vol. 52, no. 1

aclu news

NON PROFIT

ORGANIZATION

US POSTAGE

PAID

Permit No. 4424

San Francisco, CA

Volume LII

January-February 1987 |

No. 1

Champion Diver Fights

NCAA Drug Test

At a dramatic courtroom hearing, packed

with reporters and television cameras, Santa

Clara Superior Court Judge Peter J. Stone

issued a Temporary Restraining Order

(TRO) on January 13 allowing a champion

student diver to compete in an NCAA

diving meet without taking the NCAA

required drug test.

The ACLU-NC filed the lawsuit on

January 6 on behalf of Simone LeVant,

Captain of the Stanford Women's Diving

Team, charging that drug testing of student

athletes by the National Collegiate Athletic

Association (NCAA) is an unconstitutional

invasion of privacy. A full hearing will be

held on March 11 in Santa Clara Superior

Court to determine if a permanent injunc-

tion should be issued.

LeVant is represented by ACLU-NC

cooperating attorneys Robert A. Van Nest

and Susan J. Harriman of the San Francisco

law firm of Keker and Brockett, and

ACLU-NC staff attorneys Margaret Crosby

and Edward Chen.

Charging that the NCAA drug testing

program is "degrading and humiliating," the

ACLU is challenging the practice of the

NCAA to condition the right to compete

in intercollegiate athletics on participation

in a "mandatory, random and unconstitu-

tional drug testing program."

LeVant, a senior English major attending

Stanford on an athletic scholarship, has

been a member of the Women's Swimming

and Diving Team for the past three years

and is currently Captain of the team. She

had been barred from participating in all

intercollegiate diving events solely because

she refused to consent to urinalysis testing.

In January, 1986 the NCAA enacted drug

testing legislation requiring student athletes

who participate in intercollegiate competi-

tion to sign a consent form submitting to

random drug testing. If a student refuses

to sign the consent form, she is barred from

participation in all intercollegiate

competition.

According to LeVant, "I have been diving

competitively since I was thirteen years old.

As a scholarship athlete, diving has been

an integral part of my academic career and

my life. this year I was named captain and

had been looking forward with great

optimism, expectation and joy to my senior

and final year of collegiate NCAA

competition.

"I do not wishto waive my constitutional

right to privacy nor do I wish to submit

to the NCAA's unconstitutional drug testing

program. I believe the program is both

humiliating and degrading and violates my

right to privacy and my right to protection

from unreasonable search and seizure.

"For those reasons, I refused to sign the

Stanford Sports Information

Simone LeVant, Captain of the Stanford Women's Diving team, refused to take

the NCAA drug test and was barred from intercollegiate competition.

NCAA consent form," LeVant explained.

After LeVant refused to submit to drug

testing, she was barred from further |

competition. LeVant turned to the ACLU

to challenge the drug testing after unsuc-

cessfully seeking relief from within the

Stanford athletic department.

Judge Stone's TRO came in time for

LeVant to participate in a major compe-

tition in Las Vegas on January 23.

According to attorney Van Nest, "The

NCAA program punishes those who stand

up for their rights to privacy and dignity.

Here we have an excellent athlete who has

spent her whole life preparing for this

competition, and the NCAA would bar her

from competing in all intercollegiate

events-not based on any drug test results,

or even on any suspicion that she has used

drugs, but simply because she refused to

give up important civil rights."

Attorney Harriman detailed the violation

of privacy involved in the NCAA testing.

"The athlete is forced to urinate in front

of an NCAA representative-a total

stranger-who `monitors the test. If the

athlete is unable to fill the urine beaker,

she is given fluids and cannot leave until

she is able to give a full sample. The athlete

then must sign a form certifying that there

were no irregularities in the entire testing

process, even though she would have

absolutely no way of knowing whether the

NCAA officials had properly conducted the

urine test.

"If the athlete refuses to sign the form

stating that there are no irregularities, the

athlete is treated as though she had tested

positive for drugs-and barred from

competing," Harriman said.

The ACLU lawsuit cites several recent

cases in which drug testing has been ruled

unconstitutional for employees. In

December, just before an ACLU lawsuit was

to be filed, the University of California/

Berkeley suspended the drug testing of

student athletes and entered into negotia-

tions with the ACLU about the constitu-

tionality of the program.

This suit, Le Vant v. NCAA, charges that

the drug testing plan detracts from the

dignity of each student athlete competing

in intercollegiate sports and invades his or

her right to privacy under the California

Constitution. The ACLU is asking the court

permanently enjoin the NCAA from

coercing LeVant to submit to the drug test,

or having her participation in diving

competition terminated for refusal to submit

to a test.

1987-88 Board Elections

As provided by the ACLU-NC by-laws,

revised in 1980, the ACLU-NC membership

is entitled to elect its 1987-88 Board directly.

The Nominating Committee is now seeking

suggestions from the membership to fill at-

large positions on the Board.

ACLU members may participate in the

nominating process in two ways:

1. They may send suggestions for the

Nominating Committee's consideration

before March 12, 1987. (Address sug-

gesstions to Nominating Committee,

ACLU-NC, 1663 Mission Street, San

Francisco, CA 94103. Include your -

suggested nominee's qualifications and

how the nominee may be reached.)

2. They may submit a petition of nom-

ination with the signatures of 15 current

ACLU members. Petitions of nomina-

tion, which should also include the

nominee's qualifications, must be

submitted to the Board of Directors by

May 24, 1987 (20 days after the May

Board meeting).

(Current ACLU members are those

who have renewed their membership

during the last 12 months. Only current

members are eligible to submit nomi-

nations, sign petitions of nominations

and vote.)

ACLU members will select Board

members from the slate of candidates

nominated by petition and by the Nom-

inating Committee. The ballot will appear

in the June issue of the ACLU News.

ARTICLE VII, SECTION 3: The final

report of the Nominating Committee to

nominate members-at-large to the Board

will be presented at the May Board

continued on p. 7

aclu news

2 jan-feb 1987

Drug Testing and Worker Safety: the

Great False Hope

As the use of drug testing becomes increasingly common-at the workplace, in schools

and on the athletic field-concerns about privacy and other civil liberties implications

have become more and more obscure behind arguments about safety, performance level

and competence.

`While we focus on the civil liberties violations, we cannot afford to remain ignorant

about these legitimate concerns. Do drug tests help improve worker and public safety?

Can drug tests be used reliably to measure performance ability? In the following article,

ACLU-NC staff attorney Ed Chen delves into these important questions and comes

up with some substantial answers which verify and deepen the ACLU% opposition to

drug testing.

Aury 7m vam:

A.

ha

oe

by Edward Chen

ACLU-NC staff attorney

iscovery of traces of marijuana in

DPD: blood and urine of Conrail

engineers has precipitated calls for

random drug testing of airline pilots,

railroad engineers and others involved in

safety sensitive positions. While the concern

for public safety is an understandable one,

drug testing represents a false and misguided

hope in the effort to assure industrial safety.

There are many problems with random

drug testing. First, drug testing is extremely

invasive of privacy in several ways: (1) it

often requires "witnessed" collection

whereby a monitor directly observes the

employee urinate, (2) it requires employees

to give up bodily fluids upon the order of

the employer thereby violating bodily

integrity, (3) it reveals medication recently

taken by employees thereby disclosing

confidential medical treatment for any

number of personal physical conditions

including high blood pressure, diabetes,

venereal disease or depression; it also can

disclose hormones indicative of such

conditions as pregnancy, (4) it reveals off-

the-job conduct since drug metabolites

detected by urinalysis can stay in the body

for up to two months, and (5) confidentiality

of results can rarely be completely safe-

guarded, particularly if an employee is

disciplined as a result of the tests.

