vol. 53 (1989), no. 2

aclu new

NON-PROFIT

ORGANIZATION

U.S. POSTAGE

PAID

PERMIT NO. 4424

SAN FRANCISCO, CA

Volume Lill

March/April 1989

No. 2

Abortion Rights Battle Looms

Webster and the Future of

Reproductive Rights

by Margaret Crosby

ACLU-NC Staff Attorney

s pro-choice advocates celebrate the .

Aw year of legal abortion in the

United States, they are looking with

concern to the Court that gave America that

landmark decision, Roe v. Wade, in 1973.

The U.S. Supreme Court's announcement

in January that it will review a decision

striking down a restrictive abortion law

from Missouri, Reproductive Health Ser-

vices v. Webster, has potentially far-

reaching implications for the future of re-

productive privacy. Even more alarming,

the U.S. Solicitor General in an unusual

brief, has urged the Court to use the case as

a vehicle for reversing Roe.

Webster raises four significant abortion

issues. (1) May the state require expensive

and medically dangerous tests for late abor-

tions? (2) May the state forbid family plan-

ning counsellors from including abortion as

an option for pregnant women when the

State subsidizes the counselling? (3) May

the state forbid the performance of abor-

tions in public facilities even when the pa-

tient can pay for the procedure? (4) May

the state declare that life begins at the mo-

ment of conception and that "unborn chil-

dren have protectable interests in life,

health and well-being?"

This last point, the declaration of "fetal

personhood" has attracted the most atten-

tion, because this aspect of the law provides

the impetus for the state and federal govern-

ments' requests that the Court reevaluate its

decision in Roe. The Missouri Legislature's

statement (about "embryonic life" in the

preamble to its statute is plainly irreconcila-

ble with Roe's central premise: that the

government cannot make a decision about

when human life begins, and that this judg-

ment must be left to the conscience of an

individual woman.

A provision that enshrines legal protec-

tion for the fetus not only threatens abor-

tion, but also provides justification for other

intrusions into the lives of pregnant women

in the interest of fetal survival - for exam-

ple, forced Caesarian births, coerced fetal

surgery, incarceration of substance abusers

and limitations on work in potentially toxic

environments. Thus, a Supreme Court deci-

sion upholding the government's power to

promote fetal welfare will seriously under-

mine women's autonomy.

Continued on p. 4

The Potrero Hill Beat Goes On

oung creative writers and their

teachers at Potrero Hill Middle

School won a victory over censor-

ship in January when the ban imposed by

School Superintendent wet

Ramon Cortines on their sr

magazine, the Potrero wee

Hill Beat, was lifted. gf opts 0x00B0

After reading of the ee

ban in the San Francisco (c) oi 8* R70 os

oe

oh om S OF

Examiner, ACLU-NC eect roe ;

Executive Director Dor- Sete FG OP

Om of

Rae e aes, oP oF A?

othy Ehrlich and staff at- eS aS foe e

torney Ed Chen wrote a letter to So 3 2 eee

Cortines stating that the seizure of Seem

the magazines was "clearly unlaw- y

ful"

Citing California Education (c)

Code Section 48907 which protects

freedom of the press for public

school students and a March 1988 memo

from the state Department of Education fol-

lowing the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in

the Hazelwood case, the ACLU-NC remind-

ed Cortines that school officials in Califor-

nia "may not censor material written by stu-

dents for school publications unless it is

obscene, libelous or slanderous, or likely to

incite others to commit illegal or disruptive

acts."

Ehrlich said, "The censorship sends a

terrible message to young children. Are

Continued on page 8

1989-90 Board

Elections

As provided by the ACLU-NC by-

laws, revised in 1980, the ACLU-NC

membership is entitled to elect its 1989-

90 Board of Directors directly. The

Nominating Committee is now seeking

suggestions from the membership to fill

at-large positions on the Board.

ACLU members may participate in

the nominating process in two ways:

1. They may send suggestions for the

Nominating Committee's consideration

before April 3, 1989. (Address sugges-

tions to: Nominating Committee, ACLU-

NC, 1663 Mission Street, San Francisco,

CA 94103. Include your suggested nomi-

nee's qualifications and how the nomi-

nee may be reached.)

2. They may submit a petition of

nomination with the signatures of 15

current ACLU members. Petitions: of

nomination, which should also include

the nominee's qualifications, must be

submitted to the Board of Directors by

May 31, 1989. (20 days after the May

Continued on page 8

aclu news

march/april 1989

Food Tables Get Park Permit

Food Not Bombs activists continue to feed the hungry and distribute anti-war litera-

ture in Golden Gate Park after a long and successful permit battle.

ollowing an emotion-packed hear-

FR ing, attended by over 300 people,

the Recreation and Park Commis-

sion voted 6-1 on January 25 to allow Food

Not Bombs to distribute their food to the

homeless and their message to the public in

Golden Gate Park.

The decision followed months of often

bitter debate between supporters and oppo-

nents of the permit which allows Food Not

Bombs to have their tables of free food and

anti-war literature in a well-frequented sec-

tion of the park every Monday.

After being approached by Food Not

Bombs organizer Keith McHenry last fall,

ACLU-NC staff attorney Margaret Crosby

and Police Practices Project Director John

Crew played an instrumental role in secur-

Proposition 102

Supporters Drop Lawsuit

n attempt by supporters of the

A failed Proposition 102 to have the

courts order implementation of the

measure ended on January 25. California

voters overwhelmingly rejected the initia-

tive at the polls in November 1988.

In response to legal opposition from the

State Department of Health Services, the

California Conference of Local Health Of-

ficers (represented by the ACLU of North-

em and Southern California), and the Cali-

fornia Medical Association, Proposition

102 supporters dismissed their lawsuit.

The lawsuit (McNamee v. Kizer), filed in

Los Angeles Superior Court in October,

sought to force the Director of the Califor-

nia Department of Health Services to re-

quire that the names of all persons infected

with the virus believed to cause AIDS be

reported to the state. On December 30, the

Department of Health Services filed a mo-

tion asking the court to dismiss the action

as legally insufficient. The ACLU filed an

amicus brief backing the Health Depart-

ment on January 17 on behalf of the state-

wide organization of local county health of-

ficers. The California Medical Association

filed an amicus brief in support of dismissal

on January 20.

The plaintiffs, Lawrence McNamee,

Larimore Cummins, and California Physi-

cians for a Logical AIDS Response, the

drafters of the ballot arguments in favor of

Proposition 102, then decided to drop their

suit altogether.

"We are delighted that the plaintiffs

have decided not to pursue their misguided

efforts any further," said Jon W. Davidson,

ACLU-SC staff attorney. ""As we argued in

our brief, numerous studies have demon-

strated that mandatory reporting causes dra-

matic decreases in the number of people

willing to be tested for the virus, thereby

interfering with necessary medical supervi-

sion, scientific research, and efforts to

counsel those who are infected about how

to change their behavior so as not to put

others at risk.

"In addition," Davidson said, "designat-

ing HIV infection as a reportable disease

would be inconsistent with California's

laws mandating that AIDS test results be

kept strictly confidential, as well as our

State's financing of anonymous test sites."

According to Matthew Coles, ACLU-

NC staff attorney, the outcome is "fabu-

lous."

