vol. 46, no. 2

NVS

v

4

WCSOTOGE

NN3

Volume XLV

Tec...

The new state law which requires all

"child care custodians, medical and

non-medical practitioners' to report to

the police all instances of suspected

consensual sexual activity by unmarried

teenage girls, is being challenged in an

ACLU lawsuit.

i The pcionen in the lawsuit, which

was filed on February 23 in the Cali-

fornia Supreme Court, include a teen-

GTT#6 yenD OISIINVSS

JOS W3INOLSTH

J1WdWVS O8B2T JD

_

"March 1981

age girl, a doctor, a family planning

counselor, a teacher, a social worker, a

psychotherapist, and a foster parent.

All of the plaintiffs (excluding the

teenager) are persons who, according to

the new law, must report to law enforce-

ment agencies any information about

_sexual activity by teenagers who confide

in them - or risk criminal prosecution.

According to ACLU-NC cooperating

_On the anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, ACLU-NC Ex-

4211 [20421

ecutive Director Dorothy Ehrlich (seated, far left) joined other pro-choice advocates at a

press conference announcing the Apple Pie Day lobby in Sacramento. Stacks of apple pies

(pictured foreground) were later delivered to legislators who have supported pro-choice

`measures. Those who have voted against abortion received apple cores. Each legislator also

received a "Telling-Sing-A-Gram'"' delivered by the Apple Pie Day Singers (standing, rear)

either thanking them for their support or panning their opposition. Over 250 supporters

turned out to the lobby which was organized by the Bay Area Pro-Choice Coalition.

ACLU Thwarts Attack

on Abortion Provider

_ A state law which requires fetal death

certificates to be placed on public rec-

- ord following termination of pregnan-

cies over twenty weeks violates the right

to privacy guaranteed by Article I Sec-

tion 1 of the California Constitution,

ruled the Los Angeles Superior Court

on February 20.

The law, a section of the State Health

and Safety Code, was being used to

prosecute Avalon Memorial Hospital, a

major provider of late-term abortions.

A Municipal Court had upheld the

1957 statute which provided that the

name of the mother, the father, the

fetus, the mother's reproductive his-

tory, the disposition of the fetal remains

and the name of the funeral director be

registered in a permanent central file

with the Department of Health Services

as a public record.

The ACLU defended the hospital's

refusal to file the certificate and chal-

lenged the law, claiming that the sta-

tute inhibited women wishing to exer-

cise their right to have an abortion and

severely intruded on patients' privacy.

According to ACLU-NC cooperating

attorney Trudy Ernst, ``This decision

should be a sign of hope to all women

that abortion rights will not necessarily

be eroded by the present political cli-

mate.

"Despite the rise of the `Moral Ma-

jority' and other anti-abortion forces,

the Constitution will provide

continuous protection to a woman's

right to choose. With proper kinds of

decisions - interpreting the. constitu-

tion correctly as this court has done -

it is heartening to see that these princi-

ples can prevail,'' Ernst said.

In reversing the Municipal Court de-

cision, Los Angeles Superior Court Jus-

tice Philip F. Jones stated, "In the pres-

ent state of the California law, required

records of fetal death have no protec-

tion from scrutiny by anyone wishing to

obtain the information they contain.

continued on page 4

Reporting Law Challenged

attorney Lynn Pasahow, a partner in

- the San Francisco law firm of McCutch-

en, Doyle, Brown and Enersen, `Each

person to whom an unmarried teenager

is likely to turn for help relating to her

sexual activities - be it medical, psy-

chological or psychiatric treatment,

counseling, contraceptives, abortion,

drugs or even just adult advice - is re-

quired upon threat of criminal prose-

cution to file reports that will become

permanently documented i in police rec-

ords.

"This statute makes every adult to

whom a teenager would go for help or

: advice on sexual matters a poe ent

spy,'' Pasahow charged.

The suit claims that the new ; law is

unconstitutional, violating both the fed-

eral and state guarantees of privacy.

According to Pasahow, "This reporting

scheme, as applied to voluntary sexual

intercourse by teenagers violates the

fundamental privacy of these women.

That the right of privacy includes

sexual. decisions has long been estab-

lished. Protection of that zone of priva-

cy from governmental snooping, record

keeping and unwanted disclosure is

precisely the goal of Article I, Section 1

of the California Constitution."

