vol. 53 (1989), no. 5
Primary tabs
aclu news
august 1989
_ Executing Children and the Mentally Retarded
by Michael Laurence
Director, ACLU-NC Death
Penalty Project
he U.S. Supreme Court decided
two death penalty cases on June 26
that affirmed the United States'
participation in the barbaric practice of
killing children and the mentally retarded.
By 5-4 majorities, the Court decided that
the Constitution does not prohibit a state
_ from executing persons who were 16 or 17
years old at the time of their crime
(Stanford y. Kentucky) or those who are
mentally retarded (Penry v. Texas).
The Court reached its decisions by ex-
amining our current "evolving standards
of decency," and decided that those stan-
dards, as they give meaning to the Eighth
' Amendment's prohibition against cruel
and unusual punishment, do not restrict
the states in deciding who may be execut-
ed. The Eighth Amendment, they conclud-
ed, is not offended because there is no
"national consensus" against executing
children and the mentally retarded.
No you cant have. g
beer with your lect
eet Your
Not (c),
Meugh... oA
March Against State
Killing
he ACLU is urging members to
oo participate in the March Against
State Killing from October 13-22.
The 120-mile trek from Sacramento to San
Quentin prison is organized by the ACLU,
Death Penalty Focus of California,
Amnesty International, American Friends
Service Committee, the NAACP, the
National Lawyers Guild, and many other
groups.
The March is timed to _ protest
California's attempts to resume executions,
and to coincide with Amnesty's
Worldwide Week of Action for the
Abolition of the Death Penalty. There will
be similar activities in Sweden, Canada
and Hawaii.
_ Many religious, political and cultural
figures are scheduled to participate, includ-
ing Joseph Lowery of the Southern
Christian Leadership Conference, human
rights activist and singer Joan Baez, and
actors Mike Farrell, Jean Stapleton, Eileen
Brennan, Tim Reid, LeVar Burton, and Ed
Asner.
After a kick-off event in Sacramento on
October 12, marchers will walk about 12
miles a day. On the 21st, there will be a
large rally with entertainment at Justin
Herman Plaza in San Francisco, followed
by a vigil at the gates of San Quentin pris-
on - home of California's Death Row -
on the 22.
California's Attorney General has pre-
dicted that Robert Harris will be executed
this fall. His execution would be the first
one in over 22 years in California, as well
as the first non-consensual one in any state
outside the South since the country's rein-
Statement of the death penalty in 1976.
There are 250 inmates currently on
Califomia's Death Row.
Right now, the March needs people to
organize, do office work, collect petition
signatures, donate money, and pledge to
walk. For information about the March or
the death penalty, mail the coupon below,
or contact Michael Bauman, Death Penalty
Focus Coordinator, at (415) 255-8100.
Join the the March Against State
Killing and help mobilize Californians
against the death penalty.
ee ee ee eee ee ee ee
Sign Up for the March Against State Killing
[__] I pledge to march: [__] part of a day [__] one day or more
[__] I pledge to attend the rally in:
[__] San Francisco (Oct. 21)
[__] San Quentin (Oct.22)
[__] I will consider marching but need more information.
[__] lam willing to gather petition signatures. Please send me a petition form.
[__] I can volunteer some time to make phone calls.
Checks payable to Death Penalty Focus March.
Name
Address
City/State/Zip
Telephone: Day(__)
Evening
Please return this form to:
Death Penalty Focus
P.O. Box 806, San Francisco, CA 94103
1 i
i i
I I
i i
I i
I i
I i
I i
[__] I will support the March with a tax-deductible contribution of $
I i
i I
i i
I l
f i
I i
i i
i E
What the Court ignored is the interna-
tional consensus that executing minors
does violate contemporary standards of de-
cency. Universal international standards
have long recognized that 18 should be the
minimum age for imposing a sentence of
death. No fewer than five international
treaties prohibit such punishment. And,
since 1979, only the United States,
Bangladesh, Pakistan, Barbados and
Rwanda have publicly admitted executing
persons under 18. Unofficial reports would
add Iran and Iraq to the list. _
The practice of killing persons who are
mentally retarded is similarly abhorred by
mental health professionals and by an
overwhelming majority of persons in the
United States. Moreover, there is universal
recognition that, although the mentally re-
tarded should be held responsible for their
crimes, no legitimate end is served by exe-
cuting the mentally retarded. Deterrence
and retribution are hardly advanced by
such executions: the mental health profes-
sion recognizes that any adult who is diag-
nosed as mentally retarded has a mental
age no higher than 12.
Abdication
The flaw in the Court's reasoning,
however, extends beyond whether there is
a "national consensus" on these matters.
The fundamental problem is the manner in
which the Court arrived at its decision.
The Court simply examined whether a ma-
jority of death penalty states condoned
such executions. By drawing constitutional
norms from the very laws it is supposed to
be judging, the Court, in effect, abdicated
its responsibility as the guardian of the
Constitution.
Since 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court
has been the interpreter of the moral con-
science of the country - through the
Eighth Amendment's prohibition against
cruel and unusual punishment - and has
restricted the application of the death pen-
alty in the United States.
Prior to 1972, the various death penalty
statutes throughout the nation provided no
meaningful distinction between those who
deserved the "ultimate punishment" and
those who did not. In the words of Justice
Stewart, "the chance of receiving the death
penalty was as arbitrary as being struck by
lightning."
Then, in 1972, the Court held in
Furman y. Georgia that the federal
Constitution prevents such arbitrary
practices.
Weary Of Its Role
Now the Court has implicitly decided
that it is weary of its role of moral leader-
ship which proscribes a government's
power to kill its own citizens. It ignores
the principle that the death sentence is the
ultimate sanction, one reserved only for
the most culpable and heinous criminals.
Rather than examine whether those under
- 18 or those with the IQ of a 7-year old tru-
ly deserve to be killed by the government,
the Court has decided that such judgments
should be made by state legislators. In ef-
fect, we have returned to the pre-Furman
framework: if the punishment was im-
posed, then it must be lawful.
Although the Court's decisions may
Outrage sensible people, there is some dis-
torted logic behind them. If a state may
hang an 18-year old, why not someone
who was 16 at the time of their crime?
Why cannot a state execute a person who
has the mental capacity of a 7-year old if it
can electrocute someone who suffers from
Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome? In truth,
we have no compelling reason.
If we are outraged about killing chil-
_ dren, we should be outraged about killing
adults. Because once we give the state the
power to kill, there are few limitations that
may be rationally imposed on that power.
What is outrageous is that we have let gov-
emments seize the power to officially kill
human beings - be they children, the
mentally retarded, or the Ted Bundys of
the world.
aclu news
8 issues a year, monthly except bi-monthly in January-February, June-July, August-
September and November-December.
Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California
H. Lee Halterman, Chairperson
Dorothy Ehrlich, Executive Director
Elaine Elinson, Editor
Marcia Gallo, Field Page
ZesTop Publishing, Design and Typography
2
1663 Mission St., 4th Floor
San Francisco, California 94103
(415) 621-2488
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.
ELAM Ip
eis a
Zo
aclu news
NON-PROFIT
ORGANIZATION
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
PERMIT NO. 4424
SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Volume LIll
August 1989
No. 5
_ In the Wake of Webster:
California Abortion Battles
Appeal Court
Hears Parental
Consent Case
sserting that the California
A Constitution protects the privacy
rights of teenagers as well adults,
Linda Shostak, cooperating attorney for the
ACLU-NC and the Adolescent Health
Care Project of the National Center for
Youth Law (NCYL) argued on July 26 be-
fore the state Court of Appeal - in a
courtroom packed with reporters and spec-
tators - that a lower court order enjoining
California's 1987 law requiring parental
consent or a court order for teenagers who
want an abortion should be upheld.
