vol. 44, no. 2 (April)

Volume XLIX No. 2

new

April 1979

Two attempts -by anti-choice

organizations to choke off abortion ~

funding for poor women in California

were defeated last month by ACLU of

Northern California and co-counsel.

. The ACLU's lawsuit (Committee to

Defend Reproductive Rights v. Myers

or CDRR) to maintain Medi-Cal

payments for abortions, now awaiting

decision by the Court of Appeal, has

turned into four lawsuits filed

throughout the State of California. In

essence, the anti-choice forces turned

what was once a single lawsuit with.

clearly defined issues into a hydra-

headed monster.

But they failed to block the funding

because of the successful defense

prepared by Northern California

ACLU's | staff counsel, Margaret

Crosby, with Youth Law Center at-

torney Pauline Tesler and Equal Rights

Advocate attorney Joan Graff, assisted

by Donna Van Diepen, Evie Baron,

Bonnie Cherrin, and Marcia Gallo of

ACLU's staff, who worked four solid

days - and nights - preparing the

challenge to the court order. Along the

`Pro-Life Council, Inc. vy.

way, they were given legal research,

strategy suggestions, and moral support

by ACLU-NC staff attorneys Alan

- Schlosser and Amitai Schwartz and

-ACLU-NC_ Board members Charles -

Marson and Jerome Falk.

The machinations of the suits are

very complicated, but here is what

happened:

The pro-lifers' first attempt to stop

the flow of funds is called California

Court of

Appeal. The pro-lifers asked the

California Supreme Court to dissolve

the Court of Appeal: order, which

maintains funding, until the Court of

Appeal hands down its decision on the

legality of the Legislature's attempt to

withdraw Medi-Cal funding for most

abortions. They argued that budget

~matters are entrusted solely to the

Legislature under the California

Constitution, and that because the

Legislature specifically decided not to

subsidize most abortions in 1978-79,

the Court of Appeal(or any other court)

had no power to use money from the

state treasury to fund abortions.

- Southern California)

Legislature meant to

Abortion Funding Maintained

The ACLU-NC and its co-counsel

(San Francisco Neighborhood Legal

Assistance Foundation's Women's

Litigation Unit, the National Center for

Youth Law, Equal Rights Advocates,

the Mexican-American Legal Defense

and Education Fund and the ACLU of

opposed the

petition; pointing out that while the

stop public

financing for abortions, it did in fact

appropriate funds for abortion services

_ by awarding over one billion dollars in a

lump sum to the Medi-Cal program.

The ACLU argued that this money can _

be used for any lawful purpose;

abortion is a lawful procedure;

therefore, abortion can be financed

from the general

propriation. -

Moreover, a court has both the power

and the duty to strike down any un-

constitutional law. - including an

appropriations measure - if it violates

the Constitution. The Budget Act of.

1978's omission of funds for abortion (c)

Constitution - in

continued on page 7

does violate the

Voluntary Patients Gain cd Consent

`Mental patients have won an im-

portant .concession as the State of

California has agreed that public and

- private mental health care agencies

must have the informed consent of

voluntary patients before administering

mind-altering drugs. .

The case Vamison v. Department of

Health of the State of California), filed

_ by the ACLU of Northern California in

February of 1978, seeks to stop forced

administration of such controversial

drugs as thorazine, prolixin, and

stelozine (major tranquilizers called

psychotropic or neuroleptic drugs).

These drugs may cause reduction of

hallucinations, delusions, and social

withdrawal, but in many cases they also ~

cause apathy, severe disorientation,

permanent brain damage, and even

death.

Jamison contends that the plaintiffs

have a constitutional right of privacy

which guarantees their right to refuse

psychotropic medication; that they are -

being involuntarily subjected to the

administration of mind-altering drugs;

and that they have been denied their

consensual | medication with

psychotropic drugs.

. "Similar suits challenging the use of

drugs with dangerous and permanent

side effects without the patients'

consent are popping up all over the

country, but none of them has the

magnitude of this case, which affects

every mental in-patient and out-patient

in every mental health care facility in

California,'' said Mort Cohen, North-

ern California ACLU cooperating attor-

ney.

""While we have gained informed

consent for voluntary patients, the

battle is far. from won,'' Cohen said.

"The Department of Mental Health

maintains that the courts are making

the medication decision for those

patients committed involuntarily. We

know that ae cons are not making

those decisions, and we intend to

continue fighting for the rights of in-

voluntary patients."

Cohen said that in June of 1978, Uni-

ted States District Court Judge William

H. Orrick ordered the ACLU of North--

ern California and the Department of

Mental Health to negotiate until there

was a settlement.

"The most important step so far is

that the. State has agreed with us that

health care agencies, both public and

private, must tell voluntary patients the

bad as well as the good effects of these

drugs and get the patients' permission

before using them," reported Cohen,

Golden Gate Law School professor.