According to the statute, Penal -Code

sections 11165 through 11174 (enacted

__ No.2

as SB 781 and effective on January 1,

1981), the list of adults who must report

information about teenage sexual activ-

ity includes: school teachers and admin-

istrators, foster parents, social workers, |

_ probation officers, physicians, psychia-

trists, nurses, pharmacists, public

health employees (specifically including

one who "treats a minor for venereal

disease'), marriage and family plan-

ning counselors and all county welfare

department employees, among others.

The statute was enacted as a recast-

ing of previous ``child abuse' reporting

requirements. However, according to

ACLU-NC staff attorney Margaret

Crosby, ``Although the law is being pro-

moted as a remedy for child abuse, we

feel that it will actually hinder child

abuse detection, as instances of true

sexual abuse of children will be buried

_upder masses of paper reporting con-

sensual sexual activity."

The petitioners are asking the high

court to issue an immediate stay of the

reporting obligation regarding con-

sensual teenage sexual activity pending

a ruling on the statute's constitution-

ality.

Ultimately the suit is asking the court

_ to find the law unconstitutional as ap-

plied to voluntary sexual activity by

teenage women and to prohibit its en-

forcement.

Affirmative Action Approved

The California Supreme Court up-

held the constitutionality of a law

school admissions policy in which

"ethnic minority status" is a considera-

tion in selecting applicants. :

The 4-2 ruling, in the case of De-

Ronde vy. University of California, was

handed down on February 11 and is a

major victory tor affirmative action pro-

grams in educational institutions.

The case began in 1975 when King

Hall, the law school of the University of

California at Davis, rejected a white

male applicant Glen DeRonde.

DeRonde sued the law school, claim-

ing that the admissions committee was

using race to set up a de facto quota

system and was therefore unconsitu-

tional.

The school's policy directed admis-

sions officers to supplement their evalu-

ation of candidates' numerical grades

with an assessment of many human

qualities - such as commitment to

community service, past employment

experience - including race.

Agreeing with DeRonde, the trial

and appellate courts ruled that the Uni-

versity's admissions program was dis-

criminatory and a violation of equal

protection of the law.

In an amicus brief, prepared by

ACLU-NC staff attorney Margaret

Crosby, the ACLU argued that De-

Ronde's claim was "groundless under

both state and federal equal protection

clauses, and moreover, that adoption of

his contention would cripple efforts

towards racial equality, dampen the

vigor of the legal profession and severe-

`ly undermine the sound development of

California constitutional law."

The ACLU argued that the admis-

sions policy satisfies the federal consti-

tutional standards established by the

U.S. Supreme Court in the controversi-

al standards established by the U.S. Su-

preme Court in the controversial 1978

Bakke case, and that the California

Constitution should not be interpreted

independently of the federal Fourteenth.

Amendment to invalidate, in California

alone, race-attentive educational pro-

grams lawful in the other 49 states.

Agreeing with ACLU arguments, the

California Supreme Court reversed the

lower court decisions. In an opinion

written by Justice Frank Richardson,

the Court rejected the claim that the

school was using its admissions policy

as a "`cover'' for an unconstitutional

quota system.

In a comprehensive exposition of the

continued on page 4

aclu news

. March 1981

by Dorothy Ehrlich

ACLU-NC Executive Director

A free speech issue which pits the

- ACLU against its most familiar adver-

sary - the Attorney General - would

appear to most ACLU members to be

extremely commonplace.

However, if that First Amendment

debate focuses.on violent hate groups,

such as the Ku Klux Klan, it is bound

to be controversial. Such are the ground

rules for civil libertarians.

A new battle on this old subject is

once again underway - this time in the

California Legislature.

The battle began with a press confer-

ence on January 29, where the Attorney

General, representatives of national

and state Black bar associations, and

others announced that they would soon

introduce a broad proposal in the new

legislative session which was meant to

ban violent groups in California.

There was immediate criticism of the '

proposal - not only by the ACLU, but

also by legislators and newspaper edi-

-. torials throughout the state.

Largely as a result of that widespread

criticism, the bill which was finally in-

troduced in the legislature on February

11, SB 267 by Senator Diane Watson,

was a much narrower proposal. However,

a section of this revised "violent groups

bill" continues to greatly trouble First

Amendment advocates.

