vol. 46, no. 3

Inside -

Reproductive Freedom

"Once the state furnishes medical

,care to poor women in general, it can-

not withdraw part of that care solely be-

cause a woman exercises her constitu-

tional right to have an abortion."'

These words - part of a 57-page

opinion written by Justice Matthew To-

briner handed down by the California

Supreme Court at 4 o'clock on Friday,

`March 20- marked the end of a three-

year legal battle by the ACLU to secure

Medi-Cal funding for abortion.

The 4-2 decision, which was met with

elation at the ACLU office and from

pro-choice advocates around the state,

ruled that the California Legislature's

Budget Acts of 1978, 1979 and 1980,

virtually eliminating Medi-Cal funds

for abortion for medically indigent

`women, violated the privacy and equal

protection guarantees of the California

Constitution.

The opinion painstakingly addressed

the distinctions between the state and

federal laws which govern public fund-

ing for abortion. In June, 1980 the U.S.

"April 1981

STIcent6 VO OOSIINY

. 21a DV

20S WI TS0LSTH VIN

3S1dWVS O8OT 3D NND WO

Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Hyde aaa

Amendment withdrawing federal funds @

for abortion was constitutional.

Tobriner stressed that ``an indivi-

dual's inalienable right to privacy pro-

tected by Article I, Section 1 of the 0x00A7

California Constitution" guarantees the [uae

right of every woman - rich or poor - |

to make the decision whether to have an

abortion "as an individual, uncoerced

by government intrusion."

A concurring 21-page opinion by E :

Chief Justice Rose Bird also emphasized @

that "`the right of privacy in California - - . :

has never been dependent on analogous [aaa

federal opinion."

Bird noted that the Legislature had =i ae =

2 Attorneys Pauline Tesler and Margaret Crosby and plaintiff CDRR spokesperson Alice

in fact appropriated funds in its 1980

Budget Act to pay for abortions for

Medi-Cal recipients in the event that

the restrictions were held to be uncon-

stitutional.

"In so doing,' Bird wrote, ``the Leg-

islature signalled the fact that it har-

bored doubts about the constitutional

Prison News Reopens

Prison officials at the California

Medical Facility (CMF) in Vacaville

who censored, destroyed and closed

down the prisoner-run newspaper there

have been ordered by the Solano

County Superior Court to allow the

to resume publication

| dissemination of the Vacavalley Star

| and from taking any retaliation against

j inmate editor Victor Diaz or any other

| prisoners for bringing the lawsuit.

The suit, Diaz and Prisoners Union v.

Watts, which was filed on March 9,

claimed that the closure of the

Vacavalley Star violated the prisoner's

constitutional rights of free expression

= and due process.

f Last November, the Christmas 1980

| issue of the Star was prepared by CMF

| prisoners and presented by editor Diaz

to Associate Superintendent James

Kane, the paper's designated censor.

Kane refused to permit the

publication of four items - two edi-

torials, one news item and a letter to the

sjeditor - and ordered Diaz to delete the

articles.

Diaz complied with the request,

deleted the items and sent the

continued on,page 8

Photo courtesy Vacaville Reporter

Victor Diaz, inmate editor of the Vacavalley

Star protested the closing of his newspaper

by prison authorities.

` Brunwasser

Medi-Cal Abortion Fund

etion

Wolfson hail the Supreme Court decision pelo Medi-Cal abortion funding.

validity of the restrictions."

At an ACLU press conference held

an hour after the decision was released

by the Court, attorneys and plaintiffs in

the suits (CDRR v. Myers, 1978; CDRR

v. Cory, 1979; and CDRR v. Unruh,

1980) lauded the Court's decision.

ACLU staff attorney Margaret

Crosby, who was the lead counsel in the

case, said "`It is a wonderful, joyous day

for all of us who believe in procreative

choice.

"The ruling was a very principled de-

cision. The Court asserted that the state

cannot use its purse to coerce the man-

ner in which a woman's constitutional

right to abortion can be exercised."'

TV news crews and other reporters

focused on the shelves in Crosby's office

bulging with over 8 feet of documents

filed in the cases. The documents re-

flect the many nights and weekends de-

voted to the case by Crosby, ACLU-NC

Legal Assistant Donna Van Diepen,

and co-counsel Pauline Tesler and Abi-

gail English of the National Center for

Jaf PY

Youth Law.

At the press conference, Tesler ex-

pressed her admiration for the court in:

continued on page 8

Reporters Appeal $1.6 Million

Libel Judement

The appeal of a.$1.6 million libel

judgment against two former San

Francisco Examiner reporters, Raul

Ramirez and Lowell Bergman, was filed

on April 6 in the state Court of Appeal

by the ACLU.

The seven-figure libel judgment,

awarded by a San Francisco jury in

April 1979, was the result of a suit

brought by two city policemen and a

former Assistant District Attorney

against the reporters and the Examiner

because of a series of articles published

in 1976 about a controversial murder

trial in which a 19-year old Chinese

youth was convicted.

The libel appeal is being handled by

ACLU-NC cooperating attorney Arthur

and ACLU-NC _ staff

Margaret Crosby.

According to Crosby, `"The ACLU is

representing Bergman and Ramirez

because the case raises very important

First Amendment issues.

"The evidence shows that two invest-

igative reporters pursued an elusive

story with extreme diligence, to assure

that an innocent youth would not be

wrongfully incarcerated for life for a

crime which he did not commit,

"Those reporters are now each faced

with a $780,000 judgment because they

acted in the finest traditions of the First

Amendment, seeking to have the media

serve its historic mission as a watchdog

continued on page 8

Apologies

Apologies to all ACLU News

readers who received their March

issue late. Writers, the editor, type-

setters, and printers all made their

deadlines only to discover that there

was a delay in the delivery of the

address labels from the national

headquarters.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

The Editor

aut

aclu news

April 1981

Letter from *' Tidal Wave of Repression

Beth Meador, ACLU-NC's newly

appointed Legislative Advocate writes

from Sacramento:

It has become very clear that this is

the year for virtually every member of

the state legislature to don a "Law 'n'

Order' Stetson. The current reaction to

media-stirred public concern for the

alleged rise in crime is knee-jerk reac-

tionism in its most evident form.

In an effort to stem some of the tidal

wave of repressive legislation, I sent the

following letter to California legislators

this month:

"Recently, the American Civil

Liberties Union staff researched

California Supreme Court decisions

relating to criminal cases for the year

1980. We found that there were 24.

criminal cases, and in those cases, only

_ 7 decisions were overturned by the high

court.

"Repeatedly, we hear statements to

the effect that our appellate court

judges are "turning criminals loose in

the streets... The data do not support

this contention. .

""As shown above, the state Supreme :

_ Court heard only 24 criminal cases over

a one-year period. There are five

appellate court districts in this state.

During a ten-month period, out of

hundreds of criminal cases filed, the

Sacramento Office of the State Public

Defender won reversals in three cases. "

"Most criminal lawyers know that

judges at the appellate level are very

ACLU Resolution

WHEREAS, there has been a

ecent upsurge in racist activity in

his country and in this geographical

area; :

#WHEREAS, the Ku Klux Klan has

increased its overt racist activities

which are designed to terrorize Black

people and is openly recruiting

members in the high schools and in

other locations;

WHEREAS, the elimination of

racism no longer seems to be part of

ithe national agenda;

WHEREAS, the ACLU both0x00A7

nationally and locally has always0x00A7

committed itself to the elimination off

racism and anti-Black terrorism;

IBE IT RESOLVED THAT: :

1) the ACLU rededicate itself tof

fighting to combat racism through ke

ithe establishment of an anti-racism0x00A7

task force which would meet tof

discuss and to develop:

a) concrete ways in which the

ACLU might work to educatef

citizens to the existence and dangers

of racism;

b) strategies for the elimination of

racism; and

c) effective

existing laws.

