Everyone’s focused on the races for governor and attorney general, but the vote for who controls the Virginia House of Delegates will ultimately decide whether or not there will be a constitutional right to abortion in the Old Dominion.
When Virginia voters step into the ballot box on November 4, they won’t see a ballot question asking whether or not abortion should be enshrined in the state constitution.
But how they vote this year will determine if that question ever does get put on the ballot.
That’s because unlike most other states, Virginia has a legislator-referred constitutional amendment process rather than a citizen-referred process. If pro-abortion legislators maintain control of Virginia’s House of Delegates this year, they will have the votes they need to complete the years-long amendment process and put it on the ballot in the 2026 general election.
Democrats currently have narrow control of the Virginia General Assembly, having flipped the House of Delegates in 2023. That allowed them to start the amendment process, which requires each legislative body to first pass the measure and then advance it to a statewide voter referendum. These votes have to take place in two different legislative sessions.
The abortion amendment passed for the first time in January 2025 along party lines in the narrowly divided General Assembly, passing the Virginia House of Delegates 51-49 and the Virginia Senate 21-19.
If the Democrats maintain their majority in the House, they will then have the votes necessary to take the next step, which is to advance the proposed amendment so it can be placed on the ballot as a question for the voters in the November 2026 election.
All of this is done without any input from the governor.
What’s in the Proposed Amendment?
Known officially as House Joint Resolution 1, or HJ1, the proposed amendment can be read in its entirety here. A summary is as follows:
“Provides that every individual has the fundamental right to reproductive freedom and that such right shall not be, directly or indirectly, denied, burdened, or infringed upon unless justified by a compelling state interest, as defined in the amendment, and achieved by the least restrictive means. The amendment specifies that, notwithstanding the other provisions of amendment, the Commonwealth may regulate the provision of abortion care in the third trimester, provided that in no circumstance shall the Commonwealth prohibit an abortion (i) that in the professional judgment of a physician is medically indicated to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual or (ii) when in the professional judgment of a physician the fetus is not viable.”
How would this change abortion law in Virginia?
Currently, Virginia law allows a woman to obtain an abortion at any time up to 27 weeks’ gestation. A woman can get an abortion past that point, but only if three physicians say that 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.” First passed in 1975, it has long been considered one of the most permissive abortion laws in the country.
But abortion advocates claim that is not enough.
They say women should have a “fundamental right” to abortion and a right to reproductive freedom that eliminates the state’s ability to implement any restrictions on abortion.
That means that if the amendment is ultimately passed, in practicality, any woman in Virginia will be able to receive an abortion at any point in her pregnancy, for any reason.
In other words, a woman will now be able to get an abortion past the 27-week threshold up until the moment of birth.
But it introduces other issues into Virginia that will affect not just life in the womb but also patient safety, medical ethics, religious liberty, and parental rights.
Opponents to the proposed amendment say that, as written, the proposed amendment will remove a number of current requirements and restrictions on the practice of abortion. For example, the measure would eliminate current medical qualifications for those performing abortions. Currently, only doctors and nurse practitioners licensed by the Board of Medicine are allowed to perform abortions during the first trimester, while second and third trimester abortions must be done by licensed physicians in hospital settings. Under the proposed amendment, those demands would be reduced to “accepted standards of clinical practice,” meaning abortions could conceivably be performed by clinical staff who may or may not have the requisite medical training and experience.
HJ1 would also allow abortions to be permitted anywhere, including in unregulated facilities.
Additionally, it would undermine parental authority by prohibiting parental oversight or consent requirements for minors seeking an abortion.
It is crucial to note that by allowing for abortion in the third trimester for reasons of mental health, the amendment gives a physician permission to argue that because an ongoing pregnancy is causing a woman to be overly stressed, anxious, or depressed, he has a legitimate medical reason for performing an abortion in the third trimester. It also leaves the “viability” of an unborn child up to a single physician, which could be a Planned Parenthood abortionist.
In addition, the amendment specifies that the state’s interest is only compelling 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.”
In other words protecting the life of the baby, protecting a woman from the harms of abortion, or safeguarding a man from having his child killed without his consent are not compelling state interests under this amendment.
What Do Lawmakers Have to Say?
Several conservative members of the Virginia General Assembly have been expressing alarm over HJ1 since it passed the first time, labeling it radical and destructive to not just those involved but to larger constitutional rights and Virginia society.
Former House Minority Leader Todd Gilbert decried the amendment when it first passed, stating, “It doesn’t embody Roe v. Wade in the least. In fact, it goes well beyond all of that to become the most extreme abortion measure in the nation and possibly the civilized world.”
Gilbert also called the amendment’s summary language a “word salad” intended to “cloud the true intentions” of the measure.
He argues that lowering the number of doctors needed to sign off on an abortion from three to one eliminates safeguards, saying that the abortion doctor could sign off on the abortion.
Del. Carrie Coyner noted the amendment would also conflict with a current Virginia law mandating parental consent for anyone under the age of 18 seeking an abortion.
“I am required to be present for every single one of my children’s doctor appointments today. For everything as mundane as a cold, to annual routine physicals to play in school sports, but this amendment would allow my daughter and countless others to make a decision that could change the course of her life without consulting me,” Coyner said.
Del. Mark Early explained how devastating the impact of HJ1 could be for future generations saying, “This resolution is not only extreme — and it is, but the real problem with it is that it’s fundamentally misguided because it refuses to open its eyes to the lives and futures of children.”
Why Voters Must Elect Pro-Life Legislators
Although Virginia’s provision for advancing and voting on constitutional amendments is closer to the intention of the Founding Fathers than many other states, which allow a bare majority of citizens to make sweeping changes to a state constitution seemingly overnight through citizen-led ballot measures, the advancement of HJ1 would be bad news for all Virginians.
An unborn fetus begins developing pain receptors at seven weeks of pregnancy, and those pain receptors become linked to the brain just five weeks later, meaning that a fetus can feel pain at 12 weeks of pregnancy.
Modern medicine has shown that a baby can survive outside the womb at less than 22 weeks’ gestation. Curtis Means, who is the world’s most premature surviving baby, was born at one day over 21 weeks, and celebrated his fifth birthday this summer.
The proposed abortion amendment in Virginia guarantees abortion as a constitutional right through at least 27 weeks and removes any real hurdle to abortion up to birth, meaning many kids just like Curtis would be killed if this amendment is adopted.
The amendment may possibly open the door to partial and even after-birth abortions.
Former Gov. Ralph Northam, D, said as much when he infamously described how a baby born alive after an abortion would be kept “comfortable” as the doctor and mother discussed the baby’s fate. Yet this amendment goes even further than what Northam favored at that time because he at least favored the requirement that more than one physician must sign off on a late-term abortion.
But whether at 7 weeks or 21 weeks’ gestation or at birth, abortion ultimately kills a living human being.
To enshrine the “right” to murder a human being is not just sinful, it is grotesque.
If this amendment is passed it would be exceedingly difficult to undo. Virginia is already a purple state and a recent redistricting measure has tipped the map in favor of pro-abortion candidates. Any effort to repeal this amendment and undo its harms would require Virginia voters to elect a majority of pro-life legislators to both houses in two successive elections and then vote to pass a pro-life amendment in the general election.
That’s why it is critical for citizens of the Commonwealth to vote in this year’s election for pro-life legislators who will vote “no” on this amendment.
In fact, the vote on November 4 may be one of the most critical elections in the modern era in Virginia. The future of unborn children are on the ballot on that day, and no Virginian with a moral compass should leave their fate up to those who would happily see them aborted.
If you like this article