Dr. Leon Phillip Belous was convicted in January 1967, after a jury trial, of abortion, in violation of section 274 of the Penal Code, and conspiracy to commit an abortion, in violation of section 182 of the Penal Code, both felonies. The court suspended proceedings, imposed a fine of $5,000, and placed Dr. Belous on probation for two years. He appeals from the order granting probation.

Dr. Belous is a physician and surgeon, licensed since 1931 to practice medicine in the State of California, and specializing in obstetrics and gynecology. He has been on the attending staff of the gynecology department of Cedars of Lebanon Hospital in Los Angeles since 1931, is a fellow of the Los Angeles Gynecology and Obstetrical Society, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and the Abdominal Surgical Society, and the Geriatric Society, and a member of the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology. He is on the Board of Directors of the. California Committee on Therapeutic Abortion, an organization which seeks to liberalize abortion laws. He is considered by his associates to be an eminent physician in his field.

The prosecution’s witnesses, a young woman and her husband, Cheryl and Clifton, testified to the following:

In 1966, Cheryl, then unmarried, believed she was pregnant. A family physician had given her pills which would induce menstruation if she were not pregnant, but the pills did not work. She and Clifton had sometime earlier seen Dr. Belous on television, advocating a change in the California abortion laws. They had never heard of Dr. Belous before. Clifton obtained the doctor’s phone number from the television station and phoned Dr. Belous; he explained the problem and that they both were “pretty disturbed,” and at their “wits’ end” and asked for Dr. Belous’ help. Dr. Belous told him there was nothing he could do, but Clifton “continued pleading,” and threatened that Cheryl would go to Tijuana for an abortion. Finally the doctor agreed to see them at his office.

Dr. Belous examined Cheryl at his Beverly Hills office and confirmed that she was possibly pregnant. Cheryl was otherwise in good health. The visit lasted about 45 minutes and was very emotional. Both Clifton and Cheryl pleaded for help, cried, insisted they were going to have an abortion ‘ ‘ one wav *958or another. ’ ’ The doctor lectured them on the dangers of criminal abortions, and Tijuana abortions in particular, and suggested that they get married. He insisted he did not perform abortions. He refused to recommend anyone in Tijuana. Finally, in response to their pleadings, Dr. Belous gave them a piece of paper with a Chula Vista phone number. He told them an abortion would cost about $500. He gave Cheryl a prescription for some antibiotics and- instructed her to return for an examination.

Dr. Belous testified that he was very familiar with the abortion business in Tijuana. He had visited the clinics there to learn about conditions and knew that women who went to Tijuana were taking their lives in their hands. He met Karl Lairtus while in Tijuana and knew from personal observation that Lairtus, licensed to practice in Mexico but not in California, was performing skilled and safe abortions in Mexico. Lairtus wanted to obtain a California license, and sought out Belous’ help on a number of occasions. When Lairtus moved from Mexico to Chula Vista, he gave Dr. Belous his address and phone number. When Lairtus moved to Los Angeles, he gave the doctor a Hollywood address, and made it known to the doctor that he was performing abortions. It was Lairtus’ number that Belous gave to Cheryl and Clifton. Although he had given out Lairtus’ number before, in similar situations, where distraught pregnant women insisted they would do anything, Dr. Belous had no idea how many women actually went to Lairtus.

Cheryl and Clifton made arrangements with Lairtus, and went to the address which Lairtus gave them on the phone. After the abortion was performed, while Cheryl was resting, the police, having been advised by another woman that Lair-tus was performing abortions at that address, came to his apartment, followed another couple into the apartment and arrested Lairtus. They found two notebooks, containing women’s names, ages, dates of last menstruation, and physician’s names, including Dr. Belous’ name, which the police interpreted as the referring doctor with whom Lairtus was to split his fees. On the basis of this information, Dr. Belous was arrested at his office. Lairtus pleaded guilty. At Dr. Belous’ trial, he testified that, although not solicited, he sent Dr. Belous about $100 as a professional courtesy in about half the cases that he had performed abortions on Dr. Belous’ patients. Dr. Belous denied receiving any money from Lair-tus.

*959The substance of Dr. Belous ’ defense was that he gave Lairtus’ phone number to Cheryl and Clifton only because he relieved that they would, in fact, do anything to terminate, the pregnancy, which might involve butchery in Tijuana or self-mutilation; that in face of their pleading and tears, he gave out the phone number of someone whom he knew to be a sompetent doctor, although unlicensed in this state. The doctor believed that if the young couple carried out their threats, Cheryls’ very life was in danger.

Section 274 of the Penal Code, when the conduct herein involved occurred, read: “Every person who provides, supplies, or administers to any woman, or procures any woman to take any medicine, drug, or substance, or uses or employs any instrument or other means whatever, with intent thereby to procure the miscarriage of such woman, unless the same is necessary to preserve her life, is punishable by imprisonment in the State prison not less than two nor more than five pears. ’ ’

The statute was substantially unchanged since it was originally enacted in 1850.1 In 1967, the statute was amended and sections 25950 through 25954 (“Therapeutic Abortion Act”) added to the Health and Safety Code. The act extends the Lawful grounds for obtaining an abortion.2 Section 274 is directed towards the abortionist. Under section 275 of the *960Penal Code (also amended by the Therapeutic Abortion Act) a woman who solicits or submits to an abortion is punishabl by up to five years’ imprisonment; similarly, under sectioi 276, any person who solicits a woman to submit to an abortioi is punishable by up to five years ’ imprisonment.

We have concluded that the term “necessary to pre serve” in section 274 of the Penal Code is not susceptible of í construction that does not violate legislative intent and that is sufficiently certain to satisfy due process requirements with out improperly infringing on fundamental constitutiona rights.

“The requirement of a reasonable degree of certainty in legislation, especially in the criminal law, is a well established element of the guarantee of due process of law ‘No one may be required at peril of life, liberty or property to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes. All are entitled to be informed as to what the State commands or forbids . . . “a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process of law.” ’ (Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451, 453 [83 L.Ed. 888, 890 59 S.Ct. 618]; see also Connally v. General Constr. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 [70 L.Ed. 322, 328, 46 S.Ct. 126].) Such also is the law of the State of California. (People v. McCaughan, 49 Cal.2d 409, 414 [317 P.2d 974].)

