vol. 50, no. 2

aclu news

March 1985

Volume XLX No. 2

Lab Must Lift Ban on Anti-Nuke Info

|

The huge nuclear weapons research

facility Lawrence Livermore laboratory

must allow anti-nuclear groups access to

the Labs' Visitors Center for educational

information on major public issues, and

presents it own views on these issues:

they are establishing a public forum in

which the views of opponents of nuclear

xo

: ; : a e* `

materials and for slide and film showings yore chy arms race must be heard,'' Zimmerman

about the dangers of nuclear weapons ent and said.

under a permanent injunction issued on

February 13 by Alameda County

Superior Court Judge Winton

McKibben.

The unprecedented free speech ruling

came in an ACLU lawsuit first filed in

April 1980. The ACLU represented the

U.C. Nuclear Weapons Labs Conversion

Project, an anti-nuclear group whose

goal it is to have the Labs converted to

peaceful, non-polluting purposes. The

Lab had a policy of denying the anti-

nuclear group access to the Lab's public

informational facilities and had banned

the group from its premises.

ACLU cooperating attorney Mitchell

Zimmerman handled the lawsuit with

ACLU staff attorney Alan Schlosser.

"This decision is an important

ot 2

Se

oe |

Z _

208

PN Z

Pe

~ iY Bs

50,-%,

hy (ohne d

Anti-nuclear information will be displayed at Lawrence Lab Visitors Center.

recognition of both the public's and the

Project's right to have both sides of this

vital issue - preparations for nuclear

war - aired at the most relevant place at

New Attack on Medi-Cal

Abortion Funds

On the eve of the twelfth anniversary

of the landmark Roe v. Wade decision,

ACLU-NC staff attorney Margaret

Crosby thwarted a new and surprise at-

tempt by anti-choice forces to undermine

the constitutional right to choose abor-.

tion.

The American Life Legal Foundation,

an affiliate of the anti-abortion

American Life Lobby, filed a lawsuit on

January 9 in Placer County Superior

Court on behalf of taxpayer Mike Fluty,

charging that all Medi-Cal funding for

abortions must be halted until the state

enforces the 1967 Therapeutic Abortion

Act standards governing second

trimester abortions.

The lawsuit claims the state is violating

its own law, the Therapeutic Abortion

Act, by failing to screen abortions which

take place after the 13th week of

pregnancy and by funding abortions

which occur after the 20th week - the

durational limit set by the Act.

Crosby,

lawsuit from a Sacramento Bee reporter,

hurried to Auburn and successfully per-

_ suaded Placer County Superior Court

Judge Richard Couzens to deny the Tem-

porary Restraining Order (TRO) sought

by the anti-choice group. Judge Couzens

set a hearing for the premilinary injunc-

tion but stated that there was no

emergency to justify a TRO halting

Medi-Cal funds for abortions pending

his decision. The judge also granted a

upon hearing about the |

motion allowing the ACLU to intervene

on behalf of a coalition of reproductive

rights advocates.

As of press date, the plaintiff has

declined to seek any relief.

`*The anti-choice groups are attemp-

ting to find new ways to halt Medi-Cal

funding for abortions,'' said Crosby.

The American Life Lobby, which has

this year established a fulltime office in

Sacramento, is specifically targeting

Medi-Cal funding. :

Crosby explained that the ACLU

challenged the constitutionality of the

Therapeutic Abortion Act in a lawsuit,

Margolis v. Deukmejian, filed in 1982. In

September, 1984 the ACLU filed a mo-

tion for summary judgment in the case;

that motion is pending in Sacramento

Superior Court.

The Act requires that a panel of three

physicians approve abortions following

the 13th week of pregnancy; it also bars

all abortions after 20 weeks, even for

life-threating pregnancies. However in its

1973 Roe v. Wade decision, the U.S.

Supreme Court ruled that fetal viability

is the only point at which the state may

prohibit abortions, and that, even after

viability, the state may not deny an abor-

tion to a woman whose life or health

would be jeopardized by carrying a

pregnancy to term.

continued on p. 7

Lawrence Lab: the Visitors Center.

``The court recognized that where a

government agency establishes a Visitors

Center for the purpose of providing

In June 1980, Alameda County

Superior Court judge William Bostick

granted at the ACLU's request a

preliminary injunction allowing the anti-

nuclear group to use the Lab's facilities

for their First Amendment activities.

However, attorneys for the University of

California, which administers the Lab

for the U.S. Department of Energy,

appealed the lower court decision.

In April 1984, the Court of Appeal

ruled that the Project had the right to use

the Visitors Center and the auditorium at

the Lab for their educational materials.

The February 13 injunction derives from

a settlement reached between the Lab

and the U.C. Nuclear Weapons Labs

Conversion Project in December.

Reagan's War on Dissent

Reagan's War on ``Terrorism''/Dissent - and how to arm yourself for it - was

the subject of a January 26 forum sponsored by the ACLU-NC Right to Dissent

subcommittee. Representatives of a cross-section of Bay Area solidarity, religious,

civil rights, church, academic, and peace groups jammed the ACLU library to hear

`news about what is in store for dissenters from the Reagan Administration and

efforts to maintain civil liberties.

The forum was chaired by journalist Raul Ramirez (r.), himself the defendant in a

major ACLU press freedom suit and introduced by Suzanne Donovan (I.) of the

Right to Dissent subcommittee. Speakers included ACLU Board member Dick Criley

(c.) who gave an overview of `anti-terrorism' legislation and librarian Zoia Horn

from the Coalition for the Right to Know who spoke of her experiences as a

defendant in the Harrisburg trials.

In addition, Geline Avila, National Coordinator for the Coalition Against the

Marcos Dictatorship told of threats to her organization which had come from

Philippine government agents operating in the U.S. ``Prejudice against the foreign

born and people of color make activists from other countries who are organizing

against U.S. policy in their homelands especially vulnerable,'' said Avila.

Mark Rosenbaum, staff attorney of ACLU of Southern California warned that

domestic repression of foreign policy critics was an integral part of the Reagan

Administration plans to wage war abroad - and gave chilling examples from the

latest legal attacks on the sanctuary and Central American solidarity movements.

Union Maid Photos

~ aclu news

2 march 1985

INS Crackdown on Sanctuaries

Salvadoran Refugees -

by Cynthia Forster

Rene Hurtado set himself on fire and

slit his wrists on the night of February 4

as he was held by the Immigration and

Naturalization Service (INS) in a

Minneapolis jail, because he preferred

burning himself alive than being

deported into the hands of the

Salvadoran military and death squads.

Hurtado's desperate act put the

spotlight on the tragic plight of the over

half a million refugees who have fled the

war and repression in El Salvador and

Guatemala and the efforts of civil

liberties groups and others to ensure a

modicum of safety and justice for them

in the United States.

doing anything illegal by following their

religious convictions to shelter people in

need, charge the U.S. government with

breaking international laws which

promise refuge to victims of civil

violence.

ACLU-NC_ Executive Director

Dorothy Ehrich commented, ``The most

elementary defense of civil liberties

compels us to support refugees and the

citizens who dare shelter or aid them."'

