vol. 53 (1989), no. 5

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-