(*This post has been updated to clarify the attribution of a statement by Real Alternatives)

A long-running -- but little-noticed -- skirmish in the fight over a woman's right to choose is about to turn into a full-blown fight in state court.

And, depending on who wins, the result could have a long-term impact on your right to know how your tax dollars are spent.

For now, put aside the question of how you feel about abortion and consider this:

Do taxpayers have the right to know how a group that receives state grant money is spending all of that cash? Or can some portion of that money be justifiably shielded from public view?

That's one of the issues at the heart of of a Commonwealth Court petition filed last month by a New York-based, pro-abortion rights group called Equity Forward that's sparring with a two-decade-old, state-funded abortion alternatives group called Real Alternatives.

Before we get into the meat of the case, here are a few words about the players:

Equity Forward's executive director, Mary Alice Carter, is a former Planned Parenthood official and a long-time repoductive rights activist.

On its website, Equity Forward bills itself a "non-partisan" organization that nonetheless conducts "research-driven campaigns to hold accountable anti-reproductive health forces."

It's organized as a 501(c)3 under the tax laws, which means it's subject to some federal disclosure requirements.

Harrisburg-based Real Alternatives, which traces its roots to state programs under the administration of the late Gov. Robert P. Casey Sr., began formal operation in 1997. The organization counsels women on alternatives to abortion, such as adoption, according to its website.

It was initially seeded with $2 million a year in state funding, with the amount growing nearly every year after that. It received $6.6 million in state and federal funds in the 2016-17 budget year, records showed.

Now the court case:

Equity Forward wants the appellate court to overturn a ruling by the state Office of Open Records denying them access to some of the Real Alternatives' financial records.

Equity Forward thinks Real Alternatives, which, according to state records, has received more than $83 million in taxpayer money since fiscal 2003-04, has violated the terms of its grant agreement by expanding its operation into other states.

They also want to know what the group did with a 3 percent fee that it formerly deducted from reimbursements to the service providers it worked with.

While it submits audits to the state, Real Alternatives has largely flown under the public radar and received relatively little public scrutiny, while other groups, such as the pro-abortion rights organization Planned Parenthood, have received more scrutiny and have even been threatened with revocation of their state funding.

"It's a fundamental matter of transparency," Equity Forward spokeswoman Molly Nunez said. "Other programs of much smaller size have received far more oversight."

Through an attorney, Real Alternatives says it "has always fully complied with the transparency requirements of [its] grant agreement," with the state, and says Equity Forward is on a fishing expedition for "documents ... that are private corporate records."

In that statement, *Real Alternatives accused Equity Forward of being "hostile to Real Alternatives' mission to provide life-affirming alternatives to abortion services."

The statement continued:

"Real Alternatives has always fully complied with the transparency requirements of the grant agreement with the Department of Human Services and will continue to do so," the statement reads. "The financial reports we are required to submit under the grant agreement are completely accurate showing 100 percent where the grant funds have been spent."

Equity Forward Petition by jmicek on Scribd

Make no mistake about it, this is a proxy fight between two groups that see the abortion issue very differently from each other.

And there's a lot of money at stake.

After starting with that $2 million a year in state funding, Real Alternatives saw its funding increase to $5.3 milllion in 2001 after then-Gov. Mark S. Schweiker added $1 million in federal Temporary Assistance to Needy Families money to the grant.

In fiscal 2015-16, Real Alternatives was awarded a $7.2 million grant, which included a blend of state and federal money. The organization's grant dipped to $6.6 million in fiscal 2016-17, state records showed.

According to a July 2017 Philadelphia Magazine story, Real Alternatives has "aided the implementation of similar taxpayer-funded programs in 14 other states, including Texas and Michigan," and counseled, as of 2015, more than 245,000 women.

Citing reporting by The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Philadelphia Magazine noted last year that Real Alternatives' "agreement with the state allows counselors to ask a woman questions like, 'Does she believe in God?' or 'How does her faith impact the choices she makes?' The policy states that the questions "are not meant to promote a certain religion," but to "[paint] a picture ... of this woman's value system," the magazine reported.

This isn't the first time that someone has raised questions about what Real Alternatives does with its money.

In 2017, the group successfully sued state Auditor General Eugene DePasquale to keep him from probing too deeply into its operations.

Nonetheless, DePasquale was able to determine that:

Real Alternatives deducted a 3 percent "Program Development and Advancement Fee" from state reimbursements to its subcontracted service providers. Real Alternatives refused to provide information to allow DHS auditors to review reimbursements from the 3 percent fee or to provide any details on how the funds from the fee were used," DePasquale's office

In fiscal 2012-13 and 2014-15, Real Alternatives collected $497,368 from its subcontractors through that 3 percent fee.

Real Alternatives' five-year, $30.2 million grant expired June 30, 2017, but was extended by DHS through October of last year. The grant has since been renewed June 30, 2019, documents show.

In 2015, DePasquale told the Post-Gazette that he was "surprised to hear the program existed," and that none of his predecessors had ever audited it.

Equity Forward's lawyer, Terry Mutchler, who was the first head of the Open Records Office, said in an interview that Equity Forward wants to know what Real Alternatives does with that management fee.

"Does the public get to know how all its money is spent, or do they get to know about all but 3 percent?" she said. "I'm unaware, at least in the 15,000 appeals I handled [as OOR director] where taxpayers are not allowed to see where 100 percent of the money went. It's an interesting case from the transparency angle."

In a statement, the Department of Human Services said it shared DePasquale's concern about "Real Alternatives' practice of withholding 3 percent of its payments to service providers."

The agency's new grant agreement with Real Alernatives states that it will pay service providers " ... reimbursement rates ... without any deduction," the agency said.

Equity Forward's Nunez said the change in the management fee "was positive going forward, but there are still some serious questions that need to be answered."

Regardless of where you stand on the hot-button issue of abortion, more transparency in how government spends its money is always better than less.

Read Real Alternatives' grant agreement with the state:

Real Alternatives Grant Agreement by jmicek on Scribd