“The required meaning, certainty and lack of ambiguity may appear on the face of the questioned statute or from any demonstrably established technical or common law meaning of the language in question. (People v. McCaughan, supra, 49 Cal.2d 409, 414; Lorenson v. Superior Court, 35 Cal.2d 49, 60 [216 P.2d 859].)” (In re Newbern, 53 Cal.2d 786, 792 [3 Cal.Rptr. 364, 350 P.2d 116].) The requirement of certainty in legislation is greater where the criminal statute is a limitation on constitutional rights. (See Smith v. California (1959) 361 U.S. 147, 151 [4 L.Ed.2d 205, 210, 80 S.Ct. 215].) On the other hand, mathematical certainty is not required; “some matter of degree” is involved in most penal statutes. (Nash v. United States (1913) 229 U.S. 373, 377 [57 L.Ed. 1232, 1235, 33 S.Ct. 471].)

Dictionary definitions and judicial interpretations fail to provide a clear meaning for the words, “necessary” or “preserve.” There is, of course, no standard definition of “necessary to preserve,” and taking the words separately, no *961sar meaning emerges. “Necessary” is defined as: “1. Es-ntial to a desirable or projected end or condition; not to be spensed with without loss, damage, inefficiency, or the like ; (Webster’s New International Dictionary (2d ed.), íabridged.) The courts have recognized that “ ‘necessary’ is not a fixed meaning, but is flexible and relative.” (Westphal v. Westphal, 122 Cal.App. 379, 382 [10 P.2d 119]; see also, City of Dayton v. Borchers (1967) 13 Ohio Misc. 273 132 N.E.2d 437, 441]; [“A necessary thing may supply a ide range of wants, from mere convenience to logical com-leteness.”].)

The definition of “preserve” is even less enlightening. It is jfined as: “1. To keep or save from injury or destruction; to' lard or defend from evil; to protect; save. 2. To keep in dstence or intact; ... To save from decomposition, . . . To maintain; to keep up; . . . (Webster’s New Interna-onal Dictionary, supra.) The meanings for “preserve” mge from the concept of maintaining the status quo — that , the woman’s condition of life at the time of pregnancy — to aintaining the biological or medical definition of “life”— íat is, as opposed to the biological or medical definition of death. ’ ’

Since abortion before quickening was not a crime at com-lou law (Perkins, Criminal Law (1967) 101; Means, The Law of New York Concerning Abortion and the Status of the oetus, 1664-1968: A Case of Cessation of Constitutionality 1968) 14 N.Y.L.F. 411, 419-422; Stern, Abortion: Reform and the Law (1968) 59 J.Crim.L.C. & P.S. 84, 85) we cannot fly on common law meanings or common law referents (see Lorenson v. Superior Court, supra, 35 Cal.2d 49, 60; People v. Agnello, 259 Cal.App.2d 785, 790-791 [66 Cal.Rptr. 571]).3 Various possible meanings of “necessary to preserve . . . fe” have been suggested. However, none of the proposed efinitions will sustain the statute.

Respondent asserts: “If medical science feels the bortio'n should be performed as it is necessary to preserve her life, then it may be performed; that is, unless it is performed xe patient will die. ’ ’

Our courts, however, have rejected an interpretation of *962“necessary to preserve” which requires'certainty or imn diacy of death. (People v. Abarbanel, 239 Cal.App.2d 31, 3 35 [48 Cal.Rptr. 336]; People v. Ballard, 218 Cal.App.2d 29 298 [32 Cal.Rptr. 233]; People v. Ballard, 167 Cal.App.2d 803, 807 [335 P.2d 204].) Justice Fourt, in People v. Ballar supra, 167 Cal.App.2d 803, 814, stated: “Surely, the abortb statute (Pen. Code, § 274) does not mean by the words ‘ unk the same is necessary to preserve her life ’ that the peril to li be imminent. It ought to be enough that the dangerous cone tion ‘ be potentially present, even though its full developme might be delayed to a greater or less extent. Nor was it esse tial that the doctor should believe that the death of the p tient would be otherwise certain in order to justify him affording present relief.' [Citations.]” The above language was quoted in People v. Abarbanel, supra, 239 Cal.App.2d 31, 34.

In People v. Ballard, supra, 167 Cal.App.2d 803, 813-81 the evidence established that the woman was “extreme nervous . . . upset, had headaches, was unable to sleep, ax thought that she was pregnant. She was agitated, disturbe and had many problems.” (Italics .omitted.) In People Ballard, supra, 218 Cal.App.2d 295, 307, it was establish! that at the time each of the women went to the defendai doctor she was in a “bad state of health” because of sel imposed abortive practices. And in People v. Abarbane supra, 239 Cal.App.2d 31, the obstetrician performed tl abortion after receiving letters from two psychiatrists to. tl effect that abortion was indicated as necessary to save tl woman’s life from the “possibility” of suicide. In each ( the cases the conviction was reversed.

If the fact of ill health or the mere “possibility” of suicid is sufficient to meet the test of “necessary to preserve he life, ” it is clear that a showing of immediacy or certainty o death is not essential for a lawful abortion. Two other juri: dictions have also rejected an interpretation of “necessary t preserve” which would require certainty or immediacy c death. (State v. Dunklebarger (1928) 206 Iowa 971 [221 N.W. 592, 596]; State v. Hatch (1917) 138 Minn. 317 [164 N.W. 1017].)

