Popular in Arts and Humanities

Arts and Humanities

Titus Quinctius Flamininus’ “Italian triumph”

McGill University Michael Fronda

Arts and Humanities

Lincoln and the Jews

Brandeis University Jonathan Sarna

Arts and Humanities

Amputations and Convalescence

University of Western Australia Emily Brink

Art

Drawing on the past: Palladio, his precursors and knowledge of ancient architecture

University of Birmingham David Hemsoll

Art

Language, Sound, and Image in Wallace Berman’s Aleph, 1956–1966

University of San Diego Chelsea Behle Fralick

Arts and Humanities

Early Modern Natural Law Theories

University of Copenhagen Knud Haakonssen

From Back Alley to the Border

View more insights in Arts and Humanities - Books - History - History of North America and the United States

View more figures from California State University

View the page of Alicia Gutierrez-Romine

Read the Study

Alicia Gutierrez-Romine’s “From Back Alley to the Border” sheds light on illegal abortion history. Insightful, captivating, thought-provoking.

Image courtesy of interviewee. December 8, 2023

Generating Workspace

Export as PDF

This video video discusses an exploration of medical history, specifically focusing on abortion in California. The author, motivated by chance, discovered archival records at the California State Archives that detailed illegal operations, which led to an investigation into the history of abortion legislation. Initially, from statehood until 1935, California law allowed physicians to perform abortions with minimal oversight, but this changed with increased restrictions introduced in 1935, which limited abortions to life-threatening situations.

The book titled "From Back Alley to the Board Border" traces the narrative of criminal abortion practices from past conditions into the 1960s, highlighting how women began traveling to Mexico for abortions to avoid the restrictions imposed by the medical community and legislation. A significant case referenced is the Bellis case, where the California Supreme Court ruled against existing abortion statutes, reflecting a shift in the legal landscape.

The author argues that physicians should be trusted to determine the medical necessity of abortions, criticizing the involvement of legislators without medical expertise in shaping laws related to medical practices. The historical context suggests that previous abortion restrictions have led to complications and do not effectively resolve the issues at hand, aiming to illustrate lessons from the past for today's discussions around abortion laws.

Language:

Export as PDF

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.185 --> 00:02.405
So happenstance motivated the book.

00:02.625 --> 00:05.005
Um, I knew I was interested in medical history,

00:05.345 --> 00:08.565
and so I went to the California State Archives looking

00:08.705 --> 00:12.085
for a story about medicine in Southern California,

00:12.785 --> 00:15.925
and I ended up finding a lot of records about

00:16.355 --> 00:19.645
what was simply described as illegal operations.

00:20.425 --> 00:23.885
And the further I went down this rabbit hole, I realized

00:23.915 --> 00:27.485
that illegal operation was a euphemism for abortion.

00:27.825 --> 00:31.045
And I became really fascinated by the story

00:31.045 --> 00:32.085
that was unfolding,

00:32.625 --> 00:33.965
and I decided that

00:34.355 --> 00:36.525
that was the avenue that I was going to take.

00:36.525 --> 00:38.925
That was the aspect of medical history I was going

00:38.925 --> 00:41.805
to focus on, as these documents just kind

00:41.805 --> 00:43.685
of started unfolding in front of me.

00:43.985 --> 00:45.765
I'm a historian, I'm a trained historian,

00:45.945 --> 00:47.445
and so primarily

00:47.635 --> 00:50.565
what I do is I focus on documents from the time

00:50.565 --> 00:51.965
period that I'm studying.

00:52.105 --> 00:53.525
So these are called primary sources.

00:54.385 --> 00:58.605
And I focused on looking at these records

00:58.715 --> 01:01.005
that were primarily from law enforcement

01:01.265 --> 01:04.885
and from the organized and professional medical community.

01:05.545 --> 01:10.005
And through these documents, I was able to see kind of

01:10.185 --> 01:12.925
how the medical community was trying to police itself,

01:13.465 --> 01:16.125
and that produced this kind of narrative

01:16.125 --> 01:18.445
that I ultimately translated into the book.

01:18.745 --> 01:21.405
So a lot of it is, is my interpretation.

01:21.405 --> 01:24.805
That is how historians do our work that is secondary,

01:25.245 --> 01:26.805
research, but it is based

01:26.805 --> 01:30.485
and grounded in archival research of primary sources.