Random testing effectively sweeps the

innocent along with the "guilty," subjecting

all to these invasive procedures without any

basis for individualized suspicion, a concept

completely at odds with basic constitutional

principle. -

Moreover, there is a substantial danger

that employees who have done nothing to

even suspect them of drug use will be falsely

terminated. A 1985 study by the Center for

Disease Control revealed astounding error

rates by laboratories which performed tests

for the government; this error rate will surely

EMPLOYEE (A) URIVATES IN

VRIWAL (8). URINE 15

TeSTED (Cc) for DEVS.

[F VRING Tests NECATIVE,

HiT (5 FlvsHep (p).

F VRE TESTS PosiTIWE Boxine

Guove (E) SASHES FouNDING

FMHER (EF) WHo FALLS OVER,

KNOCKING BOWLING BALL (6)

DOWN CHUTE. (H) BREAKING

OIL LAMP (pound) SETTWe FIRE (c)

FOVETH AMENDMENT (J) CAUSING

SMOME ALARM (k) f BUZZ,

SCARING CAT (L) WHO JERKS

Stee (mM),

RELEASISC TRAP

DOOR (NW),

worsen as increasing demand for drug tests

outpaces the growth of qualified and

experienced laboratories. The problem of

inaccurate tests is magnified when drug tests

are applied to the general population. As

Dr. George Lundberg, editor of the Journal

of the American Medical Association,

recently pointed out, as a result of statistical

theorem, drug tests with 95% accuracy will

result in 50% false positives when applied

to a population that contains 5% drug users.

Wholly apart from these problems,

however, much of the current debate on drug

testing is proceeding without a complete

understanding of what urine and blood tests

do, what they don't do and the existence

of better alternatives for detecting impaired

or intoxicated workers. There are three basic

facts which must be understood.

1. Drug tests do not measure impairment

or intoxication.

Unlike blood-alcohol tests administered

to individuals suspected of driving under

the influence, urine tests do not measure

impairment or intoxication. Urine tests

merely detect the presence of metabolites

in urine after the drug has been decomposed

by the body. These metabolites (which are

almost always inert) stay in the body long

after the psychoactive component of the

drug has left the blood and brain. Marijuana

metabolites, for example, are detectable in

urine for up to two months after inhalation.

Invariably, positive urine tests can be

obtained long after the effect of the drug,

if any, has worn off. The inability of urine

tests to measure impairment is undisputed

by experts, the National Institute of Drug

Abuse, and even manufacturers of drug test

kits.

Furthermore because of individual

variabilities in body functions-including

metabolism rate, absorption, kidney func-

tion, urinary volume and drug tolerance-

the particular level of metabolite concen-

tration found in urine has no meaningful

value. Urine tests cannot determine the time

or amount of drug use. They only establish

one fact-that the identified drug was

consumed in some quantity and some prior

time, possibly days or weeks before.

The same problems exist with blood tests

for drugs. Although it is possible to measure

the active components of some drugs in the

blood, scientists have not been able to

correlate blood levels with impairment. This

is due both to the complexity of drugs other

than alcohol and vast individual differences

in reaction to drugs.

2. Drug tests are inherently underinclusive.

Drug tests only screen for a finite list

of compounds. There are thousands of

compounds available over the counter, by

prescription, or through illicit sources,

which can cause impairment or intoxication.

It is impossible to test for all of them.

Ironically, many employers are not even

testing for the most common drug of

abuse-alcohol.

Even with respect to the drugs screened

by the tests, there will always be false

negatives-where traces are missed by

laboratory error or where the reported

concentration falls below some designated

cut-off level which is often set at a high

level to minimize false positives.

More fundamentally, drug tests cannot

detect a host of other causes of worker

impairment such as fatigue, low morale,

anxiety and distress, marital problems,

organic diseases affecting the brain and

nervous system, psychological disorders and

poor general physical health. Yet these

common problems present equally serious

consequences in safety sensitive positions.

3. There are more effective alternatives to

industrial safety.

There is a wide range of workplace tools

available to employers in combatting

industrial accidents caused by human error.

They start with careful recruiting and hiring,

worker training, supervisory training to

detect deficient performance and early signs

of chemical dependency, and professionally

run drug education and employee assistance

programs. Yet employers, attracted by the

simplicity and inexpensiveness of drug tests

which reduce complex managerial decisions

to a simple yes or no answer from a test

tube, are opting for employee drug testing

without giving full consideration to these

alternatives.

In addition there are methods of testing

for worker impairment directly. Neurologists

have long used psychoneurological tests to

detect neurological dysfunctions. Scientists

have even invented computerized neurobe-

havioral evaluation systems which employ

personal computers to test worker impair-

ment in the field. Although some of these

programs were designed initially to detect

worker impairment due to exposure to

toxics, they measure functions (e.g., reflex,

hand-eye coordination, concentration,

short-term memory) which are directly

related to the concerns of worker intoxi-

cation and impairment due to drugs.

Another automated test, the "Critical

Tracking Task," designed to detect impair-

ment from alcohol and other drugs, has been

used in conjunction with a drunk driving

probation project in Los Angeles.

Tests which measure impairment directly

make more sense than drug tests which do

not measure impairment or intoxication.

And psycho-neurometric tests which mea-

sure specific functions directly related to job

fitness would not be nearly as invasive of

privacy as drug tests which typically require

witnessed collection, disclosure of medica-

tion taken within the last several weeks and

revelation of off-the-job conduct through

chemical analysis of bodily fluids.

To be sure such tests must be admin-

istered fairly and objectively; like all tests

they are subject to abuse and discrimination.

Used fairly, they hold much greater potential

for assuring industrial safety than drug tests.

Accordingly, as compelling as the interest

in public safety is, random drug testing of

workers represents a false and misguided

hope. It doesn't measure what most

employers think it measures, and there are

more effective and more constitutional ways

of promoting industrial safety.

policy on drug testing:

into protected privacy interests.

ACLU-NC Policy on Drug Testing

At its December meeting the ACLU-NC Board of Directors adopted the following

The ACLU-NC opposes drug testing of employees, prospective

employees or other classes of individuals as an unwarranted intrusion

Elaine Elinson, Editor

aclu news

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

August-September and November-December

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Nancy Pemberton, Chairperson Dorothy Ehrlich, Executive Director

Marcia Gallo, Chapter Page a

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

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.

_ aclunews "

jan-feb 1987 3

~ ACLU-NC 1

986 Leg

islative Report

nom ma

= - a sa

=

as sae

ee oem

Gamesmanship in Election Year Politics

by Daphne Macklin and Marjorie Swartz

ACLU Legislative Advocates, Sacramento

strong committee system has always been the tradition in the California

Legislature. If a bill was defeated in committee, it was generally dead.

Conversely, once a bill passed the key policy committees, it was almost

certain to reach the Governor's desk. However, the 1986 session was

marked by substantial deviation from this tradition. It was a lesson in floor

maneuveurs for advocates who thought they knew everything. Although there

were the usual battles in committees, many of the bills involving civil liberties

issues were also the subject of complicated actions on the floor. In such a situation

the victor is often the one with the superior knowledge of the house rules.