The intense controversy and deep

feelings which are evoked by such an

issue are well illustrated by the fact that

an ACLU Board member, Robert Har-

ris, past president of the National Bar

Association, was a principal drafter of

the legislation. Given such dissent over

the ACLU's position, the Board of Di-

rectors will carefully review SB 267 at

its next monthly meeting.

Offensive Section

The offensive section of SB 267 pro-

vides law enforcement officials and any

private individual with the authority to

obtain a civil injunction to' block a

`group from meeting if it appears that

such a meeting could provoke serious

violence.

This is not a new standard invented

for the purpose of this particular piece

of legislation. The legal language of the

bill parallels the language which has

been established by the courts to deter-

`mine whether speech falls outside of the

protection of the First Amendment,

and thus can be criminally prosecuted.

Forecasting Device

SB 267 would turn that standard into

a forecasting device by allowing law en-

forcement officials to restrain speech

before any action takes place.

While this standard is a constitution-

ally permissible method to punish speech

which is not only intended to provoke

imminent violence, but also likely to ac-

ccomplish that goal - such a criminal

law has to be applied after the speech

takes place.

To do otherwise - to give govern-

ment officials the power to predict that

lawlessness might result from speech -

would establish a unique and

dangerous scheme in California for

prior restraint of speech.

Prior Restraint

SB 267 betrays the fundamental First

Amendment principle that prohibits

the establishment of a law which gives

the government authority to interfere

with speech. Constitutionally, restraint

can only come when lawless action is

imminent.

The attraction of the' proposed legis- .

lation - even to groups which are tra-

ditional allies of the ACLU - is found

in the sincere intention of its author,

Senator Watson, to use the measure as

a weapon in fighting the growing threat

of violence from the Ku Klux Klan.

That the ACLU appears to reject that

goal is necessarily discomforting, unless

one listens to the leading sponsor of the

proposal - the Attorney General.

Advocacy and Infiltration

As if it were not already clear to civil

libertarians from past experience, Attor-

ney General Deukmejian announced at 7

a press conference that the only way

that law enforcement agencies could de-

termine whether a group's advocacy

Violent Groups Bill Sparks Deep Controversy

was intended to provoke violence was to

infiltrate the group.

~~ Which group? The Attorney General

need not reveal his list of suspects, be-

cause under this legislation, any and

every brand of advocacy could be sub-

ject to law enforcement scrutiny.

There is no other way to gather the

evidence necessary to bring to a court to

obtain the civil injunction restraining

`the group from further meetings.

`Treacherous History

ACLU members are well versed in

the history of legislation which gave law

enforcement the power to scrutinize

and disrupt groups.

The criminal syndicalism laws, the

Smith Act, the COINTELPRO pro-

gram of the FBI were vehicles used to

attack the Wobblies, the Communist

Party, the Black Panther Party, and

others. Somehow, not mysteriously, the

Klan has re-emerged from under this

barrage of statutes unscathed.

The lesson which that treacherous

history teaches us is to adhere to First

Amendment principles particularly in

difficult times - remembering that

well-intentioned laws have historically

been subject to the powerful abuse of

government officials.

By now, we have learned not to be

fooled by an Attorney General who par-

ades in sheep's clothing to promote leg-

islation which is to the detriment of us

all.

Equal Pay for Comparable Worth - an Urgent Need |

"Past attempts at closing the wage

gap and ending job segregation have

not worked. The urgency of establish-

ing a policy of equal pay for comparable

worth cannot be overstated,'' said

Nancy Pemberton of the ACLU-NC |

Equality Committee.

Pemberton was testifying on behalf of

the ACLU at hearings on the feasibility

of a "comparable pay'' law before the

state Commission on the Status of

Women and the Fair Employment and

Housing Commission. The hearings,

which were held in San Francisco on

January 28, were the first of a series of

eight planned throughout California.

The subject of the hearings, equal

pay for work of comparable worth,

although not a new idea, has only re-

cently become an issue in collective bar-

gaining litigation and discussions on

employment discrimination.

The bases of the argument in favor of

comparability is that because of job seg-

regation, women are not yet equal com-

petitors with men in the labor market.