Because of the ACLU/NCYL lawsuit,
filed in November 1987, the law has never
gone into effect in California.
Just weeks after the law was passed by
the state Legislature and signed by the
Goveror, the legal challenge was filed by
Shostak, Annette Carnegie, Monique van
Yzerlooy and George Aguilar, volunteer
attorneys from the law firm of Morrison and
Foerster, ACLU-NC attorney Margaret
Crosby and NYCL attorney Abigail
English.
The suit was filed on behalf of the
American Academy of Pediatrics, Califor-
nia District IX; the California Medical
Association; the American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, District
IX; Planned Parenthood of Alameda/San
Francisco; and Philip Darney, M.D.
An injunction from San Francisco
Superior Court in December 1987 prevent-
ed the law from going into effect as sched-
uled on January 1, 1988. Despite numerous
legal challenges from the state, the injunc-
tion has never been lifted.
According to Shostak, "The Legislature
says the consent law is necessary to protect
teenagers' health. If that is the reason be-
hind the consent law, then the law is un-
necessary. Doctors and nurses already do
an excellent job of looking after minors'
medical needs and making sure that minors
understand the medical procedures that are
involved."
Crosby noted, "The choice the
Legislature has given to California adoles-
cents from troubled home environments -
to tell parents of their pregnancy and abor-
tion, and suffer serious reprisals, or to nav-
igate a difficult court procedure - unduly
burdens the privacy rights of teenagers."
The statute, California's first major an-
ti-abortion law in 20 years, requires unmar-
Continued on page 6
TOON! A ss
Within hours of the U.S. Supreme Court decision limiting abortion rights,
thousands of pro-choice demonstrators rallied in protest in front of the California
State Building in San Francisco.
Dick Grosboll
c
6 Ts United States Supreme Court decision in Webster upholding a
Abortion Rights Action League. "In the next term they may walk through it," she
.
=)
Missouri law forbidding abortion in public hospitals is very different
from California law and has no effect here.
"The right to an abortion has been part of the fabric of California constitutional
law for the last 20 years. It cannot be eliminated simply because the U.S. Supreme
Court 3,000 miles away has weakened constitutional rights under the federal
Constitution," said ACLU-NC staff attorney and reproductive rights expert Margaret
Crosby.
At a packed press conference at the ACLU-NC office just hours after the
Supreme Court released the Webster decision on the final day of its 1989 term,
Crosby and other leaders of the pro-choice movement in California denounced the
high court's rollback of reproductive rights and vowed to fight to maintain a wom-
an's right to choose in California.
Speaking at the July 3 press conference, Vanessa Bedient, executive director of
Planned Parenthood of Alameda/San Francisco, said "For the first time in history, a
constitutional right that affects millions of women's health and welfare has been seri-
ously impaired."
Referring to the high court's ruling which allows more state regulation of abor-
tion, Bedient added, "A woman's access to abortion will now be hostage to
geography." ,
Lisa Desposito of NOW predicted a return to the "dark ages of back alley abor-
tions," especially for poor women.
"I'm talking about Lysol douches, knitting needles and coat hangers," Desposito
said.
"The Supreme Court has opened the door," said Susan Kennedy of California
added, announcing a national campaign to oppose anti-choice state legislators in up-
coming elections. "The Supreme Court today leaves women's privacy rights hanging
by a thread and hands the scissors to legislatures all across the country."
Within hours of the long-awaited decision, more than 2,000 people rallied outside
the Federal Building in San Francisco to demonstrate their opposition to the court's
5-4 decision. The demonstrators wrapped an American flag in coat hangers to sym-
bolize back alley abortions - the cause of serious injury and death for many women
in days before Roe v. Wade legalized abortion throughout the United States.
At the rally, ACLU-NC Field Representative Marcia Gallo said "I work for an or-
ganization that believes in the Constitution. Today, that organization is in
Continued on page 6
ACLU
Challenges
Medi-Cal
Abortion Fund
Cuts
or the twelfth time in as many
F years, the ACLU-NC brought suit
on behalf of a coalition of civil
rights groups, women's organizations,
health care providers and taxpayers chal-
lenging the state Legislature's refusal to al-
low full funding for abortions performed
under the state Medi-Cal program. _
The lawsuit, Committee to Defend
Reproductive Rights (CDRR) v. Kizer, was
filed on July 11 in the state Court of
Appeal by ACLU-NC staff attorney
Margaret Crosby. The following day, the
appellate court issued an order blocking
the state Department of Health Services
from denying Medi-Cal funds for abortion -
or from notifying Medi-Cal recipients that
funds might be cut.
The Court of Appeal stay will remain
in effect until the case is decided; a Health
Department spokesman said the stay would
not be appealed.
If enforced, this year's Budget Act re-
Strictions would deny public funding to
90% of the 80,000 Medi-Cal eligible
California women - one quarter of them
teenagers - who need abortions.
In every previous case, the court has
ruled that the cuts are unconstitutional. In
1988, Attorney General John Van De
Kamp announced that his office would not
defend the state in the lawsuit. In
Continued on page 4
aclu news
august 3
Sheriffs Can't Use "Painholds" on Peace Demonstrators
ontra Costa sheriffs are barred
C from using "painholds" on non-
violent demonstrators at the
Concord Naval Weapons Station, accord-
ing to an order issued by United States
District Court Judge Stanley A. Weigel on
June 20. Painholds (also known as control
holds) consist of the twisting of arms, fin-
gers, ears, and other portions of the body
or the use of pressure on the arteries.
The injunction issued by Judge Weigel
came as a result of a settlement in the
ACLU-NC lawsuit (Nuremberg Actions vy.
Contra Costa) filed in May of last year on
behalf of Nuremberg Actions and three
named demonstrators after Sheriff's
Deputies applied painholds with such force
in November 1987 that they caused severe
injuries to protestors.
Nuremberg Actions has coordinated a
vigil at CNWS since June 10, 1987 to
protest the shipment of weapons by the
U.S. government to countries that use
them against their own citizens, such as El
Salvador and Guatemala.
"The ruling is significant because it up-
holds the constitutional rights of peaceful
demonstrators under the First and Fourth
Amendments to express themselves with-
out being subject to excessive force by law
enforcement authorities," said ACLU-NC
cooperating attorney Edward Davis.
In November 1987, Contra Costa Sheriffs,
using a painhold, broke David Hartsough's
wrist. Chuck Goodmacher/Peace Center
"The order could also have an effect on
other law enforcement agencies in places
such as Stanford University and Lawrence
Livermore Laboratory where painholds
have been used on passive demonstrators,"
he added.
In addition to the injunction against the
use of painholds, the three individual plain-
tiffs - Jean Bakewell, David Hartsough,
and Reverend David Wylie - will receive
$50,000 in settlement of their claims. The
amount of attorney's fees to be awarded
will be decided by Judge Weigel.
Broken Arms
Hartsough had his wrist broken by a
sheriff's painhold on November 10. At the
same demonstration, Reverend Wylie's el-
bow was dislocated by a sheriff who twist-
ed his arms behind his back. On November
17, Jean Bakewell, an
Orinda artist and grand-
mother of four, was arrest-
ed by a sheriff when she
sat on the railroad tracks.
He twisted her arm with
such force that it was
bruised and swollen; she
was taken to the hospital
and diagnosed as having a
severe sprain.
"This marks an impor-
tant step forward for
Americans who wish to
stand up to their beliefs un-
der the protection of the
U.S. Constitution, without
fear of reprisals or malice,"
said plaintiff Hartsough.
"Too often, as in the case of these three in-
dividuals, or the case of Dolores Huerta in
San Francisco, law enforcement officials
attempt to mete out punishment on the
spot. Now at least at the Concord Naval
Weapons Station, protestors need not live
under this fear," he added.