After the decision in Ballard, the Legislature did no amend the statute to repudiate the rule suggested by that cas and to establish a definition requiring certainty of death.4 *963It would be anomalous to uphold a criminal statute against charge of vagueness by adopting a construction of the state rejected by the courts of this state as not reflecting legla-re intent unless there was a clear showing of a strong public tliey or legislative intent requiring adoption of the rejected nstruction. No such showing has been made with regard to e construction urged by respondent. '

Moreover, a definition requiring certainty of death would ork an invalid abridgment of the woman’s constitutional ghts. The rights involved in the instant case are the Oman’s rights to life and to choose whether to bear chil•en.5 The woman’s right to life is involved because ehild-rth involyes risks of death.6

The fundamental right of the woman to choose whether to jar children follows from the Supreme Court’s and this mrt’s repeated acknowledgment of.a “right of privacy” or liberty” in matters related to marriage, family, and sex. See, e.g., Griswold v. Connecticut, supra, 381 U.S. 479, 485, 486, 500 [14 L.Ed.2d 510, 515, 516, 524, 85 S.Ct. 1678]; Loving Virginia (1967) 388 U.S. 1, 12 [18 L.Ed.2d 1010, 1018, 87 S.Ct. 1817] [statute prohibiting interracial marriages, viola-ve of due process clause]; Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942) 16 U.S. 535, 536, 541 [86 L.Ed.2d 1655, 1657, 1660, 62 S.Ct. 1110] [sterilization laws; marriage and procreation volve a “basic liberty”]’; Pierce v. Society of Sisters 1925) 268 U.S. 510, 534-535 [69 L.Ed. 1070, 1077-1078, 45 S.Ct. 571, 39 A.L.R. 468] [prohibition against nonpublic schools; same]; Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) 262 U.S. 390; 399-400 [67 L.Ed. 1042, 1045-1046, 43 S.Ct. 625, 29 A.L.R. 1446] nohibition against teaching children German language; same]; Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal.2d 711, 715 [198 P.2d 17]; see also Custodio v. Bauer, 251 Cal.App.2d 303, 317-318 [59 Cal.Rptr. 463].) That such a right is not enumerated in either the nited States or California Constitutions is no impediment to íe existence of’ the right. (See, e.g., Carrington v. Rash *964(1965) 380 U.S. 89, 96 [13 L.Ed.2d 675, 680, 85 S.Ct. 77 [fundamental but nonenumerated right to vote]; Aptheker Secretary of State (1964) 378 U.S. 500, 505-506 [12 L.Ed.2 992, 996-997, 84 S.Ct. 1659], and Kent v. Dulles (1958) 3 U.S. 116, 125 [2 L.Ed.2d 1204, 1209, 78 S.Ct. 1113] [right travel] ; Bolling v. Sharpe (1954) 347 U.S. 497, 500 [98 L.E 884, 887, 74 S.Ct. 693] [right to attend federal unsegregat schools] ; Otsuka v. Hite, 64 Cal.2d 596, 602 [51 Cal.Rptr. 28] 414 P.2d 412] [right to vote]; cf. Finot v. Pasadena Ci Board of Education, 250 Cal.App.2d 189, 199 [58 Cal.Rptr. 520].)- It is not surprising that none of the parties who ha filed briefs in this case have disputed the existence of tl fundamental right.

The critical issue is not whether such rights exist, b whether the state has a compelling interest in the regulath of a subject which is within the police powers of the sta (Shapiro v. Thompson (1969) 394 U.S. 618, 634 [22 L.E.2d 600, 615, 89 S.Ct. 1322]; Sherbert v. Verner (1963 374 U.S. 398, 403 [10 L.Ed.2d 965, 969, 83 S.Ct. 1790] whether the regulation is “necessary ... to the accomplis ment of a permissible state policy” (McLaughlin v. Florid (1964) 379 U.S. 184, 196 [13 L.Ed.2d 222, 230, 85 S.Ct. 283 see also, N.A.A.C.P. v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 438 [9 L.Ed.2d 405, 421, 83 S.Ct, 328]; Bates v. Little Rock (1960) 361 U. 516, 527 [4 L.Ed.2d 480, 488, 80 S.Ct. 412] ; Huntley v. Public Utilities Com., 69 Cal.2d 67, 74 [69 Cal.Rptr. 605, 442 P.2d 685]; Vogel v. County of Los Angeles, 68 Cal.2d 18, 21 [6 Cal.Rptr. 409, 434 P.2d 961] ; People v. Woody, 61 Cal.2d 71 718 [40 Cal.Rptr. 69, 394 P.2d 813]), and whether legislatic impinging on constitutionally protected areas is narrow drawn and not of “unlimited and indiscriminate sweep (Shelton v. Tucker (1960) 364 U.S. 479, 490 [5 L.Ed.2d 23 238, 81 S.Ct. 247]; see also, Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940 310 U.S. 296, 308 [84 L.Ed. 1213, 1220, 60 S.Ct. 900, 12 A.L.R. 1352]; In re Berry, 68 Cal.2d 137, 151 [65 Cal.Rptr. 273, 436 P.2d 273] ; In re Hoffman, 67 Cal.2d 845, 853-854 [6 Cal.Rptr. 97, 434 P.2d 353]).

It is possible that the definition suggested by responc ent, requiring that death be certain, was that intended by tl Legislature when the first abortion law was adopted in 185 and that, in the light of the then existing medical and surg cal science, the great and direct interference with a woman constitutional rights was warranted by considerations of th woman’s health. When California’s first anti-abortion statui *965ras enacted, any surgical procedure which entered a body avity was extremely dangerous. Surgeons did not know how o control infection, and mortality was high. (Haagensen & jloyd, A Hundred Years of Medicine (1943) p. 19.) In 1867 'oseph Lister first published his findings on antiseptic surgery (id., at pp. 241-242), but even in 1883 the techniques he leveloped weré condemned (id., at p. 245), and as late as 1895 ?ere not well understood or properly appliéd by even , leaders f the medical profession. (Id., at p.' 246; see also, H. Robb 1895) Aseptic Surgical Technique.)

Although development was slow, techniques of antisepsis md asepsis became major general advances in surgery at and -fter the turn of the century. In due course safe procedures rere developed for specific operations-. Curettage, used for .bortion in the first trimester, became a safe, accepted and outinely employed medical technique, especially after antibi-tics were developed in the early 1940’s. (Douglas, Toxic Effects of the Welch Bacillus in Postabortal Infections 1956) 56 N.Y.State J.Med. 3673.) It is now safer for a roman to Have a hospital therapeutic abortion during the first rimester than'to bear a child.7

Although abortions early in pregnancy, and properly per-ormed present minimal danger to the woman, criminal8 abor-ions are “the most common single cause of maternal deaths a California.” (Fox, Abortion Deaths in California (1967) *96698 Am.J.Obst. & Gynee. 645, 650.) In California, it is est mated that 35,000 to 100,000 such abortions occur each yea (Fox, supra, at p. 645.)