However, if pay for traditionally fe-

male-dominated jobs - such as secre-

taries and nurses - were as high as that

for male dominated jobs involving com-

parable education, experience, skills

and responsibility, the wage gap would :

be narrowed and eventually eliminated.

The overwhelming majority of the

witnesses at the hearing agreed with

Pemberton and the ACLU that policies

_ requiring equal pay for work of com-

parable worth is necessary to combat

the continuing wage discrimination

against women.

Pemberton outlined the history and

the operation of wage discrimination

against women in the labor market and

made several proposals for es

this discrimination.

She urged the commissioners to es-

Equal pay laws have not closed the wage discrimination gap for women in traditionally fe-

male jobs.

tablish specific guidelines to ensure

objective job comparisons.

Pemberton explained the need for

such guidelines to overcome the built-in

discrimination of the market place. -

_ "To allow companies to use market

standards as a defense in wage discrim-

ination simply continues the

discrimination inherent in the labor

market,"' she said.

"Just as the Equal Pay Act prohibits

wage disparity within the same position

regardless of market rates, wage dispar-

ity in comparable positions must also be

prohibited despite the market."

Pemberton also recommended that

"we must shift the burden of proof to

the employers to prove that a wage in-

equality is not due to discrimination

when comparability has been estab-

lished."

Pemberton also encouraged state-

level job evaluation studies, such as

have been conducted in Washington

and Idaho, to compare historically

female jobs to historically male jobs and

their corresponding wage rates.

Such a study is necessary in California

to assist the courts in determining sex

bias in wage structures, she explained.

Citing recent statistics which totally

LNS

Sophie Rivera,

undermine stereotyped misconceptions

about working women - mainly that

women don't need to work - Pember-

ton stated, ""Women are a major part of

the workforce, contributing significant-

ly to the country's total GNP. Yet their

return in terms of wages is incredibly

skewed. :

"On the average, women earn only

59% of the wages earned by men. The

earnings gap has actually increased in

the almost two decades since the

passage of the Equal Pay Act and Title

VIII," Pemberton added. -

"If adopted and enforced, equal pay

for comparable worth will have a sig-

nificant impact on both closing the

wage gap and increasing job integration

as men move into formerly predom-

inantly female positions now better

paid.

"The time has come to make equal

employment opportunity a reality,"'

Pemberton concluded.

Hearings of the Commissions are also

scheduled in Los Angeles, Sacramento,

San Diego, Eureka, and Fresno. The

Commissions are expected to make

their recommendations on equal pay for

comparable worth within the next year.

8 issues a year, monthly except bi-monthly in January-February, June-July,

August-September and November-December

Second Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, California

Published by the American Civil Liberties Uiion of Northern California

Drucilla Ramey, Chairperson Dorothy Ehrlich, Executive Director

Michael Miller, Chapter Page

Elaine Elinson, Editor

_ ACLU NEWS (USPS 018-040)

814 Mission St. -Ste. 301, San Francisco, California 94103-777-4545

Membership $20 and up, of which 50 cents is for a subscription to the aclu news

_and 50 cents is for the national ACLU-bi-monthly publication, Civil Liberties.

z

aclu news 7

March 1981

Changing of the ACLU Guard mn Sacramento |

Beth Meador arrived in Sacramento

with a full-length cast on her leg the

same week that the most controversial

piece of legislation this session, the Vio-

lent Groups Bill, was presented to the

legislature.

As the new ACLU-NC lobbyist,

Meador had to deal with a barrage of

phone calls from the press, legislators

and legislative action groups asking for

the comprehensive civil liberties analy- -

sis of the bill. which was called every-

thing from an "anti-Klan measure" to a

sponse to the thorny issue is at least in

part due to her extensive background in

a wide variety of legislative and litiga-

tive, as well as organizing, activity on

civil liberties issues.

Prior to her ACLU appointment and

a stint as a private attorney in Oak-

land, Meador was Assistant Director of

the Office of Legal Services for the State

Bar of California. In that capacity she

provided technical assistance to Legal

Services Committees seeking funds for

~ operating legal services for the poor and

"legalized violation of freedom of as- -

sembly."

How did she cope?

"Well, I made sure I was able to keep

my cast elevated - with my foot on my

desk - and I told the Press SBE I

thought.

"T don't condone the KKK or fhe

Nazis, but I do believe that if you set a

precedent - as this bill is trying to do

- to prevent any group from meeting

peaceably, than you jeopardize the

rights of all other groups."'