National ACLU Executive Director

Ira Glasser has called for ACLU defense

of church sanctuary workers as a natural

and imperative extension of the ACLU

support for the legal status of Extended

Voluntary Departure (EDV) which

would allow Salvadoran refugees to

The ACLU's National Center for

Immigrants Rights documents that at

feast 15% and probably 25% of the 400

Salvadorans deported each month from

the U.S. are tortured and killed after

their return. Hurtado, a U.S. trained

member of the notorious Salvadoran

Treasury Police who fled the country to

escape complicity in the atrocities

committed by the military, had good

reason to believe he would be one of

them. Hunted down by the INS in

Minneapolis' St. Luke's Church where

he had sought sanctuary, Hurtado, an

outspoken opponent of U.S. support for

the Salvadoran Army, was told that the

INS had trailed him for months.

Sanctuary Convictions

Three weeks later on February 21, the

first church sanctuary workers whose

cases came to trial, Stacy Merkt and Jack

Elder were convicted on conspiracy

charges for aiding refugees in Texas. The

judge declared that evidence on

conditions in Central America that force

the refugees to flee was inadmissable.

-Merkt and Elder are part of a group of

16 church sanctuary workers who have

already been indicted for aiding

refugees; over 60 refugees in the church

sanctuary movement have also been

arrested. The crackdown followed 10

months of FBI surveillance and

infiltration using informers and agents

who carried hidden tape recorders to

meetings of the sanctuary movement.

Over 2000: refugees have been

sheltered by sanctuary churches across

the nation, who liken themselves to the

underground railroad for black slaves

`fleeing north. Sanctuary church

_congregations, who deny that they are

Courtesy of Casa El Salvador

j Bi S a

remain in the U.S. until such time when

they can safely return to their homeland.

`Based on the same rationale we have

used in the past in domestic extradition

cases (where, for example, we have urged

governors of northern states not to

extradite blacks back to southern states

where they would face unconstitutional

procedures and conditions, such as chain

gangs), the ACLU worked to introduce

and has supported special legislation in

Congress that would = suspend

deportation of Salvadorans pending a

review by Congress of whether

conditions in El Salvador permit their

safe return,"' said Glasser.

The Reagan Administration refused to

act on a Sense of Congress resolution

urging EVD status for Salvadorans

because it denies that El Salvador, whose

government it shored up with $179

million in the last ten months alone, is a

sufficiently dangerous place to qualify

for EVD. =

The Attorney General determines

which countries qualify for EVD on the

basis of levels of civil violence - yet, El

Salvador, which suffered over 40,000

civilian deaths in the last five years,

approximately 100 deaths per week, does

not merit this status.

The ACLU is supporting a new effort

in Congress, the Moakley-DeConcini bill

(HR 822) which calls for the study of

the refugee situation in Central America

and the United states and a vote on EVD

status once the study is completed. In the

interim, the measure calls for a

moratorium on_ deportation of

Salvadorans and Guatemalans.

There are more than _ 100,000

Salvadoran refugees in northern

California and legal observers are

Nowhere to Hide

concerned that sanctuary workers and

refugees in this area may soon be hit by

the INS. San Francisco attorney Marc

Van der Hout told the ACLU

Immigration Working Group, `There

are unconfirmed rumors that a Grand

Jury on the sanctuary movement has

been convened in the Bay Area.

`"`Considering the probability of

increased government harassment, it is

imperative that we act now."'

Cynthia Forster is a member of the

ACLU Immigration Working Group.

a F

Action Alert!

The ACLU is organizing a national

campaign to support the Moakley-

DeConcini bill for Extended Voluntary

Departure status for Central Americans.

All ACLU members are urged to write to

your member of Congress asking him or

her to sign on as a sponsor to the bill,

HR 822. Already, more than 100

Representatives. have signed on as

sponsors - the ACLU-NC has a goal of

having al/ northern California

Representatives as sponsors to HR 822.

movement:

Letters

Pro-Choice Lobbying

On January 22, I joined 250 other

members and sympathizers of the North-

ern California Pro-Choice coalition in

going to Sacramento and lobbying for

abortion rights and women's reproduc-

tive freedom.

My first view of anti-abortion ad-

vocates came as they lined the only

public entrance into the Capitol press

conference room that morning, and pro-

ceeded to attack pro-choice individuals

with epithets such as ``baby killer'? and

-urderer,"

Anti-abortionists repeatedly disrupted

the pro-choice press conference. A tall

white man in a cowboy hat interrrupted

a black female legislator, Senator Diane

Watson, shouting at her and calling her

"baby killer.'' Most press reports did not.

mention this disruption, and the

Associated Press report inaccurately

claimed that both the anti-abortion and

the pro-choice press conferences were

. disrupted by cheers and jeers (to my

knowledge, only the pro-choice press

conference was disrupted - by the anti-

abortionists).

The intimidating and _ hate-filled

language of these ``right to life'' pro-

ponents was matched by their bullying

and dehumanizing actions. When I tried

to guide a young woman, a pro-choice ad-

vocate, who is blind and unable to walk

without crutches, two anti-abortionists

who were stationed just inside the door

of the Capitol press conference room

refused to budge, all the while shouting

at us and calling us `"`baby killers."

That afternoon, I found that secretar-

ies in legislative offices were upset

because anti-abortionists had been

abusive to them. Other pro-choice ad-

vocates told me they had been followed

down corridors by anti-abortionists who

were shouting at them. One woman was

doggedly followed down a corridor and

repeatedly told to ``watch out for the

blood on the floor."'

How could this happen in the state

Capitol of California? Are Californians

now to expect being threatened and

vilified for the simple act of voicing their

views to their legislators.? _

_ Legislators who oppose violence must

begin to speak out against the violence

used by members of the anti-abortion

violence in bombings,

violence in physical and psychological

harassment, violence in language. Free

expression does not mean license to

abuse living adult humans.

California must decide now to

disavow such anti-human tactics.

Women should not have to feel fear

when walking down a corridor in our

state Capitol. And no one should feel en-

couraged to shout ``murderer"' or ``baby

killer'' at any citizen lawfully exercising

her or his civil rights in California.

Thank you.

Ann Forfreedom |

Oakland

Roadblocks

The ACLU-NC is to be commended

for their legal challenge to the institution -

of drunk driving roadblocks.

`As was pointed out in the January

issue of the ACLU News, the Attorney

General gave a legal opinion which pro-

vided law enforcement the green light to

set up roadblocks. In doing so, the

Legislature was bypassed on making this

very important decision.

The roadblocks clearly violate our

Fourth Amendment rights to be free

from unreasonable search and seizures.

The California Constitution prevents law

enforcement officers from stopping

drivers randomly without probable cause

of drunk driving.

The more we expect intrusions on our

right to privacy, the more our expecta-

tions of privacy will diminish.

Gregory L. Christiansin

Sacramento

aclu news

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

August-September and November-December

Second Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, California

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Nancy Pemberton, Chairperson Dorothy Ehrlich, Executive Director -- -

Marcia Gallo, Chapter Page

ACLU NEWS (USPS 018-040)

1663 Mission St., 4th floor, San Francisco, California 94103. (415) 621-2488

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

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

Elaine Elinson, Editor

aclu news

march 1985 3

The ACLU filed a personal injury and

civil rights lawsuit on February 5 in San

Francisco Superior Court on behalf of

two Rastafarian priests who were ar-

rested and strip searched by San Fran-

cisco narcotics officers. The suit alleges

`that the men were falsely arrested,

beaten, and strip searched because of

their race and religion.