The incidence of severe infection from criminal abortion very much greater than the incidence of death. The L( Angeles County Hospital alone, for example, in 1961 admittc over 3,500 patients treated for such abortions. (Kistner, Medical Indications for Contraception: Changing Viewpoints (editorial) (1965) 25 Obst. & Gynec. 285, 286.) Possibly moi significant than the mere incidence of infection caused b criminal abortions is the result of such infection. “Induce Illegal Abortion ... is one of the important causes of subs quent infertility and pelvic disease.” (Kleegman & Kaufman, Infertility in Women (1966) p. 301; see also Curtis Huffman, Gynecology (6th ed. 1950) pp. 565, 566.)9

Amici for appellant, 178 deans of medical schools, includin the deans of all California medical schools, chairmen of med cal school departments, and professors of medical school state: “These recorded facts bring one face-to-face with tb hard, shocking — almost brutal — reality that our statute d< signed in 1850 to protect women from serious risks to life an health has in modem times become a scourge. ’ ’10

*967Although we may assume that the law was valid when first acted, the validity of the law in-1850 does not resolve the ue of whether the law is constitutionally valid today. Compare, e.g., Gray v. Sanders (1963) 372 U.S. 368, 381 [9 Ed.2d 821, 830, 83 S.Ct. 801], with South v. Peters (1950) 9 U.S. 276, 277 [94 L.Ed. 834, 836, 70 S.Ct. 641]; Baker v. arr (1962) 369 U.S. 186, 237 [7 L.Ed.2d 663, 697, 82 S.Ct. 1], with Colgrove v. Green (1946) 328 U.S. 549, 556 [90 Ed. 1432, 1435, 66 S.Ct. 1198] ; Brown v. Board of Education (1954) 347 U.S. 483, 495 [98 L.Ed. 873, 881, 74 S.Ct. 686, A.L.R.2d 1180], with Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) 163 U.S. 7, 550-551 [41 L.Ed. 256, 260-261, 16 S.Ct. 1138].)

Constitutional concepts are not static. Our United. States ipreme Court said, regarding the equal protection clause of e Fourteenth Amendment: “We agree, of course, with Mr. istice Holmes that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth mendment ‘does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer’s Social ;atics.’ [Citation.] Likewise, the Equal Protection Clause is )t shackled to the political theory of a particular era. In stermining what lines are unconstitutionally discriminatory, e have never been confined to historic notions of equality, i.y more than we have restricted due process to a fixed cata-gue of what was at a given time.deemed to be the limits of mdamental rights. ...” (Harper v. Virginia Board of elections (1966) 383 U.S. 663, 669 [16 L.Ed.2d 169, 173, 86 Ct. 1079]; see also, Perez v. Sharp, supra, 32 Cal.2d 711, 27; Galyon v. Municipal Court, 229 Cal.App.2d 667, 671-672 10 Cal.Rptr. 446], and cases cited therein [“[A] statute did when enacted may become invalid by change in the con-itions to which it is applied.”]. See also, Means, supra, 14 .Y.L.F. 411, 514-515.)

In the light of modern medical surgical practice, the ’eat and direct infringement of constitutional rights which ould result from a definition requiring certainty of death ay not be justified on the basis of considerations of the Oman’s health where, as here, abortion is sought during the rst trimester.

It is next urged that the state' has a compelling interest in íe protection of the embryo and fetus11 and that such inter*968est warrants tbe limitation on the woman’s eonstitutioi rights. Reliance is placed upon several statutes and coi rules which assertedly show that the embryo or fetus is equl alent to a bom ehild. However, all of the statutes and ruf relied upon require a live birth or reflect the interest of parents.12

' In any event, there áre major and decisive areas where, embryo and fetus are not treated as equivalent to the bo] child. Probably the most important is reflected by the stati *969fore us. The intentional destruction of the born child is urder or manslaughter. The intentional destruction of the ibryo or fetus is never treated as murder, andson]y rarely as ansla.ughter but rather as the lesser offense of - abortion. Perkins, Criminal Law, supra, p. 108; Means, supra, 14 Y.L.F. at p. 445.)13

Furthermore, the law has always recognized that the preg-imt woman’s right to life takes precedence over any interest e state may have in the unborn. The California abortion atutes, as do the abortion laws of all 51 United States juris-.ctions, make an exception in favor of the life of the prospec-ve mother. (See Stern, Abortion: Reform and the Law, supra, 59 J.Crim.L.C. & P.S. 84, 86-87; George, Current Abortion Laws: Proposals & Movements for Reform (1965) 17 W.Res.L.Rev. 366, 375.) Although there may be doubts as to hether the state’s interest may ever justify requiring a ornan to risk death, it is clear that the state could not forbid woman to procure an abortion where, to a medical certainty, íe result of childbirth would be death. We are also satisfied lat the state may not require that degree of risk involved in ispondent’s definition, which would prohibit an abortion, here death from childbirth although not medically certain, ould be substantially certain or more likely than not. .ccordingly, the definition of the statute suggested by re? jondent must be rejected as an invalid infringement upon íe woman’s constitutional rights.

Another definition of the term “necessary to- preserve” is iggested by People v. Abarbanel, supra, 239 Cal.App.2d 31, 2, 34, where the court held that an abortion was not unlawal where the obstetrician performed the abortion based on íe “possibility” of suicide. Abarbanel might be understood 3 meaning that “necessary to preserve” refers to a póssibily of death different from or greater than the ordinary risk E childbirth. To so interpret “necessary to preserve”- would lean that in nearly every case, if not all, a woman who dshed an abortion could have one. A woman who is denied a esired lawful abortion and forced to continue an unwanted regnaney would seem to face a greater risk of death, because f psychological factors, than the average woman, because the verage includes all those women who wish to bear the child *970to term. The psychological factor alone, which under Abo bánel is a proper consideration, would seem to be decish Such a construction of the statute permitting voluntary abc tions would render the statute virtually meaningless. Mor over to determine the right to an abortion solely on the bac of the dangers of childbirth without regard to the relatr dangers of the abortion would be contrary to good medic practice.

