NEWS

ARTICLES

LETTERS

FOLLOW ME

ROAMIN' CATHOLIC







Contents © 2006
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.

NEWS
September/October 2006

---

CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE WEST on June 15 reached a settlement with plaintiffs in a class-action suit that alleged that the healthcare company engaged in price gouging. The lawsuit said the San Francisco-based Catholic Healthcare West, with 40 hospitals in California, Nevada, and Arizona, routinely charged uninsured patients sometimes five times the amount it charged private insurers or government agencies, such as Medicare.

Typically, with hospitals, "every patient is charged the same amount, but different payers contract for different reimbursement rates," said San Francisco plaintiffs' attorney Kelly Dermody. "So, large commercial payers have volume discounts to negotiate, and Medicare sets reimbursement rates based on the analysis the government does on what are the cost for services across the country." Uninsured patients, however, cannot set reimbursement rates; thus, said Dermody, her clients "were charged a price that the vast majority of other patients were not charged in treatment. The lawsuit has also alleged that the charges themselves are unreasonable because they are much higher than what other payers are charged. The expectation of reimbursement is different according to payer group. So uninsured patients are expected to pay the sticker price or 'charge master' while other groups are not expected to pay that."

Under the settlement, Catholic Healthcare West does not admit guilt. It agrees, however, to apply its "payment assistance policy retroactively to eligible uninsured individuals" -- approximately 700,000 former patients -- "treated at a CHW hospital after July 1, 2001, who did not receive discounts to the extent provided under the policy, which went into effect in May 2004," said the company's June 14 press release. The payment assistance policy allows those at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level ($40,000 per year for a family of four) to qualify for free care. Those at 200 percent and 300 percent of the poverty level ($60,000 per year for a family of four) who have no way to purchase health insurance qualify for rates approximate to what the hospital would get from Medicare, while those who earn between 300 percent and 500 percent of the federal poverty level ($100,000 per year for a family of four) may be charged "the average prevailing rate paid by the largest managed care payer in the community," according to the news release. Catholic Healthcare West said it would offer discounted rates based on circumstances and need to uninsured patients "whose net income exceeds 500 percent of the federal poverty level" but who "have no means to purchase health insurance."

Though a plaintiffs' attorney, Dermody was fulsome in her praise of Catholic Healthcare West. "Our experience with CHW is that they have been interested for a very long time in resolving this problem," she told the Faith. "They have chosen to put their energy into settling the case as opposed to fighting the allegation. This is very unusual relative to other hospital systems around the country who have been spending an enormous amount of money litigating these cases and trying to defend themselves against these charges. But Catholic Healthcare West said, 'how can we address these issues and how do we create a better safety net for financially vulnerable uninsured?' They've been very motivated in that. My clients are people who are financially vulnerable, who were seen in an ER situation where they walked away with a bill that was much greater than what they would have had if they were insured or were on government assistance. If you are a poor adult in this country, it is very hard to get any kind of assistance; the working poor folk who don't have insurance are extremely vulnerable."

Given that the pricing practices Catholic Healthcare West allegedly engaged in are typical of hospitals, what might be the wider effect of this settlement? "I think there is going to be a lot of attention to it," said Dermody. "It will set some standards on how hospitals should think about pricing."

The settlement was expected to be approved by a judge on September 8.

TOTALLY INCONSISTENT. On July 20, the day after President Bush vetoed a bill passed by congress that would have provided increased federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger ordered the California department of finance to loan $150 million dollars to the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, which funds embryonic stem cell research in California. The institute was founded following the 2004 approval by voters of Proposition 71, which authorized $3 billion in bond monies to support stem-cell research. According to a press release issued by the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, the institute will pay back the loan, with interest, once the litigation surrounding Proposition 71 is resolved. Pro-life and anti-tax groups brought suit against the Institute for Regenerative Medicine following the November 2004 election.

After the governor issued his directive, Robert Klein, chairman of the Independent Citizens' Oversight Committee, which awards Institute for Regenerative Medicine grants to institutions engaged in stem-cell research, said, "Governor Schwarzenegger continues to be a tireless supporter of stem-cell science. He personally wrote to the president this week to urge him to sign HR 810, and he believes in honoring the public mandate to pursue this research as expeditiously and responsibly as possible." Klein spearheaded the drive to qualify Proposition 71 for the November 2004.

