Virginia Amendment Would Make Killing Babies in Abortions a Constitutional Right

My task here is to address two audiences who are diametrically opposed in conviction and passionately invested on either side of the abortion issue. Please consider this open letter to all concerned voters, whether you are pro-choice or pro-life. Both sides should take an interest in the upcoming state constitutional amendment that breaches all lines of reason and jeopardizes women’s health. Virginians should oppose the House Joint Resolution No. 1 (“HJ1”), regardless of party or conviction regarding abortion’s legality.

In succeeding paragraphs, I will briefly summarize the current legal landscape for abortion in Virginia, examine the sweeping implications of the proposed amendment, and appeal to both sides to oppose it.

Abortion in Virginia: Popular and Largely Unrestricted

In April 2020, Virginia Governor Ralph Northam signed SB733, which removed reasonable medical and mental health protections for women seeking abortions. The new law

• gutted the substance of the woman’s “informed consent” by removing the information — ultrasounds and explanations of abortion procedures and alternatives are no longer required;
• removed the 24-hour waiting period that gave opportunity to consider this information and weigh the implications of the decision affecting her child;
• reduced the qualification of the medical professional conducting the abortion to a “nurse practitioner … acting within that person’s scope of practice”; and
• removed hospital safety requirements from abortion facilities, adding significant risk for the woman, particularly for those procedures that involve a curette inside her uterus.

SUPPORT LIFENEWS! If you want to help fight abortion, please donate to LifeNews.com!

Since then, there has been no credible challenge to this legislation, and it does not appear to be a notable campaign issue in this year’s Virginia elections.

Virginia is a solidly pro-abortion state. Since the Dobbs decision, abortions in Virginia have increased by about 17%, driven in large part by abortion tourism from other states where abortion is more limited. “Virginia also had the largest percentage point increase of out-of-state abortion patients,” with out-of-state residents comprising “nearly 25 percent [in 2024],” according to Axios. Virginia’s loosened regulations have changed the state’s abortion profile from “safe, legal, and rare” to the host of a rapidly growing non-resident market.

Virginia’s Proposed Amendment: Abandoning Reason

There looms a still greater threat to women on the horizon. The Virginia legislature’s “House Joint Resolution No. 1” (HJ1) proposes to amend the Virginia Constitution, nominally to enshrine “the fundamental right to reproductive freedom.” In reality, however, the amendment would:

• arbitrarily limit the information on abortion alternatives by enabling capricious litigation against those who provided it; and
• further endanger the lives of women who get abortions by eliminating all accountability for abortionists.

The full text of Virginia’s HJ1 follows below (emphases mine):

“Section 11-A. Fundamental right to reproductive freedom.

“That every individual has the fundamental right to reproductive freedom. This right to make and effectuate one’s own decisions about all matters related to one’s pregnancy shall not be denied, burdened, or infringed upon, unless justified by a compelling state interest and achieved by the least restrictive means that do not infringe an individual’s autonomous decision-making. A state interest is compelling only when it is to ensure the protection of the health of an individual seeking care, consistent with accepted clinical standards of practice and evidence-based medicine. The Commonwealth shall not discriminate in the protection or enforcement of this fundamental right.

“That, except when justified by a compelling state interest, the Commonwealth shall not penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against an individual on the basis of an actual, potential, perceived, or alleged outcome of such individual’s pregnancy, nor shall the Commonwealth penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against an individual who aids or assists another individual, with such individual’s voluntary consent, in the exercise of such individual’s right to reproductive freedom.

“That this section shall be self-executing and that if any provision of this section is held invalid, it shall be severable from the remaining portions of the section.”

Seeds of Litigation: ‘… Shall Not be Burdened, or Infringed Upon’

Let us consider the three action verbs in the first highlighted section: that a woman’s decisions regarding all aspects of her pregnancy “shall not be denied, burdened, or infringed upon.” We can quickly gloss over the “not be denied” provision; we are at least a lifetime of gospel labor away, perhaps longer, from convincing a majority of Virginians that abortion is immoral. I get lazy when considering low-probability hypotheticals, but let us consider the other two provisions in detail.

The provisions of “not be burdened” and “not be infringed” are more serious. The language in the amendment is centered on the woman’s decision-making, not just the outcome of her decision. This opens the door to litigation against those who may try to influence her decision. Consider the case of a woman who visits a pro-life pregnancy resource center (PRC) to learn about her options. The staff there lays out in great detail the implications of parenting, adoption, and abortion. She may get an ultrasound and see her child on the screen. The staff promise their support regardless of the woman’s decision, but also make the physical, emotional, and spiritual risks of abortion very clear.

Let us say that in this case, the woman goes through with her abortion and later feels guilty. Does she feel guilty because the PRC staff “burdened” her with the knowledge of the abortion procedure, and what it meant for her and her child? Was her decision-making time “infringed” by the PRC that provided abortion information, but no abortion?

Will radical pro-choice advocates and abortion industry lobbyists see these “burdens,” real or perceived, as opportunities for litigation against their primary competition — those PRCs whose services are always free? Might such allegations be cynically initiated, or even incentivized, by PRC opponents? Lest we see these scenarios as “low-probability hypotheticals,” let us not forget these past and current cases.