Coles said, "We were sure that the court

would agree with the many public health

experts - including the California Depart-

ment of Health Services, the California

Conference of Local Health Officers, the

CMA, the U.S. Surgeon General, the Cen-

ters for Disease Control and the National

Institute of Health - that mandatory re-

porting of HIV infection is bad public

health policy. But it is nice that the plain-

tiffs have simply decided to give up the

fight," he added.

ing the permit.

In an October 20 letter to the Commis-

sion, Crosby and Crew wrote, "By feeding

hungry men, women and children, Food

Not Bombs symbolically expresses its

views to the public: that extreme poverty is

widespread throughout the City, that many

people depend on charity for basic survi-

val, that impoverished people should not be

hidden away from public view, and that hu-

- man suffering results from a skewed allo-

cation of government resources.

Political message

`As a nonprofit association whose goal

is the elimination of poverty and war, all

the group's activities are integrally related,

and together they communicate a political

message. The distribution of free food to

homeless people cannot be severed from

the traditional methods of expression used

by the group," the ACLU-NC attorneys

wrote the Commission.

Crosby, who testified on behalf of Food

Not Bombs at the January hearing, ap-

plauded the Commission's decision to

grant the group a permit. "The Recreation

and Park Commission showed leadership

in recognizing that homelessness is a prob-

lem that should be addressed by every city

department.

"Food Not Bombs is an organization of

very committed volunteers who are taking

concrete steps to alleviate the problem of

hunger in this city. They were not asking

any favors from the government - the

least the government can do is to allow

them to carry out their charitable and ex-

pressive activities," Crosby added.

The permit application was also sup-

ported by the Coalition on Homelessness,

the San Francisco Catholic Archdiocese,

and many area residents. The opposition

was spearheaded by the Cole Valley Im-

provement Association.

The permit will allow Food Not Bombs

to be in the same location that they have

used since May of last year; although it is

issued for four weeks at a time, the Com-

mission will grant the permit as long as

there is a documented need.

Crosby and McHenry flagged one po-

tential problem with the Commission's de-

cision: within a year, Food Not Bombs

_ might be moved to the refurbished Kezar

recycling center area. "There might be less

foot traffic than at the current site and Food

Not Bombs depends on accessibility to the

public in order to distribute its literature,

talk with people who are interested in the

homeless and their project, and receive

much-needed donations for their work,"

Crosby explained.

But for now, Food Not Bombs is carry-

ing on its effort, with official permission.

According to McHenry, "Our name sum--

marizes our philosophy - that the plight

of the homeless is connected to military ex-

penditures. And now, the public will con-

tinue to receive that message."

The ACLU-NC had supported Food

Not Bombs in August and September of

last year when scores of members and sup-

porters were arrested while distributing

food in Golden Gate Park. After a series of

meetings between the ACLU and city offi-

-cials, Mayor Art Agnos held a press con-

ference on September 9 to announce that

the police would stop arresting the Food

Not Bombs activists and that they would be

given a temporary permit to distribute food

and literature in the park.

Homeless Rights

The ACLU-NC is part of a citywide ef-

fort in San Francisco by the Coalition on

Homelessness to advise homeless people of

their rights. Following the passage of a res-

olution on the rights of homeless people by

the San Francisco Police Commission in

November, the ACLU-NC drafted a flyer

outlining those rights which is currently be-

ing distributed around the city.

The flyer includes some key informa-

tion about the police (`Police must treat all

persons equally regardless of their econom-

ic or living condition"), about ID checks (

"You cannot be detained or asked for iden-

tification simply on the basis of your race,

sex, sexual preference, age, dress or im-

poverished appearance or because of gener-

alized complaints by residents or mer-

chants") and where to go if your rights are

violated.

Hundreds of copies of the flyers have

been distributed at rallies and other events,

and volunteers have posted them in differ-

ent areas of the city.

Copies of the flyer are free of charge.

If you can help distribute them, please

write to: Homeless Bill of Rights, ACLU-

NC, 1663 Mission St., Suite 460, San

Francisco, CA 94103.

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 Layout

1663 Mission St., 4th Floor

San Francisco, California 94103 ec

(415) 621-2488

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

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

Rin

ene

@ CimAaves [MON Counce

aclu news

march/april 1989 3

by Martha Kegel

ACLU-NC Associate Director

onations to the ACLU Foundation

D of Northern California jumped by

more than $200,000 in 1988.

Board Chair H. Lee Halterman called

the outpouring of support from 2,200 don-

ors "profoundly inspiring" and said it will

strengthen the ACLU's legal and public ed-

ucation programs for the challenges of the

next decade.

The increased giving was the result of

three fund-raising campaigns in which 200

volunteers visited and telephoned ACLU

members and other interested individuals

to ask for special tax-deductible support.

Gifts totaled $629,000 - as compared

with $425,000 in 1987.

As a result of the unprecedented suc-

cess of the 1988 campaign, the Board of

Directors has lifted a staff hiring and salary

freeze imposed a year ago. The freeze and

program cutbacks were made in the face of

a budget shortfall caused by a decline in

National ACLU fund raising, capital ex-

penditures, and other factors. (Most contri-

butions are shared between the National

ACLU and the Northern California ACLU

Foundation.)

"It's a relief to know, at a time when

ACLU-NC Grows Stronger as

Contributions Soar

abortion and so many other important

rights are under attack in the courts, that

we have the resources to fight back," Hal-

terman said. "I am very grateful to every-

one who gave money and worked hard to

make this possible."

Lawyers Council Campaign

The ACLU-NC's good fortune owes

much to the launching in 1988 of the

ACLU Lawyers Council, a 150-member

group which provides advice and financial

support to the legal program and recruits

volunteer cooperating attorneys. The Coun-

cil, which has raised $41,000 in contribu-

tions for the ACLU's legal work, is headed

by Board member David Balabanian, a

partner at McCutchen, Doyle, Brown and

Enersen.

The Major Gifts Campaign, which

raised $479,000, received a big boost in

1988 - a $25,000 challenge gift from

Ann Forfreedom (ctr.) presents a check for $25 000 to ACLU-NC Executive Director Doroth

Donation Funds Legal Internship

Union Maid Photos

Ehrlich and staff attorney Matthew Coles in memory of her brother Robert Paine.

yhen Robert Alexander Paine died

W of cancer at the age of 30, he had

just received his law degree and

was aspiring to a career in human rights.

law.

_ Now, because of a generous donation of

$25,000 presented to the ACLU-NC Foun-

dation in his memory by his sister Ann For-

freedom, other law students will have the

opportunity to study and practice civil lib-

erties law.

The donation will be used to establish

the Robert Paine Internship Fund of the

ACLU-NC Foundation. The Fund will al-

low needy students to intern with the

ACLU-NC Legal Department. ,

"My brother had been a conscientious

objector during the Vietnam War, an anti-

draft counselor at the height of the war, a

medical technician in a hospital and a law

student. He changed his name in honor of

American revolutionary Tom Paine." For-

freedom said.

"He was a gentle soul who wanted all

people's rights to be protected by law and

justice. If he had continued to live, he sure-

ly would have been supportive of work

done by the ACLU, and he might have

even worked with the ACLU," she said.

ACLU-NC Executive Director Dorothy

Ehrlich said the organization was "very

moved by and very grateful for the dona-

tion.

