The Vermont Conversation with David Goodman is a VTDigger podcast that features in-depth interviews on local and national issues with politicians, activists, artists, changemakers and citizens who are making a difference. Listen below, and subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts or Spotify to hear more.
This Vermont Conversation with Jackson Beecham originally aired in July 2022.
When the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade on June 24, it left each state to decide its own abortion laws. Many Republican-led states are reverting to the anti-abortion laws that were on the books before 1973 when Roe legalized abortion.
Vermont legalized abortion a year before Roe. In 1972, the Vermont Supreme Court overturned a 122 year-old law that made it a crime for a doctor to perform an abortion, though it was not against the law for someone to have one. In practice, this meant that someone could legally self-abort at their own peril, but a doctor who performed an abortion could be arrested and imprisoned for up to 20 years.
The case that legalized abortion in Vermont featured “Jacqueline R.,” an unmarried server who wanted to end her pregnancy, and an OB/GYN resident at the University of Vermont named Jackson Beecham.
After New York legalized abortion in 1970, Beecham, a conscientious objector during the Vietnam War, joined a small group of women’s health advocates in Burlington who were exploring ways to legalize abortion in the Green Mountain State. Attorney Willis “Woody” Higgins, a lawyer for IBM who volunteered to argue the case, advised the group that they needed two plaintiffs: a pregnant person who wanted an abortion and “a courageous doctor.”
The prosecutor they faced was a young state’s attorney, Patrick Leahy, and the landmark case that legalized abortion in Vermont was known as Beecham vs. Leahy.
“I didn’t even think about winning or losing,” Beecham said of the case. He just felt “this is the right thing to do.”
When the Vermont Supreme Court ruled for Beecham in January 1972, Beecham said, “I was floored.” Within a few months, legal abortions were being performed in Vermont.
Beecham went on to a distinguished medical career as a gynecologic oncologist and cancer surgeon. He founded two gynecologic oncology programs at the cancer centers of the University of Rochester and at Dartmouth College, and he was a longtime associate professor at Dartmouth Medical School. Beecham, who is now 80 and lives in Shelburne, retired from practicing medicine in 2008. He continues to be a champion of reproductive rights and is a strong advocate for Proposal 5, which would make Vermont the first state in the country to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution if it is approved by voters in November.
Beecham reflected on his role in legalizing abortion in Vermont.
“I was honored to spend four decades in women’s health as a cancer surgeon. But I think … getting this law changed is the single most important thing I ever did. I’m still moved by it. I’m very, very grateful that I could be part of helping others,” he said.
He said that he is “just horrified” that the U.S. Supreme Court has returned the country to where it was before Roe vs. Wade.
“I’ll be on the sidelines, fighting like everyone else that feels in support of women,” Beecham said.
The following transcript has been edited for clarity and length.
David Goodman
What were your thoughts when you heard the news that Roe v. Wade had been overturned by the Supreme Court?
Jack Beecham
I was so deeply disappointed. It’s hard for me to put my feelings into words. I think it was not only a wrong decision but an outrageous decision. And the effect it will have on countless millions of women is just deplorable. The only saving grace is that it’s still legal in Vermont. The constitutional amendment [Proposal 5, Vermont’s Reproductive Liberty Amendment] is coming up in November, and I’m certain that it will pass. The only way it will be countered is if the Republicans win the House, the Senate, and the presidency, and Mitch McConnell, as he stated clearly, will then push for a national ban on all abortions.
David Goodman
About half of the US is going to be reverting to the world as it was before Roe v. Wade made abortion legal in 1973. You are very familiar with that world. Tell us about the world before abortion was legalized in Vermont. What did it look like for women?
Jack Beecham
A medical student of mine who went on to a residency in a large hospital in New York City in 1969 said there was a whole 25-bed ward full of women with sepsis from illegal abortions. After New York passed the law [legalizing abortion in 1970], the ward was empty. She’s not one to exaggerate. I can’t comment about Vermont. I came here as a young intern in 1969. Once New York [legalized abortion] then women could go to there and get their therapeutic abortion. And I think of the term “therapeutic abortion” because to me, this is therapy and helps save women’s lives.
David Goodman
What would women do who couldn’t go to New York to get a legal abortion?
Jack Beecham
I can only guess they found someone, a man or a woman, physician or non-physician, who would perform a procedure for her with the risks that we’ve just talked about.
David Goodman
You are one half of a very famous case in Vermont, Beecham vs. Leahy. This was the case that ultimately resulted in legalizing abortion in Vermont in 1972, a year before Roe v Wade legalized abortion nationally. Talk about how you came to be involved in that case.