01:30.995 --> 01:35.405
This was something that I thought was really fascinating

01:35.405 --> 01:37.245
because if we look at,

01:37.675 --> 01:40.525
even just if we backtrack a little bit to the 19th century,

01:40.865 --> 01:44.725
we can see that every state in the United States started

01:44.725 --> 01:47.645
developing legislation that began

01:47.645 --> 01:50.085
to restrict abortion in the 18 hundreds.

01:50.865 --> 01:55.445
And so from statehood, California had a law that,

01:55.905 --> 01:58.565
basically made abortions illegal

01:59.305 --> 02:00.685
unless the person

02:00.825 --> 02:03.845
who was performing those procedures was a physician

02:04.425 --> 02:07.685
who within the scope of their medical practice, believed

02:07.685 --> 02:09.565
that that procedure was necessary.

02:10.425 --> 02:13.605
And so from statehood through

02:14.325 --> 02:15.525
1935,

02:16.585 --> 02:20.135
physicians in California really have carte blanche.

02:20.205 --> 02:23.655
They can perform whatever abortion they believe are

02:23.655 --> 02:26.055
necessary, and there isn't really much oversight

02:26.195 --> 02:27.815
or anything over them.

02:28.475 --> 02:32.135
Um, physicians are trusted to be able

02:32.235 --> 02:35.775
to discern when they believe an abortion is necessary,

02:35.915 --> 02:38.615
and there aren't a lot of people asking questions

02:38.795 --> 02:41.335
to question them or critique them about their

02:41.335 --> 02:42.775
justification for it.

02:43.565 --> 02:45.505
So legislation in California

02:46.035 --> 02:50.985
until 1935 basically said physicians can perform abortions.

02:50.985 --> 02:53.745
The only time abortions are illegal is if a

02:54.455 --> 02:56.625
non-physician is performing them.

02:57.665 --> 02:58.705
1935 is when

02:58.705 --> 03:02.045
That changes and when abortions as a whole,

03:02.145 --> 03:06.725
as a procedure themselves are beginning to be restricted.

03:07.585 --> 03:12.245
So abortions after 1935 are only allowed in instances

03:12.875 --> 03:16.765
when it's necessary to save a woman's life,

03:17.025 --> 03:19.725
and there's no longer an exception for physicians

03:19.825 --> 03:22.605
or any kind of protections for them to kind

03:22.605 --> 03:24.885
of let them do their practice independently.

03:25.875 --> 03:28.775
So 1935 is really when we're starting

03:28.795 --> 03:30.735
to see a little bit more oversight.

03:30.995 --> 03:33.295
The book is called From Back Alley to the Board Border.

03:33.295 --> 03:37.015
It traces criminal abortion from kind of what we see

03:37.075 --> 03:39.575
as the stereotypical back alley butcher.

03:40.155 --> 03:44.055
Um, and it follows basically this arc of

03:44.815 --> 03:48.415
criminal abortion in California until the 1960s.

03:48.725 --> 03:52.495
When we see women who are beginning to, in an attempt to

03:53.375 --> 03:56.175
exercise autonomy and e escape

03:56.275 --> 03:57.855
or evade this oversight

03:57.885 --> 04:01.735
that is preventing them from acquiring abortions, they begin

04:01.735 --> 04:06.495
to cross the border into Mexico in an attempt to be able

04:06.515 --> 04:09.495
to acquire these procedures that they want.

04:10.645 --> 04:14.305
So the medical community, there is this kind

04:14.305 --> 04:19.265
of shift beginning in in the 1930s to more oversights,

04:19.265 --> 04:22.345
more control as labor delivery

04:22.525 --> 04:24.865
and abortions move into the hospitals,

04:25.375 --> 04:27.545
there's more oversight.

04:27.615 --> 04:31.265
There's more of an opportunity for people to begin

04:31.265 --> 04:35.265
to monitor, implement quotas on abortions.

04:35.765 --> 04:40.465
Um, and so women are essentially trying to avoid this kind

04:40.465 --> 04:42.985
of repressive regime and the surveillance.

04:43.205 --> 04:47.185
And so they are choosing to cross the national border,

04:47.245 --> 04:49.385
in order to acquire these procedures.

04:49.925 --> 04:54.065
Bellis was, I argue, a really important case

04:54.765 --> 04:59.145
in that it is when we see the California Supreme Court

04:59.695 --> 05:02.265
drop the, restrictions on abortion.

05:02.405 --> 05:06.265
We find that in the Bella case you have a well respected

05:06.265 --> 05:07.905
physician, Dr. Leon Ballis.