The plaintiffs were represented by
ACLU-NC cooperating attorneys Robert
Mittelstaedt, Edward Davis, Reg Reilly
and David Cohen of Pillsbury, Madison and
Sutro and ACLU-NC staff counsel Ed
Chen.
oncord Naval Weapons Station,
demonstrators David Hartsough and Jean Bakewell an-
nounced a victory in their suit barring sheriffs from using
painholds to arrest non-violent protestors. Union Maid Photos
Socialist Action Party will not be Forced to
Disclose Contributors' Names
ocialist Action, a small political par-
S ty headquartered in San Francisco,
will not be required to disclose the
names of its contributors as a result of a
lawsuit against the City of San Francisco
by the ACLU-NC.
The victory was announced on June 27
by ACLU-NC cooperating attorneys Mark
White and Anna Rossi and ACLU-NC staff
counsel Alan Schlosser. "We are gratified
that the District Attorney has finally recog-
nized what was clear to us all along - that
the right of political association was threat-
ened. It is just regrettable that it required a
federal lawsuit to vindicate the First
Amendment rights of Socialist Action
members and supporters," White said.
"Because of its origins, size, political
aims and activities, Socialist Action and its
members held a genuine and reasonably
grounded fear that party members and con-
tributors would suffer threats, harassment
and reprisals if their identities were to be
publicly disclosed.
"The utterly minimal, if not non-
existent, interest that the District Attorney
claimed in getting the names of the party's
contributors was far outweighed by the
very substantial interest of the party and its
contributors to freedom of political associa-
tion," White added.
Fear of Reprisals
The suit charged that Socialist Action
members and contributors had good reason
to fear reprisal. According to attorney
Rossi, "Not only is there a public record of
official harassment and persecution waged
against the SWP (including individuals
who are now in Socialist Action) by law
enforcement agencies, there is also evi-
dence that the FBI and the San Francisco
Police Department surveilled many social-
Announcing the victory are (left to right) Anna Rossi, ACLU-NC cooperating attorney;
Sylvia Weinstein, S.F. Board of Education candidate; Joni Jacobs, Socialist Action treasurer;
Joseph Ryan, S.F. Board of Supervisors candidate; and Mark White, ACLU-NC cooperating
attorney.
Alan Benjamin, Socialist Action
ist and leftist political organizations with
whom Socialist Action has formed politi-
cal coalitions in this city."
Documentation provided by the
ACLU-NC showed that the SFPD and oth-
er State and federal agencies kept files on
such groups as CISPES (Committee in
Solidarity with the People of El Salvador),
the National Lawyers Guild and even the
ACLU itself.
"In addition, there have been repeated
instances of private hostility and harass-
ment experienced by Socialist Action
members, including assaults, destruction
of property, and death threats," Rossi said.
Plaintiff Joe Ryan of Socialist Action
said, "I think that this is a significant victo-
ry for all small parties, which will allow
them to function without fear of harass-
ment by the government or by private indi-
viduals. The fact that the District
Attormey's office retreated from its original
position indicates two things to me: one,
that they concede that disclosing the names
of our contributors could open them up to
harassment and have a dampening effect on
our ability to function and secondly, that if
the case had continued it would have ex-
posed a network of spying and harassment
by the police of different groups, be they
socialist, anti-war, pro-civil rights, etc.
"In that sense, this exemption for
Socialist Action is a victory for all those
who are fighting for progress and social
change," Ryan added.
Socialist Action was formed in 1983
when its original members left the Socialist
Workers Party (SWP) after a dispute over
political goals. In an earlier lawsuit, it was
proven that the SWP and its members were
subjected to FBI infiltration, surveillance
and harassment. for many years. Since
ee
1984, Socialist Action has run candidates
in various local elections; in November
1988 plaintiff Joseph Ryan ran for the
Board of Supervisors, gaining 1% of the
vote and plaintiff Sylvia Weinstein ran for
the Board of Education, gaining 3% of the
vote.
California's Political Reform Act of
1974 requires that controlled campaign
committees of candidates for local elective
office file disclosure statements with the
local registrar of voters which identify all
persons who make financial contributions .
of over $100. The required information in-
cludes the contributor's full name, address,
occupation, and employer.
However, the campaign committees of
Socialist Action have declined to provide
this information based on the understand-
ing that they have a right of exemption un-
der the First Amendment of the
Constitution as decided by the U`S.
Supreme Court in the 1982 case of Brown
v. Socialist Workers '0x00B074 Campaign
Committee (Ohio).
Exemption
Just prior to the 1988 election, howev-
er, the San Francisco District Attorney de-
manded the contributors information from
plaintiff Joni Jacobs, treasurer of the Ryan
and Weinstein Campaign Committee.
Despite a written request for exemption
from Jacobs, the District Attorney threat-
ened criminal prosecution against Jacobs,
Ryan and Weinstein if they did not
comply.
As a result of the lawsuit, the City con-
ceded that the Socialist Action party was
exempt from the reporting requirements.
Assistant District Attorney George C.
Beckwith stated in a June 2 letter to the
ACLU-NC, "San Francisco District
Attomey Arlo Smith agrees that there is a
reasonable likelihood that disclosure of
contributor names and addresses will have
a chilling effect on potential contributors
because of evidence of acts of private ha-
rassment over which we have no control."
aclu news
august 1989
1988 United States Supreme Court Term:
Ominous Blows Against Civil Liberties
by Norman Dorsen
President, National ACLU
he past year has been a disastrous
T one for civil liberties in the
Supreme Court, with the general ex-
ception of the First Amendment. The
Court's record was the worst in decades:
women, minorities, public employees and
prisoners on death row were the Court's
principal victims this term.
This term's decisions struck an omi-
nous blow against principles of civil liber-
`ties and civil rights that seemed well
settled and secure only a year ago.
The Court's abortion decision virtually
invited |a new round of restrictive legisla-
tion that, if enacted, will substantially bur-
den the right of women in this country to _
reproductive choice. It upheld the use of
the death penalty against juveniles and
mentally retarded defendants, thus placing
the United States in a category of only a
handful of other nations in the world -
even South Africa officially prohibits the
execution of minors. In a series of cases,
the Court ruled against civil rights plain-
tiffs, making it far more difficult for vic-
tims of racial or sex discrimination to
obtain redress from the courts. And it fur-
ther diluted the guarantees of the Fourth
Amendment by permitting random drug
testing without any individualized suspi-
cion of wrongdoing.
Each of these decisions is individually
harmful. Cumulatively, they signal the
emergence of an activist, conservative ma-
jority that began to take shape a year and a
half ago with the appointment of Justice
Anthony Kennedy, and that has clearly
demonstrated its insensitivity to civil rights
and liberties. Within the past year alone,
Justice Kennedy provided the critical fifth
vote in key cases involving civil rights,
abortion, the death penalty and drug
testing.
In short, we are facing the end of an era
in which the Supreme Court has been the
principal guarantor of individual rights. By
and large, this retreat has not been accom-
plished by directly confronting and openly
rejecting the Court's past decisions.
Rather, the Court has preferred to utilize
the seemingly technical rules of litigation
in ways that are often difficult to under-
stand, but nonetheless lethal in their low
profile attack on civil liberties.
Thus the Court did not overrule Roe v.
Wade. However, its decision in Webster v.
Reproductive Health Services undermined
the reasoning of Roe and signaled the
Court's willingness to uphold increasingly
severe restrictions on the right to an
abortion.
Race Discrimination
In a similar vein, the Court placed sig-
nificant new obstacles in the path of those
seeking redress for past acts of discrimina-
tion. As a result of a series of Supreme
Court rulings this year, it is now more dif-
ficult for civil rights plaintiffs to prove dis-
crimination and easier for employers to
defend their discriminatory practices
(Wards Cove Packing v. Antonio).