California state treasurer Phil Angelides, the Democratic candidate for governor, was also quick to take credit for his support of stem-cell research. A press release put out by the governor's campaign quotes Steve Maviglio, an Angelides spokesman, as saying, "the governor is an Arnold-Come-Lately" on the issue. The press release noted that Angelides deserves the credit for the funding, because the treasurer -- who chairs the institute's finance committee as the state's banker -- came up with an earlier bridge loan of $200 million to the institute through the sale of bond anticipation notes.

Dana Cody of Life Legal Defense Foundation, one of the groups that has sued the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, pointed out the risks involved in loaning money to the institute while it is still in litigation. "Should our clients prevail in their litigation, the governor is taking a big risk with taxpayer money. The institute will never be able to repay the loan. And didn't we hear Arnold say that enough is enough with regard to taxes -- something to the effect that we are taxed from the moment we wake up and until our head hits the pillow? The loan to the institute is totally inconsistent with that message and nothing more than an attempt to get votes in an election year. All that said, President Bush is right; our children are not commodities to be bought and sold."

THE NEWDOW APPEAL. A federal district court in Sacramento in July dismissed a lawsuit brought by atheist Michael Newdow, alleging the presence of "In God We Trust" on the nation's currency violates the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom. Newdow, who has also been fighting to have "one nation under God" removed from the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public settings, filed his lawsuit against the monetary motto in late 2005.

According to Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute, a co-defendant in the case, Newdow v. Congress, which challenged "In God We Trust,," the federal district judge Frank Damrell, Jr. dismissed Newdow's case because prior federal decisions -- including a Supreme Court decision in the 1950s -- have ruled that the public use of the motto is constitutional. "The court took that and saw that the only difference in fact in the present case is that we are dealing with the national motto on our currency," Dacus told the Faith. The "judge decided that this was not factually distinctive enough to break from precedent."

Newdow, however, has appealed the federal judge's ruling to the federal ninth district court of appeals in Sacramento.

Because Newdow's case will be heard by judges of the ninth circuit, said Dacus, makes it far from certain that the Sacramento judge's decision will stand. In 2003, the ninth circuit ruled in favor of Newdow's contention that having public school students recite "one nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional. (In 2004 the Supreme Court refused to hear Newdow's case, saying he lacked standing.) And, said Dacus, Newdow's arguments in the present case "are not totally without merit, though he has a major precedent that he will have a difficult time overcoming." Still, said Dacus, "we're dealing with the ninth circuit, and it can go either way. We don't even know what judges are going to be appointed to review it."

Dacus thinks the case involving "In God We Trust" is quite important. "What this case is about is whether the constitutionality of our nation's history and heritage will be preserved for our posterity," he said. "Many people don't like what the Declaration of Independence said, what our founding fathers said in the Constitution, with regards to where our rights come from. The laws of nature and of nature's God was the total presupposition of our being able to be a legitimate independent nation from England. Some people may not like that, but that's the truth and our history."

"In God We Trust" was declared the national motto of the United States in 1956 by a joint resolution of Congress, signed by President Dwight Eisenhower.

NEGLIGENT? Bishop Daniel Walsh of Santa Rosa came under fire in July for allegedly delaying to report a priest accused of molestation to authorities, which gave the priest time to flee the country. The Rev. Francisco Xavier Ochoa, ordained a priest by the Jesuits in 1969, has been a Santa Rosa diocesan priest since 1988. On April 27 of this year, Ochoa, who had been serving at St. Francis Xavier Solano parish in Sonoma, admitted to a fellow priest that he sexually abused a minor. Ochoa confessed to Bishop Walsh as well, who suspended him from priestly functions on April 28. The following day, a Saturday, Walsh discussed the matter with diocesan lawyer Dan Galvin; but since, according to the diocese, Galvin thought Child Protective Services would not be open on the weekend, he waited to Monday, May 1 to fax a letter there concerning Ochoa. On May 2, Galvin notified the Sonoma County sheriff's department, but by that time Ochoa had fled Sonoma County; on May 4 he told a friend he was in a hospital in Tijuana. Three weeks later, on May 22, Bishop Walsh made a public announcement that he had relieved Ochoa of his faculties.