Cohen notes that for the first time,

the State is willing to concur with the

es that at least one of the effects

coutonied on page- 8

Medi-Cal ap--

. business

Free Speech

Comes to the

Suburbs

The political `"`No Tresspassing"'

signs around California's shopping

centers are coming down. The State

Supreme Court ruled on March 30 that

privately owned malls are not immune -

to free speech and petition provisions of

the California Constitution:

"Californians migrating to the

suburbs no longer haye to leave their

free speech rights behind," commented

Dorothy M. Ehrlich, executive director

for the ACLU of Northern California.

"Now, for example, people protesting

nuclear power plants will be able to

hand out literature and pass petitions in

places where huge numbers of

Californians shop. Students opposed to

United States investments in South

Africa. can make their views known

outside banks located in suburban

malls,'' Ehrlich said.

The Court's decision, written an

J ustice Frank C. Newman, arose from a

November

1975, incident at the

Pruneyard Shopping Center in Santa

Clara County.

Two high school students and a

teacher were stopped by guards from

soliciting signatures on a petition

opposing the United Nations' resolution

equating Zionism with racism. The

students and the teacher left without a

fight, but later took their case to the

Santa Clara Superior Court which ruled

against them: The decision was reversed

`in Robins vy. Pruneyard Shopping Cen-

ter by the California Court of Appeal ir in

- January, 1978.

In reversing the Court of Appeal, the

_ state Supreme Court recognized the

special and increasjngly important role.

that shopping centers play in the public

lives of Californians. ".... Central

districts apparently have

continued to yield their functions more

and more to suburban centers... The

largest segment of the country's

population is likely to spend the most

- continued on page (c)

Gov't. Must.

Open Records

The latest round in litigation brought.

~ by the Northern California Police Prac-

Ira Glasser, Execu-

- tive Director of the

' national office of

the ACLU will be

~ in San _ Francisco

_. April 26 meeting the

local news media,

_ ACLU staff, Board

, of Directors, and

chapter leaders.

rights to privacy, freedom of speech,

thought, and to generate ideas free

from state control, manipulations, or

interference. The case also states that

voluntary and involuntary patients are

being denied equal protection to choose

their own treatment as other patients

do; that their right to due process is

being denied; and that the Eighth

Amendment protects them from non--

a

tices Project and the ACLU seeking dis-.

closure of California Highway Patrol

operating directives led to a decision by

the California Court of Appeal in

March which takes the California

Public Records Act two step forward,

and one step back. -

The court held that four a of docu-

ments sought by the Project and the

monic on page 7

- 2 aclu news

( 4 Call to Action

Proposals currently before

Congress to reactivate the selective

service system and to reinstate the

draft are the target of an intensive

lobbying effort by the ACLU. It's a

deja vu on the part of many ACLU

members. .

ACLU's founding and its hic

of more than 60 years is peppered

with accounts of our involvement in

defense of those who have personally

came in the 60s when the ACLU

sought to abolish "`peacetime"' draft.

As the momentum to bring back

military conscription increases, it is

important to recall the wisdom

underlying our longstanding

position. The late Marvin

view:

It is difficult to conceive of an

activity of government which im-

poses more total - indeed, totali-

tarian - controls on the citizen

than a military draft. The right to

reside where one wishes; to pursue

an education; to select one's own

employment, and to negotiate

working conditions through col-

lective bargaining; to travel or not

marry and raise a family - all of

these are destroyed by a draft ...

A military draft system exists,

in its essence, because a govern-

ment asserts the power to compel

its citizens to learn to kill, and,

when ordered, to kill other human

beings, as a matter of national

policy. This is the ultimate power

of Leviathan over the individual.

Proposals Before Congress

The all-new "bring-back-the-draft"'

movement began last fall when con-

: `the all-volunteer forces surfaced.

Court-martial |

Challenged

The ACLU of Northern California

filed a complaint March 6 asking the

U.S District Court in San Francisco to

declare a court martial conviction

unconstitutional in a "homosexual

sodomy case.

Lt. Joseph Hatheway, - having

served four years with the Army, was

ten days away from being honorably

discharged when the charges of sexual

misconduct with an enlisted man were

brought against him. Hatheway was

convicted by a court-martial, and his

military appeals were denied by the

U.S. Army Court of Military Review

and the U.S Court of Military Appeals.

The ACLU's complaint, filed in the

first non-military court to be asked to

hear the case, alleges that Lt.

Hatheway's court martial conviction

should be struck down because it was

based upon unconstitutional grounds,

including abridgement of privacy and

sexual privacy, and Saat ony

prosecution.

Christopher Coates, Hatheway S legal

counsel during the. court-martial in

Germany and now with the ACLU's

battle which may prompt a sense of |

objected to the draft. The big push -

Karpatkin, General Counsel to the

national ACLU well articulated that |

_ as one desires and can afford; to ~

flicting reports about the success of

- Return of the Draft

by Dorothy M. Ehrlich,

Executive Director

The Department of Defense claimed |

that the volunteer army is a success;

the General Accounting Office claim-

ed that the All-volunteer Force

would not be able to meet the per-

sonnel needs of the Pentagon in a

time of rapid mobilization.

Whatever their motives, the 96th

Congress began moving rapidly to-

ward some sort of peacetime con-

scription. First, Representative

Charles Bennett (D-FL) introduced a

bill, H.R. 23, which would require

universal Selective Service registra-

tion and to study the feasibility of

bringing back conscription. Senators

Robert Byrd (D-WV) and Sam Nunn

(D-GA) introduced a similar bill, S.