2) Before this affiliate decides to

defend the First Amendment rights

of the Ku Klux Klan or the Nazis,

the Chairperson and members of the

Executive Committee will convene

| (either in person or by telephone) to

determine if the ACLU should

`become counsel to the KKK or Nazis

fand to discuss the ramifications of

jsuch representation. This policy will}

fbe communicated to the National

: Board for appropriate Sen 1981

enforcement _ of

arch

reluctant to overturn lower court

decisions and do it only when there has

been a blatant mistake in adherence to

the constitutional principles of due

process.

Rights for All

"The Constitutions of California and

the United States are designed to

protect the rights of all individuals.

Those who are accused of crimes often

face stiff punishments which damage

their careers and reputations perma-

nently. And, all of you know, or should

know, that mistakes do happen in the

law enforcement process.

"Only by scrupulous adherence to

due process requirements are these

mistakes minimized. Our judicial

system provides a check on abuses by

the administrative branch of our gov-

ernment by overseeing and reviewing

the steps taken in prosecuting, trying

and convicting accused persons.

"If we are to maintain our demo-

cratic system, the judiciary must be

allowed to perform this function.

Blaming J udges

`Unfortunately, many legislators

engage in the practice of blaming the

increase in crime on so-called lenient

judges. Those who do so do a grievous

disservice to their constituencies.

First, they contribute to an

atmosphere which may be partially

responsible for the alleged increase in

crime. For criminals and potential

- they may bi

criminals are all members of various

constituencies. And assuming that they

ents (and we presume

blic to believe you),

raged to commit

have told them

that somewher the line, a lenient

`judge is going to free them.

`Second, the battle against crime is

going to require total commitment from

crime. After

the law-abiding public - it cannot be -

an `us against them' situation. Unless

your constituents are accurately

informed, they will be unable to make

valid contributions toward solutions to

the crime problem.

Public Confidence

"Finally, though the ACLU looks on

all libel and slander suits skeptically,

and while none of you are legally liable

for libel and/or slander against courts

and judges, and courts and judges

certainly may not bring such actions

against you, we do feel that you have a

duty to make sure that your statements

are made without malice and without a

reckless disregard for the truth.

"Find out the facts, before: you

wholesalely blame one branch of the

government for the increase in the

crime rate.

"Our democracy stands or falls based

on public confidence. You should not

contribute to destruction of confidence

in one of our branches of government

without just cause."

Stop SCA7

A state constitutional amecadmient.

SCA 7, which would allow evidence

gathered in violation of the Cali-

fornia Constitution - including its

declaration of rights - passed the

Constitutional Amendments

Committee and is now before the full

Senate. Your letters to state legi-

- slators (with copies to Assembly -

Speaker Willie Brown, please!) are |

needed NOW to prevent this dan-

gerous piece of legislation from vir-

tually eliminating the exclusionary

rule.

SCA 7 would amend the California

Constitution to provide that no

evidence may be excluded from a

criminal proceeding unless exclusion

is required by a statute of the federal

Constitution. In practical effect,

police and prosecutors could violate

the California Constitution with

virtual impunity and with the

`knowledge that the evidence they

obtain by breaking California

constitutional law could be in-

troduced in court.

Though proponents of SCA 7

argue that the measure is necessary

to fight crime, in fact very few

criminals ever are freed because of

the exclusionary rule.

SCA 7 will not have an impact on |

crime - it will seriously erode the

independent rights we now possess

under the California Constitution.

Board Doni Klan, Violent Groups Bill

Noting the upsurge in racist activity

both nationally and in this geographic

area and particularly the increase of

overt racist activities of the Klan, the

Board of Directors of the ACLU passed

a resolution. at the March meeting for

the ACLU to take concrete measures to

"`rededicate itself to combat racism."

The resolution was passed following

presentations by Vice-chair Eva Jeffer-

son Paterson and Board member

Robert Harris and lengthy discussions

at the well-attended Board meeting.

Paterson reviewed the rise in inci-

0x00A7 - dents of Klan violence over the past few

i. years and the impact that such incidents

have on members of the Black com-

munity.

Drawing a parallel between current

times and pre-Nazi Germany, Paterson

spoke of her growing fears about the

open recruitment of members by the

Klan, as well as the increase in Klan

gatherings, cross burnings and other in-

cidents of racial terrorism.

She noted that she had initiated the

Board discussion of ACLU's traditional

response to groups such as the Klan in

the hopes of exploring other positions

and policies the organization could con-

. sider, adding "`Black people are scared

- in Chatanooga where the Klan shot

at five elderly women, in Raleigh where

NAACP homes were shot into, in Deca-

tur where the Klan shot NAACP mar-

chers. If it is a fact that we hate the

Klan but defend their First Amend-

ment rights - then we better get that

word out there."'

Board member Harris then assessed

the constitutional protections afforded

organizations like the Klan. Acknow-

ACLU-NC Vice Chair Eva Jefferson Pater-

son urged oe ACLU to "actively combat

rising racism.'

ledging that such groups do have First

Amendment rights, Harris emphasized

those situations in which speech goes

beyond these protections.

Violent Groups Bill

At the same Board meeting, a discus-

sion was held on SB 267 (see ACLU.

News March 1980), a bill currently be-

fore the state legislature which seeks to

outlaw violent groups.

Harris, who has been very involved in

the drafting of the proposed legislation

sponsored by Senator Diane Watson,

said that the intent of the legislation is

to curb the advocacy of lawlessness and

violence against Blacks and other

minorities.

. Board member Steve Mayer noted his

disagreement with some of the constitu-

tional points made by Harris and said

that prior restraint of speech is the most

serious threat to civil liberties. '

Mayer added that the proposed legis-

lation might put power in hands of law

enforcement officials and private citi-

zens to prevent minority views from

being aired.

Following the Board presentations,

there was a discussion of the legislation.

NAACP regional counsel Oliver Jones,

who is also a member of the Berkeley-

Albany-Kensington Chapter board, ex-

pressed the NAACP's opposition to the

proposed violent groups bill.

A motion was passed that the ACLU-

NC oppose SB 267.

a Elinson, Editor

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

August-September and November-December

Secand Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, California

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Drucilla Ramey, Chairperson Dorothy Ehrlich, Executive Director {

Michael Miller, Chapter Page if

ACLU NEWS (USPS 018-040)

14 Mason St. -Ste. 301, San Francisco, California 94103-777-4545

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.

%

aclunews @

April 1981

Suit Lifts Shopping Center Ban on El Salvador Leafletters

U.S. violate the limits set in Robins.

wis - the Creating Another

Vietnam War in El Salvador?" - this

question of widespread public concern

is asked on a leaflet put out by the West

Contra Costa Coalition Against U.S.

Intervention in El Salvador which the

owners of Hilltop Shopping Center in

`Richmond do not want distributed on

their property.

The ACLU of Northern California is

suing the owner and manager of Hilltop

_ Shopping Center for refusing to permit

members of the Coalition to distribute

information there. (c)

The suit filed on April 7 in

Contra Costa Superior Court in

Martinez, claims that the shopping

center is violating Coalition members'

fundamental constitutional rights of

free speech and their right to petition -

the government.

According to Coalition chairperson

Howard Sodja, an El Sobrante social

worker, `""We believe that the present

_ policies of the U.S. government are

moving the country towards a tragic

_repetition of the mistakes made with

respect to Vietnam in the early 1960's

and so we strongly oppose U.S. military

aid and intervention in the civil war

currently raging in El Salvador."

_Sodja explained that as Contra Costa

is a dispersed suburban community, the

most effective means of communication

with the public is direct person-to-

person contact at large local shopping

centers and malls.

The Coalition has been distributing

leaflets and seeking signatures for a

petition to Congress in support of a bill

, OP ete

BS Ne Mad

prohibiting military sales to El Salvador

(HR 1509) at Contra Costa shopping

centers since March.

ACLU-NC $s staff counsel Alan

Schlosser explained, `"`By refusing a

permit to the Coalition, Hilltop

Shopping Center is depriving the

leafletters of their constitutional right

to engage in peaceful non-disruptive

political expression and petitioning at

the Center.