A spokesman for Sonoma County district attorney Stephen Passalacqua told the Faith that charges against Ochoa allege lewd conduct with a child under age 14 and a minor under 16, as well as forcible sodomy and forcible oral copulation. There are ten felony offenses and one misdemeanor charged against the priest involving three alleged victims. If convicted, Ochoa could face life in prison.

Bishop Walsh and the diocese have been criticized for not reporting Ochoa immediately to authorities. Carol Bauer of the county's family, youth, and children's services told Associated Press that a call should have been made to child protective services within 24 hours -- and not by a lawyer but by the priests who learned of Ochoa's alleged molestation. Child protective services, she said, maintain a 24-hour hotline for such reports. Bauer did not return calls from the Faith for comment. In late July, Passaclacqua's spokesman said that the county sheriff's department was investigating negligence allegations against the diocese.

In a June 23 letter to the diocese, Bishop Walsh wrote, "contrary to some media reports, I assure you that neither I nor any member of the Chancery staff had any prior knowledge of this or any previous incidents involving Fr. Ochoa. In fact, we personally reviewed Fr. Ochoa's personnel file in 2002 and again when these allegations came to light, and found no evidence of these incidents." Walsh noted that "since Fr. Ochoa had many loyal supporters in Sonoma County, I did not consider him to be a flight risk and am dismayed by his decision to flee."

According to Walsh, the county district attorney's office "confirmed publicly" that, in reporting Ochoa, "the Diocese came forward in a 'fairly expedient fashion.'" What did Passalacqua's office think of this claim? "I think it speaks for itself," said the spokesman. "It was a number days that he did come forward. Bishop Walsh's cooperation with law enforcement was one of the reasons why we were able to file charges."

THOUGH LAST YEAR the diocese of Oakland reached a $56.4 million settlement with 56 alleged victims of sexual abuse by priests, it faces more accusations of sexual molestation. This time, however, the perpetrator is not a member of the clergy. Two young women have accused a former youth minister at St. Catherine's parish in Martinez, Ray Valero, 33, of sexually abusing and molesting them between 2002 and 2004. But criminal charges against Valero were thrown out because, as Contra Cost County senior deputy district attorney Dara Cashman told the June 23 Inside the Bay Area, there was not enough evidence against Valero; "in this case," she said, "it comes down to what she said against what he said." Subsequently, in June, the victims' lawyer, Rick Simons of Hayward, filed civil charges against the Oakland diocese.

Cashman told the Faith that she did not have "any information" of the civil charges. She explained, though, that while there was not enough evidence against Valero to justify criminal proceedings against him, civil cases are different. "There are two different burdens of proof," she said. "[In criminal court], we have to prove our case beyond a reasonable doubt. They have to prove it by preponderance, slightly more than half. So there's a really large difference."

What are victims' claims against the diocese? In June 2004 the diocese put in place stricter guidelines governing situations where adults are in contact with minors. Valero's alleged abuse occurred both before and after the issuance of the new guidelines. Do the victims claim that the diocese was negligent for having insufficient guidelines in place before June 2004? And as regards the abuse that is claimed to have occurred after June 2004, is the claim that the diocese did not sufficiently follow its own guidelines?

Father Mark Wiesner, spokesman for the Oakland diocese, told the Faith in late July he was uncertain what the plaintiffs are alleging and if or why they are claiming negligence, since he had not seen the court documents. He said, "the diocese has made no formal statement with respect to the accusations against Mr. Valero. We are cooperating fully with the civil authorities, and Mr. Valero is no longer in the employment of the diocese." As to whether the diocese will fight this case out in court or settle it before a trial occurs, Wiesner said, "it is too early to make this call."

CONTROVERSY OVER THE ORDINATION of homosexual clergy and the blessing of same-sex unions in the Episcopal Church has threatened a schism in the U.S. branch of the worldwide Anglican Communion. The Episcopal diocese of San Joaquin, which oversees Episcopal churches in Central California, has joined the Episcopal dioceses of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Forth Worth, Texas, in seeking to break with the American Episcopal Church and join a foreign Anglican jurisdiction. "What we have asked for is alternate pastoral oversight," the Rev. Van McCalister, spokesman for the San Joaquin diocese, told the Faith. In the past two years, individual Episcopal parishes have sought for such alternate oversight from bishops. But "in our case," said McCalister, "since we're a diocese, we're looking for alternative oversight on the level of an archbishop other than the presiding [American Episcopal] Bishop-elect Katharine Jefferts Schori."

