vol. 52, no. 1
Primary tabs
aclu news
NON PROFIT
ORGANIZATION
US POSTAGE
PAID
Permit No. 4424
San Francisco, CA
Volume LII
January-February 1987 |
No. 1
Champion Diver Fights
NCAA Drug Test
At a dramatic courtroom hearing, packed
with reporters and television cameras, Santa
Clara Superior Court Judge Peter J. Stone
issued a Temporary Restraining Order
(TRO) on January 13 allowing a champion
student diver to compete in an NCAA
diving meet without taking the NCAA
required drug test.
The ACLU-NC filed the lawsuit on
January 6 on behalf of Simone LeVant,
Captain of the Stanford Women's Diving
Team, charging that drug testing of student
athletes by the National Collegiate Athletic
Association (NCAA) is an unconstitutional
invasion of privacy. A full hearing will be
held on March 11 in Santa Clara Superior
Court to determine if a permanent injunc-
tion should be issued.
LeVant is represented by ACLU-NC
cooperating attorneys Robert A. Van Nest
and Susan J. Harriman of the San Francisco
law firm of Keker and Brockett, and
ACLU-NC staff attorneys Margaret Crosby
and Edward Chen.
Charging that the NCAA drug testing
program is "degrading and humiliating," the
ACLU is challenging the practice of the
NCAA to condition the right to compete
in intercollegiate athletics on participation
in a "mandatory, random and unconstitu-
tional drug testing program."
LeVant, a senior English major attending
Stanford on an athletic scholarship, has
been a member of the Women's Swimming
and Diving Team for the past three years
and is currently Captain of the team. She
had been barred from participating in all
intercollegiate diving events solely because
she refused to consent to urinalysis testing.
In January, 1986 the NCAA enacted drug
testing legislation requiring student athletes
who participate in intercollegiate competi-
tion to sign a consent form submitting to
random drug testing. If a student refuses
to sign the consent form, she is barred from
participation in all intercollegiate
competition.
According to LeVant, "I have been diving
competitively since I was thirteen years old.
As a scholarship athlete, diving has been
an integral part of my academic career and
my life. this year I was named captain and
had been looking forward with great
optimism, expectation and joy to my senior
and final year of collegiate NCAA
competition.
"I do not wishto waive my constitutional
right to privacy nor do I wish to submit
to the NCAA's unconstitutional drug testing
program. I believe the program is both
humiliating and degrading and violates my
right to privacy and my right to protection
from unreasonable search and seizure.
"For those reasons, I refused to sign the
Stanford Sports Information
Simone LeVant, Captain of the Stanford Women's Diving team, refused to take
the NCAA drug test and was barred from intercollegiate competition.
NCAA consent form," LeVant explained.
After LeVant refused to submit to drug
testing, she was barred from further |
competition. LeVant turned to the ACLU
to challenge the drug testing after unsuc-
cessfully seeking relief from within the
Stanford athletic department.
Judge Stone's TRO came in time for
LeVant to participate in a major compe-
tition in Las Vegas on January 23.
According to attorney Van Nest, "The
NCAA program punishes those who stand
up for their rights to privacy and dignity.
Here we have an excellent athlete who has
spent her whole life preparing for this
competition, and the NCAA would bar her
from competing in all intercollegiate
events-not based on any drug test results,
or even on any suspicion that she has used
drugs, but simply because she refused to
give up important civil rights."
Attorney Harriman detailed the violation
of privacy involved in the NCAA testing.
"The athlete is forced to urinate in front
of an NCAA representative-a total
stranger-who `monitors the test. If the
athlete is unable to fill the urine beaker,
she is given fluids and cannot leave until
she is able to give a full sample. The athlete
then must sign a form certifying that there
were no irregularities in the entire testing
process, even though she would have
absolutely no way of knowing whether the
NCAA officials had properly conducted the
urine test.
"If the athlete refuses to sign the form
stating that there are no irregularities, the
athlete is treated as though she had tested
positive for drugs-and barred from
competing," Harriman said.
The ACLU lawsuit cites several recent
cases in which drug testing has been ruled
unconstitutional for employees. In
December, just before an ACLU lawsuit was
to be filed, the University of California/
Berkeley suspended the drug testing of
student athletes and entered into negotia-
tions with the ACLU about the constitu-
tionality of the program.
This suit, Le Vant v. NCAA, charges that
the drug testing plan detracts from the
dignity of each student athlete competing
in intercollegiate sports and invades his or
her right to privacy under the California
Constitution. The ACLU is asking the court
permanently enjoin the NCAA from
coercing LeVant to submit to the drug test,
or having her participation in diving
competition terminated for refusal to submit
to a test.
1987-88 Board Elections
As provided by the ACLU-NC by-laws,
revised in 1980, the ACLU-NC membership
is entitled to elect its 1987-88 Board directly.
The Nominating Committee is now seeking
suggestions from the membership to fill at-
large positions on the Board.
ACLU members may participate in the
nominating process in two ways:
1. They may send suggestions for the
Nominating Committee's consideration
before March 12, 1987. (Address sug-
gesstions to Nominating Committee,
ACLU-NC, 1663 Mission Street, San
Francisco, CA 94103. Include your -
suggested nominee's qualifications and
how the nominee may be reached.)
2. They may submit a petition of nom-
ination with the signatures of 15 current
ACLU members. Petitions of nomina-
tion, which should also include the
nominee's qualifications, must be
submitted to the Board of Directors by
May 24, 1987 (20 days after the May
Board meeting).
(Current ACLU members are those
who have renewed their membership
during the last 12 months. Only current
members are eligible to submit nomi-
nations, sign petitions of nominations
and vote.)
ACLU members will select Board
members from the slate of candidates
nominated by petition and by the Nom-
inating Committee. The ballot will appear
in the June issue of the ACLU News.
ARTICLE VII, SECTION 3: The final
report of the Nominating Committee to
nominate members-at-large to the Board
will be presented at the May Board
continued on p. 7
aclu news
2 jan-feb 1987
Drug Testing and Worker Safety: the
Great False Hope
As the use of drug testing becomes increasingly common-at the workplace, in schools
and on the athletic field-concerns about privacy and other civil liberties implications
have become more and more obscure behind arguments about safety, performance level
and competence.
`While we focus on the civil liberties violations, we cannot afford to remain ignorant
about these legitimate concerns. Do drug tests help improve worker and public safety?
Can drug tests be used reliably to measure performance ability? In the following article,
ACLU-NC staff attorney Ed Chen delves into these important questions and comes
up with some substantial answers which verify and deepen the ACLU% opposition to
drug testing.
Aury 7m vam:
A.
ha
oe
by Edward Chen
ACLU-NC staff attorney
iscovery of traces of marijuana in
DPD: blood and urine of Conrail
engineers has precipitated calls for
random drug testing of airline pilots,
railroad engineers and others involved in
safety sensitive positions. While the concern
for public safety is an understandable one,
drug testing represents a false and misguided
hope in the effort to assure industrial safety.
There are many problems with random
drug testing. First, drug testing is extremely
invasive of privacy in several ways: (1) it
often requires "witnessed" collection
whereby a monitor directly observes the
employee urinate, (2) it requires employees
to give up bodily fluids upon the order of
the employer thereby violating bodily
integrity, (3) it reveals medication recently
taken by employees thereby disclosing
confidential medical treatment for any
number of personal physical conditions
including high blood pressure, diabetes,
venereal disease or depression; it also can
disclose hormones indicative of such
conditions as pregnancy, (4) it reveals off-
the-job conduct since drug metabolites
detected by urinalysis can stay in the body
for up to two months, and (5) confidentiality
of results can rarely be completely safe-
guarded, particularly if an employee is
disciplined as a result of the tests.