Paul Anderson

One useful tactic on the floor is to amend

a measure before its opponents discover the

action. This is relatively easy because there

is such a volume of legislation. Since much

of it is not controversial, members and

advocates often become inattentive. Lob-

bying a bill once it reaches the floor is much

more difficult than lobbying a committee.

There are more members to talk to and

no testimony is allowed. With some effort,

however, it is possible to get members to

speak for or against a measure from the

floor.

The decreased importance of policy

committee decisions was also evidenced by

an increase in civil liberties activity in the

fiscal committees. Traditionally these

committees have not decided policy but

focus debate on whether or not the state

budget could affort the particular proposal.

But increasingly the Assembly Ways and

Means and the Senate Appropriations

committees have become policy

battlegrounds.

Some major civil liberties battles-

among them, patient dumping, reproductive

choice, drug testing and the death penalty-

took place on these unusual battlefields.

Patient-Dumping

Misses at the Last Hurdle

"Patient-dumping" is the practice of

transferring an emergency room patient for

economic reasons from a private hospital

to a public facility before the person's

medical condition has been stabilized. The

victims of this practice are usually either

uninsured or unable to provide proof of

insurance. The fate of legislation dealing

with "patient-dumping" perfectly illustrates

this session's reliance on fiscal committee

and floor strategies by opponents and

proponents of major bills.

Assembly Member Burt Margolin intro-

duced AB 3403, co-sponsored by the ACLU

to address this problem. AB 3403 was

strongly opposed by the California Medical

Association (CMA) who argued that it was

inappropriate to sanction doctors who

refused to treat patients for economic

reasons unless there was some assurance

that the doctor would be compensated for

providing emergency care. AB 3403 passed

the Assembly Health Committee, the full

Assembly and Senate Health Committee;

but failed passage by one vote in the Senate

Appropriations Committee even though it

was not considered to have a significant

cost.

A strategy to save AB 3403 was developed

by amending the bill in its entirety into a

separate bill, but the CMA continued to

adamantly oppose even the new measure

because not enough of the new funding

would go to doctors. A powerful lobbying

force, the CMA marshalled its forces and

defeated the bill on the Senate concurrence

vote.

Minors' Access to Abortion

Abortion opponents found a powerful

and controversial theme-a parent's right

to know whether their minor daughter is

seeking or has had an abortion. SB 7

(Montoya) attempted to amend existing

California law which allows minors to

consent to medical and surgical procedures

relating to pregnancy without the consent

of a parent or guardian.

Nationally, anti-abortion groups have

forced passage of limitations on minors'

access to both abortion and contraception

in a number of states. The vast majority -

of these proposals have been enjoined in

federal court actions, although a few,

notably statutes in Massachusetts and

Minnesota, had been allowed to operate.

As the debate in favor of SB 7 raged and

ebbed in the California Legislature, the

national ACLU Reproductive Freedom

Project attorneys were in a federal district

court trial challenging the constitutionality

of a similar law in Minnesota. Testimony

at several of the SB 7 hearings included

information used in that trial.

Hearings on SB 7 began in early spring

in the Assembly Judiciary Subcommittee

on the Administration of Justice. The

- subcommittee declined to recommend SB

7 to the full committee, in effect, killing

the measure. But SB 7 proponents devised

a series of measures to resurrect the anti-

choice bill.

Eventually a tedious pattern emerged: at

politically opportune moments-days

before the primary election, during peak

polling and fundraising periods-SB 7's

supporters would stage press conferences,

mass mail and phone efforts, and anti-

abortion legislators would threaten yet

another procedural vote to have the bill

withdrawn from committee. Only one

attempt proceeded to an actual floor vote,

but the measure failed to gain the 41 votes

_ needed for passage.

Shortly before the legislative summer

recess, the contents of SB 7 were amended

into AB 2459 (N. Waters), an otherwise

minor bill with a curious history. Although

it had passed both the Assembly and the

Senate, as a measure providing additional

funds for services to rape victims, the bill

was sent back to the Senate where it

languished as an inactive measure. After

the failure of the procedural vote on SB

7, AB 2459 began life anew as the Montoya-

Wyman-McAlister Parental Rights Act of

1986.

In an even more remarkable action,

Senate President Pro Tem David Roberti,

whose anti-abortion sensibilities often strain

his relationship with his otherwise liberal

base, uncharacteristicly ignored the advice

of the Legislature Counsel and held the SB

7 amendments to AB 2459 to be relevant.

Meanwhile, conservative Assembly Demo-

crats and incumbents facing difficult races

were solicited as co-authors of the amended

AB 2459.

By the last weeks of the legislative session,

rumors of motions to withdraw and

attempts to amend the language of SB 7

into yet another bill surfaced daily and then

hourly only to fade. Anti-abortion lobbyists

lurked the halls while relay teams of pro-

choice activists attended floor sessions and

pored over amendments. Ultimately AB

2459 remained in the Assembly Judiciary

Committee despite efforts and some bitter

arguments between members of the same

caucus to further exploit the issue.

The SB 7 defeat was a victory for the

process of delay, and to a good end: in early

November, the Minnesota parental consent

law was declared invalid because it failed

to achieve its stated purpose of fostering

family communications and protecting

pregnant minors.

Crime Stoppers

In the area of criminal justice there were

many examples of major lobbying activity

which took place outside of the major policy

committees. Some of this activity resulted

from the sudden discovery of a so-called

drug crisis. As election day approached one

author hurriedly attempted to amend into

what had been a minor drug bill 50 pages

of new text, including substantive changes

in penalties for rock cocaine. Many of the

most extreme penalty increases and limita-

tions on judicial discretion in sentencing

were discovered and eliminated.

Another bill, lessening California state

due process requirements to gain access to

funds in drug cases without a conviction

also was sent to the Governor's desk.

No legislative session is complete without

a major battle over the death penalty. At

the end of the 1985 session AB 989, a

comprehensive death penalty bill authored

by Assembly Member Condit, had been

defeated in the Assembly Public Safety

Committee. But in early 1986, the second

half of a two-year session, bills such as AB

989 which had not been successful in 1985

could still be revived. Late in the 1986

session changes in membership allowed the

measure to be passed out of the same

committee where it had been previously

been defeated.

A two-house conference committee was

continued on p. 6

aclu news

4 jan-feb 1987

Highlights of the 198

Bills the ACLU-NC_

Fought For and Against

CRIMINAL JUSTICE

AB 989 (Condit)-Death Penalty

ACLU: Oppose

The Supreme Court's treatment of death

penalty cases became a major issue in the

Legislature as the judicial retention elections

drew near and AB 989 was the primary

vehicle for attacks on the Court. It contained

provisions which sought to overrule a variety

of death penalty decisions, including one

which limited the use of hearsay confessions.

AB 989 also contained proposals relating

to murder including a provision allowing

life without possibility of parole for juveniles

convicted of murder with special circum-

stances and expansion of the felony murder

rule which allows a conviction for murder

without proof of intent to kill.

ACTION: AB 989 died in conference

committee. The conferees reached an

impasse on language which would subject

the court to sanctions if death penalty cases

were not decided more expeditiously.

SB 1923 (Torres)-Criminal Procedure

ACLU: Oppose

A growing threat to due process for

someone accused of a crime is the argument

that our justice system is too costly and

time-consuming. SB 1823 was the prosec-

utor's solution: it contained a number of

restrictions on the rights of the accused

including increased use of hearsay in

preliminary examinations, and restrictions

on pre-trial motions.

ACTION: Passed Senate. In the Assembly

Public Safety Committee, the author asked

that the bill be referred for an interim

hearing when it became apparent that there

were insufficient votes for passage, effec-

tively killing the bill for 1986.