Beth Meador: ACL -NC's new legislative

advocate in Sacramento.

Meador explained, ""There are al-

ready lots of laws for murder, violence,

trespass, vandalism - that is not the

problem. The problem is institution-

alized racism. Because the laws already

on the books are not a deterrent to the

KKK or the Nazis. Those laws, like this

one if it were passed, are used against

groups that the state traditionally

moves against: the left, the poor, and

minorities - not the KKK.

``We must continue to fight the basic

causes of racism before any law can

eradicate the lawless behavior that the

Klan or the Nazis are involved in." _

Meador's clear and articulate re-

moderate income people of California.

Meador also worked as a Deputy

State Public Defender, as the Alameda

County Coordinator for the 1976 Car-

`ter-Mondale campaign and the Direc-

tor of Program Development for a

Berkeley Community Health Alliance

- (CHANGE).

Aqsosy A4D/144

Meador is no stranger either to the

Capital halls in Sacramento. She

worked as a Legislative Analyst Intern

in the Governor's office in 1975 with re-

sponsibility for analyzing the fiscal and

legal impact of proposed legislations.

``However,'' Meador told the ACLU

News, ``I think being a lobbyist for the

ACLU will be even more challenging -

and frustrating. In the Governor's of-

fice, we each had a specific area of

legislation to study - now at the

ACLU, I virtually have to look at every

bill that comes up for its civil liberties

aspect."

After a month on the job, Meador's

leg cast is now reduced to knee-to-ankle

length, she has testified at three Com-

mittee hearings and is gearing up for a

busy legislative session. As the ACLU-

NC lobbyist, Meador is already a for-

midable presence in Sacramento.

00020860680

_ "*When I look back on my six years as

the ACLU-NC lobbyist in Sacramento,

_I get the image of the sorceror's appren-

tice trying to hold back the march of the

brooms - the oppressive legislation

which comes back year after year,

~ Brent Barnhart, ACLU-NC's retiring

lobbyist told the ACLU News.

Barnhart, who has been the Legis-

lative Advocate since 1975, left in Janu-

ary to set up a private practice as an at-

torney and lobbyist in Sacramento.

"However, Barnhart explained, "no

sooner had I opened my new office than

I was hired by the ACLU of Southern

California to lobby for them - so it

seems I can't really leave the ACLU."

Part of Barnhart's bad broom

dreams comes from having seen well-

intentioned legislation "`go wrong." For

example, the determinate sentencing

act of 1976 which was put in as a lib-

eral reform of the prison system,

"turned into a political nightmare,"' ac-

cording to Barnhart. "The bottom line

is that now more people go to prison for

1 than before."

Brent Barnhart addressed major civil liber-

ties issues in the state capitol during his 5

years as the ACLU lobbyist.

He has seen some major successes,

however. Barnhart sites the Financial

Privacy Act of 1976, 1979 legislation

protecting innocent third parties from

abusive use of search warrants, and the

1980 Religious Corporations bill as im-

portant gains for civil liberties lobbying.

"The major insight I have gained

from this work, said Barnhart, ``is that

for the ACLU, litigation is really the es-

sential arm of the organization. Our

legislative work serves more as a watch-

dog operation - efforts that can stop

unreasoned infringements on civil liber-

ties that the legislature can inflict.

``Legislatively, instead of measuring

our success by specific bills, we should

be proud of the enormous impact we

have had in stopping bad packages and

amending well-intended legislation

`which incidentally carried bad effects."

At its January meeting, the ACLU

Board of Directors commended Barn-

hart for his outstanding efforts and skill

as the ACLU Legislative Advocate and

thanked him for his service to the or-

ganization.

Libel Threat |

Two libel cases currently before the

California Supreme Court could "`sig-

nificantly expand protection given to

`the rights of both speech and petition in

the context of political campaigns" ac-

cording to ACLU-NC General Counsel

Stephen Bomse.

Bomse, an attorney with the San

Francisco law firm of Heller, Ehrman,

White and McAuliffe, has filed an ACLU

amicus brief on behalf of the petitioners

to the high court arguing that a libel

complaint filed against citizens who

publicly opposed a ballot proposition

has an unconstitutional chilling effect

on campaign debate.