The Rastafarians are being represented

by James J. Garrett and Michael F. Ram,

both of the San Francisco law firm of

Morrison and Foerster, and ACLU-NC

staff counsel Amitai Schwartz. ``Prac-

tices of beating arrestees and falsely ar-

resting those who are subjects of police

brutality, are allowed by the high policy-

making officials of the Police Depart-

ment,'' said Schwartz, adding, `This

lawsuit is intended to obtain redress for

the Rastafarians as well as to put an end

to the police practice of charging beating

victims with resisting arrest and similar

`cover charges' "'.

Ras Ion and Ras Soma are Rasta-

farian priests who, as part of their

religion, have grown their hair and

beards in long woolly strands called

``precepts''. The precepts, which are

know more commonly as ``dreadlocks'',

Visa

Denials

Appealed

In a case addressing one of the starkest

forms of political censorship, the ACLU

has appealed a federal court ruling

`upholding the denial of visas to several

prominent critics of U.S. foreign policy

including Nicaragua's Minister of the

Interior Tomas Borge, General Nino

Pasti, former Italian military

representative to NATO, and two Cuban

women leaders, Olga Finlay and Leonor

Rodriguez, Lezcayo.

The appeal is part of the ACLU

challenge to the Reagan

Administration's calculated pattern of

blocking free speech messages by

banning the messenger. The lawsuits,

filed jointly by the national ACLU and

the ACLU-NC and other affiliates, are

on behalf of individuals, institutions and

organizations in the United States whose

First Amendment rights have been

violated because they have been denied

hearing the ideas of the persons they

invited to address them.

The ACLU-NC was first contacted in

March 1983 when human rights activist

Hortensia Allende, widow of the slain

Chilean President Salvador Allende, was

denied a visa to enter the United States

just one day before she was to arrive in

the Bay Area for a nine day speaking

tour. ACLU attorneys challenged the

denial on behalf of the Northern

California Ecumenical Council,

Representative Don Edwards and New

College of California. (Mrs. Allende's

visa denial has not yet been ruled on by

the District Court.)

In the fall of 1983, the State

Department barred Borge, Pasti, Finlay

and Lezcayo from speaking in the

United States. Each of them had been

invited by several members of Congress,

`have taken years to grow and have im-

portant racial and religious significance

`for Ras Ion and Ras Soma.

- The suit alleges that in March 1984,

three plainclothes narcotics officers ap-

proached the Rastafarians at a Fillmore

District home and addressed them in a

manner disrespectful of their religion.

When the Rastafarians protested the

harassment, they found themselves

under arrest for interfering with an in-

vestigation and resisting arrest.

According to the lawsuit, Ras Ion and

Ras Soma were handcuffed, choked and

ridiculed by the police officers, including

having precepts pulled out. The suit

alleges that at the narcotics office at the

Hall of Justice, a police officer kicked,

punched and pulled their hair. Although

other police officers were present, they

did nothing to stop the insults or assault.

The suit also alleges that Ras Ion and

Ras Soma were strip searched although

there was no lawful basis to believe that

either of them was carrying a weapon or

drugs. They were held in custody for

several hours and then released. Even-

tually, all charges of resisting arrest

against them were dropped.

1

journalists, educational institutions and

peace organizations.

Borge was to speak on events in

Central America to a number of groups

including the Chicago Bar Association

and Harvard University. Pasti, an

acknowledged expert on _ nuclear

weapons and disarmament, was to speak

at a Boston rally protesting the

deployment of the U.S. missiles in

Europe. Finlay and Lezcayo were invited

by the New York Commission on the

Status of Women to speak on the role

of women in Cuban society. Although

the three suits were filed separately, they

have now been consolidated. In March

1984 the District Court in Washington,

D.C. upheld the government's denial of

visas.

""By upholding the visa denials,'' said

NYCLU attorney Steven Shapiro, who

authored the appellate brief, ``the court

has disregarded our nation's most basic

precepts: that ours is an open society

where, above all else, the. government

has no power to restrict expression based

on its content or values."'

The ACLU suit challenged the court's

notion that the Executive branch may

ban foreign speakers on _ ideological

grounds from the United States so long

as the exclusions are veiled by the ritual

invocation of foreign policy or national

security. ``Such denials,'' explained

~ ACLU Sues S.F. Cops for Rasta Arrests

`The lawsuit asserts that the San

Francisco Police Department attempted

to cover up its use of excessive force

against Ras Ion and Ras Soma by charg-

ing them with resisting arrest,'' explained.

ACLU-NC attorney Schwartz. ``The

`cover charges' are consistent with the

custom and policy of the Department of

covering up acts of police brutality by

charging victims with resisting arrest.''

``In addition,'' Schwartz noted, ``the

allegations of this lawsuit call into ques-

tion a practice of the San Francisco

police of strip-searching misdemeanor

defendants such as the two Rastafarians

even when there is no legal basis to

believe that they are concealing a weapon

or contraband.''

The plaintiffs are seeking damages, a

declaration from the court that the

Police Department's practices of both

covering up acts of police brutality by fil-

ing `cover charges' against the victims

and strip searching misdemeanor defen-

dants are illegal and unconstitutional,

and an injunction to prohibit continua-

tion of such practices.

The defendants named in the lawsuit

are San Francisco police officers Daniel

J. Hance, Donna A. Demartini, Anne F.

World Wide Photos

Human rights leader Hortensia Allende is still barred from entering the U.S.

Shapiro, ``necessarily affect public -

debate, foreclosing irreplaceable

personal contact and having the

inevitable effect of branding certain

views as illegitimate.''

In each case, the visa was denied under

Section 27 of the Immigration Act which

permits the government to deny a visa if

the visitor would ``engage in activities'

which threaten the public interest. No

official reason was given for any of the

visa denials.

The court upheld the visa denials

based on secret government documents ~

that ACLU attorneys were given no

opportunity to inspect. :

The ACLU is also challenging the

pattern of partisan visa denials on other

fronts. Last May, the ACLU's Center

for National Security Studies held a

major conference in Washington, D.C.

on the subject, which - through the

magic of modern telecommunications -

was addressed by Nino Pasti, Dario Fo,

Hortensia Allende, and Gabriel Garcia

Marquez, all of whom had been denied

entry visas. Publicity and pressure

generated from the conference resulted

in the granting of visas to Marquez and

Fo. In addition, the ACLU is supporting

legislation by Representative Barney

Frank (D-MA) which would alter the law

to prevent such politically motivated

exclusions.

Harrington and Lt. George R. Heugle;

Captain John Jordan of the Vice Crimes

Division, Chief Cornelius P. Murphy;

and the City and County of San Fran-

Court of

Appeal

Arguments

Chilling Press Freedom

On February 7, ACLU-NC

cooperating attorney Arthur Brunwasser

argued before the State Court of Appeal

that a libel judgment of $1.6 million

against two journalists, Raul Ramirez

and Lowell Bergman should be reversed.