Likewise, it is harder to obtain meaningful
relief once discrimination is established
(Richmond y. Croson), and easier for
whites to challenge affirmative action
plans in successive lawsuits that under-
mine any sense of stability in the law
(Martin v. Wilks).
human rights. In addition, in two other cas-
es (Teague v. Lane and Murray vy.
Giarratano) the Court departed from its
traditional view that capital punishment
should, at the very least, be accompanied
The new Supreme Court majority has
lost sight of the Court's principal
responsibility: to defend the constitutional
rights of all Americans.
Indeed, one measure of this Court's
perceived hostility toward civil rights is
the relief that was felt when it did not
overrule one of its earlier landmark deci-
sions in Patterson v. McLean Credit
Union. However, the mixed ruling in
by procedural safeguards that minimize the
risk of erroneous convictions.
There were some civil liberties victo-
ries, as well, primarily in the First
Amendment context. In Texas v. Johnson,
the Court reaffirmed the principle that flag
The Gupreme Court Majority...
(c)1989 SEATTLE POSTANTELUGENCER
WORTH AMERICA SYNOICATE
Patterson also held that the right to "make
and enforce contracts" in a nondiscrimina-
tory fashion, which has been part of federal
law since Reconstruction, does not include
the right to be free from racial harassment
once a worker is hired. Several weeks lat-
er, in Jett v. Dallas Independent School
District, the Court further whittled down
this century old statute by holding, for the
first time, that Section 1981 does not pro-
tect against even hiring discrimination by
either state or local governments.
New Majority 3
Each of these cases, with the exception
of Croson, was decided by a 5-4 vote. By
the same 5-4 majority, the Supreme Court
also ruled that the Eighth Amendment's
prohibition on cruel and unusual punish-
ment does not prevent states from execut-
ing 16 or 17 year olds or the mentally
retarded (Stanford v. Kentucky, Penry v.
Lynaugh). In reaching this conclusion,
Justice Antonin Scalia declared it "`irrele-
vant" that most of the civilized world con-
demns such executions as a violation of
Abortion Funds...
Continued from page 1
December 1988, the California Supreme
Court once again refused to hear the case,
thus upholding the Court of Appeal's rul-
ing that the Medi-Cal funding cuts were
unconstitutional and could not take effect.
Upon filing the twelfth annual lawsuit,
Crosby severely criticized the
Legislature's cuts: "This issue was settled
in 1981 when the California Supreme
Court determined that, under our state
Constitution, the government could not
eliminate abortion from the Medi-Cal
system.
"That decision came only nine months
after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June
1980 that government had no obligation to
finance abortion under the federal
Constitution. But the federal decisions
have never had the same level of constitu-
tional protection for people who rely on
government services.
burning cannot be banned as a form of po-
litical protest merely because some people
find it "offensive". Regrettably, no sooner
did the Court announce this decision than
the Executive and Legislative branches an-
nounced their intention to cut back the
First Amendment by creating a flag dese-
cration exception that would inevitably
breed other abridgements of free
expression.
Other First Amendment victories in-
cluded Fort Wayne Books v. Indiana,
where the Court ruled that the seizure of an
entire bookstore could not be justified
based on the mere allegation that two
books may be obscene; Florida Star v.
B.J.F., in which the Court held that confi-
dentiality statutes can be enacted to protect
a rape victim's identity without holding a
newspaper liable for publishing truthful in-
formation that it has lawfully obtained;
Board of Estimate v. Morris, where New
York City's principal governing body was
declared unconstitutional as a violation of
one person, one vote; and Sable
Communications v. FCC, in which the
Court held that Congress could not enact
an absolute ban on indecent speech and
thereby reduce adults to hearing what is fit
for children.
Even in the First Amendment area,
however, the Court's record was spotty. In
Ward v. Rock Against Racism, the Court
made it substantially easier for the govern-
ment to regulate speech short of an out-
right ban and in Thornburgh vy. Abbott, the
Court held that traditional `First
Amendment rules do not apply inside a
prison. In Allegheny County v. ACLU, the
Court held that government may display
some religious symbols but not others, de-
pending on their setting.
The few civil liberties victories during
the past year do not begin to offset the
losses we have suffered. Viewed in its en-
tirety, there is little doubt that the past term
has been the worst in recent memory for
civil liberties.
"The U.S. Supreme Court decision in
Webster, upholding a Missouri law barring
abortions from being performed in public
hospitals or by publicly financed medical
personnel, has no bearing on public fund-
ing for abortion in California," Crosby
explained.
Range of Options
Margie Baran of the Committee to
Defend Reproductive Rights/Coalition for
the Medical Rights of Women (CDRR)
added, "Whether or not to have a child is
the most intimate decision a woman can
make. Poor women deserve the same
range of options as wealthy women when
they face this decision. But for the twelfth
year in a year row, the California
Legislature has shown complete disregard
for the rights, the health and the safety of
low-income women.
"Abortion is a necessary and positive
choice for many women, for many rea-
sons," said Baran, "and abortion access
Continued on page 6
aclu news
august
Hospital Workers Defeat English Only Rule
Ospital workers at the University
H of California at San Francisco
(UCSF) who challenged an
English-Only workplace rule which was
used to reprimand workers who spoke to
each other in Spanish and Tagalog an-
nounced on June 30 that they had reached
a settlement agreement with the
University.
The agreement states that UCSF will
adopt and post a Policy on Non-
discrimination Regarding Language
Spoken in the Workplace and will elimi-
nate from hospital workers' personnel files
any entries relating to the use of languages
other than English at the workplace.
The UCSF Policy states in part,
"Effective immediately, any existing poli-
cy, practice or custom, whether formal or
informal, requiring employees to speak to
their co-workers in English shall be
terminated.
"No employees may be disciplined for
speaking in the language that is most com-
fortable. Oral reprimands or the suggestion
that employees speak English as a "courte-
sy" will be a violation of campus policy.
Any employee who violates this policy
may be subject to disciplinary action," the
Policy states.
In June 1988, 10 UCSF workers and
their union, AFSCME Council 10, repre-
sented by the ACLU-NC and MALDEF
(Mexican American Legal Defense and
Education Fund) filed discrimination
charges with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission against the
University seeking to abolish the English-
only workplace rule. The personnel rule,
posted prominently in several workplace
areas, prohibited employees from speaking
a language other than English on the job,
except during lunch breaks or when acting
as translators.
University officials had used the rule to
issue written and oral reprimands against
employees who had spoken to each other
in Spanish and Tagalog.
The EEOC found "reasonable cause"
Hospital worker and AFSCME shop steward Yolanda Cortez announces the end of
the English only workplace rule at UCSF.
Union Maid Photos
for their charges.
Workers' Rights
According to complainant Yolanda
Cortez, a UCSF dietary technician and
AFSCME shop steward, "Many employees
who were adversely affected by the ban on
their `native languages' were immigrants
who came to the U.S. in search of opportu-
nity and freedom. Ironically, they found
those opportunities threatened by discrimi-
natory policies at work, but they were will-
Judge Orders INS Trial
to Continue
n June 12, after 17 weeks of trial in
Qe Meadow Mushroom Farms
v. INS in which 95 witnesses testi-
fied about 40 INS workplace raids, Judge
Robert Aguilar denied the government's
motion to dismiss the lawsuit at the clos
of the plaintiffs' case. |
In doing so, Judge Aguilar ruled that
the plaintiffs, employers and employees
represented by attorneys from the ACLU-
SC, California Rural Legal Assistance
(CRLA), the Employment Law Center, the
Mexican American Legal Defense and
Education Fund, and Orrick, Herrington and
Sutcliffe, had indeed shown a "persistent
pattern of unlawful entries into workplac-
es" by INS agents.