Nor can the statute be made certain by reading it “substantially or reasonably” necessary to. preserve the li: of the mother. In the present context those terms are n sufficiently precise and would be subject to such differei interpretations as to add little or nothing to “necessary. Thus, many people may feel that an abortion is reasonably ( substantially necessary to preserve life where the risk of deat is double or triple the ordinary risk in childbirth. Others ma believe that anything which increases the possibility of deat is a substantial risk which is not to be'undertaken in tl absence of countervailing considerations, so that “reasonabi necessary” or “substantially necessary” becomes as destruí tive of the statute as “possibility of death.” On the othc hand, there may be those who feel that there is no reasonabi or substantial necessity until it is more likely than not the the pregnant' woman will not survive childbirth. Although i other contexts the implication of words such as “reasonably and “substantially” may add certainty and avoid other du process objections, in, the instant situation the implication o such words would merely increase the uncertainty.

There is one suggested test which is based on policy underlying the statute and which would serve to mak the statute certain. The test is probably in accord with th legislative intent at the time the statute was adopted. Th Legislature may have intended in adopting the statute tha abortion was permitted when the risk of death due to th abortion was less than the risk of death in childbirth and tha otherwise abortion should be denied. As we have seen, at thi time of the adoption of the statute abortion was a highb dangerous procedure, and under the relative safety test abor tion would be permissible only where childbirth would be ever more dangerous. In light of the test and the then existing medical practice, the question whether abortion should b< limited to protect the embryo or fetus may have been immaterial because'any such interest would be effectuated by limiting *971■ortions to the rare cases where they were safer than child-■rth.

The suggested test would involve an application of medical inciples. Medical science may be able to tell us the proper Method to treat a patient to minimize the risk of death, but' ithout- resort to matters outside medical competence, it nnot tell us the circumstances in which the safest treatment ould be rejected and a moré dangerous treatment followed order to protect an embryo or fetus.

The new Therapeutic Abortion Act (Health & Saf. Code, i 25950-25954), has adopted a test analogous to the suggested ie. Under the new statute, abortion is permissible during the ■st 20 weeks of pregnancy by a licensed physician in an ¡credited hospital (Health & Saf. Code, §§25951, 25953)- if is determined under prescribed procedures either that There is substantial risk that continuance of the pregnancy ould gravely impair the physical or mental health of the other” (Health & Saf. Code, § 25951, subd. (c) (1)), or lat “The pregnancy resulted from rape or.incest.” (Health Saf. Code, §25951, subd. (e) (2).) Mental health iñ-udes mental illness to the extent that the woman would be mgerous to herself.. (Health & Saf. Code, § 25954.) By limit-, Lg the abortion to- the first 20 weeks, the Legislature has tken into account the danger to the mother of- the later abor-on and, by requiring the abortion to be performed by' a censed physician in' an accredited hospital, has recognized Le danger to the mother of other procedures. The further fiteria for determining whether an abortion is permissible is ie pregnant woman’s physical and mental health. Thus, the ist established is - a medical one, whether the pregnant Oman’s physical and' mental health will be furthered by bortion or by bearing the child to term, and the assessment oes not involve considerations beyond medical competence, 'here is. nothing to indicate that in adopting the Therapeutic .bortion Act the Legislature was asserting an interest in the mbryo.

Although the suggested construction of former section 274, íaking abortion lawful where it is safer than childbirth and nlawful where abortion is more dangerous, may have been in eeord with legislative intent, the statute may not be upheld gainst a claim of vagueness on the basis of such a construe-Lon. The language of the statute, “unless the same is neces-ary to preserve her life,” does not suggest a relative safety est, and no ease interpreting the statute has suggested, that *972the statute be so construed. None of the parties or numeren amici who have filed briefs in the instant case suggest that tl statute applies a relative safety test; to the contrary, the pos tion of the parties and amici, including numerous lawyer doctors, educators, clergymen and laymen, implies that tl statute does not apply that standard. Thus, those claiming tl statute is invalid urge that the only valid standard would be relative safety test and that the statute fails to adopt Such test, and those urging the validity of the statute either sta or imply that the standard applied is more restrictive. In tl circumstances, we are satisfied that the statute may not l construed to adopt the relative safety test as against a elah of vagueness, because the language does not suggest that te¡ and because of the practical evidence before us that men c “common” intelligence, indeed of uncommon intelligenc have not guessed at this meaning.14

The problem caused by the vagueness of the statú.1 is accentuated because under the statute the doctor is, i effect, delegated the duty to determine whether a pregnai woman has the. right to an abortion and the physician acts e his peril if he determines that the woman is entitled to a abortion. He is subject to prosecution for a felony and 1 deprivation of his right to practice medicine (Bus. & Pro: Code, §2377) if his decision is wrong. Bather than bein impartial, the physician has a “direct, personal, substantia pecuniary interest in reaching a conclusion” that the woma should not have an abortion. The delegation of decisior making power to a directly involved individual violates th *973irteenth Amendment. (Tumey v. Ohio (1927) 273 U.S. 510, [71 L.Ed. 749, 754, 47 S.Ct. 437, 50 A.L.R. 1243]; see also te Board of Dry Gleaners v. Thrift-D-Lux Cleaners, Inc., Cal.2d 436, 448 [254 P.2d 29] [“ [T]he statute assumes to fer legislative authority upon those who are directly inter-id in the operation of the regulatory rule. . . .”]; Bluenthal v. Board of Medical Examiners, 57 Cal.2d 228, 235 Cal.Rptr. 501, 368 P.2d 101].)