Random testing effectively sweeps the
innocent along with the "guilty," subjecting
all to these invasive procedures without any
basis for individualized suspicion, a concept
completely at odds with basic constitutional
principle. -
Moreover, there is a substantial danger
that employees who have done nothing to
even suspect them of drug use will be falsely
terminated. A 1985 study by the Center for
Disease Control revealed astounding error
rates by laboratories which performed tests
for the government; this error rate will surely
EMPLOYEE (A) URIVATES IN
VRIWAL (8). URINE 15
TeSTED (Cc) for DEVS.
[F VRING Tests NECATIVE,
HiT (5 FlvsHep (p).
F VRE TESTS PosiTIWE Boxine
Guove (E) SASHES FouNDING
FMHER (EF) WHo FALLS OVER,
KNOCKING BOWLING BALL (6)
DOWN CHUTE. (H) BREAKING
OIL LAMP (pound) SETTWe FIRE (c)
FOVETH AMENDMENT (J) CAUSING
SMOME ALARM (k) f BUZZ,
SCARING CAT (L) WHO JERKS
Stee (mM),
RELEASISC TRAP
DOOR (NW),
worsen as increasing demand for drug tests
outpaces the growth of qualified and
experienced laboratories. The problem of
inaccurate tests is magnified when drug tests
are applied to the general population. As
Dr. George Lundberg, editor of the Journal
of the American Medical Association,
recently pointed out, as a result of statistical
theorem, drug tests with 95% accuracy will
result in 50% false positives when applied
to a population that contains 5% drug users.
Wholly apart from these problems,
however, much of the current debate on drug
testing is proceeding without a complete
understanding of what urine and blood tests
do, what they don't do and the existence
of better alternatives for detecting impaired
or intoxicated workers. There are three basic
facts which must be understood.
1. Drug tests do not measure impairment
or intoxication.
Unlike blood-alcohol tests administered
to individuals suspected of driving under
the influence, urine tests do not measure
impairment or intoxication. Urine tests
merely detect the presence of metabolites
in urine after the drug has been decomposed
by the body. These metabolites (which are
almost always inert) stay in the body long
after the psychoactive component of the
drug has left the blood and brain. Marijuana
metabolites, for example, are detectable in
urine for up to two months after inhalation.
Invariably, positive urine tests can be
obtained long after the effect of the drug,
if any, has worn off. The inability of urine
tests to measure impairment is undisputed
by experts, the National Institute of Drug
Abuse, and even manufacturers of drug test
kits.
Furthermore because of individual
variabilities in body functions-including
metabolism rate, absorption, kidney func-
tion, urinary volume and drug tolerance-
the particular level of metabolite concen-
tration found in urine has no meaningful
value. Urine tests cannot determine the time
or amount of drug use. They only establish
one fact-that the identified drug was
consumed in some quantity and some prior
time, possibly days or weeks before.
The same problems exist with blood tests
for drugs. Although it is possible to measure
the active components of some drugs in the
blood, scientists have not been able to
correlate blood levels with impairment. This
is due both to the complexity of drugs other
than alcohol and vast individual differences
in reaction to drugs.
2. Drug tests are inherently underinclusive.
Drug tests only screen for a finite list
of compounds. There are thousands of
compounds available over the counter, by
prescription, or through illicit sources,
which can cause impairment or intoxication.
It is impossible to test for all of them.
Ironically, many employers are not even
testing for the most common drug of
abuse-alcohol.
Even with respect to the drugs screened
by the tests, there will always be false
negatives-where traces are missed by
laboratory error or where the reported
concentration falls below some designated
cut-off level which is often set at a high
level to minimize false positives.
More fundamentally, drug tests cannot
detect a host of other causes of worker
impairment such as fatigue, low morale,
anxiety and distress, marital problems,
organic diseases affecting the brain and
nervous system, psychological disorders and
poor general physical health. Yet these
common problems present equally serious
consequences in safety sensitive positions.
3. There are more effective alternatives to
industrial safety.
There is a wide range of workplace tools
available to employers in combatting
industrial accidents caused by human error.
They start with careful recruiting and hiring,
worker training, supervisory training to
detect deficient performance and early signs
of chemical dependency, and professionally
run drug education and employee assistance
programs. Yet employers, attracted by the
simplicity and inexpensiveness of drug tests
which reduce complex managerial decisions
to a simple yes or no answer from a test
tube, are opting for employee drug testing
without giving full consideration to these
alternatives.
In addition there are methods of testing
for worker impairment directly. Neurologists
have long used psychoneurological tests to
detect neurological dysfunctions. Scientists
have even invented computerized neurobe-
havioral evaluation systems which employ
personal computers to test worker impair-
ment in the field. Although some of these
programs were designed initially to detect
worker impairment due to exposure to
toxics, they measure functions (e.g., reflex,
hand-eye coordination, concentration,
short-term memory) which are directly
related to the concerns of worker intoxi-
cation and impairment due to drugs.
Another automated test, the "Critical
Tracking Task," designed to detect impair-
ment from alcohol and other drugs, has been
used in conjunction with a drunk driving
probation project in Los Angeles.
Tests which measure impairment directly
make more sense than drug tests which do
not measure impairment or intoxication.
And psycho-neurometric tests which mea-
sure specific functions directly related to job
fitness would not be nearly as invasive of
privacy as drug tests which typically require
witnessed collection, disclosure of medica-
tion taken within the last several weeks and
revelation of off-the-job conduct through
chemical analysis of bodily fluids.
To be sure such tests must be admin-
istered fairly and objectively; like all tests
they are subject to abuse and discrimination.
Used fairly, they hold much greater potential
for assuring industrial safety than drug tests.
Accordingly, as compelling as the interest
in public safety is, random drug testing of
workers represents a false and misguided
hope. It doesn't measure what most
employers think it measures, and there are
more effective and more constitutional ways
of promoting industrial safety.
policy on drug testing:
into protected privacy interests.
ACLU-NC Policy on Drug Testing
At its December meeting the ACLU-NC Board of Directors adopted the following
The ACLU-NC opposes drug testing of employees, prospective
employees or other classes of individuals as an unwarranted intrusion
Elaine Elinson, Editor
aclu news
8 issues a year, monthly except bi-monthly in January-February, June-July,
August-September and November-December
Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California
Nancy Pemberton, Chairperson Dorothy Ehrlich, Executive Director
Marcia Gallo, Chapter Page a
1663 Mission St., 4th floor, San Francisco, California 94103. (415) 621-2488
Membership $20 and up, of which SO cents is for a subscription to the aclu news
and SO cents is for the national ACLU-bi-monthly publication, Civil Liberties.
_ aclunews "
jan-feb 1987 3
~ ACLU-NC 1
986 Leg
islative Report
nom ma
= - a sa
=
as sae
ee oem
Gamesmanship in Election Year Politics
by Daphne Macklin and Marjorie Swartz
ACLU Legislative Advocates, Sacramento
strong committee system has always been the tradition in the California
Legislature. If a bill was defeated in committee, it was generally dead.
Conversely, once a bill passed the key policy committees, it was almost
certain to reach the Governor's desk. However, the 1986 session was
marked by substantial deviation from this tradition. It was a lesson in floor
maneuveurs for advocates who thought they knew everything. Although there
were the usual battles in committees, many of the bills involving civil liberties
issues were also the subject of complicated actions on the floor. In such a situation
the victor is often the one with the superior knowledge of the house rules.
