vol. 52, no. 6

aclu news

NON PROFIT

ORGANIZATION

U.S. POSTAGE

PAID

Permit No. 4424

San Francisco, CA

Volume LI

September 1987

No. 6

Block Bork!

ACLU Reverses 50-Year Policy;

Opposes Bork Confirmation

n August 31, the national ACLU

QC) res that it is opposing the

U.S. Senate confirmation of

Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork and

mounting a major national campaign to

block his appointment.

The ACLU's opposition to the Bork

nomination was decided at a special meeting

of the national ACLU Board of Directors

held in New York on August 29 and 30.

Simultaneous press conferences to

announce the decision were held by the

national ACLU in Washington, D.C. and by

the ACLU-NC in San Francisco.

Speaking at the San Francisco press

conference, national ACLU Vice-President

Eva Jefferson Paterson said, "This was the

first time in ACLU history that a special

Board meeting was held to change the 51-

year old policy [of not opposing judicial

nominations]."

Paterson, who had just stepped off the

plane from the New York meeting,

explained, "We realized we are at a critical

historical crossroads. If you care about civil

rights and liberties for the decades to come,

you must take a stand on this nomination."

Radical nominee

At the Washington press conference,

ACLU President Norman Dorsen, who is

Stokes Professor of Law at New York

University Law School and former law clerk

to the late Supreme Court Justice John

Marshall Harlan, said, "Judge Bork is more

radical than conservative. He is certainly

well outside the mainstream of conservative

judicial philosophy that governed decisions

of justices like Harlan, Frankfurter or

Powell.

"If Robert Bork's views were to prevail,

the most critical function of the Supreme

Court-the protection of individual

rights-would atrophy, and the system of

checks and balances. that protects such

rights would be upset.

"America would become a different place

and many freedoms that ordinary Ameri-

cans now take for granted would be

threatened. It is impossible to examine

Judge Bork's record as a whole and conclude.

otherwise," Dorsen said.

Review of Bork record

Prior to the decision, the ACLU legal and

legislative staff prepared a 47-page report

carefully reviewing Bork's legal opinions,

- articles and congressional testimony span-

ning more than three decades. [Excerpts

from the national ACLU report begin on p.

ee).

According to ACLU Executive Director

Ira Glasser, "We plan to present Judge Bork

through his own words. Those words reveal

what America would be like if his views

prevail-a harsh and frightening picture

which we believe most Americans will

rejecie.

The report enumerates Bork's thinking on

key civil liberties issues including the right of

privacy, women's rights, freedom of expres-

sion, racial discrimination, and the separa-

~ tion of church and state, all of which are ACLUN_1981.MODS ACLUN_1981.batch ACLUN_1982 ACLUN_1982.MODS ACLUN_1982.batch ACLUN_1983 ACLUN_1983.MODS ACLUN_1984 ACLUN_1984.MODS ACLUN_1984.batch ACLUN_1985 ACLUN_1985.MODS ACLUN_1985.batch ACLUN_1986 ACLUN_1986.MODS ACLUN_1986.batch ACLUN_1987 ACLUN_1987.MODS ACLUN_1987.batch 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 add-tei.sh create-bags.sh create-manuscript-bags.sh create-manuscript-batch.sh fits.log

antithetical to ACLU positions.

The report also argues that the Senate has

equal responsibility with the president in

judging Supreme Court nominees. The

historical record demonstrates that the

Senate has the constitutional responsibility

to scrutinize a nominee's judicial philosophy

and reject a nominee if that philosophy is

inconsistent with the function of the

Supreme Court in protecting individual

rights in our political system.

Glasser said that the ACLU's 50 affiliates

and 250,000 members nationwide would be

mobilized in the campaign against Bork's

confirmation.

ACLU-NC Executive Director Dorothy

Ehrlich said, "Along with ACLU members

throughout the country, in northern

California we are launching a serious,

aggressive campaign to stop the Bork

confirmation.

"This is the time when grassroots action

will make a difference. We must make sure

that the Senate hears from us, and

responds."

continued on p. 3

AIDS Package Halted

A successful grassroots legislative and

public education campaign halted State

Senator John Doolittle's repressive package

of AIDS legislation in the California

Assembly in August.

The nine bill package included threaten-

ing measures that emphasized forced HIV

antibody testing, particularly in the criminal

justice setting, and the weakening of

confidentiality. One of the most dangerous

bills, SB 1000, as originally drafted would

have repealed the AIDS confidentiality

restrictions currently in effect. Even as

amended, SB 1000 would have substantially

weakened the privacy protections on AIDS

related medical information.