109, authorizing registration.

Representative Sonny Montgom-

ery (D-MS) then introduced H.R.

1901, which not only would register

every man and woman when they

reach age 18, but would also author-

ize the induction of up to 200,000

draftees each year into the

Individual Ready Reserves. Finally,

Representative Pete McCloskey (R-

CA) introduced H.R. 2206; under

' this proposal a person reaching the

_age of 18 would have four options: 1) |

two years of military service; 2). six

months of active duty, followed by 5

1/2 years in the military reserves; 3)

one year of civilian service; or 4) six

years of eligibility in a draft lottery.

The Computer As A

Peacetime Weapon

As alarming as the draft itself are

the proposals to gear up the drafting

aparatus. The current plans envision

the' creation of an instant pool of po-

tential inductees by matching IRS,

Social Security, and other govern-

ment files with high - school

graduation and voter registration

records. Althoughsthis plan may en-

tail a very simple computer program,

it creates an awesome threat to indi-

Southern Regional Office, will argue

that not only are sexual acts between

consenting adults protected by the

Constitution, but that Hatheway was

convicted of violating a section of the

Military Code prohibiting all acts of

sodomy which was never enforced

against heterosexuals, thereby denying

homosexuals equal protection of the

laws.

The complaint, filed in California

because Hatheway recently moved here,

also charges that the government

illegally used electronic and non-

electronic surveillance against both the

defendant and his attorneys. (In

another ACLU case -against the

government, the evidence proved that

the Army surreptitiously spied on the

Lawyers Military Defense Committee,

an ACLU project in Germany in which

co-counsel Coates worked at the time.)

Hatheway is currently a student at

the Monterey Institute of International

_ Studies and will graduate in June with a

master's degree in European history.

He has been accepted into the PhD

program at the University of Wisconsin

where he will specialize in the history of

civil liberties' abuses of Germany's

Third Reich.

oS

ye

Yo! ack

i a. oO x ;

bs C 7 Ae

a = FQ fz yen

te yf 6h)

A Stee 4 `| ea ;

Pe y y ek yf

Re i

Recs . B

ose 1

ACLUN_1946 ACLUN_1946.MODS ACLUN_1947 ACLUN_1947.MODS ACLUN_1948 ACLUN_1948.MODS ACLUN_1949 ACLUN_1949.MODS ACLUN_1950 ACLUN_1950.MODS ACLUN_1951 ACLUN_1951.MODS ACLUN_1952 ACLUN_1952.MODS ACLUN_1953 ACLUN_1953.MODS ACLUN_1954 ACLUN_1954.MODS ACLUN_1955 ACLUN_1955.MODS ACLUN_1956 ACLUN_1956.MODS ACLUN_1957 ACLUN_1957.MODS ACLUN_1958 ACLUN_1958.MODS ACLUN_1959 ACLUN_1959.MODS ACLUN_1960 ACLUN_1960.MODS ACLUN_1961 ACLUN_1961.MODS ACLUN_1962 ACLUN_1962.MODS ACLUN_1963 ACLUN_1963.MODS ACLUN_1964 ACLUN_1964.MODS ACLUN_1965 ACLUN_1965.MODS ACLUN_1966 ACLUN_1966.MODS ACLUN_1967 ACLUN_1967.MODS ACLUN_1968 ACLUN_1968.MODS ACLUN_1968.batch ACLUN_1969 ACLUN_1969.MODS ACLUN_1969.batch ACLUN_1970 ACLUN_1970.MODS ACLUN_1970.batch ACLUN_1971 ACLUN_1971.MODS ACLUN_1971.batch ACLUN_1972 ACLUN_1972.MODS ACLUN_1972.batch ACLUN_1973 ACLUN_1973.MODS ACLUN_1973.batch ACLUN_1974 ACLUN_1974.MODS ACLUN_1974.batch ACLUN_1975 ACLUN_1975.MODS ACLUN_1975.batch ACLUN_1976 ACLUN_1976.MODS ACLUN_1976.batch ACLUN_1977 ACLUN_1977.MODS ACLUN_1977.batch ACLUN_1978 ACLUN_1978.MODS ACLUN_1978.batch ACLUN_1979 ACLUN_1979.MODS ACLUN_1979.batch ACLUN_1980 ACLUN_1980.MODS ACLUN_1981 ACLUN_1981.MODS ACLUN_1982 ACLUN_1982.MODS ACLUN_1983 ACLUN_1983.MODS ACLUN_1983.batch ACLUN_1984 ACLUN_1984.MODS ACLUN_1985 ACLUN_1985.MODS ACLUN_1986 ACLUN_1986.MODS ACLUN_1987 ACLUN_1987.MODS ACLUN_1988 ACLUN_1988.MODS ACLUN_1989 ACLUN_1989.MODS ACLUN_1990 ACLUN_1990.MODS ACLUN_1991 ACLUN_1991.MODS ACLUN_1992 ACLUN_1992.MODS ACLUN_1993 ACLUN_1993.MODS ACLUN_1994 ACLUN_1994.MODS ACLUN_1995 ACLUN_1995.MODS ACLUN_1996 ACLUN_1996.MODS ACLUN_1997 ACLUN_1997.MODS ACLUN_1998 ACLUN_1998.MODS ACLUN_1999 ACLUN_1999.MODS ACLUN_ladd ACLUN_ladd.MODS ACLUN_ladd.bags ACLUN_ladd.batch add-tei.sh create-bags.sh create-manuscript-bags.sh create-manuscript-batch.sh fits.log a.