The seven figure libel judgment,

awarded by a San Francisco jury in April

1979, was the result of a suit brought by

two city police officers and a former

Assistant District Attorney against the

reporters and the San Francisco Examiner

because of a series of articles published

in 1976 about a controversial Chinatown

murder trial. The Examiner articles

reported that the three city officials had

persuaded witnesses to give false

testimony in a case in which a 19-year old"

Chinese youth was convicted.

`*This case raises very important First

Amendment issues and_ strikingly

documents the potential of libel suits for

chilling inquiry into public affairs,"' said

Brunwasser.

Brunwasser argued the appeal in

front of the Court of Appeal in February

1984; however, because of changes in the

court, the case was scheduled for reargu-

ment before a separate panel of the same

court this year.

When the series in question was pub-

lished, Ramirez was on the staff of the

Examiner and Bergman was a freelance

writer who collaborated with him on the

story.

Police Street Sweeps

ACLU-NC staff counsel Amitai

Schwartz argued in the state Court of

Appeal on February 7 that the San Fran-

cisco Police Department's practice of us-

ing an obstruction of the sidewalks law to

"sweep the streets'? of persons they

deem ``undesirable'' is unconstitutional

and must be stopped.

During a trial in San _ Francisco

Superior Court in August, 1982, the

ACLU sought an injunction and a

declaration that the bad faith enforce-

ment by police of Section 647c of the

state Penal Code was unconstitutional.

The injunction was denied by Superior

Court Judge Lawrence S. Mana.

Schwartz produced evidence at the trial

which showed that as many as 94% of |

the people arrested under 647c have their

charges dropped and that less than one in

200 persons is actually convicted of

obstruction.

The ACLU is charging that since the

courts have previously struck down

vagrancy and loitering laws, the police

now sweep the streets of ``undesirables''

as they did under the old laws, knowing

the cases will not be prosecuted and

reviewed in court proceedings.

aclu news

march 1985

1984 Legisla

Last Year in Sacramento

by Marjorie Swartz

Legislative Advocate

As the 1984 legislative session was the

second term in the two-year 1982-84

session, most of the battles in the civil

liberties arena were either carried over

from the previous year - such as

regulations limiting strip searches - or a

replay of battles already fought during

the first term - such as Medi-Cal

funding for abortion. Not surprisingly,

most of the stumbling -blocks

encountered: by civil libertarians

emanated from the Governor's office.

Budget Battles

The first major battle was over the

Budget Act, and one of Governor

Deukmejian's prime targets was the

State Public Defender. Although the

Legislature had attempted full funding,

the Governor slashed the appropriations

to 50% of the Brown Administration

figure. In addition, Governor

Deukmejian appointed a new Public

Defender, Frank Bell, who will be the

subject of confirmation hearings in

1985.

Another major budget battle was the

perennial axing of Medi-Cal funding for

abortion. Although an attempt to

-completely eliminate funding was

defeated, the Legislature agreed with the

Governor in allocating only limited

funding. These restrictions on funding

were invalidated by the Court of Appeal

decision in the ACLU lawsuit, CDRR v.

Rank II.

Other budget defeats were a provision

extending the San Diego ``workfare''

project for welfare recipients and

language allowing computer matching of

welfare applications against certain tax

records.

Criminal Justice

In the area of criminal law a number

of issues received major attention. The

recent notoriety of child molestation

cases prompted a flood of legislation -

much of which posed serious due process

questions and jeopardized the right to a

fair trial. Fortunately, all of the most

dangerous in that regard were either

defeated or dropped by the author.

Measures which threatened to

politicize the parole process followed in

the wake of the highly publicized Archie

Fain case, with several proposals to

allow greater public and gubernatorial

input in the parole decision.

Other criminal justice issues included

proposals to expand the applicability of

the death penalty, a bill to incarcerate

status offender juveniles (truants and

runaways) and police roadblocks to look

for drunk drivers.

The civil liberties effort around health

and welfare issues focused on ensuring

a minimum level of benefits, protecting

_ the privacy of recipients and ensuring

due process in the application and

termination process.

Reproductive Rights

The opening of a fulltime Sacramento

office of the American Life Lobby, an

anti-choice group which seeks to ban

abortions in this state, signalled major

battles ahead on the choice issue. The

anti-choice flames were also fanned by

the Governor's appointment of David

Swoap, an open opponent of abortion,

as Director of the Department of Health

Services.

Being an election year, the political

process received a great deal of legislative

attention. Civil liberties action included

opposition to reapportionment

commission proposals and support of

attempts to expand voter registration.

The ACLU also supported measures

to protect workers' rights including

employee privacy; non-discrimination on

the basis of sexual orientation and

employment protections' for the

disabled.

During the final days of the session, a

number of controversial issues with civil

liberties ramifications gave rise to heated

battles. Many observers felt that the

strategy was to force roll -call votes on

issues such as the death penalty, right to

abortion and the _ constitutional

convention for use against members in

the upcoming elections.

What Lies Ahead

With Governor Deukmejian's opening

shots this session calling for stronger

measures on crime, criminal justice

issues can be expected to be prominent

on the legislative agenda this session.

High on the list is sure to be.a new effort

to strengthen the death penalty given the

increasing numbers of executions in

other states and the Governor's and

Attorney General's criticism of the

California Supreme Court record on

reversals of death penalty convictions.

More measures on child molestation

and abuse will be introduced and civil

libertarians must pay attention to any

reduction in the due process rights of the

accused.

Other criminal justice proposals

include another go-around on the

sobriety roadblocks - an attempt to -

legislate in favor of roadblocks already

established under the Attorney General's

opinion - and a measure allowing

expanded electronic surveillance by law

enforcement.

Backlash on 41?

It is uncertain how the Deukmejian

Administration plans to respond to the

overwhelming vote against Proposition

41.There may be an effort to limit or cut

benefits as well as to introduce more

Stringent ``anti-fraud'' measures. At

least one new ``workfare'' proposal was

introduced during the first week of the

new session.

On the affirmative side, however,

advocates for the poor are planning to

introduce legislation designed to improve

conditions of economic justice, including

child care and increased benefits, some

of which failed last session.

New efforts to limit access to

contraception and abortions for minors

have already been proposed in both

Senate and Assembly; new legal

maneuvers limiting Medi-Cal funded

abortions for poor women are expected

as the budget process develops. The

Deukmejian Administration is also

expected to remew its cifort 10

"deregulate'' family planning services

via the block-grant funding process.

process. |

Anti-choice forces will be utilizing the

administrative process as well to impede

service delivery for grantees of the state

Office of Family Planning. An entirely

new slate of appointees to the state

Office of Family Planning Advisory

Board includes the California head of

the Moral Majority, Rev. Royal D. Blue.

Only one member of this new panel has

direct family planning provider

experience - as the head of the natural

methods program sponsored by the

Sacramento Catholic Archdiocese!

None of the incumbent members were

reappointed although in the past

members served for three years and were

selected with an intent to provide a

geographic and ethnic balance as well as

evenly representing clients and providers.

Legislation to restore such a balance of

~

Riera!

Paul Anderson

6 : "RUE

---

interests and to assure real expertise on

the part of panel members will be

introduced by pro-choice legislators.

In the area of equal protection, AB 1,

the measure by Art Agnos to assure

employment rights for homosexxuals,

has already been introduced. This

perennial civil rights proposal will be

bolstered through the findings of a

Statewide documentation project.