Jack Beecham
First of all, I want to say about Senator Leahy that he’s a wonderful human being and a great gentleman and senator. His role was really to present the data from the state. I was at the trial and was struck even then with the neutrality with which he presented his case. Years later, I received an award from the National Organization for Women. Both Sen. Leahy and Sen. Jeffords sent me very kind letters about what I and Jacqueline R. had done.
The University of Vermont at the time had two units, the Bishop DeGoesbriand unit, a former Catholic hospital, and the residents in OB/GYN at UVM had evening birth control clinics once a week and we would staff them. On one evening, the intake women said that there was a person that would like to meet me that was interested in abortion. She was Jacqueline R. – I never have learned her full name. I talked with her about this and she was very comfortable maintaining her pregnancy for the time that it would take, up to 12 weeks, to pursue the case. I remember her as having a gentle smile and glasses and she had a cast on her lower leg and she was from Northwestern Vermont. I cautioned her about what it would mean to continue the pregnancy — she was five weeks — for another seven weeks, including factors such as morning sickness, emotional upheaval about the decision, lower abdominal fullness and breast tenderness. All of these are early signs of pregnancy.
David Goodman
Let me just jump in here – explain the case that you were pursuing. And why did you want to do it?
Jack Beecham
Well, during the winter of 1969-1970, the Vermont legislature had hearings regarding this subject, and there were those on the supportive side and those on the anti-abortion side. We were limited to three minute discussions on each side. Our side proposed very reasonable causes for this law to be changed. The other side was almost hysterical about how wrong this was. This went on for two legislative sessions. And it became clear that it was not going to happen legislatively. Our lawyer, Willis Higgins, was an IBM lawyer but was representing on his own pro bono. In a small meeting that I attended he said what we need is a woman who’s pregnant who’s willing to do this, and a “courageous physician.” I stood up and said I don’t know about the “courageous” business, but I’m certainly willing to be the physician here.
This followed a case that many UVM professors, including from my own department, had brought against the state on behalf of four women who had IUD failures and therefore obviously didn’t want to get pregnant. They had to at the time go to New York State to get their therapeutic abortions. The judge involved said that the case was moot because they were no longer pregnant. So attorney Higgins pointed out what we need is a woman who is pregnant and a doctor who’s willing to help her. And that’s where Jacqueline R. and I came in.
David Goodman
Were you part of an ad hoc group meeting about this or were you part of some larger movement or organization that was wanting to challenge Vermont’s anti-abortion law?
Jack Beecham
Well certainly Planned Parenthood was very supportive. I can’t say I was officially part of Planned Parenthood, but their members were very supportive. And basically Jacqueline R. and I went on our own.
David Goodman
Why did you feel so strongly about this? You were a young doctor and this could possibly mean trouble for you.
Jack Beecham
Yes. While developing strategy, I went to the head of legal services in Vermont, because Jacqueline was on legal aid. And we were seeking ways to change this law. And he said, Well, one thing you could do is you could perform an abortion, and then get arrested. And then you could challenge the case. I said, “Look, I’m a young physician, married, I have two very young children. I don’t want to go to jail. I don’t want to interrupt my training.” As for why did I feel so strongly, I just knew about septic abortions and I knew how frequent unplanned pregnancies occurred. Not only in semi-normal relationships, but rape and incest and the like. I just felt that it was essential that women have control over their own bodies and their own lives.
This was the late 60s and early 70s. So it was sort of a radicalized time, at least for me coming up from the city to Vermont at that time. I was young enough to take action when I was asked to. I did not ask permission from my department chairman. I later heard the phrase, “To ask permission is to seek refusal.” I didn’t want to be refused. I wanted to go ahead. And I guess I didn’t worry very much about how the department chairman would treat me. I know that after the case, he took an awful lot of heat from other private practicing physicians. At the time. Burlington was a highly Catholic town and many of the physicians also practiced at Fanny Allen hospital.
David Goodman
Which was a Catholic hospital.
Jack Beecham
Yes. I remember the stares at me as they walked past glowering at me. So I know I offended a lot of physicians, particularly of the Catholic faith.
David Goodman
Did people confront you and criticize your role in this?
Jack Beecham
Well, they certainly criticized me. Even many years later, I was asked to give a talk to UVM medical students. One of the physicians who was in practice at the time who shall be nameless — he had eight children — and after my talk, I said, “Are there any questions?” And he was still very bitter.
David Goodman
What did he say?