Paul Anderson
One useful tactic on the floor is to amend
a measure before its opponents discover the
action. This is relatively easy because there
is such a volume of legislation. Since much
of it is not controversial, members and
advocates often become inattentive. Lob-
bying a bill once it reaches the floor is much
more difficult than lobbying a committee.
There are more members to talk to and
no testimony is allowed. With some effort,
however, it is possible to get members to
speak for or against a measure from the
floor.
The decreased importance of policy
committee decisions was also evidenced by
an increase in civil liberties activity in the
fiscal committees. Traditionally these
committees have not decided policy but
focus debate on whether or not the state
budget could affort the particular proposal.
But increasingly the Assembly Ways and
Means and the Senate Appropriations
committees have become policy
battlegrounds.
Some major civil liberties battles-
among them, patient dumping, reproductive
choice, drug testing and the death penalty-
took place on these unusual battlefields.
Patient-Dumping
Misses at the Last Hurdle
"Patient-dumping" is the practice of
transferring an emergency room patient for
economic reasons from a private hospital
to a public facility before the person's
medical condition has been stabilized. The
victims of this practice are usually either
uninsured or unable to provide proof of
insurance. The fate of legislation dealing
with "patient-dumping" perfectly illustrates
this session's reliance on fiscal committee
and floor strategies by opponents and
proponents of major bills.
Assembly Member Burt Margolin intro-
duced AB 3403, co-sponsored by the ACLU
to address this problem. AB 3403 was
strongly opposed by the California Medical
Association (CMA) who argued that it was
inappropriate to sanction doctors who
refused to treat patients for economic
reasons unless there was some assurance
that the doctor would be compensated for
providing emergency care. AB 3403 passed
the Assembly Health Committee, the full
Assembly and Senate Health Committee;
but failed passage by one vote in the Senate
Appropriations Committee even though it
was not considered to have a significant
cost.
A strategy to save AB 3403 was developed
by amending the bill in its entirety into a
separate bill, but the CMA continued to
adamantly oppose even the new measure
because not enough of the new funding
would go to doctors. A powerful lobbying
force, the CMA marshalled its forces and
defeated the bill on the Senate concurrence
vote.
Minors' Access to Abortion
Abortion opponents found a powerful
and controversial theme-a parent's right
to know whether their minor daughter is
seeking or has had an abortion. SB 7
(Montoya) attempted to amend existing
California law which allows minors to
consent to medical and surgical procedures
relating to pregnancy without the consent
of a parent or guardian.
Nationally, anti-abortion groups have
forced passage of limitations on minors'
access to both abortion and contraception
in a number of states. The vast majority -
of these proposals have been enjoined in
federal court actions, although a few,
notably statutes in Massachusetts and
Minnesota, had been allowed to operate.
As the debate in favor of SB 7 raged and
ebbed in the California Legislature, the
national ACLU Reproductive Freedom
Project attorneys were in a federal district
court trial challenging the constitutionality
of a similar law in Minnesota. Testimony
at several of the SB 7 hearings included
information used in that trial.
Hearings on SB 7 began in early spring
in the Assembly Judiciary Subcommittee
on the Administration of Justice. The
- subcommittee declined to recommend SB
7 to the full committee, in effect, killing
the measure. But SB 7 proponents devised
a series of measures to resurrect the anti-
choice bill.
Eventually a tedious pattern emerged: at
politically opportune moments-days
before the primary election, during peak
polling and fundraising periods-SB 7's
supporters would stage press conferences,
mass mail and phone efforts, and anti-
abortion legislators would threaten yet
another procedural vote to have the bill
withdrawn from committee. Only one
attempt proceeded to an actual floor vote,
but the measure failed to gain the 41 votes
_ needed for passage.
Shortly before the legislative summer
recess, the contents of SB 7 were amended
into AB 2459 (N. Waters), an otherwise
minor bill with a curious history. Although
it had passed both the Assembly and the
Senate, as a measure providing additional
funds for services to rape victims, the bill
was sent back to the Senate where it
languished as an inactive measure. After
the failure of the procedural vote on SB
7, AB 2459 began life anew as the Montoya-
Wyman-McAlister Parental Rights Act of
1986.
In an even more remarkable action,
Senate President Pro Tem David Roberti,
whose anti-abortion sensibilities often strain
his relationship with his otherwise liberal
base, uncharacteristicly ignored the advice
of the Legislature Counsel and held the SB
7 amendments to AB 2459 to be relevant.
Meanwhile, conservative Assembly Demo-
crats and incumbents facing difficult races
were solicited as co-authors of the amended
AB 2459.
By the last weeks of the legislative session,
rumors of motions to withdraw and
attempts to amend the language of SB 7
into yet another bill surfaced daily and then
hourly only to fade. Anti-abortion lobbyists
lurked the halls while relay teams of pro-
choice activists attended floor sessions and
pored over amendments. Ultimately AB
2459 remained in the Assembly Judiciary
Committee despite efforts and some bitter
arguments between members of the same
caucus to further exploit the issue.
The SB 7 defeat was a victory for the
process of delay, and to a good end: in early
November, the Minnesota parental consent
law was declared invalid because it failed
to achieve its stated purpose of fostering
family communications and protecting
pregnant minors.
Crime Stoppers
In the area of criminal justice there were
many examples of major lobbying activity
which took place outside of the major policy
committees. Some of this activity resulted
from the sudden discovery of a so-called
drug crisis. As election day approached one
author hurriedly attempted to amend into
what had been a minor drug bill 50 pages
of new text, including substantive changes
in penalties for rock cocaine. Many of the
most extreme penalty increases and limita-
tions on judicial discretion in sentencing
were discovered and eliminated.
Another bill, lessening California state
due process requirements to gain access to
funds in drug cases without a conviction
also was sent to the Governor's desk.
No legislative session is complete without
a major battle over the death penalty. At
the end of the 1985 session AB 989, a
comprehensive death penalty bill authored
by Assembly Member Condit, had been
defeated in the Assembly Public Safety
Committee. But in early 1986, the second
half of a two-year session, bills such as AB
989 which had not been successful in 1985
could still be revived. Late in the 1986
session changes in membership allowed the
measure to be passed out of the same
committee where it had been previously
been defeated.
A two-house conference committee was
continued on p. 6
aclu news
4 jan-feb 1987
Highlights of the 198
Bills the ACLU-NC_
Fought For and Against
CRIMINAL JUSTICE
AB 989 (Condit)-Death Penalty
ACLU: Oppose
The Supreme Court's treatment of death
penalty cases became a major issue in the
Legislature as the judicial retention elections
drew near and AB 989 was the primary
vehicle for attacks on the Court. It contained
provisions which sought to overrule a variety
of death penalty decisions, including one
which limited the use of hearsay confessions.
AB 989 also contained proposals relating
to murder including a provision allowing
life without possibility of parole for juveniles
convicted of murder with special circum-
stances and expansion of the felony murder
rule which allows a conviction for murder
without proof of intent to kill.
ACTION: AB 989 died in conference
committee. The conferees reached an
impasse on language which would subject
the court to sanctions if death penalty cases
were not decided more expeditiously.
SB 1923 (Torres)-Criminal Procedure
ACLU: Oppose
A growing threat to due process for
someone accused of a crime is the argument
that our justice system is too costly and
time-consuming. SB 1823 was the prosec-
utor's solution: it contained a number of
restrictions on the rights of the accused
including increased use of hearsay in
preliminary examinations, and restrictions
on pre-trial motions.