"Every year there are many deserving

and committed law students who want to

intern with the ACLU-NC, but are unable

to because of financial constraints.

"Because of Paine's commitment and

the generosity of his sister, the ACLU-NC

Foundation will be able to provide finan-

cial backing to such students as they learn

from the work of the ACLU," Ehrlich said.

Forfreedom added, "Robert so deeply

wanted to be an attorney working on hu-

man rights issues that he determined to live

long enough to receive his Juris Doctor

from Peoples College of Law in Los An-

geles. He did receive his law degree in

May 1979, just days before his death. The

Fund will enable many law students to

work with the ACLU. This is something

that Robert Paine would have liked, I be-

lieve," she said.

For more information on the Robert

Paine Internship Fund, please contact

Matthew Coles, Legal Department,

ACLU-NC, 1663 Mission Street, Suite

460, San Francisco 94103.

James Hormel and a $50,000 contribution

from Chester Chapin.

"These two supporters have made a tre-

mendous demonstration of confidence in

the ACLU Foundation of Northern Califor-

nia," said Dr. Milton Estes, chair of the De-

velopment Committee and the Major Gifts

Campaign. "They believe that there must

be a strong ACLU, and they have set a new

standard of giving.

"But equally important are the hundreds

of people who have come forward to sup-

port the Foundation for the first time. The

campaign owes its remarkable success to

them," Estes added.

There were 200 additional contributors

to the 1988 Bill of Rights Campaign, a

grassroots phone campaign led by Board

member Marlene De Lancie. De Lancie

and Development Associate Sandy Holmes

organized 21 volunteer phoning sessions

which raised $109,000.

_ Membership in the Founders Circle, a

group of supporters making an annual gift

of $1,000 or more, increased from 143 peo-

ple in 1987 to 174 people in 1988.

Following are the Board members and

volunteers who participated in the 1988 -

campaigns:

Major Gifts solicitors

Connie Alvarez, David Averbuck, Da-

vid Balabanian, Lorraine Bannai, Marsha

Berzon, James Blume, Max Bollock, Bar-

bara Brenner, Gordon Brownell, Michael

Chatzky, Paul Craig, Richard Criley, Mar-

lene De Lancie, Steven Dinkelspiel, Milton

Estes, Steve Fabian, Charlotte Fishman,

Stanley Friedman, Andrew Grimstad, Dick

Grosboll, Mary Hackenbracht, Lee Halter-

man, Michael Herz, Lisa Honig, Anne Jen-

nings, Larry Jensen, Len Karpman, Mar-

shall Krause, Michael Laurence, Debbie

Lee, Howard Lewis, Joanne Lewis, Tom

Lockard, Jack Londen, Ethel Long-Scott,

Gerald Marcus, Steve Mayer, Judy

McCann, Casey McKeever, Michael

Mitchell, Leigh-Ann Miyasato, Nancy

Pemberton, Wayne R. Phillips, Tom Reilly,

Davis Riemer, Andrew Rudiak, Peggy

Russell, John Rutherford, Alberto Salda-

mando, Tom Sarbaugh, Eileen Siedman,

| Northern California in January in mem-

Dan Siegel, Emily Skolnick, Ed Steinman,

Sarah Stewart, Fran Strauss, Carolyn Sy-

monds, Bill Tamayo, Doris Thomson, Bev-

erly Tucker, Douglas Warner, Howard

Watkins, Julius Young.

Lawyers Council

George Aguilar, Edward V. Anderson,

David M. Balabanian, Nance F. Becker,

Debra S. Belaga, Ann Brick, Annette P.

Carnegie, Nanci L. Clarence, Harry M.

Dorfman, G. Kip Edwards, Gary Ewell,

Robert P. Feldman, Charles N. Freiberg,

Stanley J. Friedman, David M. Furbush,

Susan J. Harriman, Martin Kassman, Jo

Ann Kingston, Barry S. Levin, Jack Lon-

den, Steven R. Lowenthal, Patricia Mayer,

Mary E. McCutcheon, Robert A. Mittel-

staedt, Karl Olson, Lynn H. Pasahow, Mi-

chael F. Ram, Kimberly Reiley, Andrea M.

Resnik, John H. Riddle, Jeffrey S. Ross,

Michael Rubin, Amitai Schwartz, John R.

Shordike, Eric J. Sinrod, Therese M. Ste-

wart, William J. Taylor, Gilda R. Turitz,

Douglas: R. Young, Julius O. Young,

Mitchell Zimmerman.

Bill of Rights Campaign Committee

Marlene De Lancie, Michael Mitchell,

Deborah Doctor, Audrey Guerin, Larry

Jensen, Jeff Perkins, Larry Jensen, Jeff Per-

kins, Louise Rothman-Riemer, Andrew Ru-

diak, Peggy Russell, Tom Sarbaugh, Doris

Thomson.

; In Memory of :

Francine Diaz

A special gift of $11,500 was pre-

sented to the ACLU Foundation of

ory of Francine Diaz, an outstanding

law student at the University of Califor-

nia at Berkeley.

Diaz, who was killed in an automo-

bile accident, was deeply committed to

the rights of women and Latinos. The

contribution in her memory was made

by attorneys Thomas Steel and David

Oppenheimer.

. J

Attention New Members!

Why hasn't my check cleared? Why

am I receiving letters and phone calls

asking me to renew my membership

when I've already renewed? Where is

my ACLU membership card?

The ACLU na-

tionwide has re-

ceived over 50,000

new memberships

within 3 months.

This unprecedented

influx of thousands

of new member-

ships in a 12-week

span overwhelmed

our capacity to pro-

cess them within

the normal time

frame.

We deeply

apologize for this

delay and appre-

ciate your commitment to helping us de-

fend civil liberties. When the dust clears in

a few weeks, we think you will be pleased

and proud to be a "Card-carrying member

of the ACLU."

_aclu news

march/april 1989

Why Reproductive

Rights is a Priority

Issue for the ACLU

he ACLU is at the forefront of ef-

: forts to maintain legal abortion,

both nationally and in California.

We view this as a priority issue, because

restrictions on reproductive freedom in-

fringe many fundamental rights at the core

of ACLU concerns.

Privacy

The decision to become a parent is so

intimate and significant that it should be

left entirely to the individual. The govern-

ment intrudes into a very private sphere

when it dictates that a pregnant woman -

must become a mother.

Equality

Laws restricting abortion violate equali-

ty principles in two significant ways. First,

the effects of restrictive laws fall most

heavily on poor and young women, who

cannot find ways to obtain safe abortions.

Second, women are relegated to a secon-

dary position in society if they lose control

over reproduction.

Religious liberty

The movement to criminalize abortion

proceeds from a definition of human life as

commencing from the moment of concep-

tion. Although scientists can describe states

of fetal development with increasing preci-

sion, they have repeatedly disclaimed any

ability to determine the humanity of the fe-

tus, which is ultimately not a scientific but

rather a religious inquiry. Thus, laws that

embody a particular view of when human

life begins promote the tenets of certain re-

ligions, violating the principle of separation

of church and state. Restrictive abortion

laws also infringe the religious liberty of

those whose faith dictates that life begins at

birth, and that abortion may be an appropri- -

ate conscientious decision for a woman

who is not prepared to be a parent.