Another proposal will establish

employment rights for the disabled

similar to those of Section 504 of the

Federal Rehabilitation Act. -

The general trend is for a busy season

which will culminate in considerable

activity directed toward the outcome of

the 1986 state general elections.

Legislation: P:

CRIMINAL

JUSTICE

AB 2192 (Nolan-Condit) - Parole

As introduced, this proposal and

others that were later combined with it,

permitted public outcry to serve as a

_basis for denying parole and allowed the

Governor to overrule individual parole

decisions. As approved by the Legisla-

ture, it allows the Governor to order the

parole board to review a_ particular

parole decision and requires parole

revocation of any prisoner who refuses

to sign a parole agreement. :

ACTION: Passed Legislature, approved

by the Governor.

ACLU: Opposed: -. ue

AB 270 (M. Waters) - Strip Searches

Governor Deukmejian's veto of the

strip search regulation bill AB 270 was

reversed early in 1984 through

negotiations among Assemblymember

Waters' staff, the ACLU, and

representatives of law enforcement

agencies acting on behalf of the

Governor's office. The compromise

measure AB 1367, substantially follows a

number of court decisions and consent

decrees restricting intimate body

searches. It received overwhelming

support by the Legislature and became

effective as law on an urgency basis

March 31, 1984.

ACTION: Governor's veto overruled by

Legislature; became law on March 31,

1984

ACLU: Support

alcu news |

march 1985

AB 3604. (LaFollette) - Drunk Driving

Roadblocks

One of the proposals for authorizing

roadblocks for the apprehension of

drunk drivers, this bill proposed fixed

roadblocks similar to those implemented

by the California Highway Patrol and

local law enforcement even in the

absence of legislative authority.

ACTION: Failed in the Assembly

Criminal Law and Public Safety Com-

mittee.

ACLU: Opposed

SCA 45 (Maddy) -Death Penalty

Under present law, all death penalty

cases are automatically subject to

original review by the Supreme Court.

SCA 45 attempted to eliminate this pro-

cedure by placing automatic review in

the Court of Appeals with discretionary

- review by the Supreme Court. The major

impetus for the legislation were the com-

plaints that the Supreme Court was not

expeditiously reviewing these cases.

ACTION: The author dropped the pro- |

posal at the first policy committee in the

face of widespread opposition.

ACLU: Opposed

AB 2240 (Felando-Harris) - Truant

- Juveniles

- As introduced, this bill permitted

secure detention of juveniles who were

truant or runaway in private disciplinary

schools. The express authority for secure

detention was amended out. The model

for the program,. the Provo Canyon

School in Utah, has been successfully

sued for civil rights violations because

children were punished with beatings and

confinements in closets. The broad-

based coalition opposing AB 2240 in-

cluded the entire education community

(teachers, PTA, administrators and the

Department of Education) probation of-

ficers, civil libertarians and defense at-

torneys. In spite of these efforts, the bill

successfully passed the Legislature;

however it was unexpectedly vetoed by

the Governor.

The two main reasons for the veto ap-

pear to have been that the particular

form of the proposal potentially would

ative Report

Passed/Failed

drain special education funds and that it

proposed private schools would be

supervised by the Youth Authority.. The

Youth Authority did not want the

responsibility for a precedent of supervi-

sion of children who had not engaged in

criminal conduct.

ACTION: Passed Legislature, vetoed by

Governor.

ACLU: Opposed

SB 1578 (Keene) - Sexual Assault

Against Juveniles

Although a number of proposals were

introduced to permit an _ increased

reliance on hearsay evidence in criminal

trials involving child victims of molest or

abuse, SB 1578 was the only successful

one. Under present law, before a confes-

sion is admissible there must be indepen-

dent corroboration of the offense (cor-

pus delecti). SB 1578 allows out-of-court

statements (hearsay) to provide this cor-

roboration in cases involving juvenile

victims of sexual assault.

ACTION: Passed Legislature, signed by

Governor.

ACLU: Opposed

EMPLOYMENT

RIGHTS

AB 274 (M. Waters) - Pregnancy

Discrimination/Rights of the Disabled

This bill became one of the most re-

vised measures of the 1983-1984 session.

Originally introduced to protect training

and promotional opportunities for preg-

nant employees, it was expanded to in-

clude protections against employment

discrimination for the disabled. These

provisions of the bill followed protections

provided in federal law under Section

504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Employer

concern about the inclusion of the men-

tally disabled stalled the bill in the Senate

Finance Committee. As organizations

representing the disabled worked to in-

crease support of the amended bill;

challenges to the state law on pregnancy

discrimination prompted a review of the

bill's original purpose. Shortly before the

end of the session the bill was completely

revised to simply include a statement of

legislative intent for a policy of non-

discrimination in employment for preg-

nant persons.

ACTION: Vetoed by Governor

ACLU: Support

cles, by protecting employees

SB 2012 (Watson); SB 2252 (Marks); AB

3883 (Molina) - Sexual Harrassment

Package

These bills were developed by the Sex-

ual Harassment Education (SHE) pro-

ject of the Commission on the Status of

Women. The measures are based on ex-

isting cases and enhance protections

which have been developed as non-

monetary relief for the victims of this

type of sexual abuse. The SHE project

was a creative remedy proposed and later

directed by the plaintiff in a sexual

harassment action filed against the state.

ACTION: All measures enacted into

law.

ACLU: Support

AB 2452 (M. Waters) - Whistleblowers

This bill established safeguards for

employees who communicate with

elected officals and government agen-

from

harassment or retaliation by employers.

A successor to an earlier measure by

Waters, this version of the proposal

created exceptions for certain privileged

relationships such as attorney-client and

doctor-patient communications.

ACTION: Signed by Governor

ACLU: Sponsor; Support

SCURATO/LNS

AB 1 (Agnos) - Gay Rights

This measure to ban employment and

housing discrimination against gays and

lesbians was approved by both houses of

the Legislature but vetoed by Governor

Deukmejian in the spring of 1984.

Fundamentalist religious organizations

mounted a heavy lobbying effort against

the bill but the Governor's stated reason

for refusing to approve the measure was

a lack of documented evidence of

employment discrimination against gay

people. The measure will be reintroduced

and the results of a_ statewide

documentation project will be presented

as grounds for enactment. Supporters of -

AB 1 were heartened by the response of

a=W

some conservative and moderate

legistlators who cast key votes for the

bill.

ACTION: Passed both houses, vetoed

by Governor

ACLU: Support

SB 2018 (McCorquodale) - Welfare

Reform

SB 2018 is an alternative welfare

reform measure co-sponsored by ACLU,

welfare rights groups, women's groups,

religious groups and unions representing

eligibility workers. As introduced it pro-

posed to consolidate fraud proposals and

provided that fraud under $2000 will

be punishable by restitution only (no in-

carceration) and also narrowed the

definition of fraudulent overpayment.

This provision was deleted due to-

vigorous law enforcement opposition.

The measure also requires an eligibility

form development panel and _ sets

guidelines to correct the problems caused

by complicated uncomprehensible wel-

fare forms. It also requires one con-''

tinuous eligibility worker so that a client

has at least one worker who is familiar

with the case.