Controversy over the ordination of homosexuals has been brewing since 2003, when the Episcopal Church's general convention approved the consecration as bishop of New Hampshire of Gene Robinson, an avowed homosexual who left his wife for a male partner. In 2004, a commission established by Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury and titular head of the worldwide Anglican Communion, called for a moratorium on consecrating bishop candidates who live in homosexual unions.

But some jurisdictions have ignored the suggestion. In June, for instance, the diocese of Newark, New Jersey, nominated the Very Rev. Canon Michael Barlowe as a finalist for its next bishop. Barlowe is homosexual and lives with his partner in San Francisco. On June 27 of this year, Archbishop Williams suggested a kind of "tiered membership" for churches, with lesser status to be given to jurisdictions that ordain openly homosexual men and bless same-sex unions. The following day, however, the bishop of the diocese of San Joaquin, John-David Schofield, and others asked Williams to grant them alternate jurisdiction.

The problem with Williams' suggestion of "tiered membership" in the Anglican Communion is that it is not specific. The archbishop, said McCalister in July, "hasn't come out with something that describes what that would look like or how it would be administered." In the meantime, the situation in the Episcopal Church has not improved, as far as its more orthodox jurisdictions are concerned. "The direction that the many members of the Episcopal Church are going appears to be departing from the historic faith as we've received it," said McCalister.

In July, McCalister said Bishop Schofield had heard nothing from Archbishop Williams, nor did he know when Williams would respond. And what if the archbishop says "no" to the request for alternate jurisdiction -- what other options would Bishop Schofield have? "I guess, the option would be to wait until another option presents itself," said McCalister.

EPISCOPAL BISHOP SCHOFIELD is unique among the Episcopal hierarchy in that he does not ordain women to the Episcopal ministry. He "does not see the biblical or traditional precedent of women being ordained to the priesthood," said McCalister. "He does, however, encourage and sponsor women (the part that never makes the news) to go all the way through the process. They're supported all the way through seminaries, just like all the men are. He does ordain them to the transitional diaconate." And when these women have done everything they need "to be prepared for ordination to the priesthood, then [Bishop Schofield] will contact or invite them to contact a bishop who is willing to ordain them to the priesthood," McCalister noted.

But women's ordination itself is not an issue in Bishop Schofield's request for alternate jurisdiction; though, said McCalister, there is concern about having pastoral oversight by a woman [Katherine Schori] ordained as a bishop if we have concerns that such an ordination is valid." But, McCalister said, "that's not even the greater concern, which is that, back in the convention of 2000, she refused to sign, voted against, the resolution that Holy Scripture is the authority for the Christian Church and holds all things necessary for salvation."

SUICIDE BILL IS NOT DEAD. A bill that would legalize physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill patients was rejected 2-2 by the state senate judiciary committee on June 27. Committee members opposed to the bill were Republican Senator Tom Harman (Huntington Beach) and Democratic Senator Joe Dunn (Santa Ana). Democrats Martha Escutia (Whittier) and Sheila Kuehl (Santa Monica) supported the bill. The fifth member, Senator Bill Morrow (R-Oceanside), who was not present, was known to oppose the bill.

News reports indicated that the bill's co-sponsors, Assemblyman Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys) and Assemblywoman Patty Berg (D-Eureka), would reintroduce the suicide bill next year. However, Levine spokesman Alex Traverso did not promise this when he spoke to the Faith in June. But, "Assemblymember Levine remains committed to the effort," he said.

"I think at this point the polls show the majority of Californians are in favor of end-of-life choices for terminally ill Californians," said Traverso. (According to a February 2005 Field Poll, 70 percent of Californians support the proposition that "incurably ill patients have the right to ask for and get life-ending medication.") "Obviously, drumming up support in the legislature is something different altogether. Will it come up again this year? Probably not. Will it be back next year? He [Levine] and Assemblymember Berg are mulling over their options at this point. Because we have an election in November, a lot of people we had on our side are going to be gone and a lot of new members will be coming in. So, it's a matter of going through and re-educating people to all the finer points of the issue. Are both of them up for that challenge? At this point, yeah, that's something they're still discussing."