`Because of the pressing emergency

nature of the issues concerning U.S.

policy towards El Salvador, and

because U.S. policies are presently

being formulated and reviewed by

Congress, the President and other

government officials, the plaintiffs must

be able to fully exercise their con- -

_ stitutional

rights at this time,"

Schlosser said. _

Sacked Anti-War Prof Appeals

After ten years of debate and decision

within Stanford University and at the

Superior Court level, the ACLU will

bring to the Court of Appeal its

challenge to the 1971 dismissal of

tenured professor Bruce Franklin for

speeches made during the height of

anti-war campus protests.

The appeal follows a March 13

decision by Santa Clara County Super-

ior Court Judge John Flaherty that the

Stanford Advisory Board had not

abused its discretionary power in

dismissing Franklin for an anti-war

speech he made on campus prior to the

occupation of the Stanford computer

center.

Commenting on Judge Flaherty's

decision ACLU-NC staff counsel

Margaret Crosby said, "The Superior

Court defined its role very narrowly,

and held only that there was no abuse of

discretion in the 1980 Advisory Board

and Presidential decision to dismiss

Professor Franklin."

In January 1978, Flaherty had

decided that though two of Franklin's

speeches were not constitutionally pro-

tected, the other speeches which formed

the basis for his dismissal were

protected by the First Amendment. At

that time, he asked the University to re-

consider its penalty of dismissal. In

May 1980, the Advisory Board re-

affirmed the discharge of Professor

Franklin.

In a widely publicized open letter to

the Stanford community on May 4,

1980, ACLU-NC Executive Director

Dorothy Ehrlich criticized the Advisory -

Board for denying Franklin his due pro-

cess rights at the hearing (he was not

allowed to make an oral argument

before the Board, denied the right to

challenge Board members for cause,

etc.) The letter also warned that aca-

demic freedom and political diversity at

Stanford had been seriously damaged

by the Franklin discharge.

_ Announcing the appeal, Crosby said,

""We feel not only that all of Professor

Franklin's speeches on February 10,

1971 were protected by the First

_ Amendment, but also that he suffered

the most severe sanction available to the

University because the Stanford admin-

istration could not tolerate his political

ideology, his beliefs, and his role as an

articulate critic of the University ad-

ministration."'

Crosby explained that she welcomed

the opportunity to bring the case to the

Court of Appeal, so that the appellate

court may consider for the first time,

whether Franklin's constitutional rights

were violated by the Stanford firing.

ACLU co-counsel Alan Schlosser

added, "We hope that the Court of

Appeal will perceive what is obvious to

everyone at Stanford - that Professor

Franklin was discriminatorily singled

out for punishment in retaliation for his

controversial, but constitutionally pro-

tected, political views and affiliations, -

and in particular for his persistance and

persuasiveness in calling attention to

the University's role in providing

research and other material support to

the U.S. government's Vietnam War

effort."

A "yen ae awe en 2S

Last year, in the landmark U.S.

Supreme Court decision in Robins v.

Pruneyard Shopping Center, the high

court agreed with ACLU arguments

that prohibiting expressive activities,

such as leafletting, on shopping center

property was unconstitutional under

the California Constitution.

The Supreme Court noted in Robins

that although shopping malls may

impose reasonable "`time, place and

manner' regulations on _leafletters,

those regulations may not be so bur-

densome as to prevent expressive ac-

tivity. -

In the Hilltop suit, Schlosser argued

that not only is Hilltop's ban on

leafletting unconstitutional, but the

Center's "`time, place and manner'

regulations which are spelled out in

their permit application guidelines,

Teen Sex.

Reporting Law

Stay Granted

A stay granted by the California

Supreme Court on March 5 in the

ACLU case challenging the state's new

teen sex reporting law means that

`child care custodians'' - doctors,

social workers, pharmacists, foster

parents, and others - do not have to

report to the police information that

they have about teenage sexual activity.

The temporary stay, which will

remain in effect until release of the final

decision in the case, was granted by the

same Court at the same time that it

transferred the case to Court of Appeal.

According to ACLU-NC cooperating

attorney Lynn Pasahow, ``The Supreme

Court stay is very important because it

means that teenage girls can get the

help they need without worrying about

being reported.

"It also means that our clients -

Planned Parenthood counselors,

doctors who work with teenagers, etc.

- need not worry that someone in a

county in which they may be unpopular

will bring a test case against them .

under the new law."'

The suit, Cathy R. v. Deukmejian, is

a challenge to the law (enacted as SB

781 effected on January 1, 1981) which

requires all ``child care custodians,

medical and non-medical practi-

tioners'' to report to the police all

`instances of suspected consensual

Fe to the UN uilding 80x00B0

Hilltop's guidelines states that all

persons and groups who desire to

engage in expressive activity at the Cen-

ter are prohibited from approaching

shoppers, may not sell literature or

solicit donations, and must not go any

further than two feet from the literature

table. :

Flash! Just as the ACLU News was

going to press, Contra Costa Superior

Court Judge David Dolgin granted a

Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)

allowing Coalition members to approach

shoppers and hand out literature at the

Hilltop Shopping Center on Saturday,

April 11.

The TRO enjoins the shopping center

management from denying Coalition

`members access to Hilltop for the pur-

pose of ``peaceful, orderly and non-dis-

ruptive expressive activity, including

distributing written material and en-

gaging in discussions with interested

shoppers."' :

The TRO had been sought as an im-

mediate measure as the Coalition is try-

ing to inform Contra Costa residents

about the upcoming May 3 demonstra-

tion in San Francisco to protest U.S. in-

tervention in El Salvador.

The date for the preliminary hearing

was set for April 23.

Its OUR Move!

But we really need YOUR help!

Here's the game plan: Painting -

We'll supply the paint - can you

lend an expert hand in painting our

new space?

Moving Day - You can tell the |

ACLU-NC's been around for 45

years when moving day approaches:

with 150 cases on our current legal

.docket and 700 bills on our legis-

lative watch list we have a lot of mat-

erials to move. Can you help some-

time during the week of May 25 -

June 1?

Carpenters - Where will we put it

all after we move? Can you help us

build some shelves?

Any other services and goods are

also welcome - carpets, fixtures,

shelving, plants ... you name it, and

we'll see if we can use it. Let's make

this a winning combination. Check!

If you can help, call ACLU Office

Manager Hilary Crosby at (415) 777-

4880.

Our new address after June 1,'

1981 will be

ACLU-NC

1663 Mission St., 4th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94103

activity by unmarried teenage girls or

face criminal prosecution.

_ The ACLU claims that the new law is

unconstitutional, violating both the fed- -

eral and state guarantees of privacy.

The Court of Appeal will hear the

_case in May or June.

aclu news

April 1981

The breadth of the litigation handled by the ACLU Foundation of Northern

California to secure public funds for abortion spans 6 lawsuits in 4 different courts

over a three-year period. Below is a brief history of the ice battle for abortion and

abortion funding:

1973: Abortion is legal in the U.S. The U.S. Supreme Court rules in Roe v. Wade

and Doe y. Bolton that the decision to have an abortion must be left entirely

with a woman and her doctor in the first six months of pregnancy. The me

eons decision strikes down all more restrictive state laws.

1977: The Hyde Amendment, passed by Congress in 1976, goes into effect cutting

out 99% of federal funding for abortion.

1978: JULY: In the 1978 Budget Act, the California Legislature oes to severely _

_ restrict Medi-Cal funds for abortion.

AUGUST: The ACLU and four other public interest law firms file a lawsuit

challenging the state legislature's Budget Act restructions. The lawsuit,

Committee to Defend Reproductive Rights (CDRR) v. Myers, filed on be-

half of a coalition of welfare rights groups, women's rights organizations,

health care providers, Medi-Cal recipients and taxpayers, claims that the

Legislature's decision to restrict abortion coverage intrudes into the most

personal and private aspects of poor women's lives and infringes on the

rights to privacy, equal protection and due process of the law as guaranteed

by the state constitution.

AUGUST: A Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) is granted by the San

Francisco Superior Court in CDRR v. Myers.

