The long and bitter struggle over the federal Family Planning Program, pitting antiabortion groups against organizations like Planned Parenthood, begins a new chapter this week when the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee opens hearings on legislation to reauthorize funds for the $142.5 million program.

The dispute over the program has raged since the early days of the Reagan administration, leading to two major court decisions, an effort to exclude Planned Parenthood from the program on the grounds that it is "pro-choice" on abortion and the firing of the program administrator, abortion foe Jo Ann Gasper, for refusing to authorize two small grants to Planned Parenthood organizations.

These disputes have blocked authorization of new funds for two years, forcing the program to subsist on an emergency appropriation. But Thursday, Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee Chairman Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) will open hearings on new legislation covering the program, and both sides are geared up for another round in their battle.

Under the program, begun in 1970 at the request of President Richard M. Nixon, the federal government makes grants to local health departments, hospitals and private organizations to operate clinics that provide information on contraception and birth control to poor women.

In 1986, according to program figures, about 4.3 million women -- 3.7 million of them poor -- received services at 4,500 federally funded clinics. Women get a medical screening and information and services on the contraceptive pill, sponges, condoms, sterilization, spermicides, abstinence, natural family-planning and the like.

Kennedy's bill would provide $155.5 million for grants in fiscal 1988, rising to $179.5 million in fiscal 1991, plus a few million a year for training programs. It would also authorize $10 million for added research by the National Institutes of Health on contraceptive drugs, devices and methods, and another $10 million for community-based education and information programs on parenthood and pregnancy.

Kennedy reportedly has the votes to get his bill through committee. And Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on health, which has jurisdiction in the House, is a strong supporter of the program.

But the National Right to Life Committee, Sens. Gordon J. Humphrey (R-N.H.) and Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) and other abortion foes are likely to continue efforts to expunge what Gasper calls "the taint of abortion" from the program.

Abortion critics want to make four major changes in the program, which generally have been opposed by Kennedy and Waxman. Amendments in committee or on the floor can be expected in an effort to do the following:

While the use of Family Planning funds to perform or advocate abortion is forbidden by the 1970 law, abortion foes want to bar from the program any organization that uses its own funds for these purposes.

The language of the 1970 congressional conference report on the bill states that the prohibition against using federal funds to perform or advocate abortion was not intended to limit what an organization did with its own funds.

From the start of the program, hospitals and organizations like Planned Parenthood, which performs almost 90,000 abortions a year with non-federal funds, have been permitted to run family-planning clinics with federal funds as long as they do not use those funds to perform or advocate abortion.

In a 1986 test case involving Arizona, lower federal courts, in effect, upheld the sense of the conference report language, and the Supreme Court affirmed the decision without any written opinion.

However, Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee said, "We don't think abortion-providing organizations should be in the program." His group favors barring from the program any organization that performs abortions, even if only with its own funds.

Two years ago Rep. Jack Kemp (R-N.Y.) offered an amendment in the House Appropriations Committee to do this, but it lost, 37 to 16. The administration, in a general antiabortion bill, has submitted language to the same effect, which would apply to any group except state and local government units.

William W. Hamilton Jr., Washington office director of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, opposes the proposal, saying, "You can't condition public funding on giving up a lawful private activity."

Abortion foes want to bar or restrict federally funded clinics from informing women that abortion is one option for handling a pregnancy. Under the existing guidelines, when a pregnant woman seeks information on how to handle a pregnancy, a federally funded clinic may not advise her what to do but must inform her that keeping the baby, giving it up for adoption and abortion are all options. If she requests, it must provide her with referral to an abortion clinic (which would be funded from some other source, not the Family Planning Program).

Johnson said that with such "information" and referrals, Family Planning Act clinics begin to take on the character of a "funnel to channel women to abortion clinics." The administration bill bars from the program organizations referring women for abortions.

But Scott Swirling, executive director of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, said, "It would be medically unethical not to advise a woman of all her options."

If they don't win on broader prohibitions, abortion foes hope to bar organizations from the program if they run abortion clinics located at the same site as a federally funded family-planning clinic.

Abortion foes want to require federally funded clinics to notify parents if their teen-ager comes in for contraception. In 1982 the administration proposed such a rule (attacked as a "squeal rule" by critics), but it was struck down by the courts as contrary to the basic law. An amendment by Helms to require parental consent before providing contraceptive services was put aside by the Senate, 65 to 34, last year.

Johnson said the National Right to Life Committee is concerned that the $10 million for reseach to promote the development and marketing of contraceptive products in the Kennedy bill could be used for promotion of abortion-causing drugs.

He said the group is also worried that the $10 million for community programs could be devoted to federal funding of school-based family-planning clinics in which federal rules requiring abortion information and referral without parental notice would be in effect.

But Swirling contended, "It is not the case that new research money will be going to {abortion-causing drugs} nor is the bill intended solely to fund school-based clinics."