HARRISBURG, Pa. (WHTM) – Pennsylvania’s auditor general says a Harrisburg-based abortion alternative provider is suing his office to cover-up how it spent $906,000 in state funds.

Real Alternatives filed the lawsuit Wednesday in Commonwealth Court. The nonprofit has a $30.2 million grant through a Department of Human Services program that provides pregnancy testing, counseling and other assistance to women experiencing a crisis pregnancy. The five-year contract expires June 30.

The auditor general’s office began an audit of the grant in September. DePasquale said DHS requested the audit after its own auditors were unable to determine how some of the grant money is being used.

“By its own admission in the court documents, Real Alternatives keeps 3 percent of the state grant money it is charged with doling out to a network of abortion alternative providers — that’s $906,000 of taxpayer money for which there is zero accountability,” DePasquale said in a statement Thursday. He said it’s the first time he has been sued for conducting an audit.

DePasquale said he’s not alleging the money is being used for illegal activities. He said he wants to ensure 100 percent of the funds are providing services to pregnant women and their families as the grant agreement requires.

“If this attempt to conceal information from the public persists, I will call upon the governor and the General Assembly to immediately terminate the contract with Real Alternatives,” he said. “With the state facing a $3 billion deficit, any organization that refuses to be held accountable should not receive a single cent of taxpayer funding.”

In a statement on its website, Real Alternatives said the auditor general’s office is attempting to audit expenses related to non-government, private contracts expenses using private funds. The nonprofit said the fiscal watchdog and DHS “have no legal authority over these privately funded contracts.”

The nonprofit said four different audit teams over the last 20 years had no issue with the contracts.

“In America, we are governed by the rule of law, and therefore we are simply following what the law provides in such differences of opinion. Far from constituting “a legal cover-up,” or hiding behind the courts, there is no more transparent way of resolving this issue than in a court of law which is a matter of public record,” the statement reads.