ACTION: Passed Senate. In the Assembly
Public Safety Committee, the author asked
that the bill be referred for an interim
hearing when it became apparent that there
were insufficient votes for passage, effec-
tively killing the bill for 1986.
SB 2169 (Roberti)- Prostitution
ACLU: Opposes
This bill broadened the definition of
prostitution which not only expands the
type of adult consensual sexual activity
which is criminal, but also increases the
likelihood of entrapment by undercover
officers.
ACTION: Passed Legislature, signed by ~
Governor.
PRIVACY
AB 4242 (Klehs)-Drug _ Testing
Procedures
ACLU: Oppose in part
The original version of this bill estab-
lished standards for employer-sponsored
drug testing. As amended, the bill provided
(c) Howard Brodie 1980
Drawing by Howard Brodie of The Last Execution in California, 1967.
employment protections for persons seeking
drug rehabilitation similar to those now
provided for persons recovering from alcohol
abuse. The revised bill also provided for state
licensure of clinical laboratories that
perform drug tests for employers.
ACTION: Amended bill vetoed by Gov-
ernor. Subject matter was included in
interim hearings along with SB 2175
(Seymour).
SB 2175 (Seymour)-Employer Autho-
rized Drug Testing
ACLU: Oppose
This bill sought to preempt the San
Francisco ordinance which generally
prohibits the use of employer-sponsored
drug testing in the workplace by creating
legal authorization for employer-sponsored
drug testing.
ACTION: SB 2175 was sent to interim study
by the Senate Industrial Resolutions
Committee. Both SB 2175.and AB 4242
were the subject of a series of hearings
during the fall of 1986.
ACR 165 (LaFollette)-Drug Testing of
Legislators
ACLU: Oppose
This bill proposed: that members of the
Legislature and their staff submit to drug
testing and provide the results to the Joint
Rules Committee. It was a response to
President and Mrs. Reagan's "Just Say No"
campaign. The measure sparked sharp
criticism from staunchly conservative
legislators who resented the invasion of
personal privacy as well as the suggestion
that fundamental constitutional rights
should be sacrificied in the "war on drugs."
ACTION: Referred for interim study by the
Assembly Labor and Employment
Committee.
SB 159 (Presley)- Wiretapping
ACLU: Opposed
Although under California law electronic
eavesdropping is not permitted without the
consent of at least one party to a conver-
sation involving criminal activity, federal law
is more lenient. California law enforcement
authorities have sought broader authority
to eavesdrop surreptitiously, and SB 159 was
this session's attempt. _
ACTION: Passed Senate, defeated in
Assembly Public Safety Committee.
SB 1470 (McCorquodale)- Money Laund-
ering and Bank Privacy
ACLU: Opposed
California has had one of the most
protective bank privacy laws in the country.
This past session the Attorney General
successfully argued that his inability to gain
access to bank records unless there was
suspicion of criminal activity was thwarting
the war on drugs. SB 1470 requires financial
institutions to report cash transactions over
$10,000 to the Attorney General. It also
enacts a new crime of money-laundering:
the converting of $5,000 or more of cash
derived from illegal activity into legitimate
property. Although SB 1470 is a major
invasion of privacy, its scope was somewhat
limited by amendments.
ACTIONS: Passed Legislature, signed by
the Governor.
JUVENILES
AB 1617 (Farr)-Corporal Punishment
ACLU: Support
The bill expressly prohibits the use of
corporal punishment in California public
schools. As one of the first statewide bans
on corporal punishment the passage of the
bill is considered a landmark in the
movement to prevent the physical abuse of
children.
ACTION: Signed by Governor.
SB 883 (Presley)-Juvenile Status
Offenders
ACLU: Oppose
In the mid-70s California decriminalized
juvenile statute offenses and juveniles could
no longer be incarcerated for being runa-
ways or truant (status offenders). For a
number of years judges and law enforcement
_ aclu news
jan-feb 1987 5
56 Legislative Session
have sought to reinstitute this authority. This
session saw the first successful attempt. SB
883 is a one-county pilot project, allowing
certain juvenile status offenders to be
incarcerated for disobeying court orders. SB
883 also requires a study for measuring the
success of the pilot project.
ACTION: Passed by the Legislature, signed
by the Governor.
SB 1637 (Presley)-Juveniles in Adult Jails
ACLU: Support
Alhtough juveniles in adult jails must be
segregated, they are often abused and
molested there and attempt suicide. SB
1637, an attempt to limit this practice,
prohibits the overnight detention of most
juveniles in adult jails and requires them
to be released or placed in juvenile facilities.
ACTION: Passed Legislature, signed by
Governor.
DUE PROCESS
AB 3900 (Klehs)-Sterilization of Persons
`with Developmental Disabilities
ACLU: Oppose unless amended
A statute prohibiting sterilization of any
person unable to give consent was declared
unconstitutional by the California Supreme
Court. The court set out general guidelines
for a procedure for substituted consent. AB
3900 was introduced to implement the
decision, but included a more detailed
procedure and additional due process than
suggested by the court. Most of the ACLU's
suggestions, such as an automatic appeal,
were included but others were not.
ACTION: Passed Legislature, signed by the
Governor.
EQUAL
PROTECTION
AB 3667 (Agnos)/AB 3407 (Agnos/
Roos)-Discrimination Against Persons
with AIDS
ACLU: Support
As a follow-up to AB 403/AB 488 of
1985, the original bill AB 3667 recast the
AIDS confidentiality provisions in existing
law. The most significant element of the
bill would have declared that persons with
AIDS or who are perceived to be at risk
of the disease are covered by protections
against discrimination on the basis of
physical disability in the Fair Employment
and Housing Act.
ACTION: AB 3667 was vetoed by the
Governor. The anti-discrimination language
was reformulated in AB 3407, which was
also vetoed.
ECONOMIC
JUSTICE
AB 3403 (Margolin)- Patient Dumping
ACLU: Sponsor/Support
This bill was co-sponsored by the ACLU
and public interest health care advocates
in an attempt to remedy the practice of
patient-dumping. This occurs when private
health providers refuse to. treat an emer-
gency patient who lacks insurance and
transfer or "dump" the patient on public
hospitals. AB 3403 contained sanctions,
definitions and procedures for reporting and
data collection. When AB 3403 was defeated
in the Senate Appropriations Committee,
its provisions were amended into SB 1952
in the Assembly. SB 1952 also contained
a mechanism for new funds to pay providers
for what is presently uncompensated
medical care.
ACTION: AB 3403 passed the Assembly,
but was defeated in Senate Appropriations.
The amended version of SB 1952 passed
the Assembly; however, the Senate refused
to concur in Assembly amendments and
the bill failed on the Senate floor.
AIDS
. AB 3393 (Floyd)-AIDS/Criminal Justice
Concerns
ACLU: No position as amended
This bill began as an "omnibus AIDS
in the criminal justice setting" proposal
featuring enhanced penalties for persons
with AIDS convicted of certain sex offenses,
testing procedures for persons in jails and
prisons, and other elements. Eventually the
measure was reduced to a proposal to study
the incidence of AIDS within California's
prison population. AB 3393 served as the
Democratic response to more reactionary
and repressive AIDS inspired legislation.
Typically AB 3393 was presented at hearing
at the same time a more repressive proposal
was heard in order to defeat the latter bill.
ACTION: In the form of a study bill
surveying the incidence of AIDS in the state
prison population, the bill failed passage in
the Senate Appropriations Committee.