The cases, Harris and Ruden v. Su-

perior Court and Okun vy. Superior -

Court, originated in 1978 when a politi-

cal controversy took, place in Beverly

Hills over actions by the City Council

regarding certain property owned by a

developer.

Because of citizen opposition to a

Council agreement allowing the proper-

ty company to develop condominiums,

a proposition was placed on the ballot

by the Council. Public opposition to the

proposition was strong, and it was de-

feated.

The developer subsequently filed a

damage action.against three of the lead-

`ing opponents of the proposition. The

damages sought included loss of

reputation amounting to $25,000,000,

loss of its development project amount-

ing to $37,555,000 and punitive dam-

ages of $1,000,000.

The bases of the libel suit were state-

ments made by the political activists in

open letters oe in local news-

papers.

For example, the following portion of

a `Letter to the Editor," written by one

of the defendants, was alleged in the ~

complaint as libelous: "`The entire

industrial zone scenario reads uncom-

fortably like a John D. MacDonald

"novel of Florida land wheeler-dealer

mired up to their necks in deception of

the public."

In addition, the suit charged that

some of the defendants had orally slan-

dered the developer by stating that the

company had corruptly influenced a

certain Council member to improperly

influence City officials.

continued on page 4

ACLU Seeks Return of Children Kidnapped by Marshals

"It is difficult to imagine the horror

of what has happened. Not many of us

could be comfortable with the notion of

the federal government kidnapping

children from their father,

resisting their return, and finally taking

a long period of time to right the

wrong,'' said ACLU-NC Advisory .

Counsel Ephraim Margolin.

then

Margolin was speaking to the ACLU

News about the case of Robert Salmer-

on, an oil company worker from Rich-

mond, whose two children were taken

from him by the U.S. Marshals Service

as part of an agreement made in ex-

change for testimony against the Hells

Angels.

In January the ACLU filed a petition

for a writ of habeus corpus in the U.S.

District Court in San Francisco in an

attempt to return the children to their

physical custody of them by the Contra

Costa Superior Court.

The petition, written by cooperating

attorney Margolin, claims that the chil-

dren, aged 10 and 11, were stolen from

Salmeron on the same day his ex-wife

and her boyfriend Mikel Jennings, dis-

appeared into the Federal Witness Pro-

tection Program.

The Federal Witness Protection Pro-

gram is run by the U.S. Marshals Pro-

gram to provide new identities to those

who feel they might be endangered if

they turn state's witness.

Jennings testified for the government

in the Hells Angels racketeering and

father who had been granted legal and

drug conspiracy trial.

One of the prosecutors in that trial,

: assistant U.S. Attorney Billie Rosen has

admitted that the children are under

the custody of the U.S. Marshals Ser-

vice aon) in the Federal. Witness Protec-

tion Program.

However, according to the ACLU pe-

tition, Rosen ``refused to return the

children, and the U.S. Marshals Ser-

vice continues to refuse to return the

children to their father."'

Margolin explained that these actions

of the U.S. Marshals Service are be-

yond the scope of any authority granted

by Congress or delegated by the Attor-

ney General.

"Nowhere did the Congress authorize

the kidnapping of children, and yet

they were kidnapped,'' Margolin said.

_ "Nowhere did the Congress provide for

notice to the natural parent, to a court

_ review, of the procedures used, and no-

where are there any standards known to

us to govern this kind of high-handed

activity,"' he continued.

The petition claims that the children .

have been denied their inherent right to

maintain a natural parent-child rela-

tionship, their First Amendment rights

to associate with their father and denied

their Fifth Amendment rights to liberty

and family life.

The same rights have been denied the

father, the petition claims, ``all in con-

-travention of a state court order grant-

ing him custody of the detained minor

children."

In February, the case, Salmeron v.

Gover, was removed to the U.S. District

Court in Washington, D.C. This re-

moval was ordered by U.S. District

Court Samuel Conti in San Francisco,

who, after holding an in camera hear-

ing with the defendants, determined

that the children were not in fact being

held in this jurisdiction.

However, according to Margolin, the

ACLU wili continue to fight the case in

continued on page 4

aclu news

- March 1981

CHAPTERS

Pioaaait Hall Risecta Ante haisa Law

Abortion opponents have failed in

their recent attempts to put the City of

Pleasant Hill into the difficult, expen-

sive, and constitutionally dubious busi-

ness of regulating abortions.

