Virginia’s extremist abortion vote

In Focus delivers deeper coverage of the political, cultural, and ideological issues shaping America. Published daily by senior writers and experts, these in-depth pieces go beyond the headlines to give readers the full picture. You can find our full list of In Focus pieces here. Abortion is legal in almost all cases in Virginia, but that’s not good enough for the Democrats. They want to enshrine abortion as a constitutional right, and they want to strip nearly all abortion regulations for all nine months of pregnancy.Early voting has begun in Virginia, and voters are deciding on three proposed amendments to the constitution, including one on abortion. In a state where abortion is already legal, it’s tempting to think this vote doesn’t matter much. But the abortion advocates clearly don’t think so: Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and the group formerly known as NARAL have already spent a combined $4 million to pass this measure. Central to their efforts is misleading the public on what this amendment would do.There’s plenty at stake in this vote, and so it’s worth understanding the proposed amendment in some detail.What they have and what they want Already, abortion is almost totally unrestricted under current Virginia law.Virginia state code explicitly states that abortion is legal “prior to the third trimester of pregnancy.” Premature babies can survive outside the womb starting at 22 weeks. More than 85% of babies survive being born at 26 weeks of gestation.In Virginia, that baby can be aborted for any reason, as could a baby at 27 weeks of gestation.Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger participates in inaugural ceremonies at the Capitol in Richmond, VA., Saturday, Jan. 17, 2026. (AP Photo/Pool/Steve Helber) Only at 28 weeks gestation does Virginia law place any meaningful restrictions on abortion, and those restrictions have exceptions. Keep in mind that third-trimester abortions are less than 1% of all abortions, according to abortion advocates.Third-trimester abortion — that is, from week 28 up until the moment before birth — is legal in Virginia if “the physician and two consulting physicians certify and so enter in the hospital record of the woman, that in their medical opinion, based upon their best clinical judgment, the continuation of the pregnancy is likely to result in the death of the woman or substantially and irremediably impair the mental or physical health of the woman.”If that baby is delivered alive, the hospital is required to try to keep the baby alive.The three-physician requirement doesn’t apply if a doctor believes the abortion is needed to save the mother’s life.Also, current Virginia law requires a parent to consent when a minor seeks an abortion, unless a court orders that seeking such consent would endanger the pregnant girl.Finally, Virginia imposes health and safety regulations on abortionists similar to those imposed on most medical procedures.Even this very light regulation of abortion is too much for Democratic politicians and their allies in the abortion lobby.As a rule, Democrats do not accept any restrictions on abortion at any stage of pregnancy. In recent elections, reporters have begun asking Democratic presidential, Senate, and congressional candidates where they would draw the line on abortion, and uniformly, the Democrats have refused to even allow for a line.Virginia Democrats in particular have espoused abortion extremism going back to the last decade. In 2019, Democratic state delegate Kathy Tran proposed a bill substantially similar to this proposed Amendment. When asked if her bill would legalize abortion when the mother was “about to give birth,” she said yes. She confirmed she was trying to legalize abortion, “all the way up to 40 weeks.”Defending post-viability abortion, Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam, around that same time, explained on a radio show what he would prescribe if a baby survived an attempted abortion in the third trimester.“If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen,” Northam said on a radio show. “The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”With this extremism in mind, read the proposed amendment.The amendment The proposed amendment declares that “every individual has the fundamental right to reproductive freedom, including the ability to make and carry out decisions relating to one’s own prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, abortion care, miscarriage management, and fertility care.”In other words, abortion and these other aspects of reproduction would become “fundamental rights.” The amendment continues that these rights “shall not be, directly or indirectly, denied, burdened, or infringed upon unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means.”The proposed amendment then offers a narrow definition of “compelling interest.”“For the purposes of this section, a state interest is compelling only if it is for the limited purpose of maintaining or improving the health of an individual seeking care, consistent with accepted clinical standards of care and evidence-based medicine, and does not infringe on that individual’s autonomous decision making.”That is, the constitution would instruct courts to totally disregard the interest of the unborn child (even a viable unborn child), the child’s father, a young mother’s parents, or human decency. Also, this passage states that the state may not regulate even third-trimester abortion in any manner that “infringe[s] on” the expectant mother’s “autonomous decision making.”Put all this language together, and it reads a bit like a blanket right to abortion on demand. At the very least, it creates a huge opening for abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood to sue and overturn parental consent laws, along with safety and hygiene regulations on abortion.The proposed amendment would explicitly narrow the rules that currently protect third-trimester babies from abortion. If the amendment passes, Virginia could still regulate third-trimester abortion, but it could not prohibit any abortion “that in the professional judgment of a physician is medically indicated to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual.” (Yes, it says “pregnant individual” instead of “mother” or “pregnant woman.”)This almost totally eliminates the existing barriers to third-trimester abortions. Down from three physicians noting concern over substantial and irremediable harm, the threshold would now be one physician worried about any threat to the mother’s physical or mental health.Late-term abortionists such as Warren Hern have repeatedly stated that every pregnancy poses a risk to a woman’s physical and mental health, meaning this language wouldn’t protect a single unborn child from abortion.The amendment language does not specify at all what it means to have a “fundamental right” to “fertility care.” Do in-vitro fertilization and surrogacy become rights?Deception The casual reader of the ballot measure — that is, the voter on Election Day — might not realize that this amendment is mostly about abortion.The ballot question asks:“Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to: protect the freedom to make personal decisions about prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, abortion, miscarriage management, and fertility care; protect doctors, nurses, and patients from being punished for these decisions; and (iii) allow for restrictions on access to abortion during the third trimester of pregnancy except when the patient’s health is at risk or the pregnancy cannot survive?” Points (i) and (ii) sound as if they could be protecting doctors who care for pregnant women and their babies. Point (iii) sounds like it is making a pro-life change regarding third-trimester abortions. The ballot language is obviously crafted to deceive the voter.The media is following suit, opting for language that obscures rather than explains what the amendment would do. The Virginia Mercury calls it a “reproductive rights constitutional amendment,” and describes it thus: “If approved, it would protect access to abortions, fertility treatments and contraception in the state.”VIRGINIA IS THE NEXT IMPORTANT BATTLEGROUND OF THE FIGHT FOR LIFEWTOP, the pre-eminent news radio station in the D.C. area, leans on the Mercury for most of its coverage of the proposed amendment. When WTOP does cover it, it simply describes it as “a constitutional amendment in November that would guarantee abortion rights in Virginia,” without explaining what that would mean.The Washington Post summarizes the amendment as “protecting access to abortions.”All of this benign or moderate-sounding language, if it wins over the voters, will give Virginia some of the most extreme abortion laws in America.