• National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra (2018), in which the state of California tried to make pro-life PRCs advertise for abortion.
• Illinois Public Act 103-0270 (2023), a law by which the state defined the relative risks of live births vs. abortion, and declared any challenge to those declared risks as violations punishable under statute, and pursued by the Illinois attorney general.
• First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin (current at Supreme Court), which challenges “unconstitutional investigations by the New Jersey attorney general into Pregnancy Resource Centers (PRCs), accusing PRCs of so-called ‘deceptive’ practices.”
• The current case of Your Options Medical (a PRC) against the Massachusetts governor and other officials for smearing the PRC using state funds and media resources.

There are others, and they all illustrate how radical abortion proponents in power will weaponize government resources against those who provide life-affirming alternatives and support to women with unplanned pregnancies. If you are pro-life in Virginia, you need to mobilize on behalf of those legislative candidates who will vote against this amendment.

At this point, my pro-choice acquaintances may say, “Who cares? PRCs get in the way of abortions!”

To these cynics, I offer these points in appeal:

• No PRC has ever limited a woman’s choices. They provide information on alternatives, and the woman chooses. The only people that lose when she chooses life are abortion businesses, who miss out on about $550 in revenue per procedure.
• Please reconsider whether you want the state government to have the power to limit what information a woman gets about her pregnancy. The COVID pandemic revealed the risks of allowing the government to exercise sole discretion on “truth.”
• If you want to call abortion a woman’s choice, there has to be at least one competing alternative.
• More than 80% of PRCs are medically licensed and offer free ultrasounds. Customer satisfaction (i.e., that of the women served) exceeded 99% in 2020 data.
• All PRCs offer practical and emotional support through the pregnancy; many provide parenting classes; many provide post-abortion care.

If choice is about informed consent, why would anyone outside an abortion business want to limit these services or the information the woman gains from them?

Zero Accountability: The Commonwealth Shall Not ‘Take Adverse Action against an Individual Who Aids or Assists Another Individual … in the Exercise of Such Individual’s Right’

After over 50 years under the “Never Again” taboo label, this amendment brings back-alley abortions with coat hangers back in style. Note the sweeping language that prohibits the state from penalty, prosecution, or any other “adverse action” against anyone who tries to help a woman with an abortion. There are no restrictions on the service provided or the would-be assistant’s competence for the task. So long as the woman’s “voluntary consent” can be established, no one can be held liable for perforating a woman’s uterus, or fostering an infection in her most sensitive areas, or sterilizing her outright. Under this amendment, amateurs and semi-pros will be free to “do their best” (or their worst) with pre-approved criminal immunity, provided they were invited to do so.

I am sure that negligent abortion businesses might still be vulnerable to a charge of negligence in a civil court. But many women seeking abortions are already poor and can’t afford to take on the abortion industry juggernaut in these cases. The poor rely on criminal statutes and the power of the state to defend them against the strong; this amendment removes that protection and subjects these women to the unchecked power of Big Abortion.

Pro-choice advocates: Is this the medical practice standard you want for women’s reproductive health — anything goes, by anyone, almost anywhere, with no accountability for neglect or malice?

Pro-life advocates: We need to advance the argument that this amendment jeopardizes the health of women and removes accountability for those who handle women’s health with negligence, or worse, those who pursue malicious, profit-driven exploitation.

Timeline, Margin, and Action

In Virginia, constitutional amendments must be passed by both houses of two consecutive legislatures with an election in between, before being presented on the ballot for Virginians to approve. A simple majority suffices at all steps. The governor is not involved, and the proposed amendment cannot be edited after the first legislature approves.

HJ1 passed the first legislature in January 2025 by one vote in each chamber along party lines. State elections are this November, and the amendment will be up for the second legislature’s approval in January 2026. If it passes then, it will be on the November 2026 mid-term ballots in Virginia.

HJ1 cannot be edited; it must be voted down. Early voting for the November 2025 Virginia elections begins September 19. That means our window for influencing voters starts to narrow within about six weeks of this writing. Based on the January 2025 vote, amendment advocates have only a one-vote margin in each house. Prospects for a more rational vote that protects women’s safety — and some children’s lives — are severely challenged, but within reach.

With or without a change in the legislative makeup, we need pro-choice politicians to reconsider the scope and effects of this amendment, and similar ones that may follow after it.

Reconciling All Things to Himself

Campaigns and voting won’t save Virginians or the citizens of any other state from the wrath of a loving but holy God. Only the Gospel of Jesus Christ can do that. But He came not just to save individuals from Hell, but also to “reconcile all things both in Heaven and on earth, to Himself” (Colossians 1:20). In other words, Christ came to realign creation to its original design. The physical, earthly lives of women and children matter to Him, and we need to stand against ideas and statutes that jeopardize those lives.

A final appeal to pro-choice voters in Virginia: Please join us in bringing reason back to the discussion of safety protocols for women’s health and full information regarding her choices. We need to speak up now.

LifeNews Note: Quinn Skinner retired from the U.S. Navy after serving 26 years, having attained the rank of Captain. He currently works for a pregnancy help organization and is the board chairman for PassionLife. The views of the author are his own and do not reflect those of his employer or any U.S. government entity. He lives in Virginia Beach with his wife and children. This column originally appeared at Washington Stand.

The post Virginia Amendment Would Make Killing Babies in Abortions a Constitutional Right appeared first on LifeNews.com.