The Doolittle AIDS bills (with the

exception of SB 1005) passed the Senate

before the summer recess and were assigned

to either the Assembly Health Committee or

the Assembly Public Safety Committee.

Four bills in the Doolittle package, SB

1000, SB 1001, SB 1006, and.SB 1008,

received an extended hearing in the

Assembly Health Committee on August 18.

In response to this testimony the Health

committee sent SB 1000 and SB 1006 to

interim study. Like the other bills that met

this fate, these measures are expected to be

the subject of hearings during the legislative

_ recess. Hearings have been set on the issues

of AIDS and IV drug use in San Francisco

and Los Angeles.

Of the two bills that were passed by the

Health committee, SB 1001 was amended to

direct only that HIV testing be offered to -

persons seeking marriage licensed. The bill

had originally required such testing. SB

1008, which would by law permit directed

blood donations to a particular person, was

not opposed by most AIDS organizations.

Because of extended hearings on the bills

in the Assembly Health Committee,

Senator Doolittle was required to "put over"

the measures in the Public Safety Commit-

tee. This means that SB 1002 (creating a new

crime of donating blood which a person

knows to be contaminated with the AIDS

virus), SB 1004 (enhancing sentences for

persons convicted of certain rape offences

who were antibody positive at the time of the

crime) and SB 1007 (requiring that persons

convicted of prostitution-related offenses be

tested for the AIDS virus with test results

included in the person's criminal record) now

become "two year bills." They may be acted

on at any time through the conclusion of the

1988 session.

The final bill, SB 1005, was not passed

out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. This

measure proposes that all persons sentenced

to state prison for certain sex offenses

including prostitution and IV drug use be

tested for HIV exposure.

Senate Passes Parental

Consent Bill

In the waning hours of the legislative

session on September 10, the Senate passed

a bill requiring women under 18 to obtain

parental consent for an abortion.

The measure, AB 2274 (Frazee), similar

to other bills which have been repeatedly

defeated in the Legislature in past years, won

a Senate vote of 25-11.

The bill, which now goes to the Gover-

nor's desk, requires that a teenager have her

parents' permission to have an abortion. As

an alternative, a young woman could seek a

judicial by-pass based on a showing that she

was sufficiently mature to consent to the

abortion without the involvement of her

parents.

This is the basic model of minors' access/

parental consent laws that have been

enacted and routinely enjoined by courts

throughout the country. Last year, the

ACLU succeeded in striking down a similar

measure in Minnesota. The decision that the

Minnesota law was unconstitutional was

unanimously affirmed by the appellate

court on August 27.

"The Senate has passed a bill which is a

_ disaster for the privacy rights and health of

tens of thousands of teenagers in California,"

said ACLU-NC lobbyist Daphne Macklin,

who was part of a pro-choice coalition

which worked against the bill.

Three legislators attempted to amend the

Frazee bill; an amended bill would have to

have been returned to the Assembly for

concurrence. Senator Diane Watson (D-

L.A.) proposed changing the bill from

allowing a court to "order" an abortion to

allow a court to "authorize" the procedure.

Senator Barry Keene (D-Vallejo) pro-

posed an amendment to negate the permis-

sion requirement when a pregnant minor's

only parent or guardian had been accused of

incest.

The third amendment by Senator Alfred

Alquist (D-San Jose) would have prevented

Frazee's measure from becoming law ~

without enactment of a separate bill that

appropriated $1.5 million for court costs

resulting from the parental consent

measure.

Though generating heated debate, all of

the amendments failed.

The bill now goes to Governor Deukme- |

Jian, who supports parental consent, for his

signature.

The ACLU-NC is committed to legally

challenging parental consent measures

which violate constitutional rights. The

national ACLU Reproductive Freedom

Project has been involved in court chal-

lenges throughout the country, the most

significant being Hodgson v. Minnesota.

aclu news

2 september 1987

Judge Robert Bork: For the Record

he ACLU has compiled a comprehensive 47-page report on Judge Robert Bork's civil

liberties record based on his judicial opinions, academic writings, congressional ~

testimony, popular articles and speeches. Below are excerpts from the report which reveal

that Bork's philosophy would radically reduce the role.of the Supreme Court and seriously

diminish the force of the Bill of Rights and the liberties it protects.

Judge Bork's view of the Constitution is

that it creates a governmental structure

designed, with few exceptions, to promote

the majority will at the expense of individual

rights. In his opinion, the only individual

rights protected against the majority are

those explicitly and unmistakably men-

tioned in the Constitution and the Bill of

Rights.