SB 2169 (Roberti)- Prostitution

ACLU: Opposes

This bill broadened the definition of

prostitution which not only expands the

type of adult consensual sexual activity

which is criminal, but also increases the

likelihood of entrapment by undercover

officers.

ACTION: Passed Legislature, signed by ~

Governor.

PRIVACY

AB 4242 (Klehs)-Drug _ Testing

Procedures

ACLU: Oppose in part

The original version of this bill estab-

lished standards for employer-sponsored

drug testing. As amended, the bill provided

(c) Howard Brodie 1980

Drawing by Howard Brodie of The Last Execution in California, 1967.

employment protections for persons seeking

drug rehabilitation similar to those now

provided for persons recovering from alcohol

abuse. The revised bill also provided for state

licensure of clinical laboratories that

perform drug tests for employers.

ACTION: Amended bill vetoed by Gov-

ernor. Subject matter was included in

interim hearings along with SB 2175

(Seymour).

SB 2175 (Seymour)-Employer Autho-

rized Drug Testing

ACLU: Oppose

This bill sought to preempt the San

Francisco ordinance which generally

prohibits the use of employer-sponsored

drug testing in the workplace by creating

legal authorization for employer-sponsored

drug testing.

ACTION: SB 2175 was sent to interim study

by the Senate Industrial Resolutions

Committee. Both SB 2175.and AB 4242

were the subject of a series of hearings

during the fall of 1986.

ACR 165 (LaFollette)-Drug Testing of

Legislators

ACLU: Oppose

This bill proposed: that members of the

Legislature and their staff submit to drug

testing and provide the results to the Joint

Rules Committee. It was a response to

President and Mrs. Reagan's "Just Say No"

campaign. The measure sparked sharp

criticism from staunchly conservative

legislators who resented the invasion of

personal privacy as well as the suggestion

that fundamental constitutional rights

should be sacrificied in the "war on drugs."

ACTION: Referred for interim study by the

Assembly Labor and Employment

Committee.

SB 159 (Presley)- Wiretapping

ACLU: Opposed

Although under California law electronic

eavesdropping is not permitted without the

consent of at least one party to a conver-

sation involving criminal activity, federal law

is more lenient. California law enforcement

authorities have sought broader authority

to eavesdrop surreptitiously, and SB 159 was

this session's attempt. _

ACTION: Passed Senate, defeated in

Assembly Public Safety Committee.

SB 1470 (McCorquodale)- Money Laund-

ering and Bank Privacy

ACLU: Opposed

California has had one of the most

protective bank privacy laws in the country.

This past session the Attorney General

successfully argued that his inability to gain

access to bank records unless there was

suspicion of criminal activity was thwarting

the war on drugs. SB 1470 requires financial

institutions to report cash transactions over

$10,000 to the Attorney General. It also

enacts a new crime of money-laundering:

the converting of $5,000 or more of cash

derived from illegal activity into legitimate

property. Although SB 1470 is a major

invasion of privacy, its scope was somewhat

limited by amendments.

ACTIONS: Passed Legislature, signed by

the Governor.

JUVENILES

AB 1617 (Farr)-Corporal Punishment

ACLU: Support

The bill expressly prohibits the use of

corporal punishment in California public

schools. As one of the first statewide bans

on corporal punishment the passage of the

bill is considered a landmark in the

movement to prevent the physical abuse of

children.

ACTION: Signed by Governor.

SB 883 (Presley)-Juvenile Status

Offenders

ACLU: Oppose

In the mid-70s California decriminalized

juvenile statute offenses and juveniles could

no longer be incarcerated for being runa-

ways or truant (status offenders). For a

number of years judges and law enforcement

_ aclu news

jan-feb 1987 5

56 Legislative Session

have sought to reinstitute this authority. This

session saw the first successful attempt. SB

883 is a one-county pilot project, allowing

certain juvenile status offenders to be

incarcerated for disobeying court orders. SB

883 also requires a study for measuring the

success of the pilot project.

ACTION: Passed by the Legislature, signed

by the Governor.

SB 1637 (Presley)-Juveniles in Adult Jails

ACLU: Support

Alhtough juveniles in adult jails must be

segregated, they are often abused and

molested there and attempt suicide. SB

1637, an attempt to limit this practice,

prohibits the overnight detention of most

juveniles in adult jails and requires them

to be released or placed in juvenile facilities.

ACTION: Passed Legislature, signed by

Governor.

DUE PROCESS

AB 3900 (Klehs)-Sterilization of Persons

`with Developmental Disabilities

ACLU: Oppose unless amended

A statute prohibiting sterilization of any

person unable to give consent was declared

unconstitutional by the California Supreme

Court. The court set out general guidelines

for a procedure for substituted consent. AB

3900 was introduced to implement the

decision, but included a more detailed

procedure and additional due process than

suggested by the court. Most of the ACLU's

suggestions, such as an automatic appeal,

were included but others were not.

ACTION: Passed Legislature, signed by the

Governor.

EQUAL

PROTECTION

AB 3667 (Agnos)/AB 3407 (Agnos/

Roos)-Discrimination Against Persons

with AIDS

ACLU: Support

As a follow-up to AB 403/AB 488 of

1985, the original bill AB 3667 recast the

AIDS confidentiality provisions in existing

law. The most significant element of the

bill would have declared that persons with

AIDS or who are perceived to be at risk

of the disease are covered by protections

against discrimination on the basis of

physical disability in the Fair Employment

and Housing Act.

ACTION: AB 3667 was vetoed by the

Governor. The anti-discrimination language

was reformulated in AB 3407, which was

also vetoed.

ECONOMIC

JUSTICE

AB 3403 (Margolin)- Patient Dumping

ACLU: Sponsor/Support

This bill was co-sponsored by the ACLU

and public interest health care advocates

in an attempt to remedy the practice of

patient-dumping. This occurs when private

health providers refuse to. treat an emer-

gency patient who lacks insurance and

transfer or "dump" the patient on public

hospitals. AB 3403 contained sanctions,

definitions and procedures for reporting and

data collection. When AB 3403 was defeated

in the Senate Appropriations Committee,

its provisions were amended into SB 1952

in the Assembly. SB 1952 also contained

a mechanism for new funds to pay providers

for what is presently uncompensated

medical care.

ACTION: AB 3403 passed the Assembly,

but was defeated in Senate Appropriations.

The amended version of SB 1952 passed

the Assembly; however, the Senate refused

to concur in Assembly amendments and

the bill failed on the Senate floor.

AIDS

. AB 3393 (Floyd)-AIDS/Criminal Justice

Concerns

ACLU: No position as amended

This bill began as an "omnibus AIDS

in the criminal justice setting" proposal

featuring enhanced penalties for persons

with AIDS convicted of certain sex offenses,

testing procedures for persons in jails and

prisons, and other elements. Eventually the

measure was reduced to a proposal to study

the incidence of AIDS within California's

prison population. AB 3393 served as the

Democratic response to more reactionary

and repressive AIDS inspired legislation.

Typically AB 3393 was presented at hearing

at the same time a more repressive proposal

was heard in order to defeat the latter bill.

ACTION: In the form of a study bill

surveying the incidence of AIDS in the state

prison population, the bill failed passage in

the Senate Appropriations Committee.