Traverso, however, said it was "tough to say" whether Levin and Berg will champion suicide "through a bill next year, which will be introduced. There are other ways that he [Levine] can still support the issue," said Traverso. Did he mean a ballot measure? "That's something that is discussed by the different groups, like the Compassionate Choices people," said Traverso; "but that would require a lot of money being raised to out-raise the opponents, which are the Catholic Church and the pro-life people that have a lot of money to spend. That's something also that Lloyd's considered also, but there's challenges either way." (A ballot measure calling for the legalization of assisted suicide failed in 1992.)

Does the assemblyman fear a gubernatorial veto of his bill if Schwarzenegger is re-elected? Traverso expressed hope that Arnie would have changed his mind if the bill successfully made its way through both the assembly and the senate. Schwarzenegger's words were "very careful" when he commented on the bill this year, said Traverso. "He said that he preferred it to be something that is left to the people. I think there has been some change of direction in people he's brought onto his staff. After [the governor] met with some people who lobbied with on behalf of the bill, they came away with sort of a good feeling about his stance on the measure. I think that if they were to take on the bill next year and go full out with the same level of energy that we had in the campaign this year, and the bill got to the governor's desk, I think our chances wouldn't be bad at all."

A CASE CHALLENGING California's ban on same-sex marriages continues to inch its way to the state supreme court. Last year, the case brought by the city of San Francisco and same-sex couples was heard in San Francisco superior court, and Judge Richard Kramer ruled that the state law, approved by voters in 2000 as Proposition 22, violated the state constitution. On July 10, the first district court of appeal heard oral arguments in the case. According to news reports, of the members of the three judge panel, Justice J. Anthony Kline (appointed by Governor Jerry Brown) seemed most inclined to uphold Kramer's decision, while Justices William McGuiness and Joanne Parrilli (both Davis appointees) were less clear. The appeals court was expected to rule on the case in October.

Randy Thomasson, executive director of the Campaign for California Families, has joined California attorney general Bill Lockyer in arguing that the state's marriage laws should be upheld. The Faith asked Thomasson, who was in court July 10, for his assessment of Judge Kline. Did the justice seem to lean Kramer-wards? "Probably," said Thomasson. "However, that's unknown. He was appointed by Jerry Brown, and he seemed to be legitimately struggling with the issue or truly pestering the pro-family attorneys. So we 're not sure. He's very verbal, very transparent, very intellectual. He has a background as a sort of a community justice attorney."

What of Justices McGuiness and Parrilli? "I thought they asked good questions," said Thomasson. "I think that the presiding justice, McGuiness, said appropriately, 'so you're asking us to redefine marriage?' He understood what they were asking him to do. Parrilli asked questions that seemed to indicate that she believed the people should decide this issue, not the court."

According to Thomasson, "Parrilli and McGuiness acknowledged that if love and commitment were the only two qualifications for marriage, then homosexual marriage legalization could open the door to polygamous marriages. There would no longer be a line of definition that would be objective. Even Kline took note of that argument, though he said it's not something he was necessarily concerned about."

How the appeals court will rule is "unknown," said Thomasson. "If marriage loses in the appeals court, marriage is very likely to lose at the California supreme court. If marriage wins at the appeals court, it's unknown whether marriage will win at the supreme court. The reason is that there are two judges on the state supreme court that wanted San Francisco's marriage train to continue. They are Jusices Werdegar and Joyce Kennard. The third homosexual marriage supporting judge was added by Arnold Schwarzenegger, and her name is Carol Corrigan. The homosexual marriage supporting organizations were ecstatic over her. That's three, they only need four. And that fourth is Carlos Moreno, who was appointed by Gray Davis."