SB 1478 (Doolittle)-AIDS Testing for
Marriage Licenses
ACLU: Oppose
Originally this bill would have required
all persons seeking marriage licenses to
provide proof that they had been tested for
exposure to the HTLV-II/HIV (AIDS
virus). The measure passed the Senate
Health and Human Services Committee in
this form. However, it was radically
amended before going to the Senate floor,
requiring only that persons seeking marriage
licenses be provided with information
concerning sexually transmitted diseases
and genetically transmitted medical condi-
tions. SB 1478 was representative of
reactionary and repressive AIDS-inspired
measures. While the vast majority of these
bills were never brought to hearing or died
in committee, a few were recast as more
affirmative and responsible proposals
designed to provide education or funding
for AIDS public education efforts.
ACTION: Signed by the Governor.
FIRST
AMENDMENT
SB 139 (Deddeh)-Speech
ACLU: Oppose
The previous definition of obscenity in
California stated that it was material "that
is utterly without redeeming social impor-
tance." SB 139 changed this to "lacks
substantial literary, artistic, political,
scientific or educational values."
ACTION: Passed by the Legislature, signed
by the Governor.
SB 2247 (Doolittle)/AB 2900 (McAlis-
ter)-Clergy Immunity
ACLU: Opposed
Both bills were introduced in response
to lawsuits against clergy and religious
organizations. Although there may be a
First Amendment ground for immunity in
situations involving religious activity, both
SB 2247 and AB 2900 went substantially
beyond that type of protection. Both bills
would have restricted access to courts for
victims of torts when religious entities or
clergy were engaged in secular activities.
ACTION: SB 2247 defeated in Senate
Judiciary Committee. AB 2900 was
dropped by its author in Assembly Judiciary
Committee.
for minors receiving certain types of
confidential medical care. Similar statutes
have made abortion access for minors
difficult. Almost all have been subject to
federal court challenges, including most
recently Hodgson vy. Minnesota.
ACTION: SB 7 failed passge in the
Assembly Judiciary Committee. A succes-
sor measure, AB 2459 (McAlister) and more
moderate bill AB 4199 (Harris) also failed.
SB 1656/SB 130 (Watson)- Abortion
Clinic Violence/Access to Reproductive
Health Care Services
ACLU: Support as Amended/No Position
Both measures were responses to violence
at medical facilities which provide abortion
services. SB 1656 attempted to expand the
trespass law to cover incidents of harass-
ment against patients, clients and staff at
such facilities by anti-abortion demonstra-
tors. The bill included a zone of protection
WHAT 0x00B0 YOU WANT
A BIRTH CONTROL
DEVICE P
ui o.peRe YOU, VOU
ARE YOU HAVING
WANTON SEX
WITH oo
00 vk RENT mi
PERVERT, SIMTEEN ABOUT ye 0x00B0 a THEIR
ARENT YOU A LITTLE
YOUNG FOR THAT,
You td
ee
| ENJOY
COUNSELING
K?
we TEENAGERS
REPRODUCTIVE
RIGHTS
AB 1707 Ue eee Parenting
Contracts-
ACLU: Oppose
The bill sought to legalize the practice
of "surrogate parenting" by establishing
contractual standards for such agreements.
The measure was extremely biased in favor
of the adopting couple and created whole-
sale exceptions to family law in the area
of child support, custody and other rights
in the area of adoption and family law.
ACTION: Failed passage on the Senate
Floor.
SB 7 (Montoya)- Restrictions on Minors'
Access to Abortion Services
ACLU: Oppose
This bill required that minor women
seeking abortions have the consent of a
parent or guardian or seek a waiver of this
requirement through the courts. Mandatory
parental consent violates state constitutional
privacy rights for minors. The measure
would also have overturned the current
long-standing limited emancipation rights
within which demonstrators were barred or
restricted in their actions.
SB 130 attempted to establish legislative
standards for the operation of the state
Family Planning Advisory Board. This
appointed group provides input to the
Director of the Health Services regarding
regarding the needs and concerns of
providers and clients of family planning
programs. A majority of anti-choice activists
were appointed to the panel in the last year
and their conduct has prompted several
efforts to disband or reorganize the board.
ACTION: SB 1656 failed passage on the
Assembly Floor. SB 130 was vetoed by the
Governor.
aclu news
6 jan-feb 1987
Lookmng Ahead: Impact of the Election Results
he election of November 1986 will have a significant impact on California
politics. The so-called split personality of California voters, was decidely
to the conservative slant for state government. Gov. George Deukmejian
was re-elected by a sizable margin. Three justices on the state Supreme
Court who were targeted by conservative interest groups failed to win confirmation
votes. Consequently Gov. Deukmejian's influence on the state's high court will
_ be similar to that of President Reagan and the U.S. Supreme Court. Civil liberties
and civil rights are not expected to fare well.
Within the Legislature, Democrats in the
state Assembly and Senate lost seats to
Republicans who are more conservative
than their predecessors. Considered as a
` whole, these events are certain to be read
as establishing a conservative mandate.
Cost Cutting
Another element in the new session will
be the impact of the Gann limit which was
passed by initiative the year after Prop. 13.
In times of low inflation this caps the
increase in state expenditures even if there
are additional revenues. These restrictions
place new burdens on both state and local
budgets and can be expected to have a
variety of civil liberties impacts.
Attempts to limit procedural protections
within the criminal justice system will be
justified as efforts to reduce costs. Local
officials claim that they could save money
by eliminating certain due process provi-
sions, for example attorney voir dire of
juries, a practice they argue is time-
consuming and wasteful of court resources.
Civil court access will also be subject to
similar pressures. In the previous session
the Legislature was asked to consider
reductions in the size of civil trial juries and
the size of personal injury claims against
government entities. As the pressure on state
and local budgets increases so will the
support for these so-called economy
measures.
The limitations on state-funded programs
will also result in new attempts to reduce
monies for welfare, indigent health care
~ services and other programs to aid the poor.
However, advocates on behalf of the
indigent, particularly the homeless, will
propose affirmative legislation to counter
this trend. Another effort will be made to
stop patient-dumping.
the First Amendment....
L] Individual $20 (c)) Joint $30
Another result of the November 1986
elections will be a number of proposals to
implement Prop. 63, declaring English the
official language of the state. Prop. 63
supporters plan legislation implementing -
the new constitutional rule, but those
interested in responsibly meeting the needs
of California's culturally diverse residents
are also planning legislative responses to
Prop. 63 that may mitigate its impact.
In the area of reproductive freedom, anti-
choice legislators now have an opportunity
to effect restrictions on publicly funded
abortion services which they have included
in the state budget act for the past nine
years. The California Supreme Court
decision in CDRR y. Myers which has
protected Medi-Cal funded abortions for
indigent women based on the privacy rights
within the state Constitution may be subject
to review by the new state Supreme Court
under new Chief Justice Malcolm Lucas.
Anti-choice advocates will continue to
exploit the issue of minors' access to
abortion and contraceptive services in the
new session. Fundamentalist religious
interests seek every opportunity to force
legislators to place a vote on reproductive
choice issues on record. This voting
information is then used against legislators
in elections. The persistence of anti-choice
advocates has finally caused an increasing
number of Assembly Members and Sena-
tors to be concerned about their voting
records on this issue.
The influence of the religious right will
also, unfortunately, impact the future of
AIDS legislation, including the funding of
educational efforts directed at minority and
special populations such as drug users.