Theyve goT your number...

vidual privacy. ao

In fact, Senators Byrd and Nunn's

bill, which authorizes registration

procedures, also require an exemp-

tion of the Selective Service from the

federal Pag) Act.

ACLU Takes Action

The ACLU began taking action to

stop the ``bring-back-the-draft

movement" in February. In hearings

before the House Armed Services

Committee, ACLU's capitol hill lob-

byists claimed that all of the

proposals being presented to Con-

gress are unconstitutional, at least in

peacetime. They testified that the

draft results in such a severe depriva-

tion of freedom that it can only be

justified by an overwhelming

national necessity. And no such

showing has been made.

The groundwork is being laid. for

an aggressive nationwide campaign

to again stop the draft. A legislative

alert has gone out to all fifty ACLU

affiliates to urge participation in the

Job Openings

campaign to prevent the reinstate-

ment of the selective service. To find

- minorities are encouraged to apply.

vay

out what members of Congress are

thinking, affiliates throughout the

country will join in this effort. ACLU

chapters in northern California will

meet with their Representatives in

Congress when they return to their

districts during the spring break.

Our Washington office is predict-

ing an uphill battle which will

require the participation of an un-

precedented number of our members

to spread-the special message which

civil libertarians bear on this subject.

And we must move quickly; bills

calling for various sorts of draft -

and/or conscription are expected to

reach the floor of oustes: in May

and June.

To find out how you can partici-

pate, please call Michael Miller at

(415) 777-4545. Or drop me a note.

You'll be hearing a great deal more

about this issue in the coming year,

and your participation can have a

decisive effect on the outcome.

ae,

Fund Raiser

The ACLU of Northern California

is seeking an experienced Develop-

ment Director to recruit new mem-

bers, help retain current members,

direct special benefits events, devel-

op foundation. grants, and coordinate

special gifts campaigns. Women and

Call 777-4545 for application proce-

dures. -

eicly news |

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

August-September and November-December

Second Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, California

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Drucilla Ramey, Chairperson Dorothy Ehrlich, Executive Director

Kelly Stark, Editor _

ACLU NEWS (USPS 018-040) : ig |

814 Mission St. - Ste. 301, San Fi rancisco, California 941 p77 77-4545

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

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

. Putting staff counsel Margaret Crosby's by-lineon a March ACLU

News story she didn't write made it look like she was quoting her-_

self. Apologies to Ms. Crosby and to our readers. - Ed.

es

Soe

Abortion

continued from page I

numerous ways: privacy and `equal

- protection, to name only two.

- On March 22, the California

_ Supreme Court rejected the Pro-Life

Council's request and left the Court of

Appeal funding order as it was; that is,

funds were still available for Medi-Cal

abortions.

In. the meantime, the second attempt

to stop funding was underway, this time

by the indirect route of undermining

the Court of Appeal's order to maintain

abortion funding. That order affects

only the defendant named in the case,

Beverlee Myers, Director of the

Department of Health Services.

But, as is often the case, to carry out

the court's order, numerous govern- -

. ment officials must participate in the

chain of events which ends up with the

delivery of a check to the health. care

providers who perform abortion ser-

vices for the poor: the Government

Printing Office must print the forms for

reimbursement requests, the Depart-

_ ment of Health Services must approve

-requests for reimbursement, the

Controller must issue and sign the

checks, and so forth.

Pro-Life Council President Raul Silva

attempted to take advantage of the way

the bureaucracy works by going one

step down the heirarchy from Myers to

Kenneth Cory, the Controller who

actually signs the checks. Silva sued |

Cory in San Diego Superior Court

seeking to stop Cory from signing any

checks which failed to' satisfy the |

restrictive criteria of the Budget Act.

The ACLU learned about the case,

weeks after it was launched, from the

Deputy Attorney General assigned to

represent Cory. The ACLU tried to

enter the case on behalf of the indigent

women of California to defend the

rights they had won in CDRR. But

despite the fact that the Attorney

General's Office refused to defend the

lawsuit on Cory's behalf by failing to

file any legal papers in opposition to the

request to stop the funds and by

refusing to speak at the hearing (even to

the point of not answering specific

. questions from the judge), the court

refused to allow the ACLU's clients to:

enter the case.

What all of this adds up to is that

there was only one party to the case:*the -

anti-choice people. After reading the

legal briefs submitted by that-one side,

the judge did what they wanted: on

March 12, the first business day after

the hearifig, he ordered the funding

- stopped.