"he inevitable effect of such delegation may be to deprive a nan of an abortion when under any definition of section : of the Penal Code, she would be entitled to such an opera-1, because the state, in delegating the power to decide when abortion is necessary, has skewed the penalties in one dition: no criminal penalties are imposed where the doctor uses to perform a necessary operation, even if the woman >uld in fact die because the operation was not performed, ihe pressures oh a physician to decide not to perform an ¡olutely necessary abortion are,' under section 274 of the lal Code, enormous, and because section 274 authorizes— 1 requires — the doctor to decide, at his peril, whether an irtion is necessary, a woman whose life is at stake may be effectively condemned to death as if the law flatly prohibit all abortions.

To some extent the Therapeutic Abortion Act reduces these issures. The act specifically authorizes an abortion by a ;nsed physician in an accredited hospital where the.abor-n is approved, in advance by a committee of the medical ff of the hospital, applying medical standards. (Health & L Code, §25951.) At least in eases where there has been íerence to. the procedural requirements of the statute, ysicians may not be held criminally responsible, and a jury y not subsequently determine that the abortion was not thorized by statute.

We conclude that the validity of section 274 of the nal Code before amendment cannot be sustained.15

Since section 274 is invalid, Dr. Belous’ conviction for vio-ion of section 182 of the Penal Code, conspiracy to commit *974abortion, must likewise fall. The judgment is reversed w directions to the trial court to dismiss the indictment.

I dissent.

The defendant was found guilty by jury trial of a wil violation of the abortion statute as it existed at the time of offense. That he violated the statute is all but conceded in briefs filed in his behalf. Although he testified that he rected the young couple to a doctor, unlicensed in Californ because he believed that if they carried out their threats going to Tijuana to procure an abortion the young womai life would be in danger, he acknowledged upon cro examination that her life would not have been endangered she were not aborted. His assertions that he acted in go faith and out of compassion are tainted somewhat by the e dence which showed that he had referred other women to i same unlicensed physician on a number of occasions and tl he had participated on at least one-half of those occasions the fee paid thé abortionist.

Had the doctor truly believed that the young woman’s 1: was in danger he could have done what was the common pri tice of taking the patient to one of the several hospitals which therapeutic abortions were being performed. To i knowledge there is not one single instance of a decision of t appellate courts of this state in which a doctor or a hospil has been prosecuted for the performance of an abortion whe an independent hospital committee, deemed the abortion to necessary to preserve the woman’s life. The plain fact is, the jury found it to be, that this doctor, whatever his moth possessed the intent to assist in procuring the miscarriage the woman for reasons other than to preserve her life. This the specific intent which the law requires for conviction.

He supplied to the jury the answer an independent hospii committee undoubtedly would have given him had he seen to seek its approval for an abortion — the patient could be the child without endangering her life; therefore, to abort h would violate the law.

The threatened danger to the woman’s life arose only fro the couple’s assertions that they would seek an illegal abo tion by an unlicensed person. To assist them in attaining th *975goal was to flaunt his profession’s own standards and to aid in bringing about a direct violation of the law.

The majority would reverse the conviction by declaring the statute unconstitutional because of asserted uncertainty in the phrase, “necessary to preserve [the woman’s] life.”1 This phrase has been an integral part of the California law against illegal abortions from the time of its enactment in 1872 until the 1967 amendent to the section, and similar language was in the' original statute adopted in 1850.2 Thus for over a hundred years in this state doctors, hospital committees, judges, lawyers and juries have been called upon to give the phrase the common sense interpretation which the words appear to me to suggest.- For this court over a hundred years later to find the language unconstitutionally vague and uncertain is a “negation of experience and common sense.” (United States v. Ragen, 314 U.S. 513, 524 [86 L.Ed. 383, 390, 62 S.Ct. 374].)

Not only was the phrase long used in the California statute, it was also employed at common law (see, e.g., Perkins on. Criminal Law (2d ed.) p. 145; Clark and Marshall, Crimes (6th ed.) pp. 688-689) and is or has been in the abortion statutes of many states (see, e.g., Am.Jur.2d, Abortion, § 9, p. 192; 153 A.L.R. 1218, 1266; Smith, Abortion and the Law (1967) p. 7). Implicit in the decisions of this court, as well as those of countless other courts, is the view that the phrase does not render such a statute invalid (see, e.g., People v. Davis, 43 Cal.2d 661 [276 P.2d 801] ; People v. Gallardo, 41 Cal.2d 57 [257 P.2d 29] ; People v. Powell, 34 Cal.2d 196 [208 P.2d 974]; People v. Wilson, 25 Cal.2d 341 [153 P.2d 720] ; People v. Rcmkin, 10 Cal.2d 198 [74 P.2d 71]). In State v. Moretti 52 N.J. 192 [ 244 A.2d 499, 504] (cert. den. 393 U.S. 952 [21 L.Ed.2d 363, 89 S.Ct. 376]) the court stated that when the phrase “lawful justification,” as used in a statute prohibiting abortions done maliciously or without lawful justification, is confined “to the preservation of the mother’s *976life, ’ ’ tbe statute is not subject to constitutional attack on the ground of vagueness. (See also State v. Elliott, 234 Ore. 522 [383 P.2d 382, 384-385].)

The proper test as to certainty was stated by this court in People v. Howard, 70 Cal.2d 618, 624 [75 Cal.Rptr. 761, 451 P.2d 401], to be: “ ‘A statute should be sufficiently certain so that a person may know what is prohibited thereby and what may be done without violating its provisions, but it cannot be held void for uncertainty if any reasonable and practical construction can be given to its language. As stated in Pacific Coast Hairy v. Police Court, 214 Cal. 668, at page 676 . . . “Mere difficulty in ascertaining its meaning, or the fact that it is susceptible of different interpretations will not render it nugatory. Doubts as to its construction will not justify us in disregarding it. ’ ’ [Citations.] ’ ’ ’

The meaning of the phrase “necessary to preserve [the woman’s] life” was considered in People v. Ballard, 167 Cal.App.2d 803, 814-815 [335 P.2d 204], wherein the court stated, “Surely, the abortion statute (Pen. Code, §274) does not mean by [this phrase] that the peril to life be imminent. It ought to be enough that the dangerous condition ‘be potentially present, even though its full development might be delayed to a greater or less extent. Nor was it essential that the doctor should believe that the death of the patient would be otherwise certain in order to justify him in affording present relief.’ (State v. Dunklebarger, 206 Iowa 971 [221 N.W. 592, 596]; see also Rex v. Bourne, 1 K.B. 687 . . .; Commonwealth v. Wheeler, 315 Mass. 294 [53 N.E.2d 4]; 23 So.Cal.L.Rev. 523.) In State v. Powers . . . 155 Wash. 63, 67 [283 P. 439, 440], the court satisfied itself with an interpretation of ‘necessity to save life’ by stating, ‘If the appellant in performing the operation did something which was recognized and approved by those reasonably shilled in his profession practicing in the same community . . . then it cannot be sadd that the operation was not necessary to preserve the life of the patient/” (Italics added.) (See also People v. Abarbanel, 239 Cal.App.2d 31, 34 [48 Cal.Rptr. 336] ; People v. Ballard, 218 Cal.App.2d 295, 307 [32 Cal.Rptr. 233].)