Freedom of Expression

Opponents of reproductive choice often

pass laws that restrict speech: laws requir-

ing doctors to give distorted and medically

inaccurate counseling to promote the

state's ideology against abortion, laws that -

forbid publicly-funded family planning ~

counsellors from advising women about

abortion, and laws that restrict advertising

for contraceptives or abortion are common.

- Margaret Crosby

Abortion Rights

Fight for Privacy,

Webster and the Future of Reproductive Rights

continued from p. 1

The Supreme Court has a number of

possible avenues for decision in Webster.

First, the Court could uphold or strike

down portions of the Missouri law without

altering the fundamental analytic frame-

work of Roe v. Wade.

Second, the Court could weaken Roe's

protection of abortion, by requiring less

governmental justification for laws that

burden the abortion choice. Under Roe, the

state must show that regulations governing.

abortion are narrowly drawn to serve a

compelling purpose. Justice O'Connor has

suggested that she would be willing to sus-

tain restrictive abortion laws that are de-

signed to promote a legitimate state interest

(which would include the encouragement

of childbearing.)

Third, the Court could overrule Roe and

allow states to impose any regulation - in-

cluding an outright criminal ban - of

abortion.

Will the Court overrule Roe?

The concern of many pro-choice advo-

cates stems from the appointment of Justic-

es Scalia and Kennedy, who have not yet

had an opportunity to decide any abortion

case. The most recent Supreme Court deci-

sion (American College of Obstetricians and

Gynecologists v. Thornburgh) reaffirmed

Roe by a narrow S-4 margin in 1986. In ad-

dition, Justice Blackmun, the author of Roe

and its most committed champion, an-

nounced his belief that a majority now ex-

ists to reverse that decision in an unusual

public statement last summer.

On the other hand, reversal of Roe

would be truly momentous. While the

Court's opinions routinely affect the scope

of constitutional rights, a decision to elimi-

nate a fundamental right altogether would

be a uniquely disruptive event - particu-

larly where exercise of the right has such

important consequences for an individual.

Twenty million women have obtained safe,

legal abortions in the years since Roe. Re-

versal of Roe would take this country back

17 years and create a public health crisis. It

would also unleash chaos in state legisla-

tures and throughout the state judiciary.

Plainly, this is not a step that the Court -

whose institutional function is to promote

stability in the society - would take light-

ly.

The "moderate" course supported by

Justice O'Connor, which would lower the

constitutional standard for regulating abor-

tion, would appear far less dramatic to the

public than a reversal of Roe. However, a

decision shifting the analytic framework for

regulation will allow states far greater lati-

tude to enact restrictive abortion laws such

as waiting periods, distorted counselling,

expensive tests, parental or spousal consent,

and committee approval.

The result will be decreased access to

abortion by the most vulnerable women -

poor and young women - who can neither

afford the increased cost associated with

burdensome regulations nor successfully

navigate through cumbersome procedural

hurdles to obtain an abortion. This route

would also create tremendous uncertainty in

the law, since it would not completely erase

federal constitutional protection of abortion

rights. Although Roe has its critics, its stan-

dards are easily ascertainable and have

created remarkable uniformity in lower fed-

eral courts - cutting across ideological

lines - in abortion jurisprudence.

Abortion rights in California

Should the Supreme Court overrule Roe,

abortion would remain a fundamental right

in California, protected by the privacy pro-

vision (Article I, Section 1) of our state

Constitution.

This year marks the 20th anniversary of

the California Supreme Court's recognition

of abortion as a fundamental right. The

Court struck down California's criminal

abortion law in 1969 (People v. Belous) and

most of the restrictive eligibility criteria of

the state's Therapeutic Abortion Act in

1972 (People v. Barksdale). In addition, the

Court squarely grounded the right to abor-

Latest Edition

productive rights in this state.

productive choice.

Francisco, CA 94103.

How Do I Make My Choice?

- Brochure on Reproductive Rights

As the attack on women's reproductive rights again comes to the forefront

of the nation's political agenda, the ACLU-NC has just published an updated

edition of our popular brochure on reproductive rights in California.

The publication How Do I Make My Choice? Questions and Answers about

Abortion, Birth Control, Sterilization and Reproductive Rights in California pro-

vides clear and concise answers to immediate questions about the law and re-

The brochure has just been revised to reflect current law and policy in Cali-

fornia. Over 10,000 copies of the brochure have been distributed since it was

first published in 1982. Drawing upon the ACLU's long experience in litigation,

lobbying and grassroots organizing, the publication is a useful tool for schools,

clinics, women's centers and any individual confronting the legal options of re-

Individual orders are free of charge, bulk orders are $5.00 for 20 brochures.

To order, write: Pro-Choice Brochure, ACLU-NC, 1663 Mission Street, San

=

a

ts Battle Looms:

y, Fight for Choice

OR AN FANG AANA 7) Ev

tion in the privacy clause of the state Con-

stitution in its 1981 decision forbidding the

government from eliminating abortion from -

the Medi-Cal program - a decision that

departed from federal law (Committee to

Defend Reproductive Rights v. Myers).

Still, California's pioneering history in

legalizing abortion, and its independent

constitutional foundation for reproductive

choice, should not be reason for compla-

cency in this state. Reversal of Roe would

create uncertainty about whether sections

of California's Therapeutic Abortion Act

that were not invalidated in 1972(for exam-

ple, a 20-week limitation on abortion and a

requirement that all abortions be performed

in hospitals) would become enforceable,

and, if so, whether they could survive scru-

tiny under Article I, Section 1. (The entire

statute is still on the books as a section of

~ the Health and Safety Code, including provi-

sions struck down in 1972, because the

Legislature has neither repealed the invalid

sections of the Act nor enacted a law con-

sistent with Roe's federal constitutional

standards.)

Moreover, there would undoubtedly be

pressure on the Legislature to enact new

abortion restrictions, leading to court chal-

Continued on page 8

Join the Pro-Choice Action Campaign

efending the right to choose will

`take a lot of hard work and a wide

range of activities. Here are some of

the ways that you can get involved:

Speak Out!

- Join the Pro-Choice Action Commit-

tee on Thursday, April 6 for our Speakers'

Bureau Training Session. We will provide

updated analyses, speech outlines and other

written materials, and opportunities to test

out new arguments.

We need lawyers, educators, students,

health professionals, business people, acti-

vists and others; women and men from a

variety of backgrounds, occupations and

geographic locations with an understanding

of the ACLU's position on this issue and a

commitment to speaking to a range of or-

ganizations and groups. |

You must pre-register in order to attend,

so please call Marcia Gallo at 415/621-

2493 by March 31.

Sign Up!

- We will be gathering names and do-

nations for Signature Ads, to be placed in

major northern California newspapers in

the spring and summer of this year, focus-

_ ing on upholding the right to choose. Work

with us to make these ads truly representa-

tive of the pro-choice sentiment in northern

California.

- We need members who want to or-

ganize ACLU contingents for the April 2

March for Women's Equality and Wom-

en's Lives in San Francisco and the April 9

National March for Women's Equality in

Washington, D.C.

- If you are interested in helping with

clinic defense work, let us know and we

will coordinate with other groups against

Operation Rescue.