But on March 13, he had to hold the

Syl Heumann, Nancy Pemberton, and Nancy Davis are welcomed to the ACLU-NC Board of

injunction off until March 20 because

Cory couldn't comply with it on such

short notice. Fortunately for the poor

women of California, there exists no

machinery in the state government for

separating those abortions permitted by

the Legislature in the Budget Act from

those prohibited. (Cory later estimated

that it would cost hundreds of

thousands of dollars to comply with the

order, because no computer could be

programmed to make the separation.)

Normally, the ACLU would have had

to take the case to the Court of Appeal

in San Diego, where the case had been (c)

filed, but there is a rule that says Courts

of Appeal (like the Supreme Court)

have statewide jurisdiciton in ex-

traordinary circumstances. The ACLU

argued that these were indeed ex-

traordinary circumstances because,

one, the San Francisco court was the

only court familiar enough with the

_ seveni volumes of CDRR pleadings to

untangle the procedural morass in time

to grant meaningful relief to the ap-

- proximately 233 women who seek Medi-

' Cal abortions each day; and two, the

Silva decision was a direct attack on the

San Francisco Court's own power.

`The ACLU presented many of the -

same legal points as in CDRR and Pro-

_ Life Council v. Court of Appeal, and

pointed out that the-wrong person had

`been sued (it should have been Myers,

not Cory). The court was also urged to

prevent the collision course between

Health Services Director Beverlee

Myers (ordered to maintain abortion

funding in CDRR) and Controller

Kenneth Cory (ordered to cut off those

same funds in Silva).

: But the argument the ACLU stressed

was that the Court of Appeal in San

Francisco did not even need to wade

into the legal issues because the one-

sided nature of this lawsuit was in itself

enough to make any order by. the

Superior Court in San Diego invalid.

The judge refused to permit the at-

torneys to present the constitutional

arguments for the 7,000 women a

month - physically absent from the

San Diego courtroom - whose rights to

health care (abortions) would be

- determined in the case: they had been

banished from the litigation by the

court! ACLUN_1946 ACLUN_1946.MODS ACLUN_1947 ACLUN_1947.MODS ACLUN_1948 ACLUN_1948.MODS ACLUN_1949 ACLUN_1949.MODS ACLUN_1950 ACLUN_1950.MODS ACLUN_1951 ACLUN_1951.MODS ACLUN_1952 ACLUN_1952.MODS ACLUN_1953 ACLUN_1953.MODS ACLUN_1954 ACLUN_1954.MODS ACLUN_1955 ACLUN_1955.MODS ACLUN_1956 ACLUN_1956.MODS ACLUN_1957 ACLUN_1957.MODS ACLUN_1958 ACLUN_1958.MODS ACLUN_1959 ACLUN_1959.MODS ACLUN_1960 ACLUN_1960.MODS ACLUN_1961 ACLUN_1961.MODS ACLUN_1962 ACLUN_1962.MODS ACLUN_1963 ACLUN_1963.MODS ACLUN_1964 ACLUN_1964.MODS ACLUN_1965 ACLUN_1965.MODS ACLUN_1966 ACLUN_1966.MODS ACLUN_1967 ACLUN_1967.MODS ACLUN_1968 ACLUN_1968.MODS ACLUN_1968.batch ACLUN_1969 ACLUN_1969.MODS ACLUN_1969.batch ACLUN_1970 ACLUN_1970.MODS ACLUN_1970.batch ACLUN_1971 ACLUN_1971.MODS ACLUN_1971.batch ACLUN_1972 ACLUN_1972.MODS ACLUN_1972.batch ACLUN_1973 ACLUN_1973.MODS ACLUN_1973.batch ACLUN_1974 ACLUN_1974.MODS ACLUN_1974.batch ACLUN_1975 ACLUN_1975.MODS ACLUN_1975.batch ACLUN_1976 ACLUN_1976.MODS ACLUN_1976.batch ACLUN_1977 ACLUN_1977.MODS ACLUN_1977.batch ACLUN_1978 ACLUN_1978.MODS ACLUN_1978.batch ACLUN_1979 ACLUN_1979.MODS ACLUN_1979.batch ACLUN_1980 ACLUN_1980.MODS ACLUN_1981 ACLUN_1981.MODS ACLUN_1982 ACLUN_1982.MODS ACLUN_1983 ACLUN_1983.MODS ACLUN_1983.batch ACLUN_1984 ACLUN_1984.MODS ACLUN_1985 ACLUN_1985.MODS ACLUN_1986 ACLUN_1986.MODS ACLUN_1987 ACLUN_1987.MODS ACLUN_1988 ACLUN_1988.MODS ACLUN_1989 ACLUN_1989.MODS ACLUN_1990 ACLUN_1990.MODS ACLUN_1991 ACLUN_1991.MODS ACLUN_1992 ACLUN_1992.MODS ACLUN_1993 ACLUN_1993.MODS ACLUN_1994 ACLUN_1994.MODS ACLUN_1995 ACLUN_1995.MODS ACLUN_1996 ACLUN_1996.MODS ACLUN_1997 ACLUN_1997.MODS ACLUN_1998 ACLUN_1998.MODS ACLUN_1999 ACLUN_1999.MODS ACLUN_ladd ACLUN_ladd.MODS ACLUN_ladd.bags ACLUN_ladd.batch add-tei.sh create-bags.sh create-manuscript-bags.sh create-manuscript-batch.sh fits.log x

Within hours of hearing the petition,

the Court of Appeal in San Francisco

issued an order temporarily nullifying

the San Diego Court's injunction to halt

the funding.