Role of the Supreme Court

Judge Bork sees the primary role of the

court as insuring that the majority is able to

impose its moral judgments on the rest of

society. His conception of the Court's role is

radically different from most, if not all, of

the Justices, who have sat on the Court in

the past 40 years.

Judge Bork has specifically rejected a

long list of landmark constitutional rulings ~

by the Supreme Court, including:

- a decision striking down a statute

making it a crime for married couples to use

contraceptives;

- a decision barring judicial enforce-

ment of racially restricted covenants;

-a decision protecting illegitimate.

children against arbitrary discrimination;

- a decision protecting the right to use

obscene language for political purposes;

- decisions, including Roe v. Wade,

striking down state laws outlawing

abortions;

- decisions striking down state poll taxes

and English literacy tests for Black and

Spanish-speaking voters;

- decisions upholding affirmative action

plans;

- decisions | striking down state laws

permitting prayer in the schools or permit-

ting the use of government funds for public

employees to teach in parochial schools;

- a decision holding unconstitutional a

law requiring the sterilization of habitual

criminals.

Civil Liberties Record

Judge Bork's record as a whole reflects an

abiding hostility to the very idea of the Bill of

Rights, and to the federal court system that

is designed to enforce it.

Oe ee ele

Equal Protection and Voting Rights: Judge

Bork's writings reflect a narrow view of the

Equal Protection Clause that only prohibits

certain limited forms of racial discrimina-

tion (as opposed to religious or ethnic

discrimination) and very little else. He does

not believe the Fourteenth Amendment bars

Judicial enforcement of racially restrictive

covenants. He does not believe it limits state

constitutions from precluding fair housing

enforcement. He does not believe it entitles

Congress to remedy de facto discrimination,

even against racial minorities.*

Judge Bork repudiates virtually every

Supreme Court precedent in the voting

rights area under the Fourteenth Amend-

ment, including the use of a poll tax

(Virginia) and English literacy tests.

Judge Bork has also been a critic of the (c)

Supreme Court's affirmative action deci-

sions, including Bakke (in which Justice

Lewis Powell cast the critical swing vote.)

Sex Discrimination: Bork's view is that

because women are not explicitly mentioned

in the Fourteenth Amendment, the Amend-

ment offers them no constitutional protec-

tion. He would not constitutionally protect

women from any discrimination, federal,

state or local.

Judge Bork has also opposed passage of

the Equal Rights Amendment.

Church/State

Contrary to traditional legal thought and

the weight of historical evidence, Judge Bork

believes that the Establishment Clause

permits state assistance to religion so long as

a single state religion is not established.

Far from regarding government support

of religion as a violation of the Establish-

ment Clause and a threat to religious

freedom, Bork sees danger in maintaining a

wall of separation between church and state.

Without religion in public life, he believes,

"Other transcendent principles, some of

them very ugly indeed, will find their way

into our schools and public squares."

Freedom of Speech and Press

Judge Bork believes that the First

Amendment protects only speech that

YES! LL HELP "BLOCK BORK" AND DEFEND CIVIL RIGHTS

AND CIVIL LIBERTIES.

Name

Address

City State AP

TE one. x} day C eve.

me is:

L] Please put me on the "Block Bork" Telephone Tree. The Po time to reach (c)

opposing Bork's nomination.

1663 Mission Street, Suite 460

L] Please send me the national ACLU prochtle on Bork's record.

LJ | have sent a letter/telegram to Senators Pete Wilson and Alan Cranston

Please return this form to:

BLOCK BORK! CAMPAIGN

ACLU of Northern California

San Francisco, California 94103.

Mainstream or Radical?

President Reagan claims Robert Bork's judicial philosophy is "shared by most

Americans today". . . Is he really in the mainstream?

Do most Americans think they have a right to practice birth control and purchase

contraceptives? Judge Bork has, as recently as 1985, called the Supreme Court

decision that established that right "unsupportable."

Do religious minorities think they have a right to attend public schools without

having the majority's religious beliefs forced on them? Judge Bork, in a 1985 speech,

said that it would be a good thing if religion were reintroduced into public schools and

has written that the First Amendment does not prevent states from imposing prayer

in public schools. If children from Jewish or Jehovah's Witness families, for example,

are upset, Judge Bork thinks their remedy is to leave the classroom.

Do most writers, musicians, actors and artists think their freedom of expression

is protected by the Constitution? Judge Bork has written that the First Amendment

protects political speech, but not artistic expression. Non-political speech, he has

written, is protected not by the Constitution and the courts, but rather rests "upon the

enlightenment of society and its elected representatives."

