Feb 03, 2001

House 'regrets' eugenics

Recognizes harm to 8,000 residents

BY PAMELA STALLSMITH

TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER

The House of Delegates agreed to "express its profound regret" yesterday for Virginia's participation in the discredited eugenics movement, which included the forced sterilization some 8,000 people the state deemed "unfit."

In a vote of 85-10, the House agreed to a resolution - once a reference to it being an "apology" was stricken - that acknowl edged the state's role in the national movement and "the incalcuable human damage done in the name of eugenics."

Also yesterday, on a 65-34 vote following an hour of tense debate, the House gave tentative approval to a proposal that would require women to wait 24 hours before undergoing an abortion after a doctor or nurse gives them information about the pro- cedure.

The resolution expressing the General Assembly's regret for the state role in the selective breeding movement urges Virginians to educate themselves about the eugenics movement in the belief that a more enlightened society "will reject absolutely any such abhorrent pseudo-scientific movement in the future."

Between 1924 and 1979, thousands of Virginians deemed physically, emotionally or mentally unfit by the state's eugenics laws were involuntary sterilized.

Virginia was in the forefront of the movement, which sought to improve the human race by eliminating what adherents considered hereditary disorders or flaws through selective breeding. Nazi Germany borrowed language for its racial purity program from Virginia's laws.

Not only were thousands of people sterilized involuntarily, but eugenic thinking factored prominently in Virginia race-purity law that denied civil rights and that was used in efforts to deny the existence of American Indians in the state.

"It was racism pure and simple," declared Del. Mitchell Van Yahres, D-Charlottesville, who pushed the resolution. "We should put this matter behind us."

Originally the measure's title called for apology. But Van Yahres said the resolution called for an expression of regret and asked for the change.

Del. Harry J. Parrish, R-Manassas, wanted to remove the expression of regret. His proposal died on a voice vote.

"I'm concerned where we're offering regrets for something that was done legally," he said. "It's improper for us now to try to second-guess the members of the General Assembly. At the time, it was legal."

Van Yahres countered that it was still a mistake.

"It might have been the law at the time, but we know now it was the wrong approach," he replied.

Del. Robert G. Marshall, R-Prince William, unsuccessfully sought to amend the resolution by, among other things, adding Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger to it because of what he described as her work in eugenics.

The abortion waiting-period bill survived seven attempts at change on the House floor before clearing by the solid margin.

Del. Robert F. McDonnell, R-Virginia Beach, said his bill for the waiting period - also called "informed consent" - is about knowledge.

Under his proposal, a woman would have to wait 24 hours to have an abortion after a doctor informed her of the risks, benefits and procedures involved. Twenty-two other states have similar laws, he said, adding that his bill's wording meets constitutional muster.

The Senate is expected to vote on a similar measure on Monday. The bill has been sought for several years and passage this year is considered likely. Gov. Jim Gilmore backs the bill. Final House action is slated for today.

Opponents in the House decried it as patronizing and insulting to women.

Del. Brian J. Moran, D-Alexandria, proposed stripping the waiting period from the bill.

"I have confidence in the women of Virginia that they do indeed reflect at least that amount of time" before seeking an abortion, he said. His amendment died 62-36.

Del. Viola O. Baskerville, D-Richmond, wanted to add board-certified obstetricians and gynecologists to the list of those who can provide information. Delegates nixed that 59-38.

Del. Jeannemarie A. Devolites, R-Fairfax, said the law was needed to give women, especially younger ones, more time to consider their actions.

"It's important they have time before they make a decision they can never take back," she said.