Jack Beecham
“You shouldn’t have done this. This is wrong.” He said I committed a sin.
David Goodman
Was going into women’s health for you in the late sixties part of a larger mission of social justice?
Jack Beecham
It became that way. I surely was influenced by my father who was an obstetrician gynecologist. He would come home from the office and while he never used patients’ names, he would frequently talk at the dinner table about challenging cases. So I was familiar with the terminology by the time I got to medical school. I had an inclination toward obstetrics and gynecology, which I found very, very interesting and subsequently decided to pursue that.
David Goodman
Tell me about the scene in Superior Court in Burlington where you faced off against this young State’s Attorney, Patrick Leahy. You said you were impressed by the neutrality of Mr. Leahy’s presentation. I’ve seen it described as kind of dispassionate. What do you think was going on there?
Jack Beecham
I just thought that he was doing his job. He had no choice but to present the state’s case, to present it dispassionately. I just felt that that was his approach to things. I know from many years later how much he regretted his role in trying to eliminate or prevent this law from being carried out. He is of Catholic faith himself. He went to St. Michael’s College and he has been an ardent supporter of women’s rights for his whole lifetime, at least from his time as Chittenden County State’s Attorney. I thought it was professional, neutral, with factual presentation. I don’t think it was lackadaisical in any way.
David Goodman
What was the decision of the Superior Court? I know it was appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court.
Jack Beecham
I’ll tell you a little story. It was said by our attorney that when the judge went home to think about it and come back the next day to make a decision, his daughters and his wife told him, “If you don’t act in the plaintiff’s favor, don’t bother coming home.” That’s how strongly they felt about it.
I don’t think this is apocryphal, but my attorney said that the judge called him into his quarters after the case and said to Mr. Higgins that if he had ruled in our favor, the state would appeal it and delay things so long that Jacqueline R. would need to have a therapeutic abortion and the case would then not be of any value. But he said if I rule for the state, I know that you and your plaintiffs will immediately take this to the Vermont Supreme Court. And that’s what happened. The Superior Court made its decision on January 7, 1972, and the Supreme Court made its decision on January 14, 1972.
I’ve reviewed this decision and I’m very impressed with the legal details. The bottom line is that this law was from 1859. It did not penalize a woman for having an abortion, but it penalized the physician who performed the abortion. The physician would have been sentenced to three to five years if the patient survived, and 20 years if the patient died from the procedure. So the Supreme Court decided, with only one objection, that the physician was not part of their legal decision. But the woman, Jacqueline, was denied medical care and that was unconstitutional and therefore the case was upended.
I was over in the laboratory with one of my professors who was doing some research and I got a phone call, and they said, “Jack, we won.” I almost fell through the floor.
I pursued the case because I thought it was the right thing to do. I didn’t even think about winning or losing. This sounds odd, but I really didn’t. This is the right thing to do. I was floored by the decision. Within several months the Women’s Health Center was established and some of my faculty went out there to provide abortions that quickly.
David Goodman
This was the clinic staffed by Doctors Judy Tyson and Emma Ottolenghi. I believe it was the first all woman-run reproductive health clinic in the country.
Jack Beecham
I didn’t know that. I knew they were actively involved. I think Dr. Mary Jane Grey was also involved.
David Goodman
How did this case change your life?
Jack Beecham
I’ve come to feel that it’s the single most important thing I ever did. I was also a conscientious objector during the Vietnam War, which is extremely important to me as well. I was honored to spend four decades in women’s health and as a cancer surgeon. But I think getting this law changed is the single most important thing I ever did. I’m still moved by it. I’m very, very grateful that I could be part of helping others.
David Goodman
What are your concerns now in these first days after Roe v. Wade has been overturned, and much of the country will now go back to the landscape that you were in as a medical resident?
Jack Beecham
I’m just horrified and so deeply disappointed. I’ll be on the sidelines fighting like everyone else that feels in support of women. Even the atrocious human being Donald Trump said that this may well hurt the Republican Party in the November elections, even though he appointed three of the Supreme Court judges. It’s June and things can burn out. But the power of the people leading this fight for women, their commitment is huge. Almost any Republican who’s running for office who gets challenged on this knows that. They’re going to bob and weave and try to duck answering the questions, but the fact is that so many of them are on record. Pretty much everyone expects the Democrats to get clobbered in the House and the Senate. But I think the power of the folks who believe in a woman’s right to choose could really surprise a lot of people in November. I certainly
Read the story on VTDigger here: Best of the Vermont Conversation: The ‘courageous doctor’ who helped legalize abortion in Vermont.