Do most Americans think that Martin Luther King's advocacy of the violation of

Jim Crow laws in the South was protected by the Constitution? Judge Bork has

written, contrary to a unanimous Supreme Court decision, that any "speech

advocating [the] violation of law . . . must be excluded . .

political speech protected by the First Amendment.

Do most American women think that the Constitution gives them some measure

of protection against sex discrimination? Judge Bork believes that state and local

communities should be free to discriminate on the basis of sex.

." from the category of

relates to the political process, and only

speech that is "essential to running a

republican form of government." He

excludes from his definition of protected

political speech any advocacy of violence or

civil disobedience designed to achieve a

change in government, therefore granting no

constitutional protection to the work of

writers advocating civil disobedience, such

as Thoreau, Gandhi or Martin Luther King.

In Bork's opinion, even political speech

such as advocacy of Marxism or political

protests outside foreign embassies (such as

South Africa's) in Washington, D.C., can be

censored.

His placement of the entire realm of

artistic expression outside the protection of

the First Amendment raises the possibility

that books like Ulysses, or indeed the variety

of books that have been subject of attempted

censorship by local school boards, could

once again be banned if deemed offensive to

the public at large.

Privacy

_ Judge Bork does not find a right to

privacy in the Constitution. Accordingly, he

rejects Supreme Court doctrine that has

recognized over the last half century the

purchase and use of contraceptives by

married people, single individuals and

minors; the decision of a woman to have an

abortion; a parent's right to defend his or her

relationship with a child; and the individu-

al's right to use obscene material in the

privacy of the home.

` Criminal Law ,

Judge Bork has suggested that the

exclusionary rule be abandoned. He

endorses the death penalty, without any

effort to justify its deterrent effect.

In general, his approach to criminal

appeals reflects little respect for the rights of

the innocent who may be mistakenly

accused, or for the role of the courts in

protecting those rights.

Executive Power

Judge Bork has a willingness to enlarge

the power of the presidency at the expense of

the legislature, judiciary and civil liberties.

Special Prosecutor: As Solicitor General

under President Nixon, Bork argued that

members of Congress lacked standing to

challenge his firing of Special Prosecutor

Archibold Cox. A federal court disagreed

and also found the firing illegal.

Foreign Affairs: Judge Bork rejects any

meaningful role for Congress in foreign

affairs. In 1971, he defended President

Nixon's decision to bomb Cambodia,

insisting that Congress had no power to limit -

the President's discretion to stage the attack.

He has testified that Congress has no

power to require Executive intelligence

agencies to obtain a warrant before

wiretapping an American citizen suspected

continued on p. 3

Elaine Elinson, Editor

aclu news

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

August-September and November-December

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Nancy Pemberton, Chairperson Dorothy Ehrlich, Executive Director

Marcia Gallo, ee

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

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

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

Chapter Page

aclu news

september 1987 3

Bork...

continued from p. 1

Widespread opposition

With its August 31 announcement, the

ACLU joins many other national and

regional organizations-including the

Leadership Conference on Civil Rights,

NOW, MALDEE Planned Parenthood, the

NAACP, People for the American Way, and

the AFL-CIO-in the lobbying effort

against the Bork confirmation.

The ACLU-NC, whose Board of Direc-

tors had voted in August to recommend that

the national ACLU oppose the Bork

nomination, is joining efforts with the local

Coalition for Civil Rights in a "Block Bork"

~ campaign.

Within days of the decision, the ACLU-

NC sent a telegram to Senator Pete Wilson

urging him to reconsider his position

favoring Bork and joined a press conference

to announce broadbased criticism of |

Wilson's support for Bork.

If Robert Bork's views were

to prevail, the most critical -

Junction of the Supreme

Court-the protection of indi-

vidual rights-would atrophy.

The ACLU-NC Field Department sent a

1000-piece mailing to Chapter members in

northern California with background

materials and urging the following action:

-write a personal letter to Senators Pete

Wilson and Alan Cranston asking them to

oppose Bork's nomination. (Senator Cran-

ston opposes the nomination-he should be

asked to take a leadership role in stopping

the confirmation in the Senate. Senator

Wilson announced that he would support

the nomination-he should be urged to

review the record carefully and reverse his

position.);

-write letters to the editor of local papers

expressing the reasons why the ACLU

opposes the Bork nomination;

-join the ACLU-NC "Block Bork"

telephone tree so that the ACLU-NC can

contact you at crucial times during the

confirmation process;

-seek anti-Bork resolutions from unions,

religious organizations, political clubs and

especially city and county councils;

-organize tabling (ACLU-NC will

provide factsheets and postcards) at shop-

ping centers and local events.