Write On!

We must keep public attention focused

on the importance of keeping abortion safe,

legal, and accessible. Join our campaign to:

- Lobby state legislators so that this

year's Budget Act will include full Medi-

Cal funding for abortions for poor and

young women;

- Ask our state legislators and Con-

gressional representatives to publicly

pledge their support for Roe v. Wade.

- Insure that daily newspapers, weekly

publications and monthly magazines con-

tain articles, editorials, letters to the editor,

and Op-Ed pieces about the benefits to

women's lives and everyone's right to pri-

aclu news

march/april 1989 5

threatened. Let us hear from you as soon as

possible. Fill out the coupon below and re-

turn it to:

vacy that the Roe v. Wade decision repre-

sents - and the danger of turning the clock

back on abortion.

Pro-Choice Action Campaign

ACLU of Northern California Mis-

sion St., Suite 460 :

San Francisco, CA 94103

(For further information, please con-

We can not sit silently by while one of _ tact Field Representative Marcia Gallo

our most basic - and hard-won -rightsis at 415/621-2493.) :

Ie Fe eS

Now is the time.

YES! You can count on me to help defend reproductive rights.

I am interested in: (Check as many as you like)

_____ Speakers' Bureau Training (Thursday, April 6 at 6 PM)

___ Signature Ad organizing

____ Organizing ACLU contingents for marches

_____ April 2, San Francisco

_____ April 9, Washington, D.C.

Lobbying state legislators, Congressional representatives

Clinic defense

Public education/media

Other activities

Name

Address

City ZipCode

Telephone (day) (eve)

The best time to reach me is

Together we can make a difference!

Oe a

aclu news

march/april 1989

The Death ogi in California

by Martha Kegel

ACLU-NC Associate Director

California. The Attorney General pre-

dicts that California will gas its first

prisoner in 22 years.

Moreover, recent trends indicate that

California may be quickly approaching the

Crisis situation found in southern states.

Since Governor George Deukmejian led a

successful campaign in 1986 to oust three

justices he considered "soft" on the death

penalty, his reconstituted state Supreme

Court has moved death penalty cases on a

frightening fast track.

The new court, dominated by Deukme-

jian appointees, affirmed 43 death sentenc-

es last year - probably the highest number

of any court in the country. In affirming the

sentences, the court has reversed recent

precedent - for example, prosecutors no

longer need to prove intent to kill as a con-

dition of imposing the death penalty.

Encouraged by the high court's actions,

prosecutors are asking for the death penalty

~ tate executions may soon resume in

in more cases. As a result, new death judg- .

ments have doubled in California - from

aS

Lh Ni K Nee

srs Fe { |

jo hi a oi |

4 eS

Howard Brody, 1967

Drawing from The Last Execution in California by offi-

cial state witness Howard Brody.

i

Myth: Execution is cheaper than

imprisonment

Fact:

@ It costs more to execute a person than

to keep him or her in prison for life.

@ Death penalty trials are complicated

and very expensive. For every death sentence,

there are 99 cases in which the state initially

asked for the death penalty but did not get it.

The death penalty diverts resources from the

prosecution of other serious crimes, from in-

-creased police protection, from victim assis-

tance programs and from public education

and drug and poverty programs that would

help prevent crime.

@ In March 1988, the Sacramento Bee re-

ported an estimate of the Attorney General's

office that each death penalty case has cost at

least $1 million to prosecute so far at both the

trial and appellate level. The Bee concluded

that taxpayers could save $90 million per year

if the death penalty were abolished tomorrow.

Myth: Race has nothing to do with capital

punishment.

Fact: ;

@ Racism is an important factor in deter-

mining who is sentenced to die. In 1987, the

U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of McCleskey

vy. Kemp, accepted the validity of a study

showing that in Georgia, even after account-

ing for more than 200 non-racial factors that

could affect sentencing, someone who kills a

white person is more than four times more

likely to be sentenced to death than if he or

she had killed a black person.

@ About 95% of those condemned to

death in the United States killed whites, even

though blacks are six times more likely than

whites to be murdered. Blacks who kill whites

are disproportionately singled out for execu-

tion. -

@ "Even people who favor capital punish-

ment should cringe as long as death means

discrimination," editorialized the New York

Times after the McCleskey decision.

Myth: The death penalty is fair.

Fact:

@ According to Amnesty International,

the factors of local politics, the poverty of the

Myths and Facts

about the Death Penalty

defendant, the race of defendant and victim,

and where a crime is committed can play a

more decisive part in determining which de-

fendants live and which dies than the circum-

stances of the crimes themselves.

@ Often, one defendant receives a death

sentence while another who has committed a

far more heinous act receives a sentence of

life in prison.

@ The United States continues to execute

the mentally retarded, the mentally ill, and

those who were under the age of 18 at the

time of their crimes.

@ In this century alone, at least 350 com-

pletely innocent people in the United States

have been convicted and imprisoned for capi-

tal crimes they did not commit; 23 of them

were executed, according to a recent study.

Myth: To be safe, we must execute

murderers.

Fact:

@ Since 1978, California has provided for

life sentences without the possibility of pa-

role. That means that the public can be as-

sured that those who commit atrocious mur-

ders and receive Life Without Parole will

never be free again; executions are not neces-

sary.

(R) Most leading supporters of the death

penalty no longer argue that it deters people

from committing crime more than imprison-

ment does. Although many scientific studies

have been carried out to try to establish

whether executions are a deterrent, Dr. Ernest

can den Haag, the foremost scholarly sup-

porter of the death penalty, says, "`...one can-

not claim ... that it has been proven statisti-

cally ... that the death penalty does deter

more than alternative penalties."

@ Executions have a brutalizing effect.

One study has shown that violent crime tends

to increase immediately following an execu-

tion.

Most of the information in this article

comes from Myths and Facts about Califor-

nia's Death Penalty, a brochure produced

by Death Penalty Focus of California. For

a free copy of the brochure, write to Death

Penalty Action Campaign, ACLU-NC,

1663 Mission Street, Suite 460, San Fran-

cisco, CA 94103.

`

18 in 1985 to 36 in 1988. The

rush of new death judgments

is Causing a shortage in the

number of attorneys compe-

tent and willing to represent

clients whose lives are literal-

ly in their hands.

California now has 221

prisoners condemned to death

- trailing only Florida and

Texas in number. Many of

i 47"

Lt a the more than 2,100 prisoners

G4 on the nation's Death Rows

are nearing the end of their

legal appeals, creating the

possibility of a frightening

polos surge in executions over ee

NS next several years.

bs By putting more than 100

/ people to death since 1983,

au the United States has become

ine one of the world's leading ex-

Pow - ecutioners.

Although the historical

trend throughout the world

has been toward abolishing

the death penalty, the U.S. re-

mains the only Western in-

-_-__ dustrialized nation still exe-

cuting its citizens.

A variety of methods are used in the

United States: hanging, shooting, electro-

cuting and poisoning. In California, prison-

ers are gassed - the method adopted by

law in 1937 to replace hangings. Since

1938, 192 men and 4 women have died in

the gas chamber at San Quentin. The last to

die was Aaron Mitchell in April 1967.

