Virginia moves to protect reproductive and voting rights, but the fight is far from over

Virginia lawmakers took a major step this week toward enshrining reproductive rights, restoring voting rights for people with past felony convictions, and officially removing the state’s defunct ban on same-sex marriage from the state constitution. But while these measures have cleared the General Assembly, the fight is far from over. 

With no requirement for the governor’s approval, the resolutions must pass both chambers again next year before landing on statewide ballots for voters to decide. 

Sen. Jennifer Boysko, D-Fairfax, speaking at a news conference with ReproRising Virginia Thursday, emphasized the power voters may soon have in shaping these constitutional changes. 

“It’s going to be in our hands, then it’s going to be in your hands,” she said. 

However, that opportunity hinges on Democrats maintaining control of the House of Delegates in the November election. 

“If we don’t hold this majority, this is all lost,” Boysko warned. 

While the voting rights and same-sex marriage amendments have drawn bipartisan support, the reproductive rights amendment has sparked fierce Republican opposition. 

House Minority Leader Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah, voiced frustration on the House floor ahead of the vote, arguing that the proposal goes far beyond the protections of Roe v. Wade, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision from 1973 that established a constitutional right to abortion.

“This could have been an embodiment of Roe v. Wade and taken into account existing state law, but it does not. This will be judged eventually by the public,” Gilbert said. “This is abortion until birth with no restrictions.”

As Gilbert accused Democrats of advocating for infanticide, he echoed a claim that first gained traction when Democrats sought to reduce the three-phycisian approval threshold for later term abortions. The allegation, widely debunked by medical experts, was also a centerpiece of President Donald Trump’s rhetoric on the campaign trail last year.  

Abortions at or after 21 weeks are rare, making up just 1% of cases nationwide. 

 When they do occur, it’s often due to severe fetal anomalies that aren’t detected earlier through testing or because of life-threatening complications later in pregnancy. 

Despite federal and state laws explicitly prohibiting infanticide, Gilbert and other opponents argue that the proposed constitutional amendment lacks adequate safeguards. They contend that the current language does not explicitly reinforce existing parental consent laws for minors or address medical requirements when an infant is born. 

Del. Dolores Oates, R-Warren, grew emotional as she shared a personal story, recalling she sought guidance from her mother and grandmother when she faced an unexpected pregnancy at the age of 16. 

“This choice is real and the outcome is a person,” she said, noting that her son is now in his mid-40s.

But Del. Cia Price, D-Newport News, pushed back, emphasizing that the amendment does not alter the ability of parents to counsel their children. 

“It does not change” parents’ abilities to confer with their children to seek an abortion, Price said. 

State law already mandates parental consent for minors unless they obtain approval from a judge.

Under current Virginia law, adults can seek an abortion for any reason through the second trimester. After that, the procedure requires approval from three physicians, who must determine that continuing the pregnancy would  threaten the patient’s life or cause irreparable physical or mental harm. 

While the amendment does not mirror existing law exactly, it would reduce the three-physician requirement to one and introduce a legal standard known as “compelling state interest” for any abortion restrictions. This principle, commonly referred to as strict scrutiny, was the legal foundation of Roe v. Wade before the Supreme Court overturned the decision in 2022. 

Since the fall of Roe v. Wade, Republican-led legislatures across the country have enacted bans or severe restrictions on abortion, while other states — across the political spectrum —  have moved in the opposite direction, passing constitutional amendments to protect reproductive rights. 

Defending Virginia’s proposed amendment, Price pointed to reports of pregnant individuals in states with strict abortions bans dying from pregnancy-related complications or being forced to travel out-of-state for care. She noted that clinics in Virginia have already seen an increase in such patients, while lawmakers this session are also working to address broader disparities in maternal healthcare. 

“Virginia already has a maternal health crisis,” Price said.  “We cannot ignore real-life medical reality.” 

If enshrined in Virginia’s constitution, abortion access and other reproductive rights would become far more resistant to legislative shifts, shielding from the kind of partisan turnover that has shaped abortion law in other states. But constitutional amendments are hard to undo — and equally hard to pass.

With the resolutions now clearing the legislature for the first time, the real test comes next year, when lawmakers will have to approve them again before voters get the final say at the ballot box.

This article first appeared on Virginia Mercury and is republished here with permission. Virginia Mercury is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Virginia Mercury maintains editorial independence.