SB 1478 (Doolittle)-AIDS Testing for

Marriage Licenses

ACLU: Oppose

Originally this bill would have required

all persons seeking marriage licenses to

provide proof that they had been tested for

exposure to the HTLV-II/HIV (AIDS

virus). The measure passed the Senate

Health and Human Services Committee in

this form. However, it was radically

amended before going to the Senate floor,

requiring only that persons seeking marriage

licenses be provided with information

concerning sexually transmitted diseases

and genetically transmitted medical condi-

tions. SB 1478 was representative of

reactionary and repressive AIDS-inspired

measures. While the vast majority of these

bills were never brought to hearing or died

in committee, a few were recast as more

affirmative and responsible proposals

designed to provide education or funding

for AIDS public education efforts.

ACTION: Signed by the Governor.

FIRST

AMENDMENT

SB 139 (Deddeh)-Speech

ACLU: Oppose

The previous definition of obscenity in

California stated that it was material "that

is utterly without redeeming social impor-

tance." SB 139 changed this to "lacks

substantial literary, artistic, political,

scientific or educational values."

ACTION: Passed by the Legislature, signed

by the Governor.

SB 2247 (Doolittle)/AB 2900 (McAlis-

ter)-Clergy Immunity

ACLU: Opposed

Both bills were introduced in response

to lawsuits against clergy and religious

organizations. Although there may be a

First Amendment ground for immunity in

situations involving religious activity, both

SB 2247 and AB 2900 went substantially

beyond that type of protection. Both bills

would have restricted access to courts for

victims of torts when religious entities or

clergy were engaged in secular activities.

ACTION: SB 2247 defeated in Senate

Judiciary Committee. AB 2900 was

dropped by its author in Assembly Judiciary

Committee.

for minors receiving certain types of

confidential medical care. Similar statutes

have made abortion access for minors

difficult. Almost all have been subject to

federal court challenges, including most

recently Hodgson vy. Minnesota.

ACTION: SB 7 failed passge in the

Assembly Judiciary Committee. A succes-

sor measure, AB 2459 (McAlister) and more

moderate bill AB 4199 (Harris) also failed.

SB 1656/SB 130 (Watson)- Abortion

Clinic Violence/Access to Reproductive

Health Care Services

ACLU: Support as Amended/No Position

Both measures were responses to violence

at medical facilities which provide abortion

services. SB 1656 attempted to expand the

trespass law to cover incidents of harass-

ment against patients, clients and staff at

such facilities by anti-abortion demonstra-

tors. The bill included a zone of protection

WHAT 0x00B0 YOU WANT

A BIRTH CONTROL

DEVICE P

ui o.peRe YOU, VOU

ARE YOU HAVING

WANTON SEX

WITH oo

00 vk RENT mi

PERVERT, SIMTEEN ABOUT ye 0x00B0 a THEIR

ARENT YOU A LITTLE

YOUNG FOR THAT,

You td

ee

| ENJOY

COUNSELING

K?

we TEENAGERS

REPRODUCTIVE

RIGHTS

AB 1707 Ue eee Parenting

Contracts-

ACLU: Oppose

The bill sought to legalize the practice

of "surrogate parenting" by establishing

contractual standards for such agreements.

The measure was extremely biased in favor

of the adopting couple and created whole-

sale exceptions to family law in the area

of child support, custody and other rights

in the area of adoption and family law.

ACTION: Failed passage on the Senate

Floor.

SB 7 (Montoya)- Restrictions on Minors'

Access to Abortion Services

ACLU: Oppose

This bill required that minor women

seeking abortions have the consent of a

parent or guardian or seek a waiver of this

requirement through the courts. Mandatory

parental consent violates state constitutional

privacy rights for minors. The measure

would also have overturned the current

long-standing limited emancipation rights

within which demonstrators were barred or

restricted in their actions.

SB 130 attempted to establish legislative

standards for the operation of the state

Family Planning Advisory Board. This

appointed group provides input to the

Director of the Health Services regarding

regarding the needs and concerns of

providers and clients of family planning

programs. A majority of anti-choice activists

were appointed to the panel in the last year

and their conduct has prompted several

efforts to disband or reorganize the board.

ACTION: SB 1656 failed passage on the

Assembly Floor. SB 130 was vetoed by the

Governor.

aclu news

6 jan-feb 1987

Lookmng Ahead: Impact of the Election Results

he election of November 1986 will have a significant impact on California

politics. The so-called split personality of California voters, was decidely

to the conservative slant for state government. Gov. George Deukmejian

was re-elected by a sizable margin. Three justices on the state Supreme

Court who were targeted by conservative interest groups failed to win confirmation

votes. Consequently Gov. Deukmejian's influence on the state's high court will

_ be similar to that of President Reagan and the U.S. Supreme Court. Civil liberties

and civil rights are not expected to fare well.

Within the Legislature, Democrats in the

state Assembly and Senate lost seats to

Republicans who are more conservative

than their predecessors. Considered as a

` whole, these events are certain to be read

as establishing a conservative mandate.

Cost Cutting

Another element in the new session will

be the impact of the Gann limit which was

passed by initiative the year after Prop. 13.

In times of low inflation this caps the

increase in state expenditures even if there

are additional revenues. These restrictions

place new burdens on both state and local

budgets and can be expected to have a

variety of civil liberties impacts.

Attempts to limit procedural protections

within the criminal justice system will be

justified as efforts to reduce costs. Local

officials claim that they could save money

by eliminating certain due process provi-

sions, for example attorney voir dire of

juries, a practice they argue is time-

consuming and wasteful of court resources.

Civil court access will also be subject to

similar pressures. In the previous session

the Legislature was asked to consider

reductions in the size of civil trial juries and

the size of personal injury claims against

government entities. As the pressure on state

and local budgets increases so will the

support for these so-called economy

measures.

The limitations on state-funded programs

will also result in new attempts to reduce

monies for welfare, indigent health care

~ services and other programs to aid the poor.

However, advocates on behalf of the

indigent, particularly the homeless, will

propose affirmative legislation to counter

this trend. Another effort will be made to

stop patient-dumping.

the First Amendment....

L] Individual $20 (c)) Joint $30

Another result of the November 1986

elections will be a number of proposals to

implement Prop. 63, declaring English the

official language of the state. Prop. 63

supporters plan legislation implementing -

the new constitutional rule, but those

interested in responsibly meeting the needs

of California's culturally diverse residents

are also planning legislative responses to

Prop. 63 that may mitigate its impact.

In the area of reproductive freedom, anti-

choice legislators now have an opportunity

to effect restrictions on publicly funded

abortion services which they have included

in the state budget act for the past nine

years. The California Supreme Court

decision in CDRR y. Myers which has

protected Medi-Cal funded abortions for

indigent women based on the privacy rights

within the state Constitution may be subject

to review by the new state Supreme Court

under new Chief Justice Malcolm Lucas.

Anti-choice advocates will continue to

exploit the issue of minors' access to

abortion and contraceptive services in the

new session. Fundamentalist religious

interests seek every opportunity to force

legislators to place a vote on reproductive

choice issues on record. This voting

information is then used against legislators

in elections. The persistence of anti-choice

advocates has finally caused an increasing

number of Assembly Members and Sena-

tors to be concerned about their voting

records on this issue.

The influence of the religious right will

also, unfortunately, impact the future of

AIDS legislation, including the funding of

educational efforts directed at minority and

special populations such as drug users.