ACTION: Passed by Legislature, vetoed

by Governor

ACLU: Co-sponsored; support

FIRST

AMENDMENT

AB 3500 (McAllister) - Religious

Divorce

`Under the doctrine of Jewish Or-.

- thodoxy a practicing Jew must obtain a

religious divorce or `"`gett'' in order to

have a religious remarriage. Jewish law

allows the husband the right to refuse to

grant a ``gett''. AB 3500 was introduced

and modeled after a law in New York

that allows the civil court to refuse a

divorce until the husband obtained a

``sett''?. The ACLU argued in opposition

that this form of legislation is a violation

of the free exercise clause in that it forces

a person to engage in a religious practice

in order to gain a secular benefit.

ACTION: Defeated in the Assembly

Judiciary Committee.

ACLU: Opposed

aclu news

6 march 1985

hen President Reagan at his Feb-

y ruary 20 press conference called for

renewed funding for the ``freedom

fighters' to either ``remove the present

government of Nicaragua'? or make

them ``say Uncle'' he once again raised

the political stakes of this crucial vote

around covert aid to conduct the illegal

war against the people of Nicaragua.

According to national ACLU lobbyist

Susan Benda, ``The voting on funding

for the contra is a critical vote for the

future of U.S. Central America policy.

This is the one part of foreign policy

where Congress has stood up to the

President and said no.

"The last vote on this issue - just

prior to the close of the 1984 Congress -

was an absolute repudiation by the

House of Representatives to Ronald

Reagan's war in Central America. We

hope that this repudiation will be

maintained on this critical issue.'' Benda

added.

Since 1976 the ACLU opposed all

governmental covert operations, defined

as secret activities intended to influence

the internal affairs of foreign

governments. Although some of the

current "`covert'? operations are quite

public because of press disclosures, the

fact that they are still officially secret is

significant. The Reagan Administration

publicly refuses to respond to questions

about the scope and purpose of these

operations, or even confirm their

existence. Thus, the American public

and Congress are deprived of their right

to an open, informed and public debate

on U:S. foreign policy.

Action to Date

Last October, the House won a

major victory when the Administration

and the Senate were forced to agree to

end all funding for the covert operation

against Nicaragua. Responding to the

expose of CIA involvement in the mining

of Nicaraguan harbors and CIA manual

instructing the counterrevolutionary

forces how to ``neutralize'' (i.e.

assassinate) Sandinista leaders and

sabotage the economy, many

Congressional representatives drew the

line on funding for the contra.

As a result, current law now prohibits

the use of any U.S. funds directly or

- indirectly for paramilitary and military

operations in Nicaragua. The House

acceded to a compromise provision

allowing the president to submit a new

request for funding after February 28,

1985. Congressional resolve to end the

covert war will be put to the test in

House and Senate floor votes sometime

in March after the President submits his

request for renewed funding.

An affirmative vote by both chambers

is required in order to release the $14

million for the operation. If the House

maintains its opposition to the covert

war, the prohibition will remain in

effect.

/

By the end of 1984, the House was

voting by a 60-vote margin to end the

war. The House, which is expected

to vote before the Senate on the

President's request for funding,

probably will remain firm in its

opposition despite a net loss of eleven

votes as a result of the November

elections. The new chair of the

Intelligence Committee, Lee Hamilton

(D-IN), is an active opponent of the

Representative Edward.

covert war.

Reagan Bids Hard for Funds

No Covert Aid for War

Against Nicaragua

Distributed by King Features Syndicate

THE OVERTHROW OF

THE NICARASUAN

th y uy se te) hy Li iS e (y

NA Ol

0 ARO RR A

ly r yen

ee

Lad) Nf me

ie ga md Hhchitee lane Ba ft

| ES

ee WEL. _ONER THROWITIN _ (T'S PRESENT

OP The HMiomi Herald) = TRU, TURE WHICHISATO TALITARIAN

| COMM UNST STATE AND

STSNOTA GOVERNMENT CHOSE

BYTE = FECLEWE 9 XHINKWE

HONE BNO IGA

HOSE EREEDOME] gurer hey

MR. PRESIDENT, 2 GET

DO YOU ADVOCATE DEMO THERE SOON

THe Biot are pes teed or ba hd na ee hee

HEM Hen geet ee, a Pees

Hs,

Boland (D-MA), a senior member of the

Appropriations Committee. which has

formal jurisdiction over this vote,

remains adamant in his opposition.

Daily, the newspaper headlines relate

the all-out effort that the Reagan

Administration is making to mobilize

Opposition to the Nicaraguan

government and support for renewal of

funds to escalate the war. Before

Congress, the press and the public the

President, the Secretary of State, and

other Administration spokespersons

keep up the incessant drumbeat of the

contras being ``freedom fighters'? and

"`our brothers'' defending the ``Cuban-

Soviet bloc aggression'' of the "brutal

Sandinista dictatorship."'

But despite this incessant bellicose

drumbeat, the tide can be turned.

Whereas 18 months ago, a New York

Times poll showed that only 8% of the

public knew which side the U.S. was

supporting in Nicaragua, a Washington

Post-ABC News poll released on

February 27 showed that 70% of the.

American people oppose U.S. efforts to

topple the government of Nicaragua -

only days after the President had

announced that he supported such

efforts.

In the Senate

In 1984, opposition to the covert war'

increased dramatically. The new chair of

the Senate Intelligence Committee,

David Durenberger (R-MN) previously

supported the Administration, but

recently announced his unequivocal

opposition to restarting the covert war.

Current vote counts indicate that there is

now only a four-vote margin in the

Senate in favor of renewed funding.

Prospects

The upcoming votes are critical, with

extremely high stakes. The

Administration failed to get either

supplemental funds for last year or any

funds for this year. Now the goal is to

hold the House majority, and push for a

Senate majority to oppose renewed

funding.

Action Alert!

Write, wire or call your Senators and

Representatives urging them to oppose

any funding for the covert operation

against Nicaragua. Work must be done

even with members who voted correctly

in the past: they should be commended

for their past actions and asked for a

commitment on the upcoming vote.

Contact Ed Zschau

Representative Ed Zschau (R-

Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, Stanislaus) has (c)

been identified by the ACLU Bill of

Rights Lobby as a key swing vote. On

three separate votes in the last session, he

voted twice against and once in favor of

covert aid to the contra - and he must

be lobbied to vote no on the funding this

time around. A/J ACLU members and

supporters in his district are urged to

contact Representative Zschau.

While the House is a priority, Senators

should not be neglected. In addition to

your own representatives, the chairs of

the House and Sentate Intelligence

Committees should also be contacted.

Use the following addresses:

Your Representative/

Representative Ed Zschau/

Representative Lee Hamilton, Chair,

House Intelligence Committee

House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20515

Senator Pete Wilson/

Senator Alan Cranston/

Senator David Durenberger, Chair

Senate Intelligence Committee

Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20510

Telephone: (for all of Congress)

202-224-3121.

Flash!

As the ACLU News went to press

on March 5, a new report prepared by

a legal team headed by former New

York State Assistant Attorney General

Reed Brody was submitted to Congress

documenting that the U.S. backed

contras have engaged in a systematic

pattern of atrocities against Nicaraguan

civilians.