SEPTEMBER: The Superior Court denies a preliminary injunction in

CDRR v. Myers.

OCTOBER: The Court of Appeal grants the ACLU petition for a special

writ to maintain funding for Medi-Cal abortions until the court reaches its

- final decision.

1979: MARCH: In the California Supreme Court, he ACLU thwarts attempts by

anti-abortion groups to dissolve the Court of Appeal order and thus main-

tains funding.

MAY: The Court of Appeal, by a vote of 2 to 1, substantially upholds the

Legislature's decision to cut off abortion funding for at least 95% of Cali-

fornia's poor women. The ruling makes the restrictions so stringent that

many doctors will refuse to allow abortion under any circumstances. How-

ever, the legislation expires before the decision is effective. -

JULY: The original plaintiffs file a petition in the California Supreme Court

to reverse the appeal court decision.

JULY: The California Legislature, in the 1979 Budget Act, ee severely

restricts Medi-Cal abortion funding.

AUGUST: The original plaintiffs file a new suit, CDRR v. Cory, to chal-

lenge the 1979 legislation and to `Tequest a temporary stay of the funding re-

strictions.

JULY: The California Supreme Court grants the stay and funding is main-

tained while the court decides whether to accept the appeal and hear chal-

lenges to the 1978 and 1979 legislation.

SEPTEMBER: The state high court agrees to hear the two cases. The ac-

ceptance of the petition nullifies all previous lower court rulings and means

that the funding will continue until the court makes its final decision.

1980: JANUARY: The federal Hyde_ enden is ruled unconstitutional. jude

John Dooling, a Federal District Judge in New York, rules that the Hyde

Amendment is unconstitutional. Dooling orders that federal funds for abor-

tion under Medicaid be resumed in 30 days.

FEBRUARY: Federal funding for mecically necessary abortion is rein-

stated nationwide.

JUNE 30: The U.S. Supreme Court reverses the District Court decision and

upholds the Hyde Amendment, withdrawing federal funds for abortion.

JULY: The California Legislature passes the 1980 Budget Act, reenacting

the 1979 restrictions on Medi-Cal funding for abortion. .

JULY 24: A third ACLU lawsuit, CDRR v. Unruh, is filed to challenge the

1980 cuts of abortion funds.

JULY 28: The California Supreme Court issues a court order to maintain

Medi-Cal funding until a final decision is made inthe case. |

SEPTEMBER 2: The California Supreme Court hears oral argument in the

lawsuits challenging the 1978, 1979 and 1980 Budget Act restrictions. of

Medi-Cal abortion funds.

"4981: MARCH 20: The California Supreme Court rules 4-2 that the Legis-

lature's Budget Act cutting of Medi-Cal funding for abortion is unconstitu-

tional. The decision means that Medi-Cal funding for abortion must con-

tinue. .

Nationwide

Elective abortion was _ routinely

covered under the federal Medicaid

program until September 1977 when

the first Hyde amendment to the

HEW-Labor Appropriations. Act went

]

into effect. Federal abortion funding | :

was thus restricted to cases of life

endangerment, severe and permanent

damage, rape or incest.

The federal funding provisions for all -

medically necessary abortions were

reinstated in February 1980 following a

_ ruling by Federal District Court Judge

John Dooling that the Hyde Amend-

ment was unconstitutional. However,

when the U.S. Supreme Court reversed

that decision in June 1980, federal

funds were again cut off.

There are, however, states which

continue to provide state funding for

abortions, either voluntarily by

allocation in the state budget or, as in.

California, by court order. In addition,

there are four other states in which

actions to maintain state funding are

still pending in the courts.

States which fund voluntarily

Alaska

Colorado

Hawaii

Maryland

Michigan

New York

North Carolina

Washington |

Washington, D.C.

(Oregon - with limitations)

States which fund because

of court order

California

Massachusetts

States in which suits are pending

in the courts

Connecticut

New Jersey

Oregon (suit to remove limitations on

funding which currently exist: women

over 18 are allowed funding for one

abortion, under 18 are allowed funding |

for two abortions)

Pennsylvannia

G ss

Mmittee to Nha

Committee to Defend Reproductive

Rights (CDRR)

1638B Haight St.

S.F., CA 94117

(415) 552-5000

Bay Area Pro-Choice Coalition

P.O. Box 242

Menlo Park, CA 94025

San Mateo

Ellen Shub

Reproductive Freedom:

fy Abortion Rights Timeline

"Can the state tell a p

will pay for her needed

only if she gives up her c

to choose whether or na

"There is no greate

power of the purse. If th

use it to nullify consti

conditioning benefits o1

fice of such rights, the E

eventually become a y

paper. Once the state |

care to poor women in

withdraw part of that c

a woman exercises her "

to have an abortion." Ci

Spread the W

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

ment'' - a 25-page pamphlet which explains t

Order reprints and distribute copies of thi

News. (See coupon below.)

Local Abortion Rig!

Contact the pro-choice coalitions listed on tl

tivities are planned in your area to defend a wo

Let the Lawmaker

Write letters to your Congressional represen

Human Life Amendment (HLA) and the Hu:

legislators know you oppose any infringements

I want to help spread the word on how to pt

Pleasesendme:

copies of the ACLU pamphlet "The :

copies of this special ACLU News suy

______ membership information on the ACI

Name

Address

City

Clip and send to ACLU, 814 Mission

1; Victory Sparks Action

Il a poor woman that it

ded medical care but

her constitutional right

yr not to have a child?"

-ater power than the

If the government can

nstitutional rights, by

its only upon the sacri-

he Bill of Rights could

a yellowing scrap of

ate furnishes medical

n in general, it cannot

at care solely because

her constitutional right

." California Supreme Court

_ March, 0

d the Word

opy of "The So-Called Human Life ad :

`plains this threat to abortion rights.

2s of this special supplement to the ACLU

fon Rights Action

ted on this page to find out what current ac-

nd awoman's right to choose.

wmakers Know

representative voicing your opposition to the

the Human Life Bill (HLB). Let your state

sements on state abortion rights.

an A TE WY A ESR HY MES

ow to protect a woman's right to choose.

t `The So-CaHed Human Life Amendment"'

Vews supplement on abortion rights

the ACLU-NC.

Zip

Mission St., Rm. 301, S.F., CA 94103

Choice Facts _

= ite total number of legal abortions

performed in California per year is es-

timated at 221,000.

- - The number of Medi-Cal funded

abortions in California per year is about

105,000 or over 8,000 per month. "

TEENAGERS

- Each year, more than one million

teen-age girls between the ages of

15-19 become pregnant. Ac-

cording to a 1981 study by the

Alan Guttmacher Institute, one

out of four 14-year old girls will

become pregnant before they turn

twenty.

- Teenagers 15-19 who give birth

are twice as likely to die from -

hemmorahage and miscarriage

and 1.5 times more likely to die

from toxemia than women in

their twenties who give birth.

- Babies born to teenagers are two

to three times more likely to die in

their first year than those born to

women in their twenties.

- Eighty per cent of adolescents

who give birth at 17 or younger do

not finish high school.

HEALTH RISKS

- The relative risk of death from

childbirth compared to legal

abortion varies from 2.3 times

greater for women aged 20-24 to

8.1 times greater for those aged

_ 3S years or older.

- HEW estimated in 1976 that

without government funding for

abortion for medically indigent

women there would be 125 to 250

deaths annually from illegal and

self-induced abortions as well as

12,500 serious medical cases re-

quiring hospitalization.

- The cost per year of all Medi-Cal.

abortions is $30,000,000. If the

funding were cut off, and 75% of

those pregnancies were carried to

term, the cost to the state for

childbirth and related expenses

would be $165,000,000.

SC NETWORK

Religious Coalition for |

Abortion Rights

(415) 459-3324

Pro-Choice Hotline (toll- free info.)

800-952-5678

ACLU National Reproductive

Freedom Project

(132 W. 43rd St.