Although the failure of Prop. 64, the

LaRouche initiative, was the result of bi-

partisan efforts, continuing prejudices

against persons with AIDS, gays and drug

Want to do something about abortion funding, the death penalty,

police abuse, immigrant rights, drug testing, censorship, privacy rights,

Don't put it off any longer!

and an additional contribution of $

Name

Address

City

Zip

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

Join the ACLU today. |

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

Return with check or money order to: Membership Department, ACLU-NC, 1663

Mission Street, San Francisco, CA 94103.

Le ae ee

users will make efforts to deal with the

disease through responsible public policy a

challenge.

Drug Testing

Drug testing proponents can be expected

to continue their efforts to require screenings

as a condition of employment or promotion,

as a requirement for participation of high

school and collegiate sports, and in any

other setting where there exists some

colorable justification for the practice.

Influenced by the Reagan administration

and the patronage of Attorney General

Meese, proponents of drug testing cite the

need to bring law enforcement into the

workplace as the one way to stop drug use

in contemporary society. Although consti-

Gamesmanshi

continued from p. 3

instructed to amend the bill to include

provisions to penalize the Supreme Court

if death penalty cases were not decided more

expeditiously. Death penalty opponents

used a number of rules and deadlines to

their advantage against the measure. Time

ran out before an agreement was reached

and AB 989 never emerged from conference

committee.

Rights in the Workplace

A most unexpected civil liberties victory

occurred in the Assembly Ways and Means

Committee. SB 2399 (Russell) proposed to

open the state Child Abuse Registry to the

Teacher Credentialing Commission. This

registry contains all complaints of child

abuse without regard as to whether the

report was unfounded or unsubstantiated.

The measure passed the Senate and

Assembly Education Committees over

vociferous ACLU objection. But a final

attempt to stop the bill was made in the

Assembly Ways and Means Committee.

The argument that a person's career could

be ruined because of false allegations struck

a sympathetic cord with members of the

committee including some of the conser-

vatives. Surprisingly, the bill was resound-

ingly defeated.

Despite efforts to the contrary, some

California legislators paid little heed to the

weight of court precedent and questions

about the legality of employer sponsored

drug screenings of employees and appli-

cants. One measure which would have

specifically included drug rehabilitation

treatment within existing law that currently

provides certain protections for persons

being treated for alcoholism, but also

attempted to standarize the operation of

laboratories that perform drug screenings

for employers, was vetoed by the Governor.

Other drug testing bills were the subject

of an extended series of interim hearings

that took place during the fall in a number

of cities throughout the state. These

measures will no doubt be reintroduced next

session.

AIDS: Flurry, Calm and Disappointment

Although AIDS issues were expected to

spark considerable controversy in the 1986

tutional principles are at risk, for many

people the ability to hold a job and be self-

supporting may hinge on the agreement to

forego certain rights in exchange for

employment.

The results of the most recent election,

new fiscal restraints and an increasing

sophistication with the use of procedural

rules may unfortunately heighten the

influence of a reactionary minority dedi-

cated to promoting its crabbed and

expedient interpretations of established

legal principles. Perhaps the one fortunate

consideration is that if the tides of conser-

vatism have begun to ebb, what will soon

flow is a recognition that personal liberty

is a tradition worthy of its own defense.

session, the flurry of AIDS-related legis-

lation ultimately subsided as education and

the preferences for effective legislative action

overcame the prejudices of homophobia.

The very worst bills, including an effort to

recriminalize consensual adult male homo-

sexual behavior were either not heard in

committee or were soundly defeated early

in the year. Other proposals were amended

and rewritten repeatedly before being

abandoned by their sponsors.

By the mid-point of the session, a curious

calm had developed in the area of AIDS

legislation with the most active concern

directed instead to the LaRouche Prop. 64

initiative. The Legislature's focus became

more directed to the issues of funding for

care, treatment, education and research.

Considerable effort was directed at encou-

raging Gov. Deukmejian to raise the level

of his administration's involvement in

providing a comprehensive approach to this

ever looming crisis.

The gravest disappointment concerning

AIDS legislation directly involved the

Governor who twice vetoed legislation

aimed at preventing discrimination against

persons with the disease. AB 3667 (Agnos)

would have amended the confidentiality

provisions of 1985 bills which were adopted .

before the marketing of HTLV-III/ HIV

antibody testing devices.

AB 3667 moved quickly through both

houses, and was sent to the Governor in

July. Both the public and the Legislature

awaited his action on the bill during the

summer recess. Then, unexpectedly, he

vetoed the measure.

The storm of outrage and disappointment

following the AB 3667 veto, like that of

Deukmejian's 1984 AB 1 veto ran deep. The

general belief is that the Governor was

concerned that his support of the measure

would alienate religious fundamentalists.

Another perspective is that the veto was

recommended by the Assembly Republican

caucus as revenge for the Democratic

majority's defeat of a rival, watered-down

Republican bill. When a resurrected version

of the Agnos bill went before the Governor,

Deukmejian vetoed that bill as well, even

though it specifically addressed the concerns

raised in the AB 3667 veto message (which

was in itself poorly written and incorrect

in many of its presumptions).

_ aclu news

jan-feb 1987 7

Oil Workers Oppose Drug Tests

_ Charging that random, blanket drug

testing of the employees at Pacific Refining

Company in Hercules violates the

employees' state and federal constitutional

rights, attorneys from the ACLU-NC and

the Employment Law Center asked Contra

Costa Superior Court at a hearing on

January 16 and 20 to order a halt to the

tests.

Employment Law Center attorney John

True, who argued the case with ACLU-NC

cooperating attorney Barbara Brenner and

staff attorney Ed Chen, told the court that

the tests are a serious invasion of privacy

and do not demonstrate anything about

impairment on the job.

The refinery began blanket drug testing

of all of its 125 employees on October 1.

On October 6, the ACLU-NC and the ELC,

representing the workers, filed a lawsuit

challenging the tests, and were granted a

Temporary Restraining Order that stopped

the testing, prevented employees from being

fired for refusing to take the test, and

prohibited the dissemination of test results.

The order was the first in California to

halt company-wide drug testing by a private

employer.

Judge Richard Flier said that he would

issue an opinion in the case on February

10.

Death Sentence Stopped by

High Court

The ACLU-NC helped win another

- victory against capital punishment when the

U.S. Supreme Court in January denied a

petition for certiorari in the case of Robert

Wayne Vickers.

In a trial-frought with due process

violations-for the murder of his cellmate

in the Arizona State Prison, Vickers was

convicted of murder and sentenced to death.

The Supreme Court's action means that

the reversal of Vickers' conviction death

penalty by the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals last August will stand, and that

his case now returns to the Arizona courts

for a retrial.

Vickers' habeas corpus proceeding was

handled by ACLU-NC staff counsel Ed

Chen, co-counsel Charles Breyer of the San

Francisco law firm of Coblentz, Cahen,

McCabe and Breyer and John P. Frank of

the Phoenix law firm of Lewis and Roca.

The Court of Appeals determined that

"the trial court's failure to instruct the jury (c)

on second degree murder violated the due

process principles enunciated by the U.S.

Supreme Court." It referred to an earlier

decision (Beck) which held that the failure

to give a second degree murder instruction

can violate due process because depriving

the jury of a "middle option" between

conviction for first degree murder and

acquittal renders the verdict unreliable.

Chen was pleased with the Supreme

Court's denial of review, especially in a

climate which is increasingly zealous about

the death penalty. "It is frightening to realize

that Vickers was just one step away from

the gas chamber before his right to a fair

trial was finally vindicated," he said.

"This case clearly demonstrates the

inherent fallabilities, inequities and arbitrar-

iness of capital punishment," Chen added.