Although the failure of Prop. 64, the
LaRouche initiative, was the result of bi-
partisan efforts, continuing prejudices
against persons with AIDS, gays and drug
Want to do something about abortion funding, the death penalty,
police abuse, immigrant rights, drug testing, censorship, privacy rights,
Don't put it off any longer!
and an additional contribution of $
Name
Address
City
Zip
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Join the ACLU today. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Return with check or money order to: Membership Department, ACLU-NC, 1663
Mission Street, San Francisco, CA 94103.
Le ae ee
users will make efforts to deal with the
disease through responsible public policy a
challenge.
Drug Testing
Drug testing proponents can be expected
to continue their efforts to require screenings
as a condition of employment or promotion,
as a requirement for participation of high
school and collegiate sports, and in any
other setting where there exists some
colorable justification for the practice.
Influenced by the Reagan administration
and the patronage of Attorney General
Meese, proponents of drug testing cite the
need to bring law enforcement into the
workplace as the one way to stop drug use
in contemporary society. Although consti-
Gamesmanshi
continued from p. 3
instructed to amend the bill to include
provisions to penalize the Supreme Court
if death penalty cases were not decided more
expeditiously. Death penalty opponents
used a number of rules and deadlines to
their advantage against the measure. Time
ran out before an agreement was reached
and AB 989 never emerged from conference
committee.
Rights in the Workplace
A most unexpected civil liberties victory
occurred in the Assembly Ways and Means
Committee. SB 2399 (Russell) proposed to
open the state Child Abuse Registry to the
Teacher Credentialing Commission. This
registry contains all complaints of child
abuse without regard as to whether the
report was unfounded or unsubstantiated.
The measure passed the Senate and
Assembly Education Committees over
vociferous ACLU objection. But a final
attempt to stop the bill was made in the
Assembly Ways and Means Committee.
The argument that a person's career could
be ruined because of false allegations struck
a sympathetic cord with members of the
committee including some of the conser-
vatives. Surprisingly, the bill was resound-
ingly defeated.
Despite efforts to the contrary, some
California legislators paid little heed to the
weight of court precedent and questions
about the legality of employer sponsored
drug screenings of employees and appli-
cants. One measure which would have
specifically included drug rehabilitation
treatment within existing law that currently
provides certain protections for persons
being treated for alcoholism, but also
attempted to standarize the operation of
laboratories that perform drug screenings
for employers, was vetoed by the Governor.
Other drug testing bills were the subject
of an extended series of interim hearings
that took place during the fall in a number
of cities throughout the state. These
measures will no doubt be reintroduced next
session.
AIDS: Flurry, Calm and Disappointment
Although AIDS issues were expected to
spark considerable controversy in the 1986
tutional principles are at risk, for many
people the ability to hold a job and be self-
supporting may hinge on the agreement to
forego certain rights in exchange for
employment.
The results of the most recent election,
new fiscal restraints and an increasing
sophistication with the use of procedural
rules may unfortunately heighten the
influence of a reactionary minority dedi-
cated to promoting its crabbed and
expedient interpretations of established
legal principles. Perhaps the one fortunate
consideration is that if the tides of conser-
vatism have begun to ebb, what will soon
flow is a recognition that personal liberty
is a tradition worthy of its own defense.
session, the flurry of AIDS-related legis-
lation ultimately subsided as education and
the preferences for effective legislative action
overcame the prejudices of homophobia.
The very worst bills, including an effort to
recriminalize consensual adult male homo-
sexual behavior were either not heard in
committee or were soundly defeated early
in the year. Other proposals were amended
and rewritten repeatedly before being
abandoned by their sponsors.
By the mid-point of the session, a curious
calm had developed in the area of AIDS
legislation with the most active concern
directed instead to the LaRouche Prop. 64
initiative. The Legislature's focus became
more directed to the issues of funding for
care, treatment, education and research.
Considerable effort was directed at encou-
raging Gov. Deukmejian to raise the level
of his administration's involvement in
providing a comprehensive approach to this
ever looming crisis.
The gravest disappointment concerning
AIDS legislation directly involved the
Governor who twice vetoed legislation
aimed at preventing discrimination against
persons with the disease. AB 3667 (Agnos)
would have amended the confidentiality
provisions of 1985 bills which were adopted .
before the marketing of HTLV-III/ HIV
antibody testing devices.
AB 3667 moved quickly through both
houses, and was sent to the Governor in
July. Both the public and the Legislature
awaited his action on the bill during the
summer recess. Then, unexpectedly, he
vetoed the measure.
The storm of outrage and disappointment
following the AB 3667 veto, like that of
Deukmejian's 1984 AB 1 veto ran deep. The
general belief is that the Governor was
concerned that his support of the measure
would alienate religious fundamentalists.
Another perspective is that the veto was
recommended by the Assembly Republican
caucus as revenge for the Democratic
majority's defeat of a rival, watered-down
Republican bill. When a resurrected version
of the Agnos bill went before the Governor,
Deukmejian vetoed that bill as well, even
though it specifically addressed the concerns
raised in the AB 3667 veto message (which
was in itself poorly written and incorrect
in many of its presumptions).
_ aclu news
jan-feb 1987 7
Oil Workers Oppose Drug Tests
_ Charging that random, blanket drug
testing of the employees at Pacific Refining
Company in Hercules violates the
employees' state and federal constitutional
rights, attorneys from the ACLU-NC and
the Employment Law Center asked Contra
Costa Superior Court at a hearing on
January 16 and 20 to order a halt to the
tests.
Employment Law Center attorney John
True, who argued the case with ACLU-NC
cooperating attorney Barbara Brenner and
staff attorney Ed Chen, told the court that
the tests are a serious invasion of privacy
and do not demonstrate anything about
impairment on the job.
The refinery began blanket drug testing
of all of its 125 employees on October 1.
On October 6, the ACLU-NC and the ELC,
representing the workers, filed a lawsuit
challenging the tests, and were granted a
Temporary Restraining Order that stopped
the testing, prevented employees from being
fired for refusing to take the test, and
prohibited the dissemination of test results.
The order was the first in California to
halt company-wide drug testing by a private
employer.
Judge Richard Flier said that he would
issue an opinion in the case on February
10.
Death Sentence Stopped by
High Court
The ACLU-NC helped win another
- victory against capital punishment when the
U.S. Supreme Court in January denied a
petition for certiorari in the case of Robert
Wayne Vickers.
In a trial-frought with due process
violations-for the murder of his cellmate
in the Arizona State Prison, Vickers was
convicted of murder and sentenced to death.
The Supreme Court's action means that
the reversal of Vickers' conviction death
penalty by the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals last August will stand, and that
his case now returns to the Arizona courts
for a retrial.
Vickers' habeas corpus proceeding was
handled by ACLU-NC staff counsel Ed
Chen, co-counsel Charles Breyer of the San
Francisco law firm of Coblentz, Cahen,
McCabe and Breyer and John P. Frank of
the Phoenix law firm of Lewis and Roca.
The Court of Appeals determined that
"the trial court's failure to instruct the jury (c)
on second degree murder violated the due
process principles enunciated by the U.S.
Supreme Court." It referred to an earlier
decision (Beck) which held that the failure
to give a second degree murder instruction
can violate due process because depriving
the jury of a "middle option" between
conviction for first degree murder and
acquittal renders the verdict unreliable.
Chen was pleased with the Supreme
Court's denial of review, especially in a
climate which is increasingly zealous about
the death penalty. "It is frightening to realize
that Vickers was just one step away from
the gas chamber before his right to a fair
trial was finally vindicated," he said.