05:08.685 --> 05:12.105
He is arguing that yes,

05:12.405 --> 05:16.905
he referred a patient to a provider of illegal abortions

05:17.165 --> 05:19.105
who was a trained medical professional,

05:19.125 --> 05:21.385
but he did not have a, a medical reason

05:21.455 --> 05:23.065
that justified illegal abortion.

05:24.045 --> 05:28.665
He argued that it was within the scope of his practice,

05:28.815 --> 05:31.025
that it was within the parameters

05:31.445 --> 05:36.345
of protecting a patient's life, that he made this referral

05:36.695 --> 05:38.185
because he feared

05:38.375 --> 05:42.185
that if the patient did not get an abortion

05:42.185 --> 05:44.665
with the reputable provider in the United States,

05:44.895 --> 05:48.185
that she was going to go across the border into Mexico

05:48.965 --> 05:53.025
and could potentially resort to some type of butchery.

05:53.245 --> 05:56.865
He used the word butchery. And so he

05:56.865 --> 05:59.405
Is, is making this argument about quality of care,

05:59.405 --> 06:01.925
that he believed that she would find better quality of care,

06:02.385 --> 06:05.245
in the United States with someone that he referred her

06:05.245 --> 06:08.565
to, and that if she went across the border to Mexico,

06:09.025 --> 06:10.725
she was taking her life in her hand

06:10.725 --> 06:12.645
and then her life would be at risk.

06:13.065 --> 06:16.725
So in order to prevent her from having her life at risk,

06:16.945 --> 06:18.765
it was better for her

06:18.865 --> 06:21.605
to have an illegal abortion in the United States.

06:22.465 --> 06:24.445
And so there's a lot of back and forth.

06:24.905 --> 06:28.925
Um, in this particular case, there's an initial, holding

06:28.985 --> 06:31.085
and then there's an appeal when it gets

06:31.085 --> 06:33.885
to the California Supreme Court, they ultimately decide

06:34.155 --> 06:37.125
that our existing bor abortion statute in the state

06:37.125 --> 06:38.845
of California is void for vagueness

06:38.845 --> 06:42.045
because how does a physician know if,

06:42.345 --> 06:44.165
if a woman's life is at risk

06:44.465 --> 06:47.485
and how, how much

06:47.545 --> 06:49.565
of a constraint on her life

06:49.665 --> 06:53.165
and liberty are taking place if we have to guarantee

06:53.395 --> 06:57.285
that she is going to die if she does not get this procedure?

06:58.105 --> 06:59.765
And so with the Bella's case,

07:00.145 --> 07:03.605
we see California drop its existing abortion statute,

07:04.225 --> 07:06.085
and it's the first state to do so

07:06.185 --> 07:09.765
before other states like New York begin to

07:10.605 --> 07:12.645
explicitly legalize abortion.

07:12.745 --> 07:16.285
So I argue that it's a sea change where we begin to realize

07:16.355 --> 07:19.125
that the existing abortion statutes are no longer

07:19.315 --> 07:21.045
tenable in the United States.

07:21.445 --> 07:26.045
I hope readers will see that we've had abortion restrictions

07:26.065 --> 07:30.165
before and that it leads us into this kind

07:30.165 --> 07:34.325
of messy area where we have legislators and physicians

07:34.425 --> 07:37.885
and patients kind of all triangulated together.

07:38.625 --> 07:43.165
Um, we need to trust physicians to be able to do the,

07:43.985 --> 07:45.885
the things that they think are medically necessary.

07:46.745 --> 07:50.045
And it's also problematic when we have legislators

07:50.145 --> 07:53.045
who have no medical training developing laws about

07:53.145 --> 07:54.685
how we practice medicine.

07:55.585 --> 07:59.245
So I'm hoping readers will see examples of the past of

07:59.245 --> 08:01.685
what it's looked like when we've had,

08:02.045 --> 08:03.125
abortion restriction before,

08:03.865 --> 08:06.245
and to realize that it doesn't always work

08:07.145 --> 08:10.085
and it ends up creating a lot more problems

08:10.145 --> 08:13.285
and cases, than it actually curtails.

00:00 - So happenstance motivated the book. I knew I was interested in medical history, and so I went to the California State Archives looking for a story about medicine in Southern California, and I ended up finding a lot of records about what was simply described as illegal operations.