Instructions

The trial judge had instructed the jury

that it could return any of three verdicts:

guilty of first degree murder, not guilty, or

not guilty by reason of insanity. The jury

was not given the choice of second degree

murder. It returned a verdict of first degree

murder and Vickers, in a separate hearing,

was sentenced to death. The Arizona

Supreme Court upheld the conviction and

the death sentence.

A federal court dismissed Vickers' habeas

corpus petition. That ruling was appealed

in December, 1985.

The federal appellate court stated, "The

critical distinction between first and second

degree murder is the element of premed-

itation." The court noted testimony by lay

3

witnesses and a psychiatrist about Vickers' |

"tmpulsive and bizarre" acts which. were

apparently related to an epileptic condition.

Vickers has a long history of mental

disorders and acts of impulsive violence.

"Testimony attributing Vickers' conduct

to an epileptic disorder might not have been

persuasive to a jury, but if it were, it would

allow a rational conclusion that the killing

was not premeditated," the court concluded.

The ACLU-NC petition for habeas

corpus raised seventeen constitutional

claims, including legal challenges to the

Arizona death penalty statute. Although the

appellate court did not address these issues,

it noted they presented some "substantial

questions."

In Memory of Bill Wapepah

Billy Joe Wapepah, founder of the

International Indian Treaty Council and

a leader in the fight for indigenous

people's rights worldwide, died in

Oakland on January 2 at the age of 49.

Wapepah, a Kickapoo/Sauk-Fox

Indian, was known from the streets of

Oakland, California, to the villages of

the Atlantic Coast of Nicaragua, to the

halls of the United Nations as a com-

passionate, eloquent and stubborn

fighter for the rights of oppressed

peoples.

A leading member of the American

Indian Movement, Wapepah was the

Director of Information for the Interna-

tional Indian Treaty Council, a non-

governmental organization (NGO)

within the United Nations. He was an

advisor to the American Friends Service

Committee, a national Steering Commit-

tee member of Clergy and Laity Con-

cerned, and served on the Executive

Committee of Congressman Ron Del-

lums (D-CA). In 1982, Wapepah spoke

at the Hiroshima/Nagasaki August 6

Commemoration, a historic interna-

Under Construction

If you've called the ACLU-NC office recently and heard some unusual noises in

the background-do not be alarmed. The chain saws and jack hammers are all part

of the construction project which is creating more office space for the affiliate. What

you see above, beneath the plastic sheeting and construction paraphernalia, is the

entranceway to the ACLU, which will be fitted out with a proper reception area and

a private office for the complaint counselors. There will also be new offices, to

accommodate an expanding staff including a fourth staff attorney and provide workspace

for legal interns and volunteers.

The architects for the expansion project are Tanner and Van Dine, and the construction

firm is Ryan Associates. During the construction, the San Francisco law firm of Heller,

Ehrman, White and McAuliffe has generously donated office space for the entire ACLU-NC

Legal Department staff.

The construction, which began just after Bill

for completion by mid-February. In the meantime, pardon the background noise and-

of Rights Day in December, is scheduled

if you're coming into the office-watch your step!

Ken Reeves

tional peace convocation hosted by

leading peace organizations in Japan.

Wapepah played a key role in all the

major struggles for Indian people's rights

in the U.S. He helped found the

American Indian Drop-In Center, the

American Indian Education Program,

the American Indian Community

School , AIM Freedom Survival School

and the annual un-Thanksgiving celebra-

tion on Alcatraz Island.

An indefatigable organizer, Wapepah

shared his skills with ACLU activists at

the 1983 Annual Conference. Among the

beautiful eucalyptus trees of the Asi-

lomar Conference Center, Wapepah

spoke of the need to bring diverse

communities together in the struggle for

peace and justice.

Wapepah was also a major advocate

for the plight of indigenous peoples in

Guatemala, the Pacific Islands and

Australia. He was preparing to return

to Geneva, Switzerland in February for

the annual meeting of the United Nations

Commission on Human Rights.

Wapepah lived his life as an example

to others: for the past twenty years he

worked for homeless needing shelter,

young people looking for their way of

life, whole nations of peoples and Indian

people struggling for their freedom

throughout the Americas and the world. -

Around the world, people feel a deep

loss for the strength and the wisdom he

so freely shared.

Donations in Bill Wapepah's memory

can be made to: Wapepah Family Fund,

c/o Vanguard Public Foundation, 14

Precita Avenue, San Francisco, CA

94110.

Board Elections

continued from p. 1

meeting. Members of the Board may

propose additional nominations. If no

additional nominations are proposed by

Board members, the Board, by majority

of those present and voting, shall adopt

the Nominating Committee's report. If

additional nominations are proposed, the

Board shall, by written ballot, elect a slate

of nominees with each member being

entitled to cast a number of votes equal

to the vacancies to be filled; the Board slate

of nominees shall be those persons, equal

in number to the vacancies to be filled,

who have received the greatest number of

votes. The list of nominees to be placed

before the membership of the Union for

election shall be those persons nominated

by the Board as herein provided, together

with those persons nominated by petition

as hereafter provided in Section 4.

ARTICLE VII, SECTION 4: Any fifteen

or more members of the Union in good

standing may themselves submit a nom-

ination to be included among those voted

upon by the general membership by

submitting a written petition to the Board

not later than twenty days after the

adoption by the Board of the slate of Board

nominees. No member of the Union may

sign more than one such petition and each

such nomination shall be accompanied by

_asummary of qualifications and the written

consent of the nominee.

aclu news

8 jan-feb 1987

Pro-Choice Activists Rally in Sacramento

by Vicki Johnson

An enthusiastic crowd of more than one

hundred pro-choice supporters gathered in

the state capital on the 22nd of January

celebrating the fourteenth anniversary of the

landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision

legalizing abortion (Roe v. Wade). The day's

events were sponsored by the Northern

California Pro-Choice Coalition, of which

the ACLU-NC is an integral member.

Later, addressing the pro-choice rally

from the Capitol steps, Senator Watson and

ACLU lobbyist Daphne Macklin both

spoke of pending anti-choice bills. AB 77

(Wyman) and SB II (Montoya) are both

"offensive and retrogressive" to the repro-

ductive freedom of all women, and in

particular, dangerously oppressive to the

rights of minors who wish to have an

abortion without the consent of their

parents. In addition, there has been a

Pro-choice activists commemorate the 14th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision

and launch the fight to maintain abortion funding.

Reproductive rights advocates began the

day in the early morning rush hour with

the popular "Human Billboard" campaign.

Volunteers held placards that placed

together read, "HON K-IF-YOU-

SUPPORT-LEGAL-ABORTION!" alert-

ing drivers at intersections around the Bay

Area and the Peninsula about the pro-

choice campaign.

A morning press conference in Sacra-

mento featured Shireen Miles, Coordinator

of the California NOW, Dorothy Ehrlich,

Executive Director of the ACLU-NC,

Reverend Ruth Poisson of the Religious

Coalition for Abortion Rights and John

Whitelaw of the American College of

Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Whitelaw,

representing over 3,000 pro-choice physi-

cians, voiced concern about the availability

of "safe opportunity" for all women who

may seek an abortion. He cited maternal

death and accidental sterilization as

indicative of the problems faced by many

women seeking abortions prior to the 1973

Supreme Court decision, and still faced by

poor women if Medi-Cal funding is

eliminated.