In his 43-page ruling, Judge Aguilar
carefully scrutinizes the many claims of
employees who were subject to racial slurs,
verbal abuse and physical harassment, and
concludes, "at this point in the case, the ev-
idence shows a policy of unconstitutional
searches, detentions and arrests."
In the next stage of the trial, now sched-
uled for February, 1990, the government,
represented by U.S. Attorney Joseph
Russoniello must defend the INS policy
and practices.
The trial was postponed as a result of
the June 13 indictment of Judge Aguilar,
who has heard the case since the trial be-
gan on January 3 of this year.
Judge Aguilar pleaded not guilty to all
charges; although he gave up many of the
other cases he was hearing, the judge sim-
ply postponed the trial in the INS case until
February 12, 1990.
The government has indicated that it
plans to seek to remove Judge Aguilar
from the case.
ACLU-NC _ staff attomey Alan
Schlosser said, "This is an extremely im-
portant case which charges the INS with
the violation of constitutional rights of
workers and employers during the 1982 na-
tionwide sweep called Operations Jobs and
subsequent raids. We are prepared to con-
tinue the case in February before Judge
Aguilar."
ing to stand up and assert their rights to a
giant institution like UCSF.
"Through the collective effort of the
workers and their union, the policy was re-
scinded and subsequent discussions culmi-
nated in a satisfactory settlement reached
by all parties," Cortez said.
ACLU-NC staff attorney Ed Chen not-
ed that the settlement is especially impor-
tant in today's political climate. "This
victory has significance beyond UCSF," he
said. "We have received an increasing
number of reports particularly within the
last two years after the passage of
Proposition 63 (which made English the
California's `official' language) of
English-only workplace rules. We have re-
ceived complaints from workers at other
hospitals, convalescent homes, hotels, elec-
tronics assembly plants, insurance compa-
nies and even non-profit organizations.
Workers at all of these places will be heart-
ened by this settlement," Chen added.
EEOC Director Charles Wong said that
he was pleased with the conciliation agree-
ment which affirms that English only
workplace rules are unlawful. "Such rules
are devastating for employees for whom
English is a second language," Wong said.
"UCSF employees thousands who are
not proficient in English. Hopefully other
employers will follow suit and not impose
English-only workplace rules," Wong
added. De
Manuel Romero, staff attorney with
MALDEF, said, "We hope this settlement
will send a clear message to all employers
that English-only rules are discriminatory
and unlawful."
Romero also noted that the California
Senate recently passed a measure (SB 1454
- Marks) providing additional protection to
workers by outlawing English-only work-
place rules under state law. That bill is cur-
rently being considered by the Assembly.
Judge Strikes Down
Pomona Sign Ordinance
S. District Court Judge Robert
Takasugi ruled on July 14 that the
sign ordinance in the southern
California city of Pomona requiring that
50% of all business signs and advertising
copy be written in English, is an unconsti-
tutional infringement on freedom of
speech. The ruling was applauded by the
ACLU affiliates of Northern California
and Southern California as a victory for
freedom of speech and cultural expression.
The unconstitutional ordinance did not
forbid signs in foreign languages, per se,
but prohibited signs which use the non-
English alphabet. Therefore, signs entirely
in Spanish or French would not be forbid-
den, while signs containing over 50% char-
acters of Asian languages would be
banned. -
"This ordinance was clearly an attack
by the city of Pomona on its growing
Asian community," explained ACLU-SC
attorney Robin Toma, co-author with
ACLU-NC attorney Ed Chen of an amicus
brief in the lawsuit. "By attacking the use
of Asian alphabets in signs, rather than at-
tacking the use of any foreign language,
the city was sending our a clear signal to
the Asian community, telling them that
their culture was not welcome.
"There has been growing resentment
over the recent influx of Asian immigrants (c)
in Monterey Park and surrounding areas,
and the ordinance was in support of that at-
titude," Toma said.
Although Pomona city officials claimed
that the sign requirement was necessary for
safety purposes, the ACLU pointed out in
its brief that businesses are already re- (c)
quired to post their addresses in Arabic nu-
merals and the English alphabet, thereby
making business locations easy to find for
fire departments or police officers.
Moreover, the ordinance was not
prompted by any special concern of the
city police or fire department, the ACLU
attorneys noted.
Smokescreen
"The city's justification in the name of
public safety was disingenuous," said
ACLU-NC | staff attorney Ed Chen.
Fortunately, under the law, regulation of
the language used by private parties re-
Stricts speech and cultural expression
which can only be justified if it serves a
genuine and compelling interest. This sign
ordinance clearly did not serve such an
interest.
"Judge Takasugi understood that,"
Chen added. "His ruling should send a
clear message to all cities that they may not
`restrict the freedom of speech and expres-
sion of their immigrant communities."
aclu news
august 1989
he names, addresses, phone num-
i bers and other personal information
about Concord Planned Parenthood
patients will not be revealed to Operation
Rescue demonstrators who have been
charged with criminal trespass at the clinic
because of a ruling on June 21 by Contra
Costa Municipal Court Judge Mark
Simons.
Clinic blockaders John Michael
Vroman and Ronald G. Maxson had
sought the names of the patients who were
scheduled for appointments on December
10 and 17 of last year.
On those dates, the Planned Parenthood
clinic was blockaded by the defendants, re-
sulting in their prosecution for trespassing
and obstruction of movement in a public
place. However, there were no regularly
scheduled patients at the clinic on those
days, as the clinic staff had called all per-
sons with appointments and advised them
to go to alternative locations because of the
blockade.
ACLU-NC cooperating attorney David
Bortin who argued in court against reveal-
ing the patients' names, "The defendants
claimed that they needed the information
on the Planned Parenthood patients for `ev-
idence on the issue of guilt or innocence.'
However, none of those patients even at-
tended the clinic that day...
Pattern of Intimidation
"Operation Rescue displays a pattern of
intimidating patients and staff by intrusive
confrontations and invasions of sexual pri-
vacy at every opportunity," Bortin ex-
plained. "They take video pictures and
license plate numbers of Planned
Parenthood clients, and seize every oppor-
tunity to humiliate them with direct con-
frontations to increase their pain when the
clients are seeking help with difficult and
highly personal problems in their lives.
"Their evident purpose in seeking these
names and other information was to com-
mence a further siege on the privacy of
Planned Parenthood's patients," Bortin
charged.
In denying the request for names, Judge
Simons noted that the defendants had
failed to demonstrate that their right to a
fair trial would be compromised without
release of the patients' names.
ACLU-NC staff attorney Margaret
Crosby lauded the judge's ruling. "The at-
tempt by clinic blockaders to obtain the
names of Planned Parenthood patients is a
Clinic Blockaders Won't Get Patients' Names
more serious threat to reproductive free-
dom than the activity for which the protest-
ers are prosecuted," she said. "If names
were to be revealed, potential patients
would avoid clinics for fear their confiden-
tiality might be violated."
Carol Sobel, staff attorney for the
ACLU of Southern California who is mon-
itoring all abortion clinic blockades in the
State said that Judge Simons' ruling is sim-
ilar to other rulings around the state.
Noting that there have been between 3,000
`and 4,000 arrests of clinic blockaders in
California, Sobel said that the protesters
"like to be in court because it gives them
an opportunity to do discovery on abortion
providers."
Judge Simons also set an August 14
trial date for the defendants on the trespass
charges.
Abortion Fund Cuts...
Continued from page 4
must not be restrict-
ed. Weiare outraged
that this lawsuit is
necessary year after
year, when _ these
cuts are so clearly
unconstitutional."