Prospects of a pro-family victory in the state supreme court are not good, according to Thomasson. It is why he and others are promoting the VoteYesMarriage.com effort, to promote a ballot measure that would change the state constitution to protect marriage and forbid state recognition of homosexual marriage. The campaign needs to raise more than $1 million before it can begin signature gathering. VoteYesMarriage.com can be found on the internet or contacted by writing, P.O. Box 1978, Sacramento, California 95812.

MORE HOMOSEXUAL ADOPTIONS? News reports in July said that the percentage of homosexuals who intend to bring children into their homes has almost doubled since 2002, while the number of lesbians who want children has more than tripled. The results were drawn from a "Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census" (with 7,500 respondents) conducted by Syracuse University in New York and OpusComm Group, Incorporated, also of Syracuse. According to the census, "32% of males [homosexuals] and 66% of females [lesbians] plan on adding children to their family in the next 3 years." This, said news reports, is up from 2002, when it was reported that 18 percent of lesbians and five percent of homosexuals said they wanted to bring children into their homes. Studies conducted in 1995 and 1996 claimed that the number of children being raised by homosexual parents was between two and eight million.

But, according to OpusComm's Jeff Graber, the way the 2006 census stated the matter was misleading. In its report, OpusComm mispoke; "it gave the impression that 32 percent of men and 66 percent of females are adopting," he told the Faith. What the report should have said, according to Graber, is that these percentages were percentages of a percentage. Namely, of the homosexuals and lesbians who intend to bring children into their homes, 32 percent were male and 66 percent were female. And what is the percentage of homosexuals, male and female, who said they planned to bring children into their homes? It was 9.2 percent, said Graber.

According to the Gay/Lesbian Online Census, 21 percent of lesbians and five percent of homosexuals currently have an underage child living with them at home. The 2000 U.S. Census reported that 34 percent of lesbian couples and 22 percent of homosexual couples were raising children.

A BILL THAT WOULD REQUIRE state textbooks to carry information about "homosexual roles and contributions" to California and the United States benefited from a special rule waiver in the state assembly, charged state senator Ray Haynes in June. SB 1437, ("School Instruction; prohibition of discriminatory conduct") is a bill sponsored by openly lesbian state senator Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica). The bill, passed by the senate in May, went on to the assembly, where it was "double referred to assembly education and judish" [sic, assembly education and judiciary committees], said a spokesman for Senator Kuehl. "There was a hearing scheduled for the 20th," he continued, "and the hearing was put over, at the request of the consultant, to the 27th. And then, at that point, the [judiciary] committee decided to waive jurisdiction of the bill."

It was the judiciary committee's waiver of jurisdiction -- that is, its decision not to review the bill -- that bothered Senator Haynes. According to the California Political Review's June 29 "Capitol Watch," "GOP Assemblyman Ray Haynes charged Democrats with twisting long-established procedure to force through an unpopular bill in a high-handed maneuver no Republican measure would ever be given. 'How unusual is this?' Haynes asked. 'It has never happened before in my entire 14 years in the Legislature.'"

Senator Haynes did not respond to the Faith's request for further comment. But Kuehl's representative (who said that he could only "provide background and stuff," but could not speak for Sheila Kuehl), such a waiver of jurisdiction by a committee "happens all the time." He said he understood the objection -- "I saw the floor discussion of the motion that was referring the bill to the floor, and I know that some of the Republican members were displeased about [the waiver]; but it's not an uncommon thing."

YES, CALIFORNIA HAS ITS OWN department of homeland security, which, according to a July 1 Los Angeles Times story, has been conducting surveillance not only of terrorist groups but political demonstrations. Established after September 11, 2001, the mostly federally financed California Office of Homeland Security is part of a state anti-terrorism partnership that includes the state attorney general's office and the California Highway Patrol. The Times received two of about 60 reports issued by the homeland security office since March, which contained details of political rallies that were under surveillance and reported on by a private company, SRA International, which does counter-terrorism analysis.

The two reports the Times obtained contained details on the "whereabouts and purposes" of demonstrations that included an animal rights rally held outside the Canadian consulate in San Francisco; a demonstration against the Iraq War in Walnut Creek, in which Democratic U.S. representative George Miller (Martinez) and other officials participated; and a protest by the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom organization at a courthouse in Santa Barbara for a 56-year old Salinas woman facing federal charges for trespassing at Vandenburg Air Force Base in an anti-war demonstration.

