## Facts

- Dr. Leon Phillip Belous, a licensed obstetrician-gynecologist, was contacted by a young woman (“Cheryl”) and her fiancé (“Clifton”), who believed Cheryl was pregnant after medication intended to induce menstruation failed.
- The couple sought Belous after seeing him publicly support reform of California’s abortion laws; they were distressed and stated they would obtain an abortion “one way or another.”
- Belous examined Cheryl and concluded she was possibly pregnant and otherwise healthy; he stated he did not perform abortions and warned about the dangers of illegal abortions, including those performed in Mexico.
- After continued pleas, Belous provided a telephone number in Chula Vista, quoted an approximate fee, prescribed antibiotics, and instructed Cheryl to return.
- Evidence supported that the number connected to an individual who performed abortions and that Belous had referred women to that person.
- The prosecution theory was that providing a referral constituted “provid[ing] or assist[ing] in procuring a miscarriage” under California Penal Code § 274, which allowed abortions only when “necessary to preserve [the woman’s] life.”

## Issues

1. Whether California Penal Code § 274 was unconstitutionally vague because it failed to define when an abortion is “necessary to preserve [the woman’s] life.”
2. Whether § 274’s severe restriction on abortion impermissibly burdened constitutionally protected privacy and liberty interests in decisions about whether to bear children.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the order granting probation, effectively vacating the conviction.
- The court held Penal Code § 274 invalid under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because its “necessary to preserve [her] life” exception was unconstitutionally vague.
- The court reasoned that the statute lacked clear standards for physicians and invited arbitrary enforcement.
- Although the formal ground of decision was vagueness, the court emphasized that reproductive decision-making implicates fundamental liberty and privacy interests that require especially clear legislative standards.

## Legal Principles

- A criminal statute violates due process if it fails to give fair notice of prohibited conduct or lacks standards sufficient to prevent arbitrary enforcement.
- When a statute conditions criminal liability on a medical judgment (e.g., whether an abortion is “necessary” to preserve “life”), due process requires a sufficiently definite standard so physicians can conform conduct to law.
- The liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment includes significant privacy interests in marital and familial decision-making, including whether to bear children; restrictions affecting that choice demand clear, workable legal standards.
- Vague criminal prohibitions can chill lawful and medically appropriate care by exposing clinicians to serious penalties for uncertain line-drawing.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated California’s abortion statute because its undefined “life” exception provided inadequate guidance to physicians and permitted arbitrary enforcement, and it stressed that reproductive choice is a protected aspect of liberty and privacy requiring clear legislative limits on criminal punishment.


People v. Belous, 458 P.2d 194 (Cal. 1969)