Currently, pro-choice forces' are back

where they started: waiting for the

California Court of Appeal to decide

whether the attempted cut-off of Medi-

Cal funds for abortions is legal.

Directors mee Len Sper They were elected by the Board to serve interim terms.

,awards for excellence

Adi Gevins

ACLU SponsorsAward Winner

The Right To Be Wrong: Free

Speech for Extremist Groups, an hour-

long radio documentary produced in

cooperation with the ACLU of Northern

California, won the Ohio State Award

for - Excellence in Public Affairs and

Educational Broadcasting.

The program was produced by Adi

Gevins and Kathy McAnally at Pacifica

Radio (KPFA-FM) in Berkeley and

funded by the California Council for the

Humanities in Public. Policy. David

Fishlow, then Executive Director of the

ACLU of Northern California, was the

DEpieCt s chief advisor.

The Right To Be Wrong deals with :

the complex civil liberties issue of the

right of such groups as the Ku Klux

Klan and neo-nazis to speak and -

demonstrate in public forums. The

Ohio Award is' one of the top four

`in broadcast

journalism.

Participants in the program included

Francis Heisler and Nancy McDermid,

-ACLU of Northern California Board

-members.

Soledad Brother

Comes to Folsom

The U.S. District Court has found

' that prisoners at Folsom State Prison

cannot be denied access to publications -

like Quotations of Chairman Mao,

Soledad. Brother, Legal First Aid,

Jailhouse Lawyers' Manual, and

California Criminal Law _ Practice

(Continuing Education of the Bar,

1969) just because prison officials don't

like them.

In 1972, the ACLU of Northern

California filed suit against Folsom

Prison officials; charging them with

censoring. publications not covered

`under then-current law. The law in

effect at that time (Penal Code 2600)

said that prison officials could deny

prisoners only publications which

incited violence. The prisoners charged

that the prison was "`overapplying"' the _

rule and banning sexual and political

material having nothing to do with

violence.

In 1976, the California Legislature

`amended Penal Code 2600, dropping

the "incitement to violence" clause and

replacing it with a section forbidding a

' prisoner any mail which contained the

description of the-making of a weapon,

' explosive, poison, or destructive device.

A year later, the ACLU asked for and

received a list of over 200 publications

banned under the new provisions of

`Penal Code 2600. Peter Sheehan, then-

staff counsel for the. ACLU and

presently with the Legal Aid Society of

Alameda, said, ``The prison officials

continued on page '8

: os 7 aclu news

Gov't. Must

Reveal Records

continued from page 1

ACLU were exempt from public divclo-

sure under the California Public Rec-

ords Act (the state equivalent of the fed-

eral Freedom of Information Act). But

the court also held that government

agencies are obliged to separate non-ex-

empt public information from other-

wise exempt documents and to make

the non-exempt portions available to

the public upon request.

The litigation began in 1974 when ihe

Project sued the CHP in an attempt to -

require them to give public notice and

hold public hearings before adopting

operating rules and regulations that af-

fect members of the public. (Almost all

state and federal agencies, except po-

lice, are required by law to give public

notice and hold public hearings before

promulgating. administrative rules.) At (c)

the same time, the Project sued for

copies of the CHP rules governing the ~

investigation and disposition of police

misconduct complaints.

In 1976, the Court of Appeal held

that the complaint procedures must be

made public under the California Pub-

lic Records Act, but that the court

could not finally determine the notice

and hearing questions in connection

with all rules and regulations of the |

CHP because neither the Project nor

the court had access to them. In other

words, the court could not decide the

public hearing question in the abstract.

The Court of Appeal suggested that

the Project request access to the remain

ing rules and regulations under the

Public Records Act, and then file anoth-

er lawsuit about the notice and hearing

requirements after the rules and regula-

tions had been received by the Project.

In late 1976, the Project and the

ACLU sued the CHP again, this time

for copies of the operating directives,

which are, in effect, rules and regula-

tions. Over four years after the process"

of bringing the CHP to public

accountability began, the Court of

Appeal ruled that the documents being

sought were "security procedures'' and

therefore fit an exemption from disclo-

sure under the Public Records Act. The

court did hold that the CHP was required

to disclose non-sensitive portions of the

documents, although it did not define

what they might be.

Commenting on the result, ACLU

staff counsel Amitai Schwartz said,

"The court's decision is both a grave

setback in the fight for openness in ac-

cess to all significant police policies,

and an enormous victory on the broader -

issues involved in the development of

the state Public Records Act. The

state's largest police agency, with no

recognizable constituency to keep it ac-

- countable, can operate for the time

being in almost total secrecy.

"But looking beyond police records,

the court has now served notice on all -

state and local government agencies

that they may not keep a whole docu-

ment secret simply because a portion of

if fits an exemption to the. Public Rec-

ords Act."'