Critics of the surveillances carried out under the state homeland security department included the state attorney general Bill Lockyer's office, which on June 30 called them unconstitutional. A representative of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom said her group was "obviously appalled, disturbed that our rights to freedom of speech and freedom of protest are being violated."

But were they? The Pacific Justice Institute's Brad Dacus said, no. "I have total respect for the department of homeland security and the efforts they have taken to fulfill their need to protect U.S. citizens," he told the Faith. "The Department of Homeland Security has laws and clear boundaries under the law by which they can operate, and if they go outside those boundaries, then there is an issue. But based on what we've seen, what they've done is within the confines of the law and the constitution."

Dacus said government surveillance of activities such as political rallies does not necessarily violate the right to free speech. "If they prevent the speech, then there is an issue," he said. "And if that speech prevented had no compelling interest -- is not related to health and safety concerns or national security concerns -- then there would be an issue. But we have seen no reports that the free speech rights of any individual or group have been violated in a manner that would be deemed unconstitutional."

But Representative George Miller, who participated in the March 18 Walnut Creek protest of the Iraq War, indicated in a July 6 statement that surveillance of lawful public demonstrations violates free speech by intimidating the speakers. "The notion that federal, state or local governments would covertly monitor citizens engaged in peaceful political expression is completely unacceptable and in violation of the fundamental spirit that established our democracy," wrote Miller. "Government monitoring of peaceful activities serves to intimidate its citizens from exercising their fundamental rights."

"I TRESPASSED. I stepped over a green line in order to ask the authorities at Vandenburg [Air Force Base] to stop participating in an illegal war, coordinating the bombing of Iraq with their satellites, providing ground and sea and air support to the fighters." So said MacGregor Eddy, the 56-year-old Salinas woman whose trial in Santa Barbara and accompanying protest drew the attention of the state department of homeland security. Eddy was arrested for trespassing on October 8, 2005, during a protest at Vandeburg organized by the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom and the Global Network Against Weapons in Space.

Besides sending up satellites to coordinate the bombing of Iraq, Vandenburg, Eddy told the Faith, develops delivery systems for nuclear weapons. "In fact," she said, "they sent up just June 15 the Minuteman III ICBM that went the 5,000 miles to Kwagelein Atoll [in the South Pacific]. They do that all the time -- and that's exactly what we are having fits about North Korea doing once. We're spending more on nuclear weapons now and delivery systems than we did during the Cold War. Vandenburg is a key test site."

Eddy, whose first court date was in December 2005, said her trial was stretched out over six months because, though "the federal court is in Los Angeles, they come up to Santa Barbara one day a month for the convenience of Vandenburg Air Force Base, which is huge." For each of her trial dates, she said, about ten to 11 members of the Santa Barbara group of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom demonstrated before the court house. As for the homeland security department "spy," Eddy said, "we kind of think we know who he was, because he was standing there taking notes. The MPs at Vandenburg are much more sensible and economical, because when they want to know what is happening, they call me up and ask me -- which I think is pretty straightforward intelligence gathering. I don't think terrorist cells are quite that approachable."

Though it was her second offense charge for trespassing at Vandenburg, Eddy was given no jail time. Instead, the judge gave her a $2,500 fine and two years' probation. Of course, she said, she came to the sentencing with good recommendations. "The probation department had written this glowing report about me -- I think because I work on gang protection activities in my community," she said. "I've won human rights awards. I had a letter of recommendation from San Farr, my member from Congress."

Though she thought she might have gone to jail, Eddy said, "people like me, middle class people who have lawyers and friends, we're not really at risk. I'm a white, middle class lady. I was ready to go to jail; but I'm retired, they can't fire me. I got a lot of publicity; they're not likely to treat me badly. It's up to us the privileged people to defend those rights, because they belong to everybody."

Another Keep Space for Peace week was scheduled at Vandenburg for this October 8. Would Eddy cross the line at that demonstration? She said she did not know, though she said she probably would not "cross the green line because I don't see what will be accomplished by it." Her last trespassing got her sufficient publicity. "But I tell you something," she said, "if they do something outrageous like attack Iran, I might cross the line. Right now, I can't tell what I'll do and not do. It depends on what they do."

TOP