute a trend, but it is encouraging news for family planning providers,” she added.

House said the most effective state programs are those that prevent pregnancy in the first place.

“We know that family planning programs prevent unintended pregnancies and actually save the taxpayer money,” she said.

Photo by Lisa Yarost, Flickr

The budget proposed Tuesday by Gov. Tim Pawlenty would cut $2 million from the Family Planning Special Projects (FPSP), a grant program that funds health departments, nonprofits and tribal governments that provide family planning services to low-income Minnesotans. The cut amounts to a 20 percent reduction.

“All women, regardless of economic status, must have the same opportunity to access health care, plan and space healthy pregnancies,” said Sarah Stoesz, president of Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota. “Strong family planning is good health care policy, good public policy and makes good sense from both a fiscal and a social perspective.”

“As more and more Minnesota families lose jobs and insurance coverage, the governor should not stand between some of the most economically challenged women in the state and the health care they need to build stronger futures,” she said.

Family planning grants total $4.2 million a year.

Pawlenty says the programs can be cut because Minnesota has qualified for a Medicaid family planning program. “With the anticipated growth in persons receiving services through [Medicaid's] Family Planning Waiver, the reduction of Family Planning Special Project grant funds is not anticipated to have an impact on unintended pregnancies.”

But the Medicaid program would place greater restrictions on who could access subsidized family planning services and which agencies would be able to serve at-risk clients.