New York, NY 10036

|

"Auman Life'

~ seeking abortions in California - such as

place obstacles before women wishing to terminate a pregnancy.

aclu news.

April 1981 |

The Fight Ahea

e Fight Ahead

The ink was hardly dry on the California Supreme Court's March decision up-

holding the right of all women, regardless of economic status, to choose an

abortion, when anti-choice proponents scurried to reverse the constitutional

mandate. Within two weeks following the Court's ruling, no fewer than six pieces

of legislation were introduced in the state capitol. designed to circumvent the

provisions of the decision.

That immediate message from the anti-choice forces is potent - it lets us know

that the ACLU's legal victory can only be maintained if we channel our resources

back to the original ``choice'' battlefield - the legislature.

The right to choose an abortion is a profoundly controversial issue: it is one

which during this decade is bound to test the very principles underlying the

concept of individual rights in this nation.

The anti-choice forces are willing to take enormous risks to foster their goals -

risks which pose a threat to our entire system of government. Their strategies range

from subjecting the entire Constitution to review via a constitutional convention to

sabotaging the integrity of the judicial system by excluding the federal judiciary

from the decision-making process on matters related to abortion,

Human Life Amendment

Most prominent among the efforts to eliminate reproductive freedom is the pro-

posal to amend the United States Constitution through a so-called ""Human Life

Amendment" (HLA).

Such an amendment would, in effect, overrule the 1973 Supreme Court decision

legalizing abortion. It would establish that, from the moment of fertilization, a

fertilized egg is a "`person"' under the Constitution and is entitled to all of the rights

and privileges afforded each living individual.

The implications of such an amendment are frightening. It would not only make

abortion a crime equal to murder, but also outlaw all methods of birth control

which prevent implantation (e.g., IUD, low estrogen pills, etc.) Thus a so-called

Amendment would subordinate women's bodies, health, work and

even lives to fetal survival.

Above all, it would establish a fundamentally religious belief - that a fertilized

egg is a human being from the moment of fertilization - and impose that belief on

all, including those who do not share it.

Statutory Attack

Anti-choice forces suspect that they do not have the necessary 7% majority in

both houses of Congress to pass constitutional amendment resolutions. Moreover,

if they did get the 74 majority, they know that the state ratification Piogess for a

constitutional amendment is long and perilous.

Their solution is to amend the Constitution through the back door. One such

effort is to pass a bill which strips the Supreme Court and all lower federal courts

of the power to hear cases in certain specified areas - such as abortion, school

prayer and desegregation. This statutory change would require only a simple

majority in Congress.

Another alternative is the ""Human Life" bill (HLB), which has already been in-

troduced in the 97th Congress. Although the bill would not prohibit all abortions,

it would prohibit either the state or federal government from becoming involved in

abortion in any way by declaring that for the purpose of the Fourteenth Amend-

ment's due process clause, a fetus would be defined as a `"`person."'

The `Human Life" bill would prohibit, for example, the use of government

funds for abortion or the performance of abortions in public facilities.

California Legislature's Response

The counter- attack on the state level has been no less intense. Following the

March decision by the state high court, five bills - two state constitutional

amendments and three simple statutes - have been introduced in an attempt to

undo the ruling.

On March 27, Assembly member Alister McAlister (D-San Jose) introduced

SCA 40 - a constitutional amendment which would prohibit the California courts

from appropriating any funds for any purpose not designated by the legislature.

This would inlcude, of course, Medi-Cal funds for abortion.

The following week, Senator John Schmitz (D-Where ??) introduced a consti-

tutional amendment to absolutely ban abortion - even in a case where the

mother's life was in danger. This ban goes further than the proposed federal

constitutional amendment.

Other pieces of state legislation would provide additional restrictions to women

"informed consent" measures which

- A Call to Action

The ACLU is organizing on a state and national level - along with other pro-

choice groups listed in this supplement - to fight against this rash of proposals

designed to limit reproductive freedom.

The ACLU brings to this lobbying campaign its unparalleled litigation

experience as the leading abortion rights advocate in the courts throughout the

nation.

Moreover, we can bring nearly 250,000 ACLU members to the lobbying arena.

Anti-choice proponents have been given unchallenged access for too long on

Capitol Hill and in the halls of the state legislature.

It is time that pro-choice advocates - like the ACLU - who believe that the

right to privacy and the right to control one's reproductive destiny cannot be

2 SE ERE NS EGE AAG EE EO SE denied to any woman make our presence forcefully heard as well.

aclu news ae

April 1981

Leeal Services Cuts - `a Vendetta'

By David Sweet

"The abolition of the Legal Services

Corporation constitutes a denial of the

right of low income people to have

access to the courts,' said ACLU-NC

Vice Chair Eva Jefferson Paterson. "It

amounts to excluding poor people from

- the American legal system.

Paterson was speaking at a March 11

press conference on the steps of the

Federal Building in San Francisco,

called by the newly formed Bay Area

' Coalition to Save Legal Services to

protest President Reagan's proposal to

slash the Legal Services Corporation

budget from $321 million to zero.

Paterson's charge was seconded by

Clarissa Ward, Chair of the San Fran-

cisco Legislative Forum and a Board

member of the Grey Panthers, who

said, ""Legal Services is the only place

for people on fixed incomes to go if they

are being evicted or if they are having

trouble getting their social security

check."

Commenting on Reagan's long-term

opposition to Legal Services, Ward

added, "Reagan has no sympathy for

the poor.'

Both Paterson and Ward noted

Reagan's all-out pitch to abolish Legal

Services when he served as Governor of

California. Paterson cited a 1967 class

action suit against Reagan for trying to

dismantle the Medi-Cal system.

California Rural Legal Assistance, one

of the programs of Legal Services,

challenged him and won.

Later, Reagan attempted

eliminate CRLA's funding.

"Legal Services made life uncomfor-

table for Reagan," Paterson said. ``His

attack on the Corporation is actually a

personal vendetta."

Neighborhood Programs

The cut in the Legal Services

Corporation budget is part of Reagan's

second and last installment on budget

proposals for the next fiscal year now

under Congressional review.

Funding for Legal Services, which

now stands at $321.3 million, is

funnelled to 320 legal service programs

and 1200 neighborhood - offices

throughout the country.

These programs serve over 1.2

million people living below the poverty

line in cases ranging from housing and

consumer disputes to welfare problems

and divorce proceedings.

Stan Doty, President of District 65 of

to

the United Auto Workers, called

attention at the press conference to the

economic ramifications of the proposed

cut-back.

"Not only will 1.2 million poor go un-

represented in court, but also 5000

lawyers, 2,500 legal workers and

thousands of clerical workers will face

unemployment," Doty warned.

Py an 2) ED ER EE CR EE) EE) ES I ERE ES

Your efforts are needed to prevent Reagan from wiping out Legal Services.

Send letters or postcards urging passage of H.R. 2506, providing full funding for -

Legal Services to:

Honorable

The Legal Services Corporation

(LSC) grew out of the legal services pro-

gram initiated by the Office of

Economic Opportunity in 1965 in

response to the heavy caseloads

volunteer attorneys could not handle for

the poor.

It was not until 1975, however, that

legislation was implemented to

establish Legal Services as a non-profit

`corporation.

_ Though the LSC had strong backing,

including support from the private bar,

the legislation contained restrictions

which hindered aggressive represen-

- tation of the poor. For example, LSC

attorneys cannot file lawsuits in cases

related to the Selective Service, school

desegregation and non-therapeutic

abortions. Moreover, LSC attorneys are

forbidden to participate in boycotts and

strikes or to lobe on legislative

_ matters. .

THE WAR ON POVERTY, (98!

ey TRAINING] e So

PROGRAMS 2h

[erIcalD | : ING

be

--copyright 1981 by Herblock in The Washington Post

Reagan and other conservative critics

claim the cuts are justified because the

LSC engages in liberal causes on

government money. They argue that the

LSC is unnecessary because the private

bar should be responsible for helping

the poor and deplore LSC class action

suits which they feel are promoted to

effect social change.