Details of 28 interviews with Nicara-

guans in areas attacked by the contras,

bear witness to the ``assassination,

torture, rape, kidnapping and

mutilation of civilians,'' according to

the report, which was independently

verified by the New York Times.

Representative Sam Gejdenson of

the House Foreign Affairs Committee

said that the report convinces him that

`the Administration wants to finance

civilian atrocities with American tax

dollars.'

Congressional Voting Records

he battle lines have been drawn: as the Congressional session

opens in Washington, D.C. we have been promised a presidential

agenda characterized by the slogan, ``You ain't seen nothin' yet.''

Many of the key issues on Capitol Hill will be those over which fierce

battles were fought during the last session: immigration reform,

school prayer, covert aid, reproductive freedom and civil rights. As we

brace ourselves for these legislative battles, it is useful to check the

records of our legislators on these key issues and prepare to exert

pressure where it will be most effective on civil liberties issues.

Each year, the ACLU National Legislative Office compiles Congressional voting

records based on key civil liberties measures. The 1984 voting records listed below are

based on 25 pieces of proposed legislation in the Senate and 20 in the House of

Representatives.

A complete list of the records of all members of Congress is in the November 1984

issue Of Civil Liberties Alert. The Alert is the legislative newsletter of the national

ACLU and is available free to all ACLU members on request. For a subscription,

write: Civil Liberties Alert, ACLU/Washington Office, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue SE,

Washington, DC, 20003.

aclu news

march 1985 #

ACLU Fights Fees in Berkeley Ballot Suit

The ACLU-NC is defending Anna

Rabkin, Berkeley's elected city auditor,

who has been ordered by an Alameda

County Superior Court judge to pay her

political opponent's legal fees for

allegedly making false statements on a

Berkeley ballot measure last November.

The amount, which will be determined

by the judge on March 12, could come to

over $10,000.

The ACLU believes the award will

have a chilling effect on free speech and

violates both the First Amendment and

the California Constitution by making

citizens financially liable for their

statements in a ballot pamphlet.

The suit against Rabkin was filed by

Andrea Washburn, a former Berkeley

City Council member, who sponsored a

competing intitiative which appeared on

Book Review

by Richard Criley

The Big Chill: How the Reagan ad-

ministration, corporate America, and

religious conservatives are subverting

free speech and the public's right to

know, Eve Pell; Beacon Press 1984.

James Madison said, ``A popular

Government without popular informa-

tion or the means of acquiring it, is but a

Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or

perhaps both.'' In her newly published

volume, The Big Chill, Bay Area author

and former ACLU-NC Board member

Eve Pell presents damning evidence that

we are close to proving that Madison was

prophetic.

With the proliferation of communica-

tions which deluge us with irrelevancies,

half-truths and lies, it is becoming in-

creasingly difficult to find the essential

truths about the actions of our govern-

ment and the world around us. This

book tells us why. In it, Pell documents

the impact of three major forces which

chill freedom of expression and access to

information: the federal government,

corporate vested interests and right-wing

fundamentalists.

Federal government secrecy and cen-

sorship reached a historic new stage

when we entered the nuclear age and the

the same ballot. Washburn objected to

the use of the city's recycling contract,

among other things.

Although five people signed the ballot

argument, Rabkin was singled out

because only she was available to defend

the ballot language. A settlement was

reached last fall - before the November

elections - deleting three allegedly false

passages from the ballot argument, but |

Washburn's attorneys subsequently

asked the Alameda County Superior

Court to award the $10,262 in legal fees

they charged in preparing the case.

According to ACLU-NC. staff

counsel Amitai Schwartz ``An award of

attorneys fees based on statements in an

officially published voter handbook will

have a chilling effect on all such

statements in the future and will hinder,

limbo between peace and war after

World War II. With government reliance

on its nuclear arsenal as an instrument of

foreign policy and its secret agencies like

the CIA operating through covert action,

`national security'' has become the ra-

tionale for the government's expanding

cover of secrecy. The Reagan Ad-

ministration has. gone beyond its

predecessors in the suppression of access

to information through an ever-widening

net of executive orders, legislation and

administrative practices. The federal

courts are executing a simultaneous

retreat from upholding the public's right

to know. A major portion of The Big

Chill is devoted to a detailed analysis of

this development.

Attempts to impose censorship com-

ing from the private sector also are not

new. Advocates of book banning have

haunted schools and libraries, with the

most persistent and successful pressures

coming from right-wing fundamen-

talists. When these efforts are made

public, they have often been repelled.

But too frequently, without a confronta-

tion, the book banners have been quietly

successful. The gutting of ``controver-

sial'? passages from school textbooks,

such as the mere mention of the word

``evolution,'' has long been-a reality in

the publishing industry where surrender

to censorship is the safest business

policy.

The more subtle, pervasive censorship

exercised by corporate America has also

gone on for many years and is the most

difficult to expose because it is seldom

publicly challenged. ``A chilling effect is

hard to document while it is taking

place,' Pell explains, ``since the same

fears which lead people to keep quiet in

the first place also keep them from men-

tioning their silence."'

What is new is the close affinity which

now exists between government of-

fialdom and the private sectors. The con-

fluence of these streams sharing a com-

mon goal of suppression of the free flow

if information and ideas has qualitatively

increased the threat to the public's right

to know.

The use of libel suits in recent years

has vastly increased. The plethora of re-

cent cases which have chilled freedom of

expression, particularly in the mass

media, are impressively reviewed by Pell.

The Big Chill is must reading for all of

us who seek to be serious civil liberties

activists. It can help us set our priorities

rather than promote, the free flow of

information."'

Rabkin, who backed the successful

Measure G recycling initiative in the

November election, says that she and the

other signers of the ballot argument felt

they were only expressing an opinion as

to the legality of the city contract.

Washburn, who backed the unsuccessful

counter recycling initiative Measure H,

contended that it was an incorrect

statement of fact that misled voters. The

two factions have been engaged in an

often bitter dispute since July 1983,

when the former City Council voted to

begin discussions with a controversial

recycling contractor.

The ACLU argues that the award of

attorneys fees raises state and federal

constitutional questions of free speech

and understand the challenges that lie

before us. As Pell so clearly warns, `"The

current conflicts over free speech, free

press and the right to know strike at the

heart of our democracy. Once again, it is

time to discover the value and meaning

of our historic First Amendment rights.

ACLU-NC Vice Chair Richard Criley

is a founder and first chair of the Right

to Dissent Committee.

Computer

Donations

Needed

Donations of NorthStar

"Advantage" microcomputers, a

hard disk, and a heavy duty dot-

matrix printer are needed to

augment the ACLU-NC's current

system, used by legal, field,

public information and

membership departments. __

Please call Associate Director

Michael Miller, 415-621-2493.

Donations are tax deductible.

and the right to petition for a redress of

grievances.

Schwartz notes that such sanctions

"will cause responsible as well as

irresponsible persons to avoid statements

which might cause their opponents to sue

and recover money."'

"The statements in the ballot

pamphlet are a form of petitioning and

certainly a matter of free expression.

When persons who sign such statements

face the threat of having to pay legal fees

to their opponents, political dialogue will

become bland and guarded rather than

robust and wide-open as contemplated

by the First Amendment,'' said

Schwartz.