Amici for appellant, 178 deans of medical schools, state that the italicized sentence quoted from People v. Ballard, supra, 167 Cal.App.2d 803, 814-815, is in error because “the medical profession has ‘approved’ abortions in cases [in which the objective was not to preserve the life of the woman and therefore] clearly .outside of Penal Code section 274. Packer & *977Gampell, Therapeutic Abortion: A Problem in Law and Medicine, 11 Stan.L.Rev., 417, 447. ...” However, that sentence nust be understood tornean recognized and approved by such oersons as being required to preserve the life of the patient.

The word “preserve” is defined in the dictionary as “1. To teep or save from injury or destruction; ... to protect; save. !. To keep in existence or intact; ... To save from decompo-ition.” (See Webster’s New Internat. Diet. (3d ed. 1961}.) As used in section 274, the word “preserve” has been egarded as synonomous with “save” (see, e.g., People v. Kutz, 187 Cal.App.2d 431, 436 [9 Cal.Rptr. 626]; People v. Malone, 82 Cal.App.2d 54, 59 [185 P.2d 870]; Stern v. Superior Court, 78 Cal.App.2d 9, 18 [177 P.2d 308]), and to save a ife ordinarily is understood as meaning to save from destruction, i.e. dying — not merely from injury. Thus the precipitation of a psychosis in the absence of a genuine threat of suicide is not a threat to life under section -274. (See Packer and Gampell, Therapeutic Abortion: A Problem in Law and Medicine, 11 Stan.L.Rev. 417, 433, 436.)

That the Legislature used the word “preserve” in the sense of save from destruction also appears from the purpose of the section.. The law historically in various contexts has regarded the unborn’ child as a human being. (See Louisell, Abortion, The Practice of Medicine, and the Due Process of Law, 16 U.C.L.A. L.Rev. 233, 234-244.) Louisell (at p. 244) quotes from Prosser on Torts (3d ed. 1964) that “ [M]edical authority has recognized long since that the child is in existence from the moment of conception, and for many purposes its existence is recognized by the law. The criminal law regar it as a separate entity, and the law of property considers it in being for all purposes which are to its benefit, such as taking by will or descent. . . . All writers who have discussed the problem have joined ... in maintaining that the. unborn child in the path of an automobile is as much a person in the street as the mother. ’ ’ In Raleigh Fitkin-Paul Morgan Memorial Hospital v. Anderson, 42 N.J. 421 [201 A.2d 537, 538] (cert. den. 377 U.S. 985 [12 L.Ed.2d 1032, 84 S.Ct. 1894]) it was held that an unborn child of a woman who did not wish blood transfusions because they were contrary to her religious convictions was entitled to the law’s protection and that an order would be made to insure such transfusions to the mother in the event they are necessary in the opinion of the attending physician:

Several statutes show that the California law has been in *978accord in regarding the unborn child as a human being foi various purposes. (See e.g., Pen. Code, §§3706 and 270; Civ. Code, §29.)3 In Scott v. McPheeters, 33 Cal.App.2d 629, 634 [92 P.2d 678, 93 P.2d 562], the court declared: “The respondent asserts that the provisions of section 29 of the Civil Code are based on a fiction of law to the effect that an unborn child is a human being separate and' distinct from its mother. We think that assumption of our statute is not a fiction, but upon the contrary that it is an established and recognized fact by science and by everyone of understanding. ’ ’

It is reasonable to b.elieve that section 274, as it read at the time in question, was not an exception to the law’s attitude respecting the unborn child as a human being-and that it was designed to protect not only the mother’s life but also that of the child. In view of that purpose it would appear that the Legislature intended that the child would be deprived of his right to life only if in the absence of an abortion there was a danger of the mother’s death — not merely of injury to her.

“‘[T]he Constitution does not require impossible standards’; all that is required is’that the language ‘conveys sufficiently definite warning as1 to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practices. . . .’ United States v. Petrillo, 332 U.S. 1, 7-8 [91 L.Ed. 1877, 67 S.Ct. 1538].” (Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 491 [1 L.Ed.2d 1498, 1510, 77 S.Ct. 1304].) Thephrase in question, when applied according to the standard heretofore stated (namely, whether persons reasonably skilled in their profession practicing in the same community recognized and approved the act as being required to save the patient from dying) clearly gives such warning.

Furthermore, section 274 punishes only those who act with “ ‘ . . . the intent to commit a criminal' abortion, that is, an abortion for a purpose other than to preserve [i.e. save from destruction] the life of the mother.’ ” (People v. Abarbanel. supra, 239 Cal.App.2d 31, 34-35; People v. Ballard, supra, 167 Cal.App.2d 803, 817.) The requirement of such an intent eviscerates much of the majority’s claim that the section is *979impermissibly vague. (See generally Mishkin v. New York, 383 U.S. 502, 507, fn. 5 [16 L.Ed.2d 56, 61, 86 S.Ct. 958] Boyce Motor Lines, Inc. v. United States, 342 U.S. 337, 342 [96 L.Ed. 367, 372, 72 S.Ct. 329].) A person who' performs an abortion with such an intent has fair warning that his conduct may violate the law even though he may not be certain where the jury will draw the line on the matter of necessity.

