University of Virginia Library

Panel Examines Abortion Laws

The arguments for and against
modernizing Virginia's abortion
law, a law that was established in
1849, were offered by five authorities
Tuesday at the University
Medical School.

A cross section of opinions were
presented, The Daily Progress
noted, in the program sponsored by
the Walter Reed Society and the
Department of Preventive Medicine.

Dr. George Langmhyr of New
York, who is the Medical director
of Planned Parenthood of America,
noted that planned parenthood has
yet taken no announced position
on abortion. But Dr. Langmhyr
added that the group's medical
board endorses the position that
abortions should be a medical
matter rather than a legal problem.

Joseph V. Gartlan Jr., legal
representative of the Virginia Society
for Human Life, opposed Mr.
Langmhyr's position. He said that
the society opposes abortion unless
the life of the mother is threatened.
This position, the attorney noted,
was a "life versus a life" situation.

Mr. Gartlan made the claim that
every reason for abortion was
essentially a justification for homicide.
He based this conclusion on
the premise that even in the earliest
stages of development the unborn
fetus is a "life."

Dr. Mason Andrews presented
the case for liberalizing the existing
laws. Last year he had testified
before the General Assembly, The
Daily Progress reports, in favor of
modernizing the abortion laws. Dr.
Andrews spoke as a representative
of the Medical Society of Virginia,
but was careful to emphasis
Tuesday that his comments were
his own.

The society Dr. Andrews represented
asked last year that in
addition to legal abortions where
the mother's life was at stake, the
law be broadened to allow abortions
for cases where the fetus was
deformed or the mother's health
was threatened. In addition they
requested that abortion be made
legal for some cases of incest or
rape.

Dr. Andrews added to these cases
Tuesday, by saying that he personally
felt that abortions should be
allowed where the psychiatric
health of the mother was threatened.

This position was opposed by
Albemarle-Green Del. Daniel G. van
Clef on the grounds that psychiatry
is not yet a precise enough
science to tell whether psychiatric
disturbances were probable.

Mr. van Clef, the only legislator
on the panel, supported the medical
society's position in the General
Assembly. He added that the
legislative bill offered last year was
side-tracked for study, and a report
is due Nov. 1 from the legislative
advisory group working on it.

Although the sponsor of the bill,
Del. Wallace Dickson, has resigned
form the legislature, Dr. Andrews
predicted that the issue would be
introduced at the General Assembly's
next session.

Dr. Louis Devolt, vice president
of the Virginia Society for Human
Life, was the fifth member of the
panel. This state group formed to
oppose the liberalization of the
abortion laws.

Dr. Devolt opposed the liberalization
as a gynecologist and "also a
Catholic."

An opposing view was offered
by a medical student during a
discussion following a diner of the
Reed Society. The student commented
that there were only two
reasons or arguments that could be
presented to oppose abortion. The
first represented the Judeo-Christian
religious ethic, the second
he felt stemmed from a need for
moral punishment for sexual enjoyment.