The ACLU is prepared to file an

appeal of behalf of Rabkin following the

scheduled March 12 finalization of the

Superior Court judgment. The ACLU

did not represent Rabkin on the merits of

the language of the ballot controversy.

Abortion

Funds

continued from p. 1

The time at which a fetus reaches

viability, or the stage where it can survive

outside the uterus, varies with each

pregnancy. Viability is not reached by 20

weeks.

Every year since 1978, the ACLU-NC

has had to go to court to oppose the

Legislature's Budget Acts eliminating or

severely resticting Medi-Cal funding for

abortion. In 1981, the California

Supreme Court ruled that such budget

cuts are unconstitutional and that the

state must provide public funds for the

more than 100,000 eligible women - in-

cluding 27,000 teenagers - each year

who seek abortions in this state.

The latest in this series of lawsuits,

CDRR vy. Rank IL filed in July 1984, suc-

cessfully defeated an attempt by the

Legislature to restrict funding by setting

up a special limited fund for abortions

outside of the Medi-Cal General Fund.

Your Civil Liberties .

Ignore them

and they'll go away!

Joim the ACLU

( ) Individual $20 (

and an additional contribution of $-----

Name

) Joint $30

' Address

i.

8 City

a

E

i

a

i

: ( ) This is a gift membership from

'

t

a

t

G

Zip

Return to ACLU-NC, 1663 Mission St., S.F. 94103

Gee oe oe oom oe oe ow se oe

yen,

aclu news

8 march 1985

January 22 Lobby in Sacramento

Generations for Choice

Pro-choice supporters - and one anti-choice heckler (in center with cowboy hat

and open mouth) - filled the Capitol press room to launch the ``Generations for

Choice'' day in Sacramento.

Speakers at the press conference included (1. to r.) Assembly member Tom Bates,

Senator Diane Watson, Judith Kleinberg, Chair of the California Abortion Rights

League of Northern California, and Assembly member Burt Margolin. Watson

announced that she would introduce legislation defining violent attacks on abortion

clinics as ``terrorism."'

More than 250 members and supporters of the Northern California Pro-Choice

Coalition and Pro-Choice Advocates came from all over northern California to

S,

S

S

2

Qa

x

=

a

$

=

=

__ Union Maid Photos

lobby legislators, attend workshops on the future of reproductive rights legislation in

Sacramento, and hear author Uta Landy, former director of the National Abortion

-Federation speak on "`Terrorism Against Choice."

"The massive showing of support for reproductive rights comes at a very crucial

time - when a woman's right to choose is under fierce attack on national, state and

local levels,'' said ACLU Field Representative Marcia Gallo. ``We are sure that our

strong presence in Sacramento - and our continuing efforts - will have a

major impact on legislators as these critical issues come before them."'

(For more pro-choice news, see the centerfold 1984 Legislative Report and related

story front page.)

BeAeReK

BOARD MEETING: (Usually fourth

Thursday of each month.) Volunteers are

needed to staff hotline. Watch for more

information on Berkeley City Politics

forum. Contact Joe Dorst, 415/654-4163.

EARL WARREN

BOARD MEETING: (Third Wednesday

each month.) Contact Larry Polansky,

415/530-4553,

FRESNO

BOARD MEETING: (Usually third

Wednesday each month.) Wednesday,

March 20, at 5:30 p.m. Join us for a

newsletter mailing. For further informa-

tion: Contact Sam Gitchel, 209/486-2411

(days) 209/442-0941 (eves).

GAY RIGHTS

BOARD MEETING: (First Tuesday each

month.) Tuesday, April 2, ACLU 1663

Mission Street #460, S.F., at 7:00 p.m.

Sunday March 31, the Chapter is sponsor-

ing "`Resorts for Sex Perverts', 4:00 p.m.

Valencia Rose Cafe, 766 Valencia Street,

SF. A narrated slide show by Alan Berube

of the SF Gay/Lesbian History Project.

"Efforts to close the SF Gay Bars, 1940's

- 1960's.'' Tickets: $3.00 - members; $4

-non-members. The Chapter ``AIDS and

the Bathhouses Road Show'' visits the SF

Chapter board meeting on Tuesday,

March 26 at 7:00 p.m. at the ACLU. For

further information: Contact Doug

Warner, 641-7900.

MARIN COUNTY

BOARD MEETING: (Third Monday

each month.) Monday, March 18, at

Citicorp Bank, Mill Valley. Contact: Leslie

Paul, 415/381-1088.

MID-PEN

BOARD MEETING: (Usually last

Wednesday of each month.) No meeting

scheduled for March. For further informa-

tion: Contact Harry Anisgard,

415/856-9186.

MONTEREY

BOARD MEETING: (Fourth Tuesday

each month.) Chapter meeting or forum

on Tuesday, March 26, 7:30 p.m. at the

Monterey Library Community Room,

Madison and Pacific Streets, Monterey.

For further information; Contact Richard

Criley, 408/624-7562.

MT. DIABLO -

BOARD MEETING: (Fourth Wednesday

of every month.) Contact Barbara Eaton

for location, 415/676-5160 or 939-ACLU.

NORTH PEN

BOARD MEETING: (Second Monday of

every month.) Contact Sid Schieber,

415/345-8603.

Calendar

SACRAMENTO

VALLEY -

BOARD MEETING: (Note change. Now

the second Wednesday each month)

Wednesday, March 13, 7:30 p.m. at the

County Administration Center on I Street,

Sacramento. Contact Mary Gill,

916/457-4088.

SAN FRANCISCO

BOARD MEETING: (Usually fourth

Tuesday each month.) Contact Chandler

Visher, 415/391-0222.

SANTA CLARA

BOARD MEETING: (First Tuesday of

each month.) Contact Steve Alpers,

415/792-5110.

SANTA CRUZ

BOARD MEETING: (Usually second

Wednesday each month.) Contact Bob

- Taren, 408/429-9880.

SONOMA

BOARD MEETING: Contact Andrea

Learned, 707/544-6911.

STOCKTON

BOARD MEETING: (Third Wednesday

each month.) Contact Bart Harloe,

209/946-2431 (days).

YOLO COUNTY

BOARD_ MEETING: Contact Michael

Laurence, 916-756-8621.

FIELD

COMMITTEE

MEETINGS

PRO-CHOICE TASK FORCE:

Wednesday, March 6 at 6:00 p.m. and

Wednesday April 6 at 7:30 p.m. ACLU,

1663 Mission Street, 4th Floor, S.F. All

Pro-Choice supporters and _ freinds

welcome. Contact: Marcia Gallo,

415/621-2493.

RIGHT TO DISSENT SUBCOMMIT-

TEE: Wednesday March 6 at 7:30 p.m.

and Wednesday April 6 at 6:00 p.m.

ACLU, 1663 Mission Street, 4th Floor,

S.F. Contact Marcia Gallo, 415/621-2493.

DRAFT OPPOSITION NETWORK:

(Usually second Tuesday of month.) Con-

tact Judy Newman, 415/567-1527.

IMMIGRATION WORKING GROUP:

Thursday, March 14 at 6:00 p.m. ACLU,

1663 Mission Street, SF. Guest Speaker on

the Sanctuary Movement.

PE SSS SSS SH a ESE IS CED TE TLE EE ROS