This afternoon, the ACLU of Southern California faxed a second demand letter to El Monte Police Chief Wayne Clayton calling for the El Monte Police Department to ensure the safety of those seeking services at the Family Planning Medical Center located at 11046 Valley Mall Boulevard in El Monte. The ACLU sent its first letter on July 16 after an ACLU member and clinic escort witnessed attacks against women entering the clinic.

Since March, groups including the National Organization of Women and the League of Women Voters have contacted the El Monte Police Department demanding that the department ensure the safety of patients. None of the letters or other communications have been answered.

ACLU/SC attorney Taylor Flynn, who sent today's letter, said that unless the police chief responds and directs his officers to defend those seeking services at the clinic, the ACLU will be forced to take legal action. The text of the letter follows:

"The ACLU Foundation of Southern California ("ACLU") is writing again to express its grave concern about the repeated assaults and batteries against women seeking access to the Family Planning Medical Center ("Center") at 11046 " Valley Mall Boulevard in El Monte. We are particularly concerned about the El Monte Police Department's ("Department") failure to respond to this urgent situation despite repeated written requests from several organizations, including the League of Women Voters, the National Organization of Women, and the ACLU. In our July 16th letter to you, the ACLU detailed the actions of demonstrators at the Center, set forth the federal law which criminalizes and provides civil damages for the very type of actions described, and requested assurance from the Department that it would ensure the safety of all concerned as required by the Federal Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994, 18 U.S.C. ﾌ_ 248 ("FACE"). We received no response. On Saturday, August 1st, yet another woman was reportedly assaulted by a protester a woman who apparently tried to file a complaint with your Department and was refused.

"While the ACLU is committed to guaranteeing First Amendment rights of free expression, the constitutionally recognized right to choose as well as a woman's safety and thd by the very entity entrusted with assuring their safety, the police. On August 1, 1998, demonstrators reportedly blocked a woman from entering the Center and grabbed her. This is a clear example of a violation of the federal law known as FACE, as well as of the California laws which make battery a crime. After being called, three officers from your Department apparently arrived and refused to take a complaint which the woman requested to file. Moreover, the officers reportedly refused to review three similar written complaints which had taken place in the past two weeks. Particularly disturbing is the report that, during the time the woman was attempting to file her complaint, one officer left to take a phone call and upon his return stated to his fellow officers, "It was Clayton."

"The El Monte Police Department has had more than enough warning, over a period of many months, that both federal and state law explicitly protect the access of women, their escorts, and employees to abortion clinics. The Department has likewise been informed, on numerous occasions and by various sources, that Center protestors have been assaulting women and violating federal and state law. As you know, the Department is charged with the non-discriminatory enforcement of all laws and with the protection of the safety of all persons. The Department is not free to pick and choose which laws to enforce, which complaints to accept, or which persons to protect.

"Given the urgency of the situation, the ACLU expects that the Department will take immediate steps to guarantee safe access to the Center by providing protection for the staff, escorts and women who enter the Clinic and by thoroughly investigating the complaints made by those attempting to enter the Center, including all such complaints brought to the Department's attention in the past several months. If these actions which require nothing more than carrying out federal and state law are not implemented at once, we will have no choice but to take appropriate legal action. Please contact me tomorrow, August 5, 1998 to discuss this matter. Thank you very much for your cooperation."

The ACLU California and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) will seek a Temporary Restraining Order from U.S. District Court Judge Lourdes Baird this afternoon at a 2:00 p.m. hearing to stop the state's largest school district from implementing Prop. 227, passed by voters June 3, that would abolish bilingual education programs in public schools throughout California. Plaintiffs filed the federal class action lawsuit [Diana Doe vs LAUSD - 98-6154 LGB (RZx)] yesterday.

More than half of Los Angeles Unified School Districts's 600,000 students currently participate in some form of bilingual education. Plaintiffs say that implementation of the measure will seriously disrupt their academic progress and jeopardize their access to an equal education.

Plaintiffs are making an as-applied challenge claiming that Prop. 227 violates the Equal Educational Opportunities Act that requires schools to serve the specific needs of Limited English Proficient (LEP) students, and that the measure also violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits discrimination based on national origin in any program receiving federal funds.