Cruel and Unusual

In 1972, the California Supreme Court

under Chief Justice Donald Wright struck

down the death penalty as cruel and unusual

punishment in violation of the state Consti-

tution. Four months later, the U.S. Supreme

Court struck down death penalty laws that

gave juries too much discretion. California

struck back, enacting an amendment to the

state Constitution declaring that the death

penalty was not cruel and unusual punish-

ment.

After the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated

the death penalty in 1976 under laws that

allowed for guided discretion by juries, the

California Legislature enacted a new death

penalty law in 1977. An even more expan-

sive death penalty law was enacted by the

Briggs Initiative which was on the state

ballot in 1978.

Political gain

The recent history of the death penalty

in California has been characterized by pol-

iticians' use of the issue for political gain.

Governor Deukmejian's career, as legisla-

tor, attorney general and governor, was

built on the death penalty. Democrats, too,

have jumped on the band wagon. Two

years ago, Assemblymember Tom Hayden

and Lieutenant Governor Leo McCarthy

stunned the state Democratic Party Con-

vention by signing a letter urging their col-

leagues to promote the death penalty as a

way of showing that the Democrats are

tough on crime.

In explaining his change of heart on

capital punishment, McCarthy said, "I am

satisfied that there is such roaring injustice

as the system now works that the death

penalty is a fair option."

ACLU Opposition

The ACLU opposes the death penalty

as cruel and unusual punishment. It is ra-

cially discriminatory, arbitrary, and im-

posed almost exclusively on the poor. Erro-

neous executions of the innocent cannot be

corrected.

Because of the crisis we are facing in

California, the ACLU-NC recently esta-

blished the Death Penalty Project, directed

by attorney Michael Laurence, which raises

legal challenges and provides a reasoned

public voice against the death penalty. In

addition, the Field Program is launching a

Death Penalty Action Campaign that will

focus on educating ACLU members about

the death penalty and involving members

in activities to oppose executions in Cali-

fornia.

If you would like to participate in the

Death Penalty Action Campaign, please .

contact Field Director Marcia Gallo,

-ACLU-NC, 1663 Mission St., Suite 460,

San Francisco, CA 94103 or call 415/621-

2493.

Language Rights

Conference Tapes

video series on a wide range of top-

ics concerning the English Only

movement is now available for use

by language scholars, legal authorities,

journalists, community and civil rights acti-

vists and public officials who are concerned

about this issue of growing national impor-

tance.

The video series was developed out of

the Conference on Language Rights and

Public Policy which was held at Stanford

University in April last year. The ACLU-

NC helped organize the national conference

in the wake of California's Proposition 63

- the English Only initiative - and the

prospect of a federal English Language

Amendment.

According to ACLU-NC staff attorney

Ed Chen, "The recent sharp growth in

`English Only' legislation and voter initia-

tives has brought language policy questions

to center stage in the American political

scene for the first time since the beginning

of the century. It is clear that there is a

widespread need for information about lan-

guage rights among both the public and

those with a professional interest in the is-

sue."

The 11-volume video series includes

sessions on topics including: social and his-

torical background of the official language

movement, bilingual education, legal and

constitutional implications, public attitudes

toward language policy, international poli-

cies (e.g., the Canadian situation) and orga-

nizing a response to the official language

movement. The tapes are available on VHS

or Beta.

For a complete listing of the tapes and

cost information, please call Carl Miller at

415/464-1926 or write to RAM Industries,

1255 Post Street, Suite 625, San Francisco,

CA 94109.

ector Maldonado was working at

H Point St. George Fisheries in Santa

Rosa on April 27, 1982 when INS

agents raided the plant as part of their na-

tionwide sweep called "Operation Jobs."

Six years later, in a somber courtroom at

U.S. District Court in San Jose, Maldonado

recounted the chaotic, terrifying scene.

"INS agents were blocking all the

doors," said Maldonado through a court in-

terpreter. "Many of the women workers

were running and crying." Maldonado was

arrested, physically pushed and thrown into

a van.

_ Maldonado is one of 100 witnesses who

are testifying in the trial of Pearl Meadows

Mushroom Farm vy. Nelson, a massive law-

suit charging that INS agents violated the

constitutional rights of workers and em-

_ ployers during Operation Jobs and subse-

quent workplace raids.

The trial, which began on January 3 be-

fore Judge Robert P. Aguilar, is expected

to last for several more months. The law-

suit is being tried by attorneys from the

ACLU-NC, the Employment Law Center

of the Legal Aid Society of San Francisco

(ELC), MALDEF, California Rural Legal

Assistance and the law firm of Orrick, Her-

rington and Sutcliffe on behalf of five em-

ployers and hundreds of workers of His-

panic origin in northern California.

- Trial Reveals INS Abuses

Beaten and Arrested

Witness Ramon Estrada, a 57-year old

worker at a mushroom planting company

near Half Moon Bay, testified that during a

1982 raid INS agents pulled him out of his

car and beat him. Estrada said that although

he showed the agents legal identification,

he was one of 70 Latino men to be loaded

onto a bus and taken from his worksite of

14 years. His identification was confiscat-

ed. ce

Estrada said that he was handcuffed and

smashed three times against a police car.

He said that at the INS detention center in

Alameda, the agents pushed his face to-

ward dog feces and said, "This is what you

are." He was detained for three days, and

released.

ELC attorney John True said the agents

may have tried to "make an example" of

Estrada because he had demanded to speak

to his lawyer and may have been urging

others to do the same.

Speaking at a press conference follow-

ing his testimony, Estrada stated, "We have

ACLU-NC Leader (c)

Ernest Besig Honored

Leandro draftsman, sat in the county

jail - he had been arrested for refus-

ing to obey an order which led to the in-

ternment of 120,000 Japanese Americans.

When told he had a visitor, Korematsu

recalls, he could not imagine who it was.

I n June, 1942 Fred Korematsu, a San

orematsu (1.) and former

re

than either man could have imagined at

their first meeting - Besig was honored

with the first Fred Korematsu Civil Rights

Award on January 26.

The award was presented to Besig, who

was Executive Director of the ACLU-NC

from 1936 to 1971, by Korematsu and

-NC Executive Director Ernie Besig remember

a lonesome battle against the internment of Japanese Americans.

All of his friends and relatives had been re-

located. -

His visitor was Ernest Besig, director of

the ACLU of Northern California and a

fierce advocate for justice. Besig wanted to

represent Korematsu in his courageous defi-

ance.

The 24-year old Korematsu, who had al-

ready been labeled a "Jap Spy" in newspa-

per headlines, agreed.

"He looked like a person I could depend

on," Korematsu remembers, "The way he

talked, I felt I could trust him. It floored me

because at the time racial prejudice was

pretty strong, especially against Japanese

Americans.

"He was sticking his neck out for me,"

Korematsu said.

And for sticking his neck out - further

Dennis Hayashi, staff attorney of the Asian

Law Caucus on behalf of the the Fred Kore-

matsu Civil Rights Fund.

According to Hayashi, "The Fred Kore-

`matsu Civil Rights Fund embodies the spirit

and the vision of Fred Korematsu, his fami-

ly and the Asian Law Caucus.

"In 1942, Ernest Besig was the only per-

son to come forward and offer legal assis-

tance to Fred Korematsu after he had been

jailed. For his courage and sense of justice

in the face of opposition, Mr. Besig has

been chosen to receive the first award,"

Hayashi said.