00:20 - And the further I went down this rabbit hole, I realized that illegal operation was a euphemism for abortion. And I became really fascinated by the story that was unfolding, and I decided that that was the avenue that I was going to take. That was the aspect of medical history I was going to focus on, as these documents just kind of started unfolding in front of me. I'm a historian, I'm a trained historian,

00:45 - and so primarily what I do is I focus on documents from the time period that I'm studying. So these are called primary sources. And I focused on looking at these records that were primarily from law enforcement and from the organized and professional medical community. And through these documents, I was able to see kind of how the medical community was trying to police itself, and that produced this kind of narrative

01:16 - that I ultimately translated into the book. So a lot of it is, is my interpretation. That is how historians do our work that is secondary, research, but it is based and grounded in archival research of primary sources. This was something that I thought was really fascinating because if we look at, even just if we backtrack a little bit to the 19th century, we can see that every state in the United States started developing legislation that began

01:47 - to restrict abortion in the 18 hundreds. And so from statehood, California had a law that, basically made abortions illegal unless the person who was performing those procedures was a physician who within the scope of their medical practice, believed that that procedure was necessary. And so from statehood through 1935, physicians in California really have carte blanche.

02:20 - They can perform whatever abortion they believe are necessary, and there isn't really much oversight or anything over them. physicians are trusted to be able to discern when they believe an abortion is necessary, and there aren't a lot of people asking questions to question them or critique them about their justification for it. So legislation in California until 1935 basically said physicians can perform abortions.

02:50 - The only time abortions are illegal is if a non-physician is performing them. 1935 is when That changes and when abortions as a whole, as a procedure themselves are beginning to be restricted. So abortions after 1935 are only allowed in instances when it's necessary to save a woman's life, and there's no longer an exception for physicians or any kind of protections for them to kind of let them do their practice independently.

03:25 - So 1935 is really when we're starting to see a little bit more oversight. The book is called From Back Alley to the Board Border. It traces criminal abortion from kind of what we see as the stereotypical back alley butcher. and it follows basically this arc of criminal abortion in California until the 1960s. When we see women who are beginning to, in an attempt to exercise autonomy and e escape or evade this oversight

03:57 - that is preventing them from acquiring abortions, they begin to cross the border into Mexico in an attempt to be able to acquire these procedures that they want. So the medical community, there is this kind of shift beginning in in the 1930s to more oversights, more control as labor delivery and abortions move into the hospitals, there's more oversight. There's more of an opportunity for people to begin to monitor, implement quotas on abortions.

04:35 - and so women are essentially trying to avoid this kind of repressive regime and the surveillance. And so they are choosing to cross the national border, in order to acquire these procedures. Bellis was, I argue, a really important case in that it is when we see the California Supreme Court drop the, restrictions on abortion. We find that in the Bella case you have a well respected physician, Dr. Leon Ballis. He is arguing that yes,

05:12 - he referred a patient to a provider of illegal abortions who was a trained medical professional, but he did not have a, a medical reason that justified illegal abortion. He argued that it was within the scope of his practice, that it was within the parameters of protecting a patient's life, that he made this referral because he feared that if the patient did not get an abortion with the reputable provider in the United States,

05:44 - that she was going to go across the border into Mexico and could potentially resort to some type of butchery. He used the word butchery. And so he Is, is making this argument about quality of care, that he believed that she would find better quality of care, in the United States with someone that he referred her to, and that if she went across the border to Mexico, she was taking her life in her hand and then her life would be at risk. So in order to prevent her from having her life at risk,

06:16 - it was better for her to have an illegal abortion in the United States. And so there's a lot of back and forth. in this particular case, there's an initial, holding and then there's an appeal when it gets to the California Supreme Court, they ultimately decide that our existing bor abortion statute in the state of California is void for vagueness because how does a physician know if, if a woman's life is at risk

06:44 - and how, how much of a constraint on her life and liberty are taking place if we have to guarantee that she is going to die if she does not get this procedure? And so with the Bella's case, we see California drop its existing abortion statute, and it's the first state to do so before other states like New York begin to explicitly legalize abortion. So I argue that it's a sea change where we begin to realize

07:16 - that the existing abortion statutes are no longer tenable in the United States. I hope readers will see that we've had abortion restrictions before and that it leads us into this kind of messy area where we have legislators and physicians and patients kind of all triangulated together. we need to trust physicians to be able to do the, the things that they think are medically necessary. And it's also problematic when we have legislators who have no medical training developing laws about

07:53 - how we practice medicine. So I'm hoping readers will see examples of the past of what it's looked like when we've had, abortion restriction before, and to realize that it doesn't always work and it ends up creating a lot more problems and cases, than it actually curtails.

Faculti AI can make mistakes