Schwartz also stated that the case

would be brought to the state Supreme

Court for consideration of the Court of

- Appeal's ruling on the CHP documents.

He sees no end to the litigation because .

even if the Supreme Court denies a

hearing, the lower couts will have to set-

tle the questions of what portions of the

CHP documents must be made public,

and that, too, could lead to another

appeal.

8 aclu news

Pruneyard

_ continued from page 1

significant amount of its. time in

suburban areas where its needs and

wants are satisfied; and shopping

_ centers provide the location, goods, and

services to satisfy those needs and

wants," said the opinion.

Ehrlich noted that free speech i is a

vital freedom which cannot be allowed

to fade into memory simply because the

`town square' in today's world is really a

privately-owned mall in a very public

suburban shopping center."

(Ehrlich pointed out that the issue is

not purely suburban. Privately

developed and owned shopping areas

such as Ghiradelli Square and the

recently opened Pier 39 in San Fran-

cisco are also affected by today's court

- decision.)

The justices relied: in part on the free

speech and petition provisions of the

California Constitution which they said

are broader than the U.S. Constitution.

_ The Court went on to quote from its

1970 decision which said, `The

shopping center may no more exclude

individuals who wear long hair . . . who

are black ... or who belong to the

American Civil Liberties Union merely

because of those characteristics or

associations. . ." than may a city.

The owners of the Pruneyard argued

that they were immune from either U.S.

or California constitutional provisions

because the Pruneyard is private

property.

Protecting free speech and

_ petitioning is equally as important as

"protecting of health and safety, the

`environment, aesthetics, property

values, and other societal goals that

have been held to justify reasonable

restrictions on private property rights,"

said the Court's opinion.

The Court noted, however, that

shopping centers have the right to

establish certain "time, place, and

manner' rules governing speech and

petitioning to protect normal business

- operations.

San Jose attorned Philip L. Hammer

represented the teacher and students

and brought the case to the Supreme

Court. Susan L. Paulus and Susan

_ Popik of the San Francisco firm Petit and

Martin were cooperating attorneys

-representing the ACLU as friend of the

court.

Folsom

continued from page Ve

were ignoring the new law and con--

tinuing to ban mostly _ political

publications, clearly violating 2600 as

amended." He took the case back to

court. -

The U.S. District Court found that

the prison officials had indeed gone

beyond the banning of material which

described the making of lethal devices

and ordered them to comply with the

law. |

continued from page I

of the drugs, tardive dyskinesia, may

show up after the patient stops taking |

them.

Tardive dyskinesia, for which there is

no known cure, is characterized by

uncontrollable movements of the

mouth, tongue, and eyes, and jerks of

the head and extremities. It is the

second-most serious effect of the drugs.

The most serious effect is death.

Chapter

-ACtION.. .

Reaction .

TAKING THE HEAT. The Affiliate

Board acted to give Sonoma Chapter a

special commendation for its handling

of a Nazi free speech case. Over a four

month period, chapter board members

Jake Rubin, Lynn Young, Charles

Jensen and chairperson Deanna Beeler,

with support from staff attorneys

Amitai Schwartz and Margaret Crosby,

kept negotiations open between the City

of Santa Rosa and the Nazis, thereby

avoiding a law suit. Nice to see the First

Amendment is alive and well in Sonoma

County. Then the chapter, lead by. Bob

Ortiz, took the issue straight to their

membership to talk about how the

chapter handled the issue, with Dorothy

Erlich speaking on the Affiliate positon.

MORE HOT ISSUES. Heavy rains did

not stop SO people from attending

Monterey Chapter's March forum on

"Your Rights and the Police." Panelists

included two _ private attorneys

specializing in criminal law, a deputy_

district attorney, and a deputy public

defender. . . . North Pen. brought out a

similar honiber in March to look at the

"Rights of Mental Patients" with |

ACLU cooperating attorney Mort

Cohen and ACLU lobbyist Brent

Barnhart, good for 60 inches in the

San Mateo Times. For April the

chapter board looked at undocumented

aliens with Redwood City Attorney Sal

Quintero. . . . Stanford Law Professor

Charles Marson discussed the con-

stitutional convention issue with the

Marin Chapter in April. Marson, the

former ACLU legal director, now sits on ~

the Affiliate Board. . . . San Francisco

Chapter Board tried to get a handle on

handgun control in March with help

from Stanley Tick, California Coalition

for Handgun Control.

MEET. YOU IN THE LOBBY. Gay

Rights Chapter members are lobbying

state legislators for passage of three

related bills promising equal -rights

protection in employment to gays and

protection from sexual harassment on

the job to everyone . .. if you've joined

the GRC, but do not receive the GRC

Bulletin, call 415-777-4545.

HAND TO MOUTH. B.AK. Chapter

members shared food and drink with a

March potluck at Mike and Pat

DeVito's. Between bites, Dorothy Ehrlich

and Board Chair `Drucilla Ramey

talked about the ACLU. . . . Santa Cruz

Chapter once again showed they know

how to throw a party. This year's an-

nual March dinner-dance netted $1500!