Numerous speakers who lauded Besig

also praised the organization he led, the

ACLU of Northern California, for taking

such a strong stand against the internment

policy.

Henry Woon

a very just motive for speaking out. We

want to see that these abuses against hu-

manity are stopped."

Estrada and Maldonado's testimony has

been echoed by many witnesses who have

described detention, arrest, racial harass-

ment and the use of excessive force by INS

agents.

The suit is asking the court to issue an

injunction barring the INS from engaging

in discriminatory enforcement practices

that violate the constitutional rights of em-

aclu news

march/april 1989 7

ployers and employees to be free from un-

lawful searches and seizures as protected

by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

Defendants in the lawsuit are INS Com-

missioner Alan Nelson, INS Regional Di-

rector Harold Ezell, INS District Director

David Ilchert and Chief Border Patrol

Agent William Carter. U.S. Attorney Jo-

seph Russoniello is directly representing

the government defendants, something the

Los Angeles Times characterized as "under-

scoring the case's importance."

ACLU Argues First

Challenge to Proposition 96

n the first challenge in San Francisco

I to the provision of Proposition 96, the

ACLU-NC argued in Municipal Court

that law enforcement personnel should not

be able to require involuntary HIV testing

of a crime suspect.

The ACLU vigorously opposed Propo-

sition 96 when it appeared on the Novem-

ber 1988 ballot. The measure, which was

passed by the voters, requires HIV tests for

persons accused of certain crimes, even

where the transmission of the virus could

not possibly occur. After its passage, the

measure became part of the state Health

and Safety Code.

On January 4, 1989 Johnetta Johnson

appeared at a court hearing in San Francis-

co where she was denied custody of her

child. Johnson allegedly bit Deputy Sheriff

Evelyn Parkell as the deputy was attempt-

ing to remove her from the courtroom.

Johnson was subsequently charged with

biting the Deputy, who then petitioned for

an order requiring Johnson to undergo a

blood test to determine if she is infected

with the virus which causes AIDS.

The Deputy's petition was filed pursu-

ant to Section 199.97 of the state Health

and Safety Code, part of Proposition 96

which provides that any person who is ac-

cused of interfering with a law enforcement

officer, fire fighter or emergency medical

worker can be required to take the HIV

test.

In an amicus brief filed by ACLU-NC

cooperating attorneys Rochelle Alpert and

Ruth Borenstein of Morrison and Foerster,

ACLU-NC staff attorney Matthew Coles,

and ACLU-SC staff attorney Jon Davidson,

Besig and ACLU-NC attorney Wayne

Collins eventually took Korematsu's case

all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court,

where, in 1943, his conviction was upheld.

Over 40 years later, after arduous historical

research and legal work, his criminal con-

viction was overturned.

Besig, who has been offered but never

accepted any award in his long history

fighting for civil liberties, was typically

humble. "Certain myths get created over the

years," he said, "but it really was an excel-

lent event.

"All of the speakers were wonderful,

and they said things that I expected only

`card-carrying members' would say," he

laughed.

The event, which drew a crowd of 500,

was hosted by attorney James Brosnahan

and KPIX-TV anchorwoman Wendy Toku-

da. It included a keynote address by Con-

gressman Robert T. Matsui.

the ACLU argues that the proposed test vi-

olates Johnson's constitutional rights be-

cause there is no "probable cause to be-

lieve" that Johnson could have transmitted

the virus to the Deputy by a bite.

The ACLU brief relies on testimony

from medical experts, including some of

the leading AIDS researchers and clini-

Cians in the nation.

According to Coles, "Public health offi-

cials say that HIV is spread in three ways:

through unprotected sexual intercourse, -

through blood, and from a mother to an un-

born child. Since the AIDS epidemic start-

ed eight years ago, there has not been a

confirmed case of HIV transmission

through biting.

"Given the evidence that saliva does

not transmit HIV and the evidence that in-

fection through a cut on the skin will not

occur without exposure to infected blood,

one person biting another creates no real

risk of infection," Coles said.

The ACLU-NC argues that the pro-

posed search (HIV testing of Johnson) vio-

lates the Fourth Amendment prohibition

against unreasonable search and seizure.

"For one thing," explained attomey Boren-

stein, "the Department is seeking to force

this woman to have a test without any

showing that there is probable cause to be-

lieve that she engaged in conduct that may

have exposed the Deputy to the AIDS vi-

Tus.

"In addition," Borenstein added, "there

is no probable cause to believe that the

thing being searched for (HIV infection) -

will be found in the place being searched

- Johnson's blood. S

"A search of this nature must be based

on probable cause, not irrational fears," she

said.

"To make matters worse," Coles ex-

plained, "the test results will not be confi-

dential. According to Proposition 96, the

results go to the head of the facility where

the accused is detained and to its chief

medical officer. The statute's halfhearted

attempts to prevent more widespread dis-

closure of the test results are bound to fail

as the Deputy is free to confide her con-

cerns to family members, fellow deputies,

or, indeed, anyone at all," he added.

The ACLU is asking the court to deny

the Deputy's motion as the proposed com-

pelled HIV test of Johnson cannot be justi-

fied under any legal theory. "The Sheriff's

Department has no cause to believe that

Johnson is infected with HIV, and medical

evidence indicates that even if she were in-

fected, the alleged bite could not have

transmitted HIV to the Deputy," Borenstein

concluded.

~~

aclu news

march/april 1989

Board Elections ...

Continued from page 1

Board of Directors meeting.)

(Current ACLU members are those

who have renewed their membership

during the last 12 months. Only current

members are eligible to submit nomina-

tions, sign petitions of nomination, and

vote.)

ACLU members will select Board

members from the slate of candidates

nominated by petition and by the Nomi-

nating Committee. The ballot will ap-

pear in the June/July 1989 issue of the

ACLU News.

ARTICLE VII, SECTION 3: The fi-

nal report of the Nominating Committee

to nominate members-at-large to the

Board will be presented at the May

Board meeting. Members of the Board

7 may propose additional nominations. If

' no additional nominations are proposed

by Board members, the Board, by ma-

jority of those present and voting, shall

adopt the Nominating Committee's re-

port. If additional nominations are pro-

posed, the Board shall, by written ballot,

elect a slate of nominees with each mem-

ber being entitled to cast a number of

votes equal to the vacancies to be filled;.

the Board slate of nominees shall be those

persons, equal in number to the vacan-

cies to be filled, who have received the

greatest number of votes. The list of

nominees to be placed before the mem-

bership of the Union for election shall be

those persons nominated by the Board as

herein provided, together with those per-

sons nominated by petition as hereafter

provided in Section 4.

ARTICLE VII, SECTION 4: Any fif-

teen or more members of the Union in

good standing may themselves submit a

nomination to be included among those

voted upon by the general membership

by submitting a written petition to the

Board not later than twenty days after

the adoption by the Board of the slate of

Board nominees. No member of the Un-

ion may sign more than one such petition

and each such nomination shall be ac-

companied by a summary of qualifica-

tions and the written consent of the nomi-

nee.

Potrero Hill Beat ...

Continued from p. 1

they to learn that their candor is unaccepta-

ble, their life experiences not acceptable for

publication? Do they learn that the values

embodied in the First Amendment that they

were taught in civics class were meant only

as a classroom exercise, not for the real

world?"