The Coalition has also embarked on an

ambitious media campaign, including

meetings with editorial boards and speaking

on TV and radio talk shows, to educate the

public about Bork's record on civil rights

and liberties.

In addition the Coalition is sponsoring a

vigil in front of the Federal Building in San

Francisco on the eve of the September 15

Senate Judiciary hearings and a noontime

rally on October 5, the day the nomination is

projected to go to the Senate floor.

Morton Halperin, Director of ACLU's

Washington Office, said that in opposing the

Bork nomination, the ACLU "pledges our

time, energy and resources to prevent this

affront to the Constitution.

"This campaign is nothing less than a

referendum on the status of individual rights

in America and the independence of the

judiciary. There would be no better way to

celebrate the Bicentennial of the Constitu-

tion than by rejecting this appointment,"

Halperin said.

Bork's Record

continued from p. 2

of engaging in intelligence activitites on

_ behalf of a foreign country.

He dissented from a federal court ruling

barring the denial of visas to aliens based on

political views or organizational affiliation.

Government Secrecy: Judge Bork's views

on Executive power lead him to shield

Executive action from the checks and

balances of public scrutiny. Judge Bork also

gives a narrow reading to the Freedom of

Information Act, urging a restrictive

interpretation of the statute to prevent

disclosure of information to reporters,

research groups and others.

Conclusion

If Judge Bork is to be defended, it must be

on the basis of his radical judicial philosophy

which, if implemented, would fundamen-

tally change our system of government and ~

'. trying to prove that there was a difference

gravely diminish the Bill of Rights.

disabled, labor and education groups.

Civil Rights on the Rebound:

Images into Action

Saturday, November 7

Sheraton Palace Hotel, San Francisco

This major conference, sponsored by the ACLU-NC and more than a dozen other

organizations belonging to the Coalition for Civil Rights, is an opportunity to learn

from and build a common movement with a broad spectrum of activists-including

representatives from Black, Latino, Asian, immigrant, gay and lesbian, womens,

Keynote Speaker: Paula Giddings

Giddings is a Black author who has addressed the twin issues of race and sex

~ discrimination in her book When and Where | Enter.

Wor kshops: Civil Rights and Education; Immigration; AIDS; Death

Penalty; Reproductive Rights and the Family; Violence against our Communities:

Employment Rights of Disabled Workers; Attacks on Civil Rights Leadership.

All are welcome to attend. Please call the ACLU-NC at (415) 621-2488 or write the

ACLU-NC, 1663 Mission St, San Francisco 94103

-Legal Briefs-

Trade Unionists

Can Leaflet Mall -

nion members involved in a labor

dispute are allowed to leaflet at a

shopping center with the same degree of

protection as any other leafleters, according

to a California Court of Appeal ruling on

_ August 12.

In 1984, members of the Northern

California Newspaper Organizing Commit-

tee (NOCNOC) won certification from the

National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to

represent workers at the Fairfield Daily

Republic. When the newspaper refused to

bargain with the union, NOCNOC

members began a campaign to educate the

public about their labor dispute.

However, union members were denied

access to Solano Mall, a large, privately

owned shopping center in Solano County.

ACLU-NC staff attorney Alan Schlosser,

who had: successfully litigated numerous

cases for political activists at shopping

centers, represented the NOCNOC

members in Solano County Superior Court.

Ever since the 1979 landmark decision in

Robins v. Pruneyard, expressive activities

have been allowed at privately owned

shopping centers, the equivalents of the

"modern day town plaza." But in an unusual

twist, the owners of Solano Mall argued that

because the leaflets involved a labor dispute,

the court's jurisdiction was preempted by

the National Labor Relations Act.

In 1984, the trial court rejected the Mall's

contention, agreeing with the ACLU-NC

that "This is not an employer-employee

matter. The Solano Mall has nothing to do

with this labor dispute." The court ruled that

the Union's right to distribute literature had

been resolved by Robins v. Pruneyard which

stated "Article I of the California Constitu-

tion protects speech and petitioning in

" shopping centers even when the centers are

privately owned."

The court then issued a preliminary

injunction which gave NOCCOC access to

the Solano Mall and struck down the mall's

burdensome regulations for leafleters.

Solano Mall appealed the ruling, again

because the NOCNOC leaflets concerned a

labor dispute.

In affirming the lower court ruling, the

Court of Appeal found no preemption by

the NLRB over the NOCNOC/ Solano Mall

controversy and declared that the union

members' right to distribute leaflets at the

Mall was protected by the California

Constitution. The trade unionists will now

seek a permanent injunction against the

mall.