The. principal cases relied upon by the majority, in which.' statutes have been declared unconstitutionally vague, do not. support such a finding when applied to the abortion statute. In People v. McCaughan, 49 Cal.2d 409 [317 P.2d 974], the' statute prohibited, among other conduct, “harsh” or “unkind” treatment of a mentally ill. person. These words were held not to have an established meaning either at common law or as a result of adjudication. They were held unconstitutionally vague. On .the other hand, the phrase “neglect of duty” and the word “cruel” were upheld because they did have such well .established meanings; just as do the words utilized in the phrase under attack here.

Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451, 453 [83 L.Ed. 888, 890, 59 S.Ct. 618], construed a statute defining “gangster” and making it a crime for anyone to be such a person. The. phrase “consisting of two or more persons” was all that ' purported to define “gang,” and the word “gang” was held so vague and uncertain as to violate the Fourteenth Amendment.

Connolly v. General Constr. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 395 [70 L.Ed. 322, 329, 46 S.Ct. 126], involved a statute requiring a contractor to pay his employees “not less than the current rate of .. . wages in the locality where the work is performed,” and the court held the italicized words unconstitutionally vague. Unlike the statute involved here, the statute in question was a new statute and the court noted that its application “depends not upon a word of fixed meaning in itself, or one made definite by statutory or judicial definition. ...”

In contrast to these cases, here the challenged statute has a fixed meaning, frequently applied and impliedly interpreted by the courts in the more than one hundred years of its existence. In addition, the statute requires proof of the specific intent to commit a criminal abortion before a person may be successfully prosecuted under it.

There is, of course, a presumption in favor of constitutionality, and the invalidity of a legislative act must be clear *980before it can be declared unconstitutional. (In re Anderson 69 Cal.2d 613, 628 [73 Cal.Rptr. 21, 447 P.2d 117.)

The majority cite no authority holding that the term “necessary to preserve [the woman’s] life’’ is impermissibly vague, and I agree with the conclusion-as to the constitutionality of the section that is implicit in the multitude of past decisions affirming convictions for illegal abortion, and for murder where death was the result of such an act. 1

I would affirm the judgment.

Dissenting. — I concur in the views of Justice Burke. Reading the majority’s attack on-Penal Code section 274, one would think that the English language which has been the sensitive instrument of our system of law for over 500 years, has lost, by the mere passage of time, all capacity for clarity of expression. The majority strike down the statute solely because they find so vague and uncertain as .io offend constitutional standards of due process, a single brief clause of nine words of long and common usage: “unless the same is necessary to preserve her life. ’ ’ There is no mystique enveloping the statute and, as Justice Burke points out, the clause now challenged has stood the test of over a hundred years, and presumably of countless human incidents falling within its scope, apparently without evoking a single whimpering cry against it.

The mandate of the section is plain and clear, and simply means this: no one shall intentionally procure the miscarriage of a woman unless it is necessary to save her life. ‘ ‘ The criminal intent necessary to support a conviction of illegal abortion must show that it was performed for a purpose other than to save the abortee’s- life.” (People v. Abarbanel (1965) 239 Cal.App.2d 31, 34 [48 Cal.Rptr. 336].) I dare say that the average man in the street, confronted with this law, would have little trouble in extracting its sense (we hold him accountable to much more complicated enactments); and the doctor, with his professional training and expertise would have even less. We have said that “ [i]t is a cardinal rule to be applied to the interpretation of particular words, phrases, or clauses in a statute or a constitution that the entire substance of the instrument or of that portion thereof which has 'relation to the subject under review should be looked to in order to determine the scope and purpose of the particular *981provision therein of which such words, phrases, or clauses form a part; and in order also to determine the particular intent of the framers of the instrument in that portion thereof wherein such words, phrases, or clauses appear.” (Wallace v. Payne (1925) 197 Cal. 539, 544 [241 P. 879].) In the ease before us, the challenged clause when so examined, is clear in meaning.

Yet the majority, by engaging in a process of elaborate and lavish analysis, transform that which is simple and lucid into something complex -and arcane. Actually the analysis is focused on only three" words: “necessary to preserve.” Their fair equivalent is “necessary to save” (see People v. Abarbanel, supra, 239 Cal.App.2d 31, 34, People v. Ballard (1959) 167 Cal.App.2d 803, 814, 817 [335 P.2d 204]). Eather than evaluate these words in the light of “the entire substance” (see Wallace v. Payne, supra, 197 Cal. 539, 544), the majority resort to a dissection: “There is, of course, no standard definition of ‘necessary to preserve’ and taking the words separately-, no clear meaning emerges.” (Ante, pp. 960-961.) In support of this thesis, it is asserted that the word “necessary” does not have a “fixed meaning.” In general, few words do.1 It is further insisted that the definition of “preserve” is “even less enlightening.” Accordingly, the majority discard its obvious meaning, that is, “save,” as used in the context “to save a life.” From such analysis, the opinion concludes “that the term ‘necessary to preserve’ in section 274 of the Penal Code is not susceptible of a construction that does not violate legislative intent and that is sufficiently certain to satisfy due process requirements without improperly infringing on fundamental constitutional rights.” (Ante, p. *982960.) Actually the gist of this is that the three words ‘ 'necessary to preserve ’ ’ are so shrouded in darkness that the average man cannot detect what they mean although average men and men above average have had no trouble with them for a hundred years.

I cannot accept so tortured a conclusion, wrenched from a statute which has had its roots in the law’s historic solicitude for the priceless gift of life. The statute plainly prohibits an abortion unless.it is necessary to save the mother’s life. It strains reason to say that this crystal-clear exception to the law is “so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning. ...” (Lanzetta v. New Jersey (1939) 306 U.S. 451, 453 [83 L.Ed. 888, 890, 59 S.Ct. 618], see ante, p. 960.) And it strains credulity to assume that this defendant, who under the evidence wilfully violated the statute, had to engage in any such guesswork with -respect to the law governing his conduct.

I would affirm the judgment.

Respondent’s petition for a rehearing was denied October 1, 1969. Pierce, J. pro tern.,* sat in place of Mosk, J., who deemed himself disqualified. McComb, J., Burke, J., and Sullivan, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.