However, Paterson noted that the

LSC is a conveyor of sound

jurisprudence benefiting all segments of

American society. `In San Francisco

alone, the LSC assisted 15,000 clients

last year. It is impossible for lawyers in

private practice to take this many free

on top of the huge amount of pro bono

work they already do.

``Any attempt to axe the Legal

Services would result in massive

suffering, either despair or revolution,"

Paterson claimed.

David Sweet, an ACLU News volunteer,

works for the Bay Guardian and

Amnesty International.

(your Representative)

U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, D.C. 20515 - and

Robert Kastenmeier, Chair

Judiciary Committee

U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, D.C. 20515

Sub-Committee on Courts, Civil Liberties and Administration of Justice

ee.

i Ge A ee A ieee Se SGN GH Eas Te EE Ge ES Ge mms seed

Re Ge me i ee Ee Se

U.S. Supreme Court Rules:

Anonymous Speech

On April 6, the U.S. Supreme Court

let stand a California appeal court de-

cision that people who distribute anony-

mous campaign literature can no longer

be prosecuted under the state Election

Code (Schuster v. Imperial County

Municipal Court).

The ACLU, who foprescnied the

campaigners charged under the statute

in the Supreme Court, argued that Sec-

tion 29410 of the Election Code which |

prohibits the distribution of anonymous

leaflets is an unconstitutionally over-

broad restraint on freedom of express-

ion (see ACLU News, October 1980).

The Court of Appeal, agreeing with

the ACLU arguments, ruled on August

- 28, 1980 that the statute is "`unconstitu-

tional because it encroaches on this fun-

damental freedom [of expression]."'

The Supreme Court decision means

that the ruling is applicable throughout

the state and individuals and groups

who wish to distribute campaign litera-

ture need not attribute the election

material to a named source.

`Victorian' Rape Law

In a sharply divided opinion, the

U.S. Supreme Court ruled on March 23 |

that California's statutory rape law is

constitutional even though it punishes

men who have sexual intercourse with

girls under 18 years of age, and entirely

permits women to have intercourse with

boys under 18.

With a 5-4 ruling, the justices

rejected the argument, presented by the

ACLU in an amicus brief, that the law

violates the constitutional guarantee of

equal protection.

According to ACLU-NC staff counsel 7

Margaret Crosby, ``The statute is

clearly discriminatory, both against

male and females. Young men are

victimized by being singled out as solely

responsible under the penal code for an

act performed by two people.

""Moreover,'' Crosby added, ``the law

clearly embodies Victorian notions of

female chastity as a precious commod-

ity, which, unlike male virginity,

warrants the government's protection.

"To us, the Court's willingness to

sustain this discriminatory measure re-

flects the current paternalistic attitude

toward women prevalent in Washington

and, unfortunately in the federal

judiciary,'' Crosby said.

In the case of Michael M. v. Superior

Court, a 17-year old youth was charged (c)

with having ``unlawful sexual

intercourse" with a 16-year old girl.

The ACLU amicus brief, prepared by

national staff counsel Charles Sims,

argued that the law under which

Michael M. was accused was invalid

under the equal protection clause for

two independent reasons.

First, the law discriminates on the

basis of gender without satisfying a leg-

itimate governmental purpose.

Second, Michael M., like his

"`victim'"' was a minor at the time of the

alleged crime.

However, the justices agreed with the

California Supreme Court that the law

was constitutional.

The high court ruled that the law did

satisfy a legitimate governmental

purpose, that of preventing teenage

pregnancy.

According to Justice William H.

Rehnquist, "Because virtually all of the

significant harmful and inescapably

identifiable consequences of teenage

pregnancy fall on the young female, a

legislature acts well within its authority

when it elects to punish only the partici-

pant who, by nature suffers few of the

consequences of his conduct."

However, the dissent, written by

Justice William Brennan, stated that

California had not produced evidence

to justify its law proving that it could

not have achieved the same result -

preventing teenage pregnancy - with a

law that treated both sexes equally.

Brennan added that the law, which

dates from the mid-1800's, had not

been enacted to deter pregnancy but to

further ``outmoded sexual stereotypes"

about female chastity.

California is one of only a handful of

states which has retained a gender

based statutory rape law that,

according to Crosby, `"`perpetuates the

stereotypic myth that women are help-

less beings who need the law to protect

them from their own foolishness in

making decisions to engage in sexual

relations."

Zebra Ciics F ees

The City of San Francisco was foiled

in its latest attempt to-avoid paying at-_

torney's fees to the Northern California

Police Practices Project in the 1974 suit

which halted the city police depart-

ment's unconstitutional stop-and-

search practices in their investigation of

the "`Zebra'' murders.

The U.S. Supreme Court on March

23 refused to hear the city's appeal of

the $25,000 award approved by the

Court of Appeals last year.

The civil rights suit, Bazile v. Alioto,

was brought in April, 1974 in federal

court on behalf of all black males who

claimed their civil rights had been vio-

lated or would be violated by the police

tactics. During the course of a week the

San Francisco police stopped and

frisked 600 young black males through-

out the city.

After a two-day hearing, U.S. Dis-

- trict Judge Alfonso Zirpoli issued a pre-

liminary injunction ordering the police

to comply with the constitution in con-

ducting their investigation. He subse-

quently ordered the city to pay the

plaintiff's attorneys fees.

After four persons were convicted of

the killings in March 1976, the city ar-

gued that it should not have to pay the

fees because an appeal of the original

injunction was dismissed as moot.

According to ACLU staff counsel

Amitai Schwartz, one of the original at-

torneys on the case, `"`We hope this

marks the final ene in a tragic

story.

"The City had srcigied all along that

it had every right to violate wholesale

the rights of blacks as it did in the 1974

searches. The fee award should have

the effect of deterring them; and the

practical effect of this award will be to

allow us to continue fighting police

abuses."'

The Northern California Police Prac-

tices Project was set up jointly by the

ACLU, the NAACP Legal Defense

Fund and MALDEF to monitor and

challenge illegal practices by the police.

Gifts Plan Launched

ACLU-NC board members Nancy

Pemberton, Frances Strauss and

Jerome B. Falk, Jr. each have over

fifteen years intimate involvement in

the fight for civil liberties. Now, as a

group, they are taking on a very sub-

stantial challenge -- to raise an ad-

ditional $130,000 for the ACLU-NC in

1981 to maintain the organization's

distinguished legal program.

Frances Strauss was first to enter the

ACLU, joining in 1953 at the height of

the McCarthy era. Nancy Pemberton

was born just one year before. But

Pemberton's civil liberties education

accellerated only nine years later when

her father John de J. Pemberton, Jr.,

became the national ACLU's third

executive director taking over from Pat-

rick Murphy Malin who took over in

1950 from Roger Baldwin. (John

Pemberton is now a professor at the

University of San Francisco Law School

and serves on the ACLU-NC legal com-

mittee.) :

Pemberton says she became aware of

ACLU's fundraising needs at an early

age because her father was rarely at

home for her birthday which falls in

mid-December. He would instead be

speaking at one ACLU affiliate or

another's Bill of Rights Day event --

which also falls in mid- econ be each

year.

Strauss became an ACLU admin-

istrative employee for the Illinois divi-

sion in 1955. She moved to Calfornia in

1960 and joined the ACLU-NC board in

_1973 as a San Francisco chapter rep-

resentative. That same year, she organ-

ized the ACLU-NC Foundation's first

Bill of Rights Day Celebration, which

became the major annual fundraising

event, and has continued to chair all

subsequent Bill of Rights Day cam- -

paigns.

Nancy Pemberton came west in 1975

from New York. Her fundraising exper-

ience includes several years on the staff

`of the local Wallace A. Gerbode

Foundation. Active in women's rights

and pro-choice efforts, Pemberton

joined the ACLU-NC board in 1979 and

co-chaired the 1980 development

committee and equality committee. She

is now an economics student at San

Francisco State.

San Francisco native Jerome B. Falk,

Jr. first became a volunteer counsel for

the ACLU during John Pemberton's

tenure as national executive director.