Stanford Athletes

Drug Tests Halted

n August 21, Santa Clara Superior

Court Judge Conrad Rushing issued a

Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)

prohibiting the NCAA from requiring

written consents to drug testing from

Stanford student athletes as a condition for

participating in intercollegiate sports.

On March 13, the same court (per Judge

Peter Stone) issued an injunction barring

the NCAA from requiring champion

student diver Simone LeVant to submit to

drug testing before being allowed to

compete. LeVant, who was represented by

ACLU-NC cooperating attorneys Robert

Van Nest and Susan Harriman and staff

attorneys Margaret Crosby and Ed Chen,

graduated in June.

The case is being continued by two other

Stanford athletes, co-captain of the women's

soccer team Jennifer Hill and football

linebacker J. Barry McKeever.

Stanford University joined the case on

August 5. Athletic Director Andy Geiger

said, "If Stanford tells its students that they

must sign the form and the drug testing

program is found to be illegal, it would

irreparably damage the relationship of trust,

respect and confidence between the Univer-

sity, including the coaching staff, and our

athletes."

About 10% of Stanford undergradu-

ates-600 students-participate in 25

NCAA sports. Prior to the successful

ACLU-NC challenge, the NCAA required

the University to obtain forms giving

advance consent for random drug testings .

before a student could compete at any time

during the season.

A hearing on a preliminary injunction

will take place at the end of September or

early October. Until then, Stanford athletes

can compete in NCAA fall sports without

consenting to the drug tests.

Gay SP Worker

Fights for Benefits

ay an employer provide an employ- _

ment benefit to married workers

while denying it to others?

The answer, under California law prohib- (c)

iting discrimination in employment on the

basis of marital status, is simply no.

This is what ACLU-NC staff attorney

Matthew A. Coles argued before the state

Court of Appeal on August 25 in the case of

Brinkin v. Southern Pacific.

Lawrence Brinkin is a gay man formerly

employed at Southern Pacific in San

Francisco. When his lover of 11 years died,

Brinkin was denied the contractual three-

day funeral leave by SP.

Brinkin turned to the ACLU-NC and

Coles (then an ACLU-NC cooperating.

attorney) and staff attorney Margaret

Crosby filed a lawsuit on his behalf in San

Francisco Superior Court in 1985.

In January 1986, the trial court rejected

Brinkin's claim and the ACLU appealed.

"The courts have ruled that the Fair

Employment and Housing Act, amended in

1976 to include marital status, is even-

handed," said Coles. "Marital status

discrimination laws no more allow discrimi-

nation against the unmarried than they

allow the reverse.

"Marital status has been used constantly

to discriminate against gay people. We are

urging the court to reverse the trial court

decision, to uphold California's anti-

discrimination law, and to give Larry

Brinkin his due," he added.

A decision is expected from the Court of

Appeal within 90 days.

-Editor's note: The next issue of the ACLU

News will introduce our members to

Matthew Coles who joined the legal staff of

the ACLU-NC in September.

4

aclu news

september 1987

Ba

Memorial Events

MONDAY, OCTOBER 5

Tenth Anniversary of the Death

of Rosie Jimenez _

On October 3, 1977, Rosaura Jimenez,

a Chicana, a mother, and a student,

became the first known victim of the

cutoff of federal Medicaid funding for

abortion. Since then, her death has come

to symbolize the injustice of government.

restrictions on abortion funding.

On Monday, October 5, the Northern

California Pro-Choice Coalition will

sponsor a day of events commemorating

the death of Rosie Jimenez and continu-

ing the fight for reproductive choice for

all women.

7:00 - 8:30 AM and 4:00 - 6:00 PM: HUMAN BILLBOARDING

Standing together at commuter offramps in San Francisco and East Bay locations,

our "billboards" will read "HONK IF YOU SUPPORT ABORTION FUNDING."

For information on locations and to participate, contact: N.C. Pro-Choice

Coalition (415) 328-5792; CDRR (415) 826-2100; ACAR (415) 587-1763.

6:00 - 8:00 PM: ROSIE JIMENEZ MEMORIAL RECEPTION

Location: ACLU-NC, 1663 Mission St., 4th floor, S.E Fore more information:

Marcia Gallo, ACLU-NC (415) 621-2494.

8:30 - 9:330 PM: CANDLELIGHT VIGIL - STATE BUILDING

Location: California State Office Building, Civic Center, San Francisco.

Sponsored by Northern California Pro-Choice Coalition. For more information, call Marcia

Gallo, ACLU-NC, (415) 621-2493.