"This case clearly demonstrates the
inherent fallabilities, inequities and arbitrar-
iness of capital punishment," Chen added.
Instructions
The trial judge had instructed the jury
that it could return any of three verdicts:
guilty of first degree murder, not guilty, or
not guilty by reason of insanity. The jury
was not given the choice of second degree
murder. It returned a verdict of first degree
murder and Vickers, in a separate hearing,
was sentenced to death. The Arizona
Supreme Court upheld the conviction and
the death sentence.
A federal court dismissed Vickers' habeas
corpus petition. That ruling was appealed
in December, 1985.
The federal appellate court stated, "The
critical distinction between first and second
degree murder is the element of premed-
itation." The court noted testimony by lay
3
witnesses and a psychiatrist about Vickers' |
"tmpulsive and bizarre" acts which. were
apparently related to an epileptic condition.
Vickers has a long history of mental
disorders and acts of impulsive violence.
"Testimony attributing Vickers' conduct
to an epileptic disorder might not have been
persuasive to a jury, but if it were, it would
allow a rational conclusion that the killing
was not premeditated," the court concluded.
The ACLU-NC petition for habeas
corpus raised seventeen constitutional
claims, including legal challenges to the
Arizona death penalty statute. Although the
appellate court did not address these issues,
it noted they presented some "substantial
questions."
In Memory of Bill Wapepah
Billy Joe Wapepah, founder of the
International Indian Treaty Council and
a leader in the fight for indigenous
people's rights worldwide, died in
Oakland on January 2 at the age of 49.
Wapepah, a Kickapoo/Sauk-Fox
Indian, was known from the streets of
Oakland, California, to the villages of
the Atlantic Coast of Nicaragua, to the
halls of the United Nations as a com-
passionate, eloquent and stubborn
fighter for the rights of oppressed
peoples.
A leading member of the American
Indian Movement, Wapepah was the
Director of Information for the Interna-
tional Indian Treaty Council, a non-
governmental organization (NGO)
within the United Nations. He was an
advisor to the American Friends Service
Committee, a national Steering Commit-
tee member of Clergy and Laity Con-
cerned, and served on the Executive
Committee of Congressman Ron Del-
lums (D-CA). In 1982, Wapepah spoke
at the Hiroshima/Nagasaki August 6
Commemoration, a historic interna-
Under Construction
If you've called the ACLU-NC office recently and heard some unusual noises in
the background-do not be alarmed. The chain saws and jack hammers are all part
of the construction project which is creating more office space for the affiliate. What
you see above, beneath the plastic sheeting and construction paraphernalia, is the
entranceway to the ACLU, which will be fitted out with a proper reception area and
a private office for the complaint counselors. There will also be new offices, to
accommodate an expanding staff including a fourth staff attorney and provide workspace
for legal interns and volunteers.
The architects for the expansion project are Tanner and Van Dine, and the construction
firm is Ryan Associates. During the construction, the San Francisco law firm of Heller,
Ehrman, White and McAuliffe has generously donated office space for the entire ACLU-NC
Legal Department staff.
The construction, which began just after Bill
for completion by mid-February. In the meantime, pardon the background noise and-
of Rights Day in December, is scheduled
if you're coming into the office-watch your step!
Ken Reeves
tional peace convocation hosted by
leading peace organizations in Japan.
Wapepah played a key role in all the
major struggles for Indian people's rights
in the U.S. He helped found the
American Indian Drop-In Center, the
American Indian Education Program,
the American Indian Community
School , AIM Freedom Survival School
and the annual un-Thanksgiving celebra-
tion on Alcatraz Island.
An indefatigable organizer, Wapepah
shared his skills with ACLU activists at
the 1983 Annual Conference. Among the
beautiful eucalyptus trees of the Asi-
lomar Conference Center, Wapepah
spoke of the need to bring diverse
communities together in the struggle for
peace and justice.
Wapepah was also a major advocate
for the plight of indigenous peoples in
Guatemala, the Pacific Islands and
Australia. He was preparing to return
to Geneva, Switzerland in February for
the annual meeting of the United Nations
Commission on Human Rights.
Wapepah lived his life as an example
to others: for the past twenty years he
worked for homeless needing shelter,
young people looking for their way of
life, whole nations of peoples and Indian
people struggling for their freedom
throughout the Americas and the world. -
Around the world, people feel a deep
loss for the strength and the wisdom he
so freely shared.
Donations in Bill Wapepah's memory
can be made to: Wapepah Family Fund,
c/o Vanguard Public Foundation, 14
Precita Avenue, San Francisco, CA
94110.
Board Elections
continued from p. 1
meeting. Members of the Board may
propose additional nominations. If no
additional nominations are proposed by
Board members, the Board, by majority
of those present and voting, shall adopt
the Nominating Committee's report. If
additional nominations are proposed, the
Board shall, by written ballot, elect a slate
of nominees with each member being
entitled to cast a number of votes equal
to the vacancies to be filled; the Board slate
of nominees shall be those persons, equal
in number to the vacancies to be filled,
who have received the greatest number of
votes. The list of nominees to be placed
before the membership of the Union for
election shall be those persons nominated
by the Board as herein provided, together
with those persons nominated by petition
as hereafter provided in Section 4.
ARTICLE VII, SECTION 4: Any fifteen
or more members of the Union in good
standing may themselves submit a nom-
ination to be included among those voted
upon by the general membership by
submitting a written petition to the Board
not later than twenty days after the
adoption by the Board of the slate of Board
nominees. No member of the Union may
sign more than one such petition and each
such nomination shall be accompanied by
_asummary of qualifications and the written
consent of the nominee.
aclu news
8 jan-feb 1987
Pro-Choice Activists Rally in Sacramento
by Vicki Johnson
An enthusiastic crowd of more than one
hundred pro-choice supporters gathered in
the state capital on the 22nd of January
celebrating the fourteenth anniversary of the
landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision
legalizing abortion (Roe v. Wade). The day's
events were sponsored by the Northern
California Pro-Choice Coalition, of which
the ACLU-NC is an integral member.
Later, addressing the pro-choice rally
from the Capitol steps, Senator Watson and
ACLU lobbyist Daphne Macklin both
spoke of pending anti-choice bills. AB 77
(Wyman) and SB II (Montoya) are both
"offensive and retrogressive" to the repro-
ductive freedom of all women, and in
particular, dangerously oppressive to the
rights of minors who wish to have an
abortion without the consent of their
parents. In addition, there has been a
Pro-choice activists commemorate the 14th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision
and launch the fight to maintain abortion funding.
Reproductive rights advocates began the
day in the early morning rush hour with
the popular "Human Billboard" campaign.
Volunteers held placards that placed
together read, "HON K-IF-YOU-
SUPPORT-LEGAL-ABORTION!" alert-
ing drivers at intersections around the Bay
Area and the Peninsula about the pro-
choice campaign.
A morning press conference in Sacra-
mento featured Shireen Miles, Coordinator
of the California NOW, Dorothy Ehrlich,
Executive Director of the ACLU-NC,
Reverend Ruth Poisson of the Religious
Coalition for Abortion Rights and John
Whitelaw of the American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Whitelaw,
representing over 3,000 pro-choice physi-
cians, voiced concern about the availability
of "safe opportunity" for all women who
may seek an abortion. He cited maternal
death and accidental sterilization as
indicative of the problems faced by many
women seeking abortions prior to the 1973
Supreme Court decision, and still faced by
poor women if Medi-Cal funding is
eliminated.