Falk's ACLU litigation covers dozens of

issues ranging from capital punishment

to free speech to the Zebra stop and

search. Falk graduated from Boalt Hall

in 1965 and became a law clerk for

Supreme Court Justice William O.

Douglas the same year. He was elected

to the ACLU-NC board in 1967 and is

now a vice-chair.

In January, faced with serious in-

flation and the possible depletion of all

the organization's reserves, the ACLU-

NC Board of Directors approved the

combined affiliate/foundation 1981

budget of $513,000. In order to avoid

cutting staff, the board committed itself

to raising an additional $130,000 in

contributions beyond what was raised

in 1980 through a new "major donors

campaign."

Pemberton has been appointed chair

of the affiliate's devopment committee

overseeing all fundraising efforts.

Official Privilege in Question

The absolute privilege accorded to

statements by high government officials

does not mean that the Attorney

General can publicly accuse an

individual of ``organized crime

connections'' with total immunity

claimed the ACLU in a hearing before

the California Supreme Court on April

6.

The argument, presented by cooper-

ating attorney Floyd Lk Siegal, was

made as a friend of the court in the case

of Kilgore v. Younger. The ACLU is

supporting Kilgore's efforts to amend

his complaint against former state

Attorney General Evelle Younger for

publicly naming Kilgore as an

individual ``associated with organized

crime activity."

In 1977 Younger, while Attorney

General, established an Organized

Crime Control Commission to study the

level of organized crime in California.

The commission delivered a written

report to Younger, which included an

appendix of 92 individuals ``whose

associations with organized crime have

been substantiated by the commis-

sion ..

Younger, who was campaigning for

state governor, held a press conference

and released the commission's report to -

the press.

The report's appendix identified

plaintiff Gerald Kilgore by name,

photograph and home address as one of

the 92 individuals associated with

organized crime activity.

When Kilgore filed a lawsuit against

Younger claiming (c) defamation,

intentional infliction of emotional dis-

tress and invasion of privacy, the

Attorney General responded that his

absolute privilege as a government

official applied to any publication by

him regardless of the propriety of his

actions.

`According to the ACLU, the privilege

"accorded by Civil Code 47(1) does not

apply as an absolute immunity if a

public official violates specific statutory

prohibitions or deprives an individual

of fundamental constitutional rights.

In addition, Younger's actions in

publishing a description of Kilgore

which included his previous convictions

and the fact that he `associated with

many bookmakers throughout the

state' constitute a prima facie violation

of Kilgore's right to privacy guaranteed

by the state constitution.

Also, by branding Kilgore as a

criminal without any of the procedural

safeguards of a criminal trial, the ~

Attorney General, as the state's chief

law enforcement official, violated

Kilgore's state constitutional right to

due process of law.

Finally, Younger's actions may have

- violated statutory prohibitions against

dissemination of criminal history

information.

The ACLU is asking the high court to

reverse the trial court ruling and allow

Kilgore an opportunity to amend his

complaint and proceed with his action

against the former Attorney General.

aclu news

April 1981

An invitation for you to join in supporting the

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

Strauss has accepted an invitation to

build on her Bill of Rights Day fund-

raising record as associate development

chair for major gifts. Falk will be asso-

ciate chair for law firms solicitation.

Falk's own firm (Howard, Prim, Rice,

Nemerovski, Canady and Pollak) has al-

ready made a substantial donation to

help launch the 1981 campaign.

The major donor campaign will

involve board members personally

-meeting with previous ACLU-NC

supporters to ask for larger gifts to the

ACLU Foundation of Northern Cal-

ifornia. Last month, many board mem-

bers attended a training session with

fund-raising consultant Henry Rosso.

Rosso has over thirty years fundraising

experience and now directs the Marin-

based Fund Raising School which

teaches courses nationally through

several universities.

These three board leaders will be

assisted in their ambitious task by staff

member Michael P. Miller, the newly

appointed Associate Director of the

ACLU-NC.

Miller, who joined the ACLU-NC

staff as the Field Representative in

1978, brings a wealth of fund-raising

Darwin Fan Fights

The vigilance of a i concerned parent

and a letter from the ACLU reminding

a school principal of the Establishment

Clause have brought a victory for the

separation of church and state in an.

elementary school in the Placer County

community of Lincoln.

Students in the third grade at Lin-

coln's Glen Edwards Elementary

School were asked by their teacher to

bring in Bibles to read during a free

reading period.

Joan Hayes, the mother of one of the"

third-graders, objected to this practice,

and called the school principal Henry

Edwards to lodge her complaint.

Edwards informed her that the Bible

reading would be stopped.

However, Hayes' son, who brought a

copy of Darwin's Origin of Species to

class instead of the Bible, told his -

mother that the Bible reading was not

and organizing experience to the com-

mittee. For 2-1/2 years Miller has been

working with the ACLU-NC Chapter

program. He was responsible for co-

ordinating ACLU-NC's campaigns

against proposition 6 -- the anti-gay

school teacher initiative, Proposition 7 - _

- the death penalty initiative, the

lobbying campaign against the draft, as

well as organizing conferences and

grass roots membership campaigns.

As Associate Director, Miller will

continue to over-see ACLU-NC's field

program; he will also coordinate the

ACLU-NC's foundation grant-seeking,

and be primarily responsible for the

major donor program which is now

underway.

Commenting on this winning com-

bination of board and staff leadership,

ACLU-NC Chairperson Drucilla

Ramey said, `It comes as no surprise,

that during the first week of solicitation

$10,000 has already been raised, and

more than a dozen board members have

pledged their time and energy to work

on this program. I am enormously en-

couraged by the Board's commitment

to take an active part in this critical

fund-raising effort."

School Bible Plan

stopped, and that the teacher was

continuing to announce time for

students to read the Bible and even

helped the students with their reading.

The boy was coming under pressure |

for not having a Bible - and was told

by a fellow student that he would "burn

forever for not believing in Jesus."'

Concerned about her son's situation

and frustrated by the response from

school officials, Hayes called the

ACLU.

In a letter to the school principal,

ACLU-NC staff attorney Margaret

Crosby pointed out that Bible reading

in public schools, even if done in silence

and privately funded, is un-

constitutional.

"We feel that this practice is par-.

ticularly pernicious where, as here, the

students are very young and vulnerable

to subtle forms of coercion to conform

to majoritarian religious practices,"'

Crosby wrote.

A week later, the principal wrote

back to the ACLU. "I have instructed

her (the third grade reading teacher) to

tell those students who have brought

Bibles from home to take them back

home.

"She told me' she would contac

those parents involved and inform them

there would be no more BIDIE reading

allowed in class."

Se,

aclu news

April 1981

Abortion Victory

continued from page I

making such a "`courageous decision."'

Speaking for the plaintiff Committee

to Defend Reproductive Rights, Alice

Wolfson hailed the decision as a wictony `

for poor women.

"In California, at least, poor women

will be spared the horrors of back alley

or self-induced abortions as well as of

forced pregnancy. The decision affirms

equal justice for the poe " Wolfson

said.

She also warned that "the Tight to

choose is not yet totally secure." Speak-

ing of efforts on the state and local level

to turn back the clock on abortion

rights, Wolfson said, "It is imperative

that the pro-choice majority increase its

efforts to defeat this small but vocal

minority."

The lawsuits were filed on behalf of a

coalition of ten groups, including wel-

fare rights organizations, women's

rights groups, civil rights associations,

health care providers, Medi-Cal recipi-

ents and taxpayers.

Medi-Cal funding for abortion has

been available to women in California

`despite the legislature's budget cuts

solely because of ten court orders issued

in the ACLU lawsuits.

(For more background on the Medi-

Cal abortion victory, see special

supplement pp. 4-5.) :

Prison News

continued from page 1

remainder of the newspaper to the

printer with the word "Censored" in the

columns where the censored articles

`had been scheduled to appear. The

issue was printed at CMF on paper pur-

chased with funds from the CMF

Inmate Welfare Fund.