Close Vote
This year, as in
each year following
the first Medi-Cal
abortion fund cuts in
1978, pro-choice or-
- ganizations and ad-
vocates throughout
the state made a ma-
jor effort to lobby
the Legislature to
preserve funding.
"This, year, the
Assembly ~ actually
defeajed the TesuIC -onference.
ACLU-NC staff attorney Margaret Crosby (right), joined by
Dr. Philip Darney, Director of the Family Planning Clinic at
San Francisco General Hospital, and ACLU Legislative
Director Margaret Pena, announces the filing of the 12th
annual lawsuit to maintain abortion funds at a July 11 press
Jacob Estes
tions by a vote of
38-31," explained ACLU Legislative
Director Margaret Pefia, "`and the vote in
the Senate was very close - they exclud-
ed abortion funding by a vote of 21-19."
Pefia stressed that the close vote was an
indication of the impact of broad lobbying
efforts on this vital issue and noted that the
grassroots pressure will continue as long
as the Legislature continues to "flagrantly
violate women's reproductive rights and
the California Constitution."
The ACLU petition to the Court of
Appeal notes that this year's Budget Act
restrictions, like last year's, violate the
"single subject" rule of the California
Constitution. Previous rulings from the
Court of Appeal determined that the
Budget Act cannot be used as a vehicle to
substantively amend or change existing
statute law.
"Existing law - the Medi-Cal Act,
provides public funding for a comprehen-
sive range of medical services including
abortion," Crosby explained.
The 1989-90 restrictions mirror provi-
sions from the last six years. The
Legislature's restrictions includes setting
up a $14,485,000 "special financing ac-
count" for abortion services which is sep-
arate from the general fund for Medi-Cal
benefits (the Health Care Deposit Fund).
This fund is much less than needed to fund
all abortions for Medi-Cal eligible women.
The restrictions eliminate Medi-Cal
coverage for all but a tiny fraction of abor-
tions. State financing is kept only for 1)
preserving the life of the pregnant woman;
2) terminating pregnancies from rape or in-
cest (which have been reported to govern-
ment authorities); 3) abortions for
unmarried girls under 18 whose parents are
notified; and 4) abortions involving a se-
verely abnormal fetus.
Continued on page 7
Parental
Consent ...
Continued from page 1
ried teenagers under 18 to get a parent's
written approval for an abortion. As an al-
ternative, they must convince a juvenile -
court judge that they are mature enough to
give informed consent or that the abortion
is in their best interest. The law imposes
criminal penalties on doctors or clinic staff
who perform abortions on minors without
parental consent or a court order.
According to the most recent statistics
available (1985), about 34,000 teenagers
aged 17 and under have abortions in
California each year. California has the
. the
demonstration.
Webster ...
Continued from page I
mourning."
Protesters holding signs reading "Honk
If You Are Pro-Choice" elicited a steady
blaring of horns from passing motorists,
including bus drivers and cabbies. Raised
fists emerged from
car windows in a
show of support for
pro-choice
Similar demon-
strations and press
conferences were
held in cities across
the country as pro-
choice advocates
prepared for state
battles over abor-
tion laws and
braced for the next
U.S. Supreme Court session when three
more cases challenging laws restricting ac-
cess to abortion will be heard.
In California, the ACLU-NC immedi-
ately went to court on two key abortion ac-
cess issues: funding and parental consent.
"We are confident that the California
courts will continue to enforce the
California Constitution's right to privacy,"
said Crosby, "and that abortion in our state
will continue to accessible to all women
- rich or poor, young and old - despite
the U.S. Supreme Court ruling."
The ACLU-NC Pro-Choice Action
Campaign drew an unprecedented 60 acti-
vists to a July 18
meeting where
plans were mapped
out for public edu-
cation, lobbying
and grassroots orga-
nizing campaigns
for reproductive
rights in the wake
of Webster.
Campaign members
will be working on
ads and _ Public
=@@2- Service Announce-
Dick Grosboll ments on radio and
TV, tabling, speaking at various communi-
ty forums, and lobbying for the inclusion
of Medi-Cal abortion funding in next
year's state Budget Act.
(For more pro-choice activities, see the
Field Program Calendar, p. 8.)
second highest pregnancy rate for teenag-
ers and one of the highest abortion rates for
this age group.
Although new to California, parental
notification and consent statutes have been
put into effect in about 14 other states (in
another dozen states, the laws exist but.
have also been enjoined). Two ACLU
challenges to such laws - one from
Minnesota and one from Illinois - will be
argued before the United States Supreme
Court next term.
Devastating Impact
"Evidence from Minnesota,
Massachusetts, and other states where
these laws have been enforced clearly
show the devastating impact on teenagers,"
said English.
"These laws significantly increase
health risks to minors by causing necessary
medical care to be delayed and by impair-
ing the ability of health providers to give
quality care," she said. "These laws punish
young women for becoming pregnant, they
do not promote family harmony, improve
parent-child communication or help with
the teenager's decision making process."
These charges are verified by over 20
declarations included in the lawsuit from
judges who were involved in the judicial
bypass proceedings, health researchers,
psychologists, social workers, and doctors
and nurses who provide counseling and
abortions to teenagers in states where the
parental consent laws are in effect.
For example, a Minnesota nurse stated
that minors would skip school and travel a
great distance - often in unsafe conditions
and sleeping in the street or in a car - to
have their petitions heard in another county
where they would not be known. She told
of a teenager whose parents beat up her
boyfriend in an abortion clinic and later
kicked her out of the home.
The Court of Appeal panel which heard
the July 26 argument includes Justices
John Racanelli, William Stein and William
Newsom, Jr. In response to arguments
from Deputy Attorney General Elisabeth
Brandt, Justice Stein pressed her to re-
spond why judges would be any better than
doctors at assessing a minor's abortion
decision.
The July hearing in the case (American
Academy of Pediatrics v. Van De Kamp)
was held to judge the state's request to
both lift the injunction which has been in
effect for two years and to determine the
constitutionality of the law. The Court of
Appeal is expected to rule in 90 days.
Bill of Rights
Campaign to Kick Off
in September
ith a goal of $110,000 the 1989
Bill of Rights Campaign will
launch a major grassroots fund-
raising drive on September 19.
The Bill of Rights Campaign is a vital
component of the ACLU-NC Foundation
budget. Every year, through personal let-
ters and phone calls, ACLU-NC members
are asked to give a special, tax-deductible
contribution for the campaign which cul-
minates in the annual Bill of Rights Day
Celebration in December.
"These donations are crucial for the
ACLU-NC Foundation," said Campaign
chair Marlene De Lancie. "Our members'
contributions determine directly how
many cases we can handle and how much
education and outreach we can undertake
in northern California."
The Campaign relies on the generous
donation of time and energy of ACLU-NC
chapter activists and volunteers. In addi-
tion to De Lancie, returning members of
the Campaign Committee are Deborah
Doctor, Audrey Guerin, Larry Jensen,
Mike Mitchell, Louise Rothman-Riemer,
Andrew Rudiak, Tom Sarbaugh, and Doris
Thomson; new members include: Mardi
Black, Kathy Cramer, Paul Gilbert, Mark
Marlene De Lancie, Chair of the 1989
Bill of Rights Campaign.
Union Maid Photos
Hartman, Lisa Honig, Fran Strauss, JoAnn
Lewis, and Mildred Starkie.
All members are encouraged to sign up
for Bill of Rights Campaign Phone Nights
which will be held throughout the fall.
For more information, or to volunteer,
call Development Associate Sandy
Holmes at the ACLU-NC: 415/621-2493.