Senator Diane Watson (D-L.A.) came to

the press conference to show her support

of reproductive freedom, as well as to outline

legislation of major importance to the

California pro-choice community in the next

session. Senator Watson has proposed a new

bill, SB 185, that addresses the problem of

"bogus clinics." These institutions offer only

anti-choice counseling and use "grizzly films

and photographs" to mislead women

seeking advice and options, although they

advertise "sound medical advice and a range

of services." SB 185 would make such false

advertisements a misdemeanor. Another bill

Watson has proposed (as yet without a

number) seeks to recognize violence against

pro-choice clinics as a "conspiracy," a crime

that could be dealt with by the FBI.

proposal made which may imperil the Office

of Family Planning. This proposal would

institute individual county responsibility for

determining a woman' eligibility for Family

Planning clinical services.

Senator Diane Watson

"It may be that a county will provide

services only for married women, or only

for. minors who have parental consent, or

they may decide not to fund these services

at all," Senator Watson warned.

Citing these dangerous proposals,

ACLU-NC Field Representative Marcia

Gallo said at the rally, "The emphasis on

the coming year must be on access to

_abortion services and we must make our

voices heard in the Legislature. With the

Legislature's continuing attempts to cut

Medi-Cal abortion funding (successfully

challenged by the ACLU-NC since 1978)

and the unknown and perhaps unfriendly

California Supreme Court to contend with,

the future of funding is unsure.

"What is definite is the voice of repro-

ductive freedom heard resounding in

Vicki Johnson

Vicki Johnson

Sacramento and throughout the United

States on the anniversary of legalized

abortion," Gallo said.

Gallo summed up the necessity of legal

and accessible abortion services by charging

that abortions will continue whether "legal

or not, safe or not, affordable or not. It

is Our job to make sure that abortions are

legal, safe and affordable for al] women."

Activists came from all over Northern

California to support the "Families for

Choice, Families by Choice" events.

Throughout the afternoon, pro-choice

Board Meetings

B.A.R.K. BOARD MEETING: (Usually

fourth Thursday) Volunteers are needed to

staff hotline. Contact Florence Piliavin,

415-848-4752 or 415-848-5195.

EARL WARREN BOARD MEETING:

(Third Wednesday) February 18, 7:30 pm

prompt, Sumitomo Bank, 20th and Franklin

Streets, Oakland. Contact Rose Bonhag,

415-658-7977.

FRESNO BOARD MEETING: (Usually

third Wednesday) Contact Mindy Rose for

details: 209-486-7735.

GAY RIGHTS BOARD MEETING: (Usu-

ally first Tuesday) February 3, 7:00 pm,

location to be decided. Board Meeting,

March 3, 7:00 pm, ACLU-NC, 1663 Mission

Street, Suite 460, San Francisco. Guest

Speaker: Rand Martin, LIFE Lobbyist in

Sacramento, AIDS related legislation. Call

Doug Warner for more information:

415-621-3900.

MARIN COUNTY BOARD MEETING:

(Third Monday) February 16 and March 16,

7:30 pm. Citicorp Bank, 130 Throckmorton

Avenue, Mill Valley. Contact Jack Butler,

415-453-0972 or June Festler, 415-479-7317.

Special Film Benefit, February 27, 1987,

Marin Art and Garden Center, Sir Francis

Drake and Lagunitas Boulevard, Kentfield.

$5. Salt of the Earth and Broken Silence,

followed by a panel discussion which includes

Victor Freedman, author of Salt of the Earth.

Contact Fran Miller, 415-454-8062.

MID-PENINSULA BOARD MEETING:

(Usually last Wednesday) Contact Harry

Anisgard, 415-856-9186. Special Chapter

Reorganization Meeting, Saturday, February

14, 11:00 am-1:30 pm, Mitchell Park Com-

munity Center, 3800 Middlefield Road, Palo

Alto.

MONTEREY BOARD MEETING: (Usu-

ally fourth Tuesday of each month) Contact

Richard Criley, 408-624-7562. ACLU Annual

Meeting, February 8, Sunday, 1:30-4:30 pm,

225 Cross Roads Boulevard near Highway

1 and Rio (Mouth of Carmel Valley). Contact

Richard Criley, 408-624-7562.

1:30-2:30 pm

Business Meeting

Election of Board

Awarding of Prizes

in High School Essay Contest

3:00-4:30 pm

Discussion of the Historical Role of

Father Junipero Serra. Speakers: Che-

queesh Auh-ho-oh, representing the

viewpoint of Indian Tribes in the area-

she is a Chumash Indian; and Professor

Don Deneve, co-author of the book,

Father Junipero Serra.

delegations visited over 30 state senators and

assemblymembers, launching this year's

efforts for reproductive freedom.

For information about ACLU-NC's

ongoing reproductive rights organizing, see

Calendar, back page, under Pro-Choice

Task Force, for date and time of next

meeting.

Vicki Johnson, a senior at Smith College,

served as an intern in the Field and Public

Information Departments working on the

January 22 events.

ene

Chapter Calendar

MT. DIABLO BOARD MEETING: (Usu-

ally third Wednesday or third Thursday)

Schedule for 1987 is January 15, February

18, March 19, April 15, May 21, June 17

and July 16. Contact Andrew Rudiak,

415-932-5580. Board Meeting, Wednesday,

February 18, home of Beverly and David

Bortin, 117 Los Altos Avenue, Walnut Creek.

Thursday, March 19, home of Jeffery Ghant,

2948 Mie Elana Circle, Walnut Creek.

NORTH PENINSULA BOARD MEET-

ING: (Second Monday) Bank of America,

3rd and El Camino, San Mateo, 8:00 pm.

Contact Sid Scheiber, 415-345-8603.

SACRAMENTO VALLEY BOARD

MEETING: (Usually second Wednesday)

February 11 and March 11, 7:30 pm. County

Administration Building, 7th and I Streets,

Main Floor Conference Room, Sacramento.

Contact Joe Gunterman, 916-447-8053.

SAN FRANCISCO BOARD MEETING:

(Usually fourth Tuesday) Tuesday, February

24 and March 24, 6:00 pm, ACLU-NC, 1663

Mission Street, Suite 460, San Francisco.

Contact Suzanne Donovan, 415-642-4890.

SANTA CLARA BOARD MEETING:

(Usually the first Tuesday of each month)

_ Tuesday, February 3 and March 3. Respective

locations: Law Office of Sblend Sblendorio,

80 S. Market Street, Third Floor, San Jose,

and the Community Bank Building, Exec-

utive Conference Room, 111 West St. John,

Second Floor, San Jose. Contact Michael

Chatsky 408-379-4611.

SANTA CRUZ BOARD MEETING: .

(Second Wednesday) February 11 and March

11, 7:30 pm, 411 Cedar Street, Santa Cruz.

Contact Bob Taren, 408-429-9880.

SONOMA BOARD MEETING: Contact

Colleen O'Neal 707-575-1156.

STOCKTON BOARD MEETING: (Third

Wednesday) Contact Eric Ratner, .

209-948-4040 (evenings).

YOLO COUNTY BOARD MEETING:

(Usually Third Wednesday) February 18 and

March 18, 7:00-8:00 pm. Business Meeting,

8:00-9:00 pm. Guest Speaker. Contact Dan

Abramson, 916-446-7701.

Field

Committee Meetings

PRO-CHOICE TASK FORCE: Wednesday,

February 4, 5:30 pm. Contact Marcia Gallo

for location, 415-621-2494.

DRAFT OPPOSITION NETWORK: Con-

tact Judy Newman, 415-567-1527.