1987 Bill of Rights Campaign |

The Bill of Rights Campaign is the

ACLU-NC's annual grassroots fundraising

drive. This year's campaign goal is $95,000.

The fundraising is organized by the Bill of

Rights Campaign Committee, which is part

of the Field Program and has a liaison with

the affiliate Development Committee.

Campaign Committee chair Marlene De

Lancie explained, "The Bill of Rights

Campaign is unique because it is chapter

activists and members who do all the

volunteer fundraising work.

"We must raise the funds to continue and

expand our efforts," De Lancie said. "When

you receive a call from an ACLU volunteer,

please be generous-you can be assured that

your donation will be used effectively in the

fight for civil liberties."

Scheduled phone nights are listed below.

All Bill of Rights phone volunteers are

_ provided with an orientation and a delicious

dinner. If you can volunteer for the

Campaign, please call Sandy Holmes or

Marcia Gallo at the ACLU-NC (415) 621-

2483. All are welcome. More Phone Nights

may be added, so please call for an update.

Fos Se es ee ee ee el

Phone Night Schedule

September

Saturday, September 19

(10 AM - | PM)

Monday, September 28

Volunteer Training Day

ACLU-NC Office, San Francisco

Campaign Kickoff

San Francisco (Bill of Rights Committee)

Palo Alto (Mid-Pen Chapter)

Tuesday, September 29 Oakland

(B-A-R-K, Earl Warren and Mt. Diablo Chapters)

October

Thursday, October |

Monday, October 5 .

Tuesday, October 6 Oakland

San Francisco (Gay Rights Chapter) -

San Francisco

(B-A-R-K, Earl Warren and Mt. Diablo Chapters)

Wednesday, October 7

Tuesday, October 13

Oakland

to be scheduled (possibly in Fresno)

- San Jose area (Santa Clara Chapter)

(B-A-R-K, Earl Warren, and Mt. Diablo Chapters)

Wednesday, October 14

Thursday, October 15

Monday, October 19

San Francisco -

to be scheduled

San Mateo (North Peninsula Chapter)

San Francisco (San Francisco Chapter)

- Tuesday, October 20

Wednesday, October 21

Thursday, October 22

Monday, October 26

Tuesday, October 27

Wednesday, October 28

Thursday, October 29

November

Monday, November 2

Wednesday, November 4

Thursday, November 50x00B0

Monday, November 9

to be scheduled

San Francisco

to be scheduled

`San Mateo (North Peninsula Chapter)

San Jose area (Santa Clara Chapter)

San Francisco (Gay Rights Chapter)

to be scheduled

to be scheduled (possibly Marin)

San Francisco

to be scheduled

San Francisco (San Francisco Chapter

and Bill of Rights Committee)

To volunteer, please call Sandy Holmes or Marcia Gallo at (415) 621-2493.

_ Chapter Calendar

Chapter Meetings

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

fourth Thursday) Volunteers are needed to

staff hotline. Contact Florence Piliavin,

415-848-5195. Meeting to be sponsored by the

B.A.R.K. Chapter and the Earl Warren

Chapter Right To Know/Right To Dissent

Committee. September 26: 6:30 pm. Potluck;

8:00 pm. Speakers on Right To Dissent

Issues. 22 Roble Road, Berkeley. For more

information, Contact Florence Piliavin,

415-848-5195 or Rose Bonhag, 415-658-7977.

EARL WARREN CHAPTER MEETING:

(Third Wednesday) Wednesday, September 16

and Wednesday, October 21, prompt, Sumi-

tomo Bank, 20th and Franklin Streets,

Oakland. Contact Rose Bonhag,

415-658-7977. Meeting to be sponsored by the

Earl Warren Chapter and the B.A.R.K.

Chapter Right To Know/Right To Dissent

Committee. September 26; 6:30 pm. Potluck,

8:00 pm. Speakers on Right To Dissent

Issues. 22 Roble Road, Berkeley. For more

information, contact Rose Bonhag,

415-658-7977 or Florence Pilivian,

415-848-5195.

FRESNO CHAPTER MEETING: (Usually

third Tuesday) Contact Mindy Rose for

details: 209-486-7735.

GAY RIGHTS CHAPTER MEETING:

(Usually first Tuesday) Tuesday, October 6,

7:00 pm, ACLU-NC, 1663 Mission Street,

Suite 460, San Francisco. Contact Doug.

Warner: 415-621-3900. Bill of Rights Cam-

paign Phone Nites: October | and October

28. Contact Doug Warner, 415-621-3900.

MARIN COUNTY CHAPTER. MEET-

ING: (Third Monday) 7:30 pm. Citicorp

Bank, 130 Throckmorton Avenue, Mill

Valley. Contact Jack Butler, 415-453-0972 or

June Festler, 415-479-7317.