PG E Drops Drug
Test Results
ust weeks before the U.S. Supreme
Court ruled that railroad and airline
workers in the private sector may be
subject to random drug testing, the ACLU-
NC struck a blow against drug testing by
one of the California's largest private utili-
ty corporations.
In a June 5 settlement agreement,
`Pacific Gas and Electric Company agreed
to pay $5,600 to job applicant Cheryl
Denson who had been subject to a urinaly-
sis test by the company during a pre-
employment physical examination.
PG E did not hire Denson because
their test erroneously indicated a positive
test result. Denson, represented by ACLU-
NC staff attorney Ed Chen, knew that she
did not use drugs and therefore the test re-
sults must have been inaccurate.
Subsequent laboratory tests proved, in
fact, that the sample which tested positive
was not Denson's.
In addition to the monetary settlement,
PG E agreed to expunge any reference to
a "positive" result on the drug and alcohol'
analysis from any official records of
Denson's employment application.
In addition, the corporation agreed to
adopt a drug testing policy which insures
high testing standards and safeguards and
which allows future job applicants to chal-
lenge the results of a false positive result
by having an independent test done.
According to Chen, "At a time when
random drug testing of public and private
sector employees is becoming more and
fo
For more than half a century, the ACLU
of Northern California has fought to defend
the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Through the pages of history - redbaiting,
vigilantes, WWII internment camps, HUAC,
the Free Speech Movement, Vietnam, civil
rights, the fight for legal abortion, gay rights
and more - the ACLU has pioneered the
fight for individual liberties.
You can do something now to insure
that the ACLU will continue to fight - and
win - ten, twenty, and fifty years from now,
through a simple addition to your will.
Every year, thoughtful civil libertarians
have, through their bequests, provided im-
A Will to Give to the ACLU
=
portant support for the ACLU. In 1988, be-
quests from our supporters contributed
$75,000 for the work of the ACLU
Foundation.
Making a bequest is simple: you need
only specify a dollar gift or a portion of your
estate for the American Civil Liberties Union
Foundation of Northern California.
lf you need information about writing a
will or want additional information, consult
your attomey or contact:
Martha Kegel, Bequests
ACLU Foundation of Northern California
1663 Mission Street, Suite 460
San Francisco 94103.
aclu news
august
ACLU-NC Voices at
National Conference
mid the rolling cow-studded hills of
the Wisconsin countryside on a
ampus rich with the history of pro-
gressive activism, the ACLU held a tem-
pestuous Biennial Conference from June
15-18 at the University of Wisconsin in
Madison. The timing of the national meet-
ing - coinciding with disastrous U.S.
Supreme Court rulings in major civil rights
cases and in anticipation of the Webster de-
cision - underscored the need for the
ACLU and for even stronger civil liberties
advocacy.
A nine-member ACLU-NC delegation
represented the Northern Califomia affili-
ate at the Biennial. Several members of the
delegation and ACLU-NC staff members
led skills workshops and gave presenta-
tions on issues ranging from English Only
laws to the impact of the AIDS crisis on
civil liberties. Former ACLU-NC Chair
Davis Riemer was a member of the ACLU
Biennial Committee which planned and or-
ganized the intensive 4-day national
meeting.
ACLU-NC Biennial Conference Delegation: ( op row, L.-r.) Marsha Berzon, Eileen
The opening plenary, "Racism on the
Rise" was addressed by Stanford Law
School professor Charles Lawrence with a
presentation on "When Racism Dresses in
Sheep's Clothing: Reconciling the First
and Fourteenth Amendment." Lawrence's
presentation, which advocated regulations
to prevent minority students from being
abused by racist speech on campuses, was
responded to by ACLU General Counsel
Nadine Strossen and followed by a heated
debate in which numerous ACLU-NC del-
egates played a prominent role. This issue
is now under consideration by a special ad
hoc committee of the ACLU-NC Board.
Other plenary sessions dealt with the
controversial issues of the decriminaliza-
tion of drugs and the impact of poverty on
civil liberties; dozens of workshops were
held on issues ranging from immigrant
rights to surrogate parenting, the death
penalty, and national security. The national
ACLU Public Education Department also
launched its plans for work around the
Bicentennial of the Bill of Rights.
Siedman, Alberto Saldamando; (Center) Nancy Pemberton, H. Lee Halterman;
(Bottom row) Peggy Russell, Barbara Brenner, Beverly Tucker; (Not pictured: Judy
McCann). Union Maid Photos
more pervasive, it took extraordinary cou- e .
rage for this young woman to stand up Abortion Fund ec5e
against this huge corporation for some-
thing she knew was right.
"This case is significant because it
demonstrates that drug tests, even when
conducted by a multi-million dollar high
tech employer, are fallible. Mistakes are
made. Fortunately, we were able to demon-
strate an error had been committed in this
case. Other applicants may not be so
lucky," Chen added.
In another ACLU-NC challenge to pre-
employment drug testing, Wilkinson v.
Times-Mirror Inc., ACLU-NC cooperating
attorney Steve Mayer will argue on August
22 in the state Court of Appeal that the
publishing company's policy of conducting
drug tests for applicants for editorial and
writing positions violates their constitu-
tional right of privacy.
Continued from page 6
The lawsuit asks the court to prevent
the state from implementing the provisions
of the 1989-90 Budget Act which limit the
funding of abortions sought by Medi-Cal
recipients.
The petitioners in the lawsuit are
CDRR/CMRW, Coalition of California
Welfare Rights Organizations, Comision
Femenil de Los Angeles, Philip D. Darney,
M.D., Alan J. Margolis, M.D., Sadja
Greenwood, M.D., and taxpayer Christine
Motley.
The named defendants in the lawsuit
are the Director of Health Services
Kenneth Kizer, Controller Gray Davis and
state Treasurer Thomas Hayes.
aclu news
august 1989
Taking Liberties
A New Monthly Radio Program On Civil Liberties
Wednesday, August 30
Soe 7:00 PM
Ke . KPFA 94.1 FM
The U.S. Supreme Court Assault on
Civil Rights
with special guests
Eva Jefferson Paterson, Chair, Bay Area
Coalition on Civil Rights
Ed Chen, ACLU-NC attomey and author
of U.S.S.C. amicus brief in Richmond v.
Croson defending minority contractors
"Taking Liberties", a new radio series
on KPFA 94.1 FM explores how the Bill
of Rights affects our everyday lives.
The monthly program, hosted by
ACLU-NC Public Information Director
Elaine Elinson, includes expert guests on
drug testing, English Only laws, reproduc-
tive rights, the rise in racism on campuses,
school censorship and other cutting edge
civil liberties questions. It also features a
special section with civil liberties news up-
dates and information on how listeners can
make their voices heard on crucial civil lib-
erties issues.
Tune your radio dial to "Taking
Liberties!"
S.F. Cop Takes Photos of Refugees
for Salvadoran Government
San Francisco police officer acted
A an agent of the government of
1 Salvador when he photographed
a group of Salvadoran refugees despite
their protests at the consulate in San
Francisco on June 6, the refugees charged.
ACLU-NC Police Practices Project
Director John Crew said, "There is no jus-
tification for a San Francisco police offi-
cer to take pictures of refugees without
their consent."
Carolina Castaneda, Director of the
"No Human Being is Illegal" campaign
had organized a delegation of Central
American refugees, religious leaders and
sanctuary activists to Consul General Ana
Margarita Cuellar to deliver the results of
a survey conducted among Salvadoran ref-
ugees in five cities in the United States
concerning the situation in El Salvador.
When Castaneda objected to the
Consul General taking photos of the
group, San Francisco Police Sergeant
Frank Petuya, who was in the Consulate,
took Cuellar's camera and shot photos of
the group himself and then handed the
camera and the film to the Consul . Under
threat of arrest, the refugee delegation left
the consular offices. They came to the
ACLU to protest the police officer's
actions.