The stories in the literary magazine, au-

thored by the mostly Black and Latino jun-

ior high school students, dealt with such

difficult and real life issues as prostitution,

drugs, gangs and AIDS.

Fourteen-year old Jaime Santa Maria

wrote "Dear Somebody," a short story

about drugs and suicide. "When I lived on

Folsom, I used to see people do drugs," he

wrote, "Sometimes I wanted to call the cops

and turn them in for a reward. But my mom

said they might do something to me. When

she told me that my heart would stop."

Two eighth grade students composed a

story called "Bulldog and Fastass" about

prostitutes who contracted AIDS.

When the ban was imposed, English

teacher Wendy Coyle who co-directed the

magazine project said, "Obviously, the stu-

dents have been extremely disappointed.

The message it sent to my students was

"You don't belong.""

Superintendent Cortines confiscated 700

copies of the 46-page magazines and had

them stacked in a school storage room. The

ones which had been placed in the school

library were removed.

Cortines said, "I have to think of the

school's image. It's a way of life for many

of them, but I do not believe the school

system should be encouraging or perpetuat-

ing that kind of thinking or writing."

As soon as the censorship order came

down, the Classroom Teachers Association

filed a grievance with the school district

charging "unreasonable censorship." CTA

representative Michael Story said, "This

kind of censorship is a blatant breach of ac-

ademic freedom ... [which] stifles the

learning process of our students and teach-

er creativity."

After the protests from the ACLU and

the teachers, the Superintendent reversed

his decision and allowed the Potrero Hill

Beat to be distributed.

Student author Santa Maria was ex-

tremely pleased that his work was going to

be read. "I see a lot of bad stuff happen

every day, and I wrote about it. It took me

five days worth of writing for me to get in

the magazine.

"It was wrong for them to take it

away," Santa Maria added.

Both the ACLU and the CTA will mon-

itor the school to ensure the magazine will

not be censored in the future. Another issue

is scheduled to be published at the end of

spring.

Webster and Reproductive Rights ...

Continued from page 4

lenges in which anti-choice groups would

ask the state Supreme Court to reevaluate -

the scope of the state privacy clause and its

protection for reproductive choice. Anti-

choice lawyers consistently re-argued Roe

in federal cases, and in California, they

have called for a reevaluation in the annual

ACLU-NC lawsuits brought to enforce the |

state's duty to provide Medi-Cal abortions

for poor women. In addition, anti-choice

groups might seek to place an initiative re-

stricting the state constitutional right to

abortion on the ballot. Similar election

battles over abortion have occurred in other

states.

Whatever the legal picture in California,

eliminating Roe's national constitutional

protection for abortion would be a tragedy

for American women. The country would

return to the days when abortion was legal

in some states, illegal in others. This al-

lowed affluent women to travel to obtain

safe, legal abortions, while poor and minor-

ity women found their way to emergency

rooms to recover from the serious effects of

septic, unlicensed abortions.

Restrictive abortion laws highlight the

consequences of poverty and privilege in a

society. The most vulnerable women are

the victims of repressive abortion policy,

sacrificing their health, family privacy, and

control over their destinies.

Field Program

Monthly Meetings

Chapter Meetings

(Chapter Meetings are open to all inter-

ested members. Contact the chapter acti-

vist listed for your area.)

(Berkeley-Albany-Richmond-Kensing-

ton) Chapter Meeting: (Usually fourth

Thursday) Thursday, March 23 and April

27. 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) Wednesday, April

12. Contact Abe Feinberg, 415/451-

1122,

Fresno Chapter Meeting: (Now first

Tuesday of the month) Tuesday, April 4.

Contact Mindy Rose, 209/486-7735

(eve.).

Gay Rights Chapter Meeting: (Usually

first Wednesday) Wednesday, April 5, 7

pm, ACLU office, 1663 Mission Street,

Suite 460, SF. Contact Doug Warner,

415/621-2900.

Marin County Chapter Meeting: (Usu-

ally third Monday) Monday, March 20

and April 17, 7:30 pm, Citicorps Savings,

130 Throckmorton, Mill Valley. Contact

Eileen Siedman, 415/383-0848. SPE-

CIAL BENEFIT FILM SHOWING of

"The Thin Blue Line": Sunday, April 9,

7:00 p.m., Novato Theater, 920 Grant

Avenue, Novato. Tickets are $10; $5 for

those with student ID. 25% of net pro-

ceeds will go to Randall Adams Legal

Defense Committee. For more informa-

tion, contact Gerald Ellersdorfer, 415/

243-9100 (day).

Mid-Peninsula (Palo Alto area) Chap-

ter Meeting: (Usually fourth Wednes-

day) Wednesday, March 22 and April 26,

8:00 pm, All Saints Episcopal Church,

555 Waverly, Room 15, Palo Alto. Con-

tact Leona Billings, 415/326-0926.

Monterey Chapter Meeting: (VOTE

DATE CHANGE: First Tuesday of the

month) Tuesday, April 4, 7:30 pm, Mon-

terey Library, Pacific and Jefferson

Streets, Monterey. Contact Richard Cri-

ley, 408/624-7562.

Mt. Diablo (Contra Costa County)

Chapter Meeting: (Third Thursday of

the month) Thursday, March 16 and

April 20, 7:30 pm. Contact Beverly Bor-

tin 415/934-1927.

North Peninsula (San Mateo area)

Chapter Meeting: (Usually third Mon-

day) Monday, March 20 and April 18.

Contact Ward Clark, 415/593-1260.

Sacramento Valley Chapter Meeting

(Usually second Wednesday) No meet-

ing in April, for information on May

meeting, contact Joe Gunterman, 916/

447-8053.

San Francisco Chapter Meeting: (Usu-

ally fourth Tuesday) Tuesday, March 28;

ACLU office, 1663 Mission Street, Suite

460, San Francisco. Contact Marion

Standish, 415/863-3520.

Santa Clara Chapter Meeting: (Usual-

ly first Tuesday) Tuesday, April 4. Con-

tact 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.

Sonoma County Chapter Meeting

(Usually third Thursday) Thursday,

March 16 and April 20. Contact Judy

McCann, 707/527-9381 (days).

Yolo County Chapter Meeting: (Usual-

ly third Wednesday) Wednesday, March

15 and April 19. Contact Casey McKeev-

er, 916/666-3556.

Field Committee

Meetings/

Events

Pro-Choice Action Campaign: Speak-

ers Bureau Training, Thursday, April 6,

6 PM-8:30 PM. To register, call Field

Representative Marcia Gallo at 415/621-

2493.

March with the ACLU - March for.

Women's Equality and Women's

Lives: Sunday, April 2. San Francisco

March begins at noon. For more infor-

mation, call Marcia Gallo, 415/621-

2493.

Student Outreach: Come to a"Brain-

storming Session" on Saturday, April 1

from 10 AM - 12:30 PM at the ACLU-

NC office, 1663 Mission St., Suite 460.

Contact Marcia Gallo, 415/621-2493.

Save the Date

August 19 and 20

(Saturday and Sunday)

1989 ACLU-NC Annual Conference

(Look for more information in the next issue of the ACLU News)