Anti-abortion forces in the Contra

Costa community wanted the city to

adopt an ordinance which would have

imposed a waiting period on women

seeking abortions. The proposed ordi-

nance also would have required every -

woman seeking an abortion to receive a

highly graphic and prejudicial descrip-

tion of the operation and of the develop-

ment of the fetus.

This ordinance, typical ae those fos-

tered by right-to-lifers across the coun-

try, parades under the title ` `informed

consent." (California law. already pro-

vides that all patients give informed

consent to medical procedures.)

In late January, the Pleasant Hill City

Council approved a resolution, 3-2,

stating that regulating abortion was not

a proper city function.

Chapter Action

Behind the council vote was a city

manager' Ss memo outlining the difficult-

ies and expense involved in the city's

regulating any medical service. Also -

backing up the council majority was a

city attorney's opinion stating that key

portions of the proposal were of dubi-

ous legal merit. And hovering over all

the official, and unofficial, players was

the ACLU's Mt. Diablo Chapter's

(eastern Contra Costa County) threat-

. ening suit if the measure passed.

Local press credited the chapter' S

threat as an important factor in the

Council decision.

Clinic Pickets

The story began almost a year ago,

when local anti-abortion organizers.

sought to use a zoning loophole to pre-

vent the opening of Everywoman's

Clinic in Pleasant Hill.

When it opened, the clinic soon at-

tracted pickets, and, according to a

local attorney, abortion foes even sat in

Affirmative Action

continued from page I

principle of affirmative action, Rich-

ardson wrote, `The record reflects that

the University's reasons for considering

minority status were primarily twofold:

first, an appreciable minority represen-

- tation in the student body will contrib-

ute valuable cultural diversity for both

faculty and students and, second, a mi-.

nority representation in the legal pool

from which future professional and

community leaders are drawn, will

strengthen and preserve minority parti-

cipation in the democratic process at all

levels. -

_ "Tt is believed that the individual and

group learning experience is enriched

with broadly beneficial consequences to

both the profession and to the public at

large.

"In its wisdom [the University's ad-

missions committee] has proceeded

upon a path which it believes will best

achieve fairness and balance in the ad-

mission to the University's professional

schools.

"The King Hall admissions program

. . has been implemented within con-

stitutional boundaries,'' Richardson

concluded.

DeRonde says he plans to appeal the

decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

At a "Counter Inauguration" in front of the Federal Building in San Francisco, street play-

ers spoofed groups, like those in Pleasant Hill, who are attacking a woman's right to choose.

the waiting rooms harassing patients.

Key clinic personnel received hate mail.

In October, a group called Neighbors

United to Fight Abortion, approached

the Pleasant Hill City Council with their

ordinance which was modeled after a

similar law in Akron, Ohio.

The City Council asked the city attor-

ney, Charles Williams, for an opinion

on the proposal. A letter to Williams.

from ACLU-NC board member Donna

Hitchens and staff counsel Margaret

Crosby detailed numerous constitution-

al problems with the proposed act, the

obvious purpose of which is to interfere

with a womans well-established right to

choose an abortion.

Hitchens and Crosby pointed out that

the U.S. Supreme Court established

the right to abortion in 1973 and that

decision said the government's only in-

terest in regulating abortions was the

health of the mother. In addition, the

proposed regulation would interfere

with the medical judgment of the phy-

sician.

The letter also stated that regulating

medical practice is a state matter, and

that city and counties are pre-empted.

Abortion Clinic

continued from page 1

"None of the foregoing information

(names, ages and states of birth of the

parents, date of fetal death, sex of the

fetus, place of its delivery and mode of

disposition) should be subject to, public

dissemination if ao right to privacy is

to be protected .

Jones added, ``Since petitioner

_ [Avalon Memorial Hospital] is charged

with violation of a statute which this

court holds to be unconstitutional, the

trial court has no juer to pro-

ceed with the prosecution. . ."'

Ernst commented, "This is a very im-

portant decision in that there are not

many providers of late-term abortions.

The prosecution of Avalon Memorial

Hospital - one of the major providers -

in Southern California - was a real at-

tack on abortion providers and

patients.