""We are very concerned about the pho-
tos," said Castaneda. "The government of
El Salvador - even more with the elec-
tion of the ARENA party - is a complete-
ly repressive regime. Many thousand
Salvadorans have been arrested, tortured
and killed simply for protesting human
rights violations."
Crew filed a complaint with the Office
of Citizen Complaints against the photo-
graphing officer and demanded the film be
returned; as a result, the film was given to
to the OCC. But when the film was devel-
oped, it contained a different roll of pic-
tures. "We still do not know where the
photos of the protestors are," said Crew.
"We fear that they may have already been
sent to El Salvador."
Knowing the conditions of repression
mendous efforts to get the original film
back. She organized a delegation which in-
cluded an aide to Congresswoman Barbara
Boxer, San Francisco Supervisor Jim
Gonzalez, and a number of religious lead-
ers to visit the Consul on July 13. When
they got to the office, they were told the
Consul was no longer there.
In addition, Congresswoman Boxer and
12 members of the California
Congressional delegation sent a letter to
Secretary of State James Baker asking him
to condemn this violation of human rights
and to initiate an investigation of the intim-
idation and violence against Salvadorans
refugees in the United States. Castaneda al-
so met with Mayor Art Agnos to discuss
the urgency of the situation.
"Anti-terrorist" Law
"We are especially worried," said
Castaneda, "because the new Consul ap-
pointed by the ARENA Party is to take
over the office on August 1. The ARENA
Party has just proposed a new `anti-
terrorism' law which calls for the arrest
and imprisonment of anyone - even out-
side El Salvador - who distributes infor-
mation about human rights violations by
the Salvadoran government.
"Even without the new law, it would be
dangerous for this film to arrive in El
Salvador. The repercussions for the refu-
gees and their families could be very seri-
ous," she added.
Ironically, the survey that Castaneda
originally brought to the Consulate showed
that among the Salvadorans living in the
United States, 79% opposed continuation
of U.S. military aid to El Salvador, 75%
believed that with the election of the
ARENA party the death squads will have
more power, and 93% considered them-
selves political refugees as a result of the
war in El Salvador.
"Although the survey results were pre-
sented to the Salvadoran Consulates in Los
Angeles, Houston, New York, and
Washington, D.C., the only problem oc-
curred here in San Francisco," Castaneda
said.
Field Program
Monthly Meetings
Chapter Meetings
(Chapter meetings are open to all inter-
ested members. Contact the chapter acti-
vist listed for your area.)
B-A-R-K(Berkeley-Albany-Richmond-
Kensington) Chapter Meeting: (Usually
fourth Thursday) No August meeting.
September meeting will be held
September 28, 7:30, (Check with contact
for location). Members are encouraged
to join the Chapter Board, help staff the
hotline, and organize activities in the
Berkeley area. Contact Tom Sarbaugh
415/428-1819 (day) or Florence Piliavin
415/848-5195 (eve.).
Earl Warren (Oakland/Alameda
County) Chapter Meeting: (Usually
second Wednesday) Contact Abe
Feinberg, 415/451-1122.
Fresno Chapter Meeting: (Meeting
days to be determined.) New members
always welcome! Contact Mindy Rose,
209/486-7735.
Gay Rights Chapter Meeting: (Usually
first Wednesday, may change in
September) Contact Doug Warner, 415/
621-3900 for September date. Annual
meeting: Sunday, September 10, 3:00-
5:00 p.m. 263 Castro Street, San
Francisco. Guest Speaker, Margaret
Crosby, ACLU Staff Counsel, on
threats to reproductive rights and impli-
cations for gay rights.
Marin County Chapter Meeting:
(Usually third Monday) No August
meeting. September meeting will be held
Monday, September 18, 7:00-8:30 p.m.,
Mill Valley Library, 375 Throckmorton
Avenue, Mill Valley. For information,
contact Jerry Ellersdorfer, 383-1074.
Mid-Peninsula (Palo Alto area)
Chapter Meeting: (Usually fourth
Wednesday) Wednesday, September 27,
8:00 p.m., All Saints Episcopal Church,
555 Waverly, Room 15, Palo Alto, to
discuss plans and prepare mailing for
Annual Meeting. Annual Meeting:
Wednesday, October 25, at 7:30 p.m.
Trinity United Methodist Church,
Mountain View, with speakers Susan
Kennedy of CARAL and Ethel Long-
Scott of the Women's Economic
Agenda Project. For more information,
contact Harry Anisgard, 415/856-9186
or Leona Billings, 415/326-0926.
Monterey Chapter Meeting: (First
Tuesday of the month) No August meet-
ing. Tuesday, September 5, 7:30 p.m.,
Monterey Library, Pacific and Jefferson
Streets, Monterey. Contact Richard
Criley, 408/624-7562.
Mt. Diablo (Contra Costa County)
Chapter Meeting: Potluck Dinner and
speaker: August 27, Sunday, 5:30,
Mount Diablo Unitarian Universalist
Church, 55 Eckley Lane, Walnut Creek.
RSVP: Mildred Starkie, 934-0557.
September meeting to be announced.
Central Contra Costa Hotline: 939-
ACLU.
North Peninsula (San Mateo area)
Chapter Meeting: (Usually third
Monday) Contact Emily Skolnick, 340-
9834.
Sacramento Valley Chapter Meeting:
(Usually second Wednesday) No
August meeting. Combined board (6:30
p.m.) and neighborhood (7:30 p.m)
meeting, September 13, at Marcia
Levy's house, 44 Farallon Circle,
Sacramento. Contact Joe Gunterman,
916/447-8053.
San Francisco Chapter Meeting:
(Usually last Monday of each month)
Monday, August 28 and September 25,
6:00 p.m., ACLU office, 1663 Mission
Street, Suite 460, San Francisco.
Contact Marion Standish, 415/863-
3520.
Santa Clara Valley Chapter Meeting:
September 5, 7 p.m., 111 North Market,
Second Floor Conference room, San
Jose. Contact Christine Beraldo, 408/
554-9478.
Santa Cruz County Chapter Meeting:
Members urgently needed to serve on
chapter board, staff hotline, help plan
chapter activities in the Santa Cruz area.
Contact Bob Taren, 408/429-9880.
Shasta County Organizing
Committee: A new ACLU-NC Chapter
is forming. All interested members in
the Shasta County area are invited to at-
tend the next meeting on August 23 at
7:30 p.m., Angelo's Pizza in Redding.
For more information, contact: 916/
241-7725.
Sonoma County Chapter Meeting:
Third Thursday of the month, 7:30 p.m.,
Roseland Community Law Office, 1680
Sebastopol Road, Santa Rosa. Contact
Judy McCann, 707/823-1667.
Yolo County Chapter Meeting: No
August meeting. Next meeting will be
Thursday, September 21, 7:30. Contact
Doug Powers, 916/756-8274.
Field Committee
Meetings
(All Field Committee Meetings listed
below will be held at the ACLU-NC
Office, 1663 Mission Street, 460, San
Francisco. For more information, con-
tact Michael Alderson 415/621-2493.)
Student Outreach Committee:
Saturday, August 19 from 10:30 a.m. to
12:30 a.m. Attention. Teachers! We
really need the participation of teachers
(all grade levels, all kinds of schools) in
the ACLU Student Outreach
Committee. Please come to the August
19 meeting, or call Michael Alderson at
the ACLU-NC Office for more
information.
Pro-Choice Action Campaign:
Tuesday, August 22 from 6:00 p.m. to
8:30 p.m.
Death Penalty Action Campaign:
Saturday, September 16 from 12:00
noon to 2:00 p.m.
in El Salvador, Castaneda has made tre-