When Kane saw the ``Censored"'

columns in the issue prior to

distribution, without giving any notice

to Diaz, he ordered it impounded. All

but a handful of the 1600 copies of the

paper were burned in the incinerator by

CMF employees acting under orders

from Kane and Acting Superintendent

Hal Watts.

Two weeks later, again without

giving notice, prison officials

unceremoniously removed editor Diaz

from the CMF room used as an office

for the Star, demanded Diaz' key to the

_ Star office and locked the room. The

paper has not been published since.

According to ACLU-NC staff

attorney Alan Schlosser, `"This is out-

rageous behavior by prison officials. To

burn 1600 copies of a newspaper and

then shut down the whole operation is a

flagrant abuse of the First Amendment.

"Once permitted, an inmate news-

paper may not be closed because of its

ideas,'' Schlosser explained. ``The

prison authorities abruptly siezed and

burned the press-run of the Christmas

issue in retaliation for the editor's

succinct and clear reportage of the fact

that they had censored several articles.

`*Moreover,'' Schlosser added, `"`these

drastic actions were perpetrated by

prison officials without any due

process."

The case, which is being handled by

Schlosser and ACLU-NC cooperating

attorneys William S. Boyd, Zack Taylor

and Peter Goodman all of the San

Francisco law firm of Brobeck, Phleger

Harrison, is the latest in a series of

challenges to the censorship of

prisoner's newspapers by prison author-

ities.

Reporters' Libel Appeal

~ over the government in a democracy,"'

she said.

"To sustain this judgment will

broadcast a chilling message to all who

seek publicly to question the integrity of

this country's criminal justice system,"

Crosby added.

The original articles, published on

_ the front pages of the Examiner in May

1976, about the trial of Richard Lee, a

19-year old bank teller convicted of a

Chinatown gang slaying, was headlined

"How Lies Sent Youth to Prison for

Murder.'"' Three public officials, San

Francisco police officers Frank McCoy

and Edward Erdelatz Jr. and former

Assistant District Attorney Pierre

Merle, were accused of misconduct in .

the articles, in particular willfully ob-

taining the false conviction of an ac-

cused person by coercing perjury and

- suppressing exculpatory evidence.

Bergman and Ramirez, the co-

authors of the series, had conducted an

`extensive 18-month investigation into

the Richard Lee case and into police -

attitudes and response to organized

crime in Chinatown. .

Throughout the 6-week libel trial in

San Francisco Superior Court with

Judge Clayton W. Horn presiding,

extensive evidence was introduced con-

cerning the depth of the reporters'

investigation. However, much testimony

regarding corroborating circumstances

was blocked by the trial court.

The Examiner refused to provide

outside legal counsel for freelancer

Bergman and Examiner staff writer

Ramirez.

The three public officials obtained a

judgment totaling $4,500,000: 3 million

against the Examiner and its parent the

Hearst Corporation, and $780,000 each

against Bergman and Ramirez.

Both writers have since dext the

Examiner.

According to Ramirez, now a staff

m page I

writer with the Oakland Tribune,

"There is a great irony in this case

because we set out to look into a sit-

uation where the criminal justice system

appeared to have failed itself and the

people of San Francisco -- and then we

found that same court system used to

silence us."

Regarding the chilling effect of the

massive libel judgment, Ramirez noted,

"The sad reality in this case is that since

this lawsuit was filed there has been

little interest in looking at the case of

Richard Lee and other cases in China-

town where there are serious questions

about the manner in which the criminal

justice system deals with individuals.

"Richard Lee is still in prison. His

appeal on the writ of habeus corpus was

filed recently -- but no one wrote a word

about it,' Ramirez said.

Bergman, who is now an investigative

reporter at ABC-TV's `20/20', con-

curred on the chilling effect of the trial

court judgment. "I can only hope,"' said

Bergman, "that this filing will undo the

severe damage done by this libel action

_to freedom of the press."

Ramirez added, ""There has been a

tremendous growth in libel litigation in

this country. Libel suits -- which are so

expensive to defend against -- are being

used to hamper, impede and obstruct

the work of journalists."

The ACLU is asking the Court of

Appeal to review the record independ-

ently to assure that its constitutional

adjudication not be frustrated by dis-

-torted fact-finding by the trial court

JUty.

Arguing that the public officials

failed to prove that the articles were

false, and that the record fails to.

disclose that the reporters knew the

articles were false, the appeal is asking

for a reversal of the libel judgment and

a ruling that the news stories were

protected by the First Amendment.

The judge's order also stipulated that

~ the prison officials were "enjoined from

taking any adverse action against Diaz,

including, but not limited to, trans-

ferring him to any other institution, or

removing him as Editor of the Star

without his consent or prior approval of

this Court."'

Star editor Diaz was extremely

pleased with the decision. He explained

that tensions at the prison had in-

creased since the closing of the

newspaper and that one of the major

uses of the paper had been to "keep the

prison from operating on rumor.'

Diaz said, "You have to wait until (c)

places like Attica or New Mexico ex-

plode to find out about the problems in

these institutions that bring them to the

point of explosion."'

`We firmly believe in our right as in-

dividuals to confront the issues that

affect our lives here,' Diaz stated.

The Vacavalley Star has been put out

by prisoners at CMF for over 20 years.

The Star and its inmate authors and

editors have received numerous awards

in the annual American Penal Press

Contest sponsored by the Southern Iili-

nois University School of Journalism,

including a prize in 1979 for Second

Place overall in the Mimeographed

Publication category.

Currently, the California Supreme

Court is considering the legality of the

censorship of another prison news-

paper, the Soledad Star-News (Bailey v.

Loggins). The ACLU, which is a friend

of the court in that case, is arguing that

the First Amendment protects a news-

paper edited inside the walls of a prison

by inmates from censorship by the

state.

A Seminar

CHAPTERS

--Calendar-

B-A-K

-BOARD MEETING. Thursday, 8

p.m., April 23, 42 Plaza, Berkeley.

All ACLU members welcome. For

more information: 415-654-4163.

San Francisco

BOARD NOMINATIONS. ACLU

members in good standing are eli-

gible for nomination to chapter

board; submit names by April 24

with 50 word biography. Send to

Nominating Committee, Attn. P.

Sarasohn, S.F. Chapter ACLU, 814

Mission Street, 94103.

Y olo County

FILM. Wednesday, April 8, 7:30

p.m., David Veterans Memorial

Building, 14th and B Streets, Davis.

The Trials of Alger Hiss (documen-

tary). Students $2.50, general $4.00 J

Santa Cruz Meet

- Over 200 people attended a civil

liberties conference organized by the

Santa Cruz Chapter February 28 en-

titled ``Political Repression, What Can

Be Done?"'

`The conference featured Daniel Ells-

berg as keynote speaker and nine

different workshops with topics as

diverse as police practices, women and (c)

_ civil liberties, the rights of demon-

strators, racism, and the death penalty.

Ellsberg warned of "`the secret nation

_ within our democratic nation" planning

for wars in places such as El Salvador.

Ellsberg stressed that the First

Amendment and free speech are the

only check citizens have on the govern-

ment against this type of secrecy.

ACLU-NC _ executive --director

Dorothy Ehrlich opened _ the

conference. Bruce Cooperstein,

president of the Santa Cruz Chapter

and chief conference organizer, also

addressed the group.

Workshop leaders included Santa

Cruz Chapter board members Eleanor

Eisenberg and Len Greenberg, chapter

legal coordinator Bob Taren, and

Monterey Chapter executive director

Richard Criley.

Litigation under the

Freedom of Information, Privacy

and Public Records Acts

Speakers include:

Morton Halperin, Director of the ACLU

| Center for National Security Studies

| Amitai Schwartz, ACLU-NC Staff Counsel

| April 30 and May 1,9 AM-5 PM

; Mission and 2nd

San Francisco

$165 per person. Special rate for

public interest organizations, law

students and _ faculty.

Golden Gate Law School

Call Hilary Crosby, ACLU-NC

(415) 777-4880