"The decision should give this defen-

dant - and other providers of abortion

facilities for women - comfort in car-

rying on their operation, which is of

vital importance to all women wishing

to exercise their right to reproductive

freedom," Ernst added.

Ja]TW 1249

aetna

City attorney Williams stressed this lat-0x00A7

ter point to the Council.

According to Guyla Ponomareff, Mt.

Diablo Chapter chairperson, ``The

council members who voted against the

ordinance, Oliver Holmes, John Mul-

hall, and Dione Mustard, gave this very

hard thought. They resisted a great deal

of pressure, which is hard in a small

town such as Pleasant Hill. They should

be congratulated."'

Ponomareff also pointed out the

threat even a totally unconstitutional

- law, such as that proposed in Pleasant

Hill, poses.

"If the ordinance had passed,

Everywoman's Clinic would have gone

broke trying to finance the legal chal-

lenge on their own. The right-to-lifers

know that. So, it was very important

that the ACLU offer legal assistance to

the clinic and make our readiness to

challenge the law public."

Apparently bent on entangling Pleas-

ant Hill in a costly and losing legal

battle, anti-abortion organization's

most recent threat is to circulate a local

referendum to get their law passed.

M.P.M. -

Libel

continued from page 3:

According to the ACLU amicus brief

these cases "raise important issues con-

cerning the chilling effect of private de-

famation actions on the exercise by in--

dividuals of their related rights to parti-.

cipate in political debate and to petition

the government for redress of griev-

ances.

The ACLU claim is supported by

several arguments. First, the referen-

dum and initiative election in California

are legislative proceedings by which

proposed legislation is brought Beene

the people. Accordingly, statements

made to the electorate as part of a ref-

erendum campaign are entitled to the

absolute legislative privilege of Civil

Code Section 47 (2).

Second, under the California and

United States constitutions, the right to

petition the government establishes an

absolute privilege against suits for defa-

mation based upon statements made to

Calendar-

B-A-K

PUBLIC MEETING. Sunday, March

8, 3-7 p.m., 103 Alvarado Rd.

(above Claremont Hotel, off Ashby).

Daniel Elisburg speaks on Nuclear

Energy and Civil Liberties. Wine and

Cheese; $5, $2.50 students and sen-

iors.

BOARD MEETING. Thursday,

March 26, 8 p.m.; 984 Spruce St.,

Berkeley. Open to all members.

Stockton

ANNUAL MEETING and DINNER.

Wed., March 18; no host cocktails,

5:30 p.m.; dinner at 6:30 p.m.; Ray-

mond Great Hall, UoP. San Joaquin

Superior Court Judge John F. Cruik-

shank, Jr., speaks on "Will There Be

Any Civil Liberties in the 1980's?"

$10 ea.; reservations by March 15 to

ACLU, P.O. Box 7271, Stockton,

95207, or telephone LH Pippin

209-477-7698 (eves.).

Kidnapped

continued from page 3

Washington, D.C. and will not desist in

its efforts to have the children returned

to their father.

"Naturally, we are disappointed that

the case was transferred to Washington

and the father will now have to wait fur-

ther before he is reunited with his chil-

dren," Margolin said. `But we are sure

that a happy ending - though delayed

- is inevitable.

`Even then the nagging question will

remain: We now know that the Salmer-

on case in not unique. We cannot tell

how many times the federal government

_ engaged in such conduct but we know |

of several instances similar to the Sal- -

meron case.

""Mr. Salmeron's problems apart,

how can our society condone this appar-

ently wholesale violation of one of the

most precious rights of children, par-

ents and state courts,' Margolin said.

Margolin added that the ACLU is

planning to file a second lawsuit in fed-

eral court, in addition to the petition for

habeus corpus, which will deal with all

the civil rights questions raised by this

government practice.

influence governmental policy, includ-

ing efforts to influence the outcome of a

referendum election.

Third, the developer cannot collect

damages from private parties which re-

sulted from the defeat of its plans by the

electorate.

The use of libel suits to attack and in-

hibit persons who take an active and

outspoken role i in political campaigns is

a growing threat to freedom of speech

and political expression.

According to Bomse, "`These cases

could turn out to be very significant. in

the defamation area, depending on

whether the court chooses to use it as a

vehicle for that purpose."

The Supreme Court is expected to

hear arguments in the case later this

year.