The wide news media coverage of the November 10, 1969 ruling of U.S. District Court Judge Gerhard A. Gesell in which he held unconstitutional a statute of the District of Columbia enacted in 1901 which permitted induced abortions only when necessary for the preservation of the mother's life or health, points up the general public concern about the laws in the United States on abortion. In September 1969, California's law on abortion was declared unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court. Recently, four New York physicians instituted suit to challenge the constitutionality of New York's abortion statutes. In recent years, twenty-two states have considered or enacted statutes making abortions legal which are performed for many reasons other than to preserve the mother's life. Virginia's neighbors, North Carolina and Maryland have enacted such statutes.

Research reveals that Virginia's statutes concerning abortion are presently written in almost the same language as they were in 1847. A comparison follows: The Acts of Assembly 1847-1848 read:

§ 8. Any free person who shall administer to, or cause to be taken, by a woman, any drug or other thing, or use any means, with intent to destroy her unborn child, or to produce abortion or miscarriage, and shall thereby destroy such child, or produce such abortion. or miscarriage, shall be confined to the penitentiary not less than one, nor more than five years. No person, by reason of any act mentioned in this section, shall be punishable where such act is done in good faith, with the intention of saving the life of such woman or child.

The Code of Virginia, §§ 18.1-62 and 18.1-63 are:

§ 18.1-62. Producing abortion or miscarriage, etc. - If any person administer to, or cause to be taken by a woman, any drug or other thing, or use means, with intent to destroy her unborn child, or to produce abortion or miscarriage, and thereby destroy such child, or produce such abortion or miscarriage, he shall ·be confined in the penitentiary not less than one nor more than ten years. No person, by reason of any act mentioned in this section, shall be punishable when such act is done in good faith, with the intention of saving the life of such woman or child.

§ 18.1-63. Encouraging procuring of abortion by advertisement, etc. - If any person, by publication, lecture, advertisement, or by. the sale or circulation of any publication, or in any other manner, encourage or prompt the procuring of abortion or miscarriage, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The apparent need for considering revision of the State's laws on abortion was called to the attention of the 1968 General Assembly of Virginia by a bill which was introduced to repeal all the State's laws on abortion. This did not pass, but a resolution was adopted by the General Assembly creating this study -- House Joint Resolution No. 148.

Pursuant to the resolution, the Virginia Advisory Legislative Council selected Dr. J. D. Hagood, Clover, member of the Senate and of the Council to be Chairman of a committee to make a study of this matter and report to it. The following citizens of Virginia served with Dr. Hagood on the Committee:

Honorable Howard P. Anderson, Halifax; Dr. J. McDermott Barnes, Richmond; Anthony C. Gaudio, Arlington; Dr. E. Stanley Grannum, Newport News; Rev. J. Fletcher Lowe, Jr., Richmond; Mrs. James P. Mills, Middleburg; Honorable A. H. Richardson, Dinwiddie; Dr. Mack L Shanholtz, Richmond; Dr. Robert S. Smith, Dinwiddie; Dr. H. Hudnall Ware, Jr., Richmond; Dr. W. W. Walton, Pulaski; and Mrs. Alex H. Williams, Jr., Richmond.

The Committee at its organizational meeting elected A. H. Richardson, member of the House, Vice-Chairman. The office of the Secretary to the VALC acted as secretariat to the Committee, Frank R. Dunham representing it. The Committee held public hearings in Richmond and Arlington, in addition to many executive meetings and received and studied many articles, reports, statutes, pamphlets, letters, surveys and other material on the various aspects of abortion including its medical and legal history, and its present status. Also the attitudes toward abortion in Virginia and in other states and nations were presented and studied. The Committee conducted its study with an open mind and gave careful consideration to every opinion and suggestion expressed to it.

The Committee submitted a report, from which one of its members dissented.