The ACLU of Southern California today sent a letter to the San Bernardino County Coroner's Office protesting the release of more than 50 fetuses to church groups in Chino, Chino Hills and Montclair for the purpose of holding religious memorial and burial services this evening and tomorrow. The ACLU has threatened to sue the County for violating the First Amendment's requirement of the separation of church and state if the fetuses are released to the church groups for the express purpose of holding religious services.

The fetuses were discovered in containers in the Chino Hills area in March 1997. After an 18-month investigation by law enforcement, the San Bernardino County Coroner agreed to turn over the remains to church groups who plan the vigils. The following letter was sent to San Bernardino County Coroner Brian McCormick:

"It has come to the attention of the ACLU Foundation of Southern California ("ACLU") that your office has agreed to turn over more than fifty fetuses to religious groups for the purpose of holding memorial services in the communities of Chino, Chino Hills, Riverside and Montclair October 9 through 11, 1998. We are writing to express our grave concerns about your facilitation, as a public officer, of religious burial services. As described more fully below, such action is in clear violation of the United States and California constitutions, as well as California health law. As such, we urge you to refrain from donating the fetuses in your custody to religious groups to avoid such violations.

"In Feminist Women's Health Center v. Philibosian (1984) 117 Cal. App. 3d 1076, the California Court of Appeal held that the Los Angeles County District Attorney's proposed burial of 16,500 fetuses in a private cemetery, after he was aware that the cemetery had contracted with a religious organization to hold a burial service, violated the separation of church and state guaranteed by the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the United States constitution and article XVI, Section 5 of the California constitution.

"In so doing, the court emphasized that, because burying fetuses in adherence to the beliefs of a Catholic group "represents a particular religious view . . . the district attorney's purported action would, in effect, sponsor and approve that view." Id. at 1086. Moreover, any state action showing a preference of a particular religious belief will be strictly scrutinized and must be invalidated unless it is justified by a compelling governmental interest. Id. at 1088. Because the district attorney's only interest with regard to the fetuses was to "dispose of them lawfully" pursuant to California health law (see, e.g, Calif. Health & Safety Code ﾌ_ 7054.3), the court determined that there was no compelling state interest to dispose of the fetuses in a private ceremony that would "justify the appearance of state sanction of a particular religious belief." Id.

"Moreover, the court stated that because "the abortion issue is one of the most emotionally explosive issues in today's political firmament," the proposed burial clearly presented "political entanglement" with religion. Id. at 1090.

"The appearance of support by the state, of one side of this controversy over the other, is improper political entanglement. The act of indirectly turning the fetuses over . . . for religious burial as murdered humans would vitiate the studied neutrality which is the state's constitutional course. The proposed action would aggravate an already volatile religious issue.

"Like the district attorney's proposed religious burial held unconstitutional in Feminist Women's Health Center, the San Bernardino County Coroner's proposed release of fetuses for religious memorial services clearly violates the constitutional separation of church and state. Moreover, discarding of fetuses in this manner raises concerns about the County Coroner's failure to adhere to California health laws. Given the urgency of the situation, the ACLU expects that the County Coroner's office will take immediate steps to prevent any unlawful delivery of fetuses to religious groups for sectarian purposes. If such delivery is not prevented, we will have no choice but to take legal action. Given the clear status of the law, the Coroner's office would likely be subject to the embarrassment of having an injunction issued against it and damages being assessed."

Important legislation to measure discrimination in traffic stops was vetoed by Governor Wilson. The "California Traffic Stops Statistics Act," also known as the "Driving While Black or Brown" (DWB) bill, would have made it possible to keep tabs on racial bias, by requiring law enforcement to collect and report statistical information for a three-year period on the race of motorists pulled over by police.

The bill was sponsored by Assemblymember Kevin Murray, Chair of the California Legislative Black Caucus, and supported by Black and Latino law enforcement organizations. All across the state, African-Americans and Latinos have experienced the humiliation of being inexplicably stopped while driving, detained and searched by police. Governor Wilson's veto shows that he doesn't think this is a problem. Your voice can help convince him that it is.

If this has happened to you -- if you have been stopped for the so-called offense of "Driving While Black or Brown" -- you can help get this bill passed in the next session of the legislature. Call the ACLU toll-free and we will help make your voice heard in the state Capitol. We need your help to get this important legislation enacted next year. Have you been stopped unfairly? Tell your story. You can call the ACLU toll free in California at 1-877-DWB-STOP. It's a FREE CALL. 1-877-DWB-STOP that's 1/877-392-7867.

The ACLU of Southern California, on Sept. 29, sent the City of Banning a letter threatening to enter a lawsuit on behalf of petitioners who exercised their First Amendment rights to petition the city after the Banning City Council sued them for gathering signatures opposing a merger of the Banning Fire Department with the Riverside County California Department of Forestry.

Last July, the Banning City Council decided to merge its fire services with the state-run agency. A former council member, Frank Burgess, launched a petition drive to block the merger, gathering 1,503 signatures. The County Registrar of Voters certified 1,102 of the signatures on August 31.

Banning filed a lawsuit on September 8 [City of Banning vs Burgess RIC 317408] against the petitioners claiming the right of referendum was not available to them because state law lets the city contract for fire services. Banning seeks a declaration voiding the petition, an injunction "restraining and enjoining defendants from taking actions inconsistent with this order" and seeking court costs from defendants. The ACLU says this would chill defendants' free speech rights.

The letter to Banning City Attorney John Wilson from ACLU/SC attorney Peter Eliasberg follows:

"I am writing to express serious concern about the lawsuit filed by the City of Banning against people who have engaged in their constitutionally protected right to petition government. It appears to me that two aspects of the relief requested by the City violate the First Amendment because they have the clear effect of chilling the rights of petitioners protected by the First Amendment and Liberty of Speech Clause of the California constitution.

Asking the Court to award the City costs in this case against the defendants who have done no more than exercise their constitutionally protected right to petition government, is an improper burden on First Amendment rights. It should be obvious that seeking to "tax" people's exercise of their rights, even if the Court were to hold that the subject of the petition is one that is not subject to referendum, would have an improper chilling effect on persons who might exercise their right to petition in the future.

Second, the request for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief in paragraph two of the prayer for relief in the complaint appears to be another improper attempt to infringe the defendants' constitutionally protected rights. Although the requested relief is disturbingly vague, I can only assume that its purpose is to prevent the defendants from filing similar petitions in the future. Even if the Court holds that the subject matter of the petition is not one that may be subject to referendum, no government has a right to restrain defendants from filing any petition they choose with the government.

In light of the severe First Amendment problems with the relief you seek in this complaint, you should immediately withdraw it. If you choose to continue to seek declaratory relief, then you should file an amended complaint that does not request either costs or any injunctive relief against the defendants. If you do not, the ACLU will seriously consider entering this suit on behalf of the defendants to protect their rights under the State and Federal constitutions."