In papers submitted to the court, plaintiffs say that Los Angeles Unified School District's proposed Implementation Plan for Proposition 227 "cannot provide an adequate program of instruction for those multi-track schools scheduled to commence their term on August 3, 1998, or any time prior to adequate teacher training and curriculum development."

Plaintiffs charge that the district has not taken adequate steps to train teachers, develop effective curriculum, prepare students for English immersion or in an significant way ensure that any new program or policy will not harm the educational progress of LEP students.

ACLU staff attorney Rocio Cordoba said the measure will harm LEP students. "Prop 227 is a sweeping, unprecedented and educationally unsound policy that would force LAUSD and school districts state-wide to abandon local control and oversight over the best ways to serve the needs of their students. We cannot allow political whim or prejudice to destroy the academic progress of our children, particularly those most vulnerable. We are optimistic that the court will recognize the folly of destroying these programs because of political expediency."

In a strongly worded two-page letter sent this afternoon to United States Attorney Nora Manella, the ACLU Foundation of Southern California demands that authorities at the United States Federal Detention Center in Los Angeles give detainee Peter McWilliams his AIDS medications. The ACLU says that failure to provide these necessary medications violates Title II of the American with Disabilities Act that the U. S. Supreme Court ruled this year applies to persons with HIV and AIDS and the incarcerated.

McWilliams was arrested July 23 after being indicted by a federal grand jury for paying the rent of a property authorities allege was used to cultivate marijuana for sale. McWilliams, a best-selling author of such books as Life 101, is a strong proponent of medical use of marijuana. The text of the letter follows:

"The ACLU Foundation of Southern California ("ACLU") is writing to express its grave concern that prison authorities of the Federal Detention Center in downtown Los Angeles are in apparent violation of numerous federal laws as well as the U.S. constitution, by failing to provide adequate medical services for detainee and acclaimed author Peter McWilliams, who is gravely ill with AIDS and cancer. As the accompanying letter from his physician sets forth, Mr. McWilliams' health, and indeed his life, depend on strict adherence to his medication schedule six times per day. As his physician makes clear, altering or even missing one dose of his medication poses a direct threat to Mr. McWilliams' health. Federal authorities, however, apparently have denied Mr. McWilliams his medication for more than five days, already more than thirty doses.

"Denial of adequate medical services to a person suffering from AIDS or cancer is a clear violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. ﾌ_ 12101 et seq. ans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. ﾌ_ 12101 et seq. ("ADA"). As you are no doubt aware, in a pair of decisions issued this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unequivocally that the ADA applies to correctional facilities and to persons suffering from AIDS or HIV. Pa. Dep't. of Corrections v. Yeskey, 118 S.Ct. 1952 (1998) (correctional facilities); Bragdon v. Abbott, 66 U.S.L.W. 4601 (1998) (AIDS and HIV).

"Denial of adequate medical treatment to persons with AIDS or cancer likewise violates several provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations. For example, 28 CFR 39.170 requires nondiscrimination on the basis of handicap in programs conducted by the Department of Justice. In addition, 28 CFR 549.18(k) requires the delivery of pharmaceuticals for the treatment of AIDS infected inmates.

"Mr. McWilliams is extremely ill and his daily regimen of HIV medication is his only hope. Even missing a single dose provides the virus an opportunity to advance and potentially to mutate into a form of HIV which no drug can treat. Having AIDS also makes Mr. McWilliams unusually susceptible to airborne infections such as tuberculosis. Moreover, the plastic shoes issued to him reportedly have cut into his feet, leaving an open sore, and hence with the dangerous potential for infection.

"An author with 5 appearances on the New York Times Bestseller List, Mr. McWilliams presents no risk of flight and no danger to the community, yet he is incarcerated in condi tions which pose a grave risk to his health and in which he is denied crucial medical treatment. Placing his health and life in such jeopardy would certainly appear to constitute a violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, as well as an infringement of his substantive due process rights to appropriate medical care while in the custody of the government.

"Given the urgency of the situation, the ACLU expects that federal authorities will take immediate steps to guarantee effective medical treatment for Mr. McWilliams. If the necessary medical regimen, as described by Mr. McWilliams' physician in the accompanying letter, is not implemented at once, we will have no choice but to take legal action to ensure that Mr. McWilliams' rights are protected. Please contact me tomorrow, Friday July 31st to discuss this matter."