The chapter has decided to continue

plying members with food in a series of

membership brunches which will in-

clude discussions on civil liberties

issues. These events are intended to

attract new active chapter members. . . .

Marin Chapter added wine and cheese

to the film "The Organizer'' and came

out with $555 net. The shadow says that

special thanx go to Frances Miller, Jerry

Ellersdorfer, Len Karpman, Harvey

Dinerstein, Helen Fructman, Bill Luft,

Bernie Moss, Ruth Moncrief, Grace

Highes, Dan Beittel, and Connie Birkie.

The shadow knows. (c)

(CHAPTER CALENDAR -

B-A-K

BOARD MEETING. April 26, 8

p.m., home of Florence Piliavin,

1520 Arch St., Berkeley. Infor-

mation- 415-548-1322.

BOARD NOMINATIONS. B-A-K

Nominating Committee is ac-

cepting suggestions for chapter

board nominations. Call Marjorie

Gelb, 415-655-5211, or Jane

Riggan, 849-2392. Board will

approve committee nominations

at April 26 meeting. Members

may be nominated by petition,

signed by 15 chapter members;

send to Nominating Committee

by May 1. Ballots will be mailed

end of May. Results announced at

June 13 annual meeting.

ANNUAL MEETING. Wednesday,

June 13, 8 p.m., All Souls

Episcopal Church, Cedar and

Spruce, Berkeley; Appeals Court

Justice Clinton White speaker.

(More information next issue,

ACLU News.)

FARL WARREN

BOARD MEETING. Wednesday,

May 16. Information. _ Rose

Bonhag, 658-7977.

MARIN

BOARD MEETING/ANNUAL

MEETING. Annual meeting will

replace board meeting in May;

date to be announced; members

will receive individual notices.

BOARD NOMINATIONS. Board

has nominated Ruth Jonas, Leslie

Paul, Helen Fruchtman,

Donna Franzblau; additional

`nominations may be made in

nominations to Larry Grauman,

254 W. Blithedale, Mill Valley,

/94941 or Connie Birkie, 575

chapter there, too. ...

Fairhills Dr., San Rafael, 94901.

Elections at annual: meeting;

nominations also taken' from the

floor.

SCHOOL DAZE. College of Marin and

DeAnza College (Santa Clara County)

have had problems finding the First

Amendment recently. Both schools

want to control literature distributed on

campus. The Marin and Santa Clara

Chapters have been trying to set the

colleges straight. The Marin County

Counsel's office is preparing a written -

opinion supporting the chapter. The

south county chapter is continuing to

negotiate. Marin also questioned the

college's loyalty oath and the County

Counsel apparently agrees with the

Tom Ferrito,

Santa Clara Chapter chair, says he's

looking for local attorneys who can help

the chapters take on even more civil

liberties abuses. Call Tom at 408-354-

6585... .

college with a good article on the

chapter's hotline in the California

Aggie (sic!), the U.C. Davis campus

newspaper. j

Madison and Pacific,

2740 Hillegass, Berkeley, 94705,

ANNUAL MEETING. Sunday,

~May. 6;--.6, p.m. Harbin

Restaurant, 327 Balboa, San

.Marson, Stanford Law Professor

and (c)

writing by three or more members

(include written consent of

nominee) up to 10 days before

annual meeting; send

oe Chine

Yolo Chapter also went to 0x00B0

MID- PEN.

BOARD MEETING. Thursday,

April 26, 8 p.m., All Saints

Episcopal Church, 555 Waverly,

Palo Alto.

MONTEREY

BOARD MEETING. Tuesday,

April 24, 8 p.m., Monterey Public

Library Community Room,

Monterey.

Information: Dick Criley, 408-642-

7562.

BOARD MEETING. Tuesday, May

15, 8:00 p.m., Allstate Savings

and Loan, Concar Dr. and S. Grant,

San Mateo. Information: Danetta

Ervin, 415- 344-4352.

SAN FRANCISCO

Francisco; tickets $8.00. Charles'

and former ACLU-NC Legal

Director, speaks on the Con-

stitutional Convention. I[nfor-

mation, Michael P. Miller, 415-

777-4880.

SANTA CLARA

BOARD MEETING. Tuesday, May

1, Community Bank Building, 2nd

Floor, 1111 St. John St., San Jose.

Information: Paul Jenson, 408-

354-6586.

SANTA CRUZ

BOARD MEETING. Wednesday,

May 16, 8:00 p.m., Cabrillo

College Board Meeting Room.

Information: Andy Andreasen,

408- 423-4086.

SONOMA

BOARD MEETING. Thursday,

May 17, 666 7th St., 7:30 ae

Santa Rosa.

Conference

The annual ACLU-NC Chapa

Conference moves north this year to

Point Bonita in the Marin Headlands, -

part of the Golden Gate National

Recreation Area. The conference

grounds overlook the ocean on two -

sides and the San Francisco skyline |

in the distance.

The conference, previously held in

the spring, has been moved to Sep-

tember 28-30. At this time, chapter

activists, members, and affiliate

board members come together to ex-

amine critical civil liberties issues

and plan chapter programs, plus

share a weekend of good fellowship

and fun.