Senator Diane Watson (D-L.A.) came to
the press conference to show her support
of reproductive freedom, as well as to outline
legislation of major importance to the
California pro-choice community in the next
session. Senator Watson has proposed a new
bill, SB 185, that addresses the problem of
"bogus clinics." These institutions offer only
anti-choice counseling and use "grizzly films
and photographs" to mislead women
seeking advice and options, although they
advertise "sound medical advice and a range
of services." SB 185 would make such false
advertisements a misdemeanor. Another bill
Watson has proposed (as yet without a
number) seeks to recognize violence against
pro-choice clinics as a "conspiracy," a crime
that could be dealt with by the FBI.
proposal made which may imperil the Office
of Family Planning. This proposal would
institute individual county responsibility for
determining a woman' eligibility for Family
Planning clinical services.
Senator Diane Watson
"It may be that a county will provide
services only for married women, or only
for. minors who have parental consent, or
they may decide not to fund these services
at all," Senator Watson warned.
Citing these dangerous proposals,
ACLU-NC Field Representative Marcia
Gallo said at the rally, "The emphasis on
the coming year must be on access to
_abortion services and we must make our
voices heard in the Legislature. With the
Legislature's continuing attempts to cut
Medi-Cal abortion funding (successfully
challenged by the ACLU-NC since 1978)
and the unknown and perhaps unfriendly
California Supreme Court to contend with,
the future of funding is unsure.
"What is definite is the voice of repro-
ductive freedom heard resounding in
Vicki Johnson
Vicki Johnson
Sacramento and throughout the United
States on the anniversary of legalized
abortion," Gallo said.
Gallo summed up the necessity of legal
and accessible abortion services by charging
that abortions will continue whether "legal
or not, safe or not, affordable or not. It
is Our job to make sure that abortions are
legal, safe and affordable for al] women."
Activists came from all over Northern
California to support the "Families for
Choice, Families by Choice" events.
Throughout the afternoon, pro-choice
Board Meetings
B.A.R.K. BOARD MEETING: (Usually
fourth Thursday) Volunteers are needed to
staff hotline. Contact Florence Piliavin,
415-848-4752 or 415-848-5195.
EARL WARREN BOARD MEETING:
(Third Wednesday) February 18, 7:30 pm
prompt, Sumitomo Bank, 20th and Franklin
Streets, Oakland. Contact Rose Bonhag,
415-658-7977.
FRESNO BOARD MEETING: (Usually
third Wednesday) Contact Mindy Rose for
details: 209-486-7735.
GAY RIGHTS BOARD MEETING: (Usu-
ally first Tuesday) February 3, 7:00 pm,
location to be decided. Board Meeting,
March 3, 7:00 pm, ACLU-NC, 1663 Mission
Street, Suite 460, San Francisco. Guest
Speaker: Rand Martin, LIFE Lobbyist in
Sacramento, AIDS related legislation. Call
Doug Warner for more information:
415-621-3900.
MARIN COUNTY BOARD MEETING:
(Third Monday) February 16 and March 16,
7:30 pm. Citicorp Bank, 130 Throckmorton
Avenue, Mill Valley. Contact Jack Butler,
415-453-0972 or June Festler, 415-479-7317.
Special Film Benefit, February 27, 1987,
Marin Art and Garden Center, Sir Francis
Drake and Lagunitas Boulevard, Kentfield.
$5. Salt of the Earth and Broken Silence,
followed by a panel discussion which includes
Victor Freedman, author of Salt of the Earth.
Contact Fran Miller, 415-454-8062.
MID-PENINSULA BOARD MEETING:
(Usually last Wednesday) Contact Harry
Anisgard, 415-856-9186. Special Chapter
Reorganization Meeting, Saturday, February
14, 11:00 am-1:30 pm, Mitchell Park Com-
munity Center, 3800 Middlefield Road, Palo
Alto.
MONTEREY BOARD MEETING: (Usu-
ally fourth Tuesday of each month) Contact
Richard Criley, 408-624-7562. ACLU Annual
Meeting, February 8, Sunday, 1:30-4:30 pm,
225 Cross Roads Boulevard near Highway
1 and Rio (Mouth of Carmel Valley). Contact
Richard Criley, 408-624-7562.
1:30-2:30 pm
Business Meeting
Election of Board
Awarding of Prizes
in High School Essay Contest
3:00-4:30 pm
Discussion of the Historical Role of
Father Junipero Serra. Speakers: Che-
queesh Auh-ho-oh, representing the
viewpoint of Indian Tribes in the area-
she is a Chumash Indian; and Professor
Don Deneve, co-author of the book,
Father Junipero Serra.
delegations visited over 30 state senators and
assemblymembers, launching this year's
efforts for reproductive freedom.
For information about ACLU-NC's
ongoing reproductive rights organizing, see
Calendar, back page, under Pro-Choice
Task Force, for date and time of next
meeting.
Vicki Johnson, a senior at Smith College,
served as an intern in the Field and Public
Information Departments working on the
January 22 events.
ene
Chapter Calendar
MT. DIABLO BOARD MEETING: (Usu-
ally third Wednesday or third Thursday)
Schedule for 1987 is January 15, February
18, March 19, April 15, May 21, June 17
and July 16. Contact Andrew Rudiak,
415-932-5580. Board Meeting, Wednesday,
February 18, home of Beverly and David
Bortin, 117 Los Altos Avenue, Walnut Creek.
Thursday, March 19, home of Jeffery Ghant,
2948 Mie Elana Circle, Walnut Creek.
NORTH PENINSULA BOARD MEET-
ING: (Second Monday) Bank of America,
3rd and El Camino, San Mateo, 8:00 pm.
Contact Sid Scheiber, 415-345-8603.
SACRAMENTO VALLEY BOARD
MEETING: (Usually second Wednesday)
February 11 and March 11, 7:30 pm. County
Administration Building, 7th and I Streets,
Main Floor Conference Room, Sacramento.
Contact Joe Gunterman, 916-447-8053.
SAN FRANCISCO BOARD MEETING:
(Usually fourth Tuesday) Tuesday, February
24 and March 24, 6:00 pm, ACLU-NC, 1663
Mission Street, Suite 460, San Francisco.
Contact Suzanne Donovan, 415-642-4890.
SANTA CLARA BOARD MEETING:
(Usually the first Tuesday of each month)
_ Tuesday, February 3 and March 3. Respective
locations: Law Office of Sblend Sblendorio,
80 S. Market Street, Third Floor, San Jose,
and the Community Bank Building, Exec-
utive Conference Room, 111 West St. John,
Second Floor, San Jose. Contact Michael
Chatsky 408-379-4611.
SANTA CRUZ BOARD MEETING: .
(Second Wednesday) February 11 and March
11, 7:30 pm, 411 Cedar Street, Santa Cruz.
Contact Bob Taren, 408-429-9880.
SONOMA BOARD MEETING: Contact
Colleen O'Neal 707-575-1156.
STOCKTON BOARD MEETING: (Third
Wednesday) Contact Eric Ratner, .
209-948-4040 (evenings).
YOLO COUNTY BOARD MEETING:
(Usually Third Wednesday) February 18 and
March 18, 7:00-8:00 pm. Business Meeting,
8:00-9:00 pm. Guest Speaker. Contact Dan
Abramson, 916-446-7701.
Field
Committee Meetings
PRO-CHOICE TASK FORCE: Wednesday,
February 4, 5:30 pm. Contact Marcia Gallo
for location, 415-621-2494.
DRAFT OPPOSITION NETWORK: Con-
tact Judy Newman, 415-567-1527.