MID-PENINSULA CHAPTER MEET-

ING: (Usually fourth Wednesday) All Saints

Episcopal Church, 555 Waverly, Room 15,

Palo Alto. Contact Harry Anisgard,

415-856-9186.

MONTEREY CHAPTER MEETING:

(Usually fourth Tuesday) September 22, 7:30

pm, Monterey Library, Pacific and Jefferson

Streets, Monterey. Contact Richard Criley,

408-624-7562. Ralph Atkinson Award

Dinner, Sunday, October 25, honoring Dr.

Ben Heller, at Santa Catalina School.

Reservations $18. Contact Richard Criley for

reservations, 408-624-7562.

MT. DIABLO CHAPTER MEETING:

(Usually third Wednesday) Wednesday,

September 16, 7:30 pm at the home of Beverly

and David Bortin, 117 Los Altos, Walnut

Creek. Contact Andrew Rudiak,

415-932-5580.

NORTH PENINSULA CHAPTER

MEETING: Town Meeting: open to the

public. To celebrate the Bicentennial of the

Constitution, Saturday, September 26, 8:30

am-!2:30 pm, at the Recreation Center in San

Mateo Central Park, near corner of Sth and

El Camino. Keynote speaker attorney Lee

Halterman, Legal Counsel to Congressman

Ronald Dellums and ACLU Board Member.

Discussion groups will include: Freedom of

Information Act; Ethics in Government Act;

Privacy and Public Information; Control of

the News; The McCarran-Walters Act.

Contact Bob Delzell, 415-343-7339.

SACRAMENTO VALLEY CHAPTER

MEETING: (Usually second Wednesday)

7:30 pm. County Administration Building,

7th and I Streets, Main Floor Conference

Room, Sacramento. Contact Joe Gunter-

man, 916-447-8053.

SAN FRANCISCO CHAPTER MEET-

ING: (Usually fourth Tuesday) Tuesday,

September 22, Mayoral Candidates Night at

7:30 pm, Cole Hall at U.C. Medical Center on

Parnassus. Contact Marion Standish,

415-863-3520.

SANTA CLARA CHAPTER MEETING:

(Usually first Tuesday) Contact Walter

Krause, 408-258-7963.

SANTA CRUZ CHAPTER MEETING:

(Second Wednesday) Contact Bob Taren,

408-429-9880.

SONOMA CHAPTER MEETING:

(Usually third Thursday) The Roseland Law

Center, 1611 Sebastopol Road, Santa Rosa.

Contact Colleen O'Neal, 707-575-1156. f you

want to participate in Christic Institute

activities, please contact June Swan,

707-546-7711.

- STOCKTON CHAPTER MEETING:

(Third Wednesday) Contact Eric Ratner,

209-948-4040 (evenings).

YOLO COUNTY CHAPTER MEETING:

(Usually Third Wednesday) Contact Dan

Abramson, 916-446-7701.

Field

Committee Meetings

_ PRO-CHOICE TASK FORCE: (first Wed-

nesday) Note change: Wednesday, September

30 and Wednesday, November 4, 6:00 pm.

ACLU office, 1663 Mission Street, Suite 460,

San Francisco. Contact Marcia Gallo,

415-621-2494.

RIGHT TO KNOW/RIGHT TO DIS-

_ SENT: (second Tuesday) Tuesday, October 13

and November 10, 6:00 pm. ACLU Office.

Contact Marcia Gallo, 415-62]-2494.

IMMIGRATION WORKING GROUP:

(fourth Thursday) Thursday September 24 -

and October 22, 7:00 pm. at ACLU office.

Contact Marcia Gallo, 415-621-2494.

SPECIAL BILL OF RIGHTS CAM-

PAIGN "VOLUNTEERS' TRAINING

DAY." Saturday, September 19, 10:00 am-1:00

pm. Contact Marcia Gallo, 415-621-2494.

KICK-OFF FOR 1987 BILL OF RIGHTS

CAMPAIGN. Monday, September 28, 5:30

pm-9:00 pm. Contact Marcia Gallo,

415-621-2494.

ACLU-NC Fifteenth Annual

BILL OF RIGHTS DAY

CELEBRATION

sunday, December 6, 1987 at 5 pm

Sheraton Palace Hotel, San Francisco

Bill of Rights Celebration tickets are $12. For tickets, please write Bill of Rights

Celebration, ACLU-NC, 1663 Mission St, San Francisco 94103; or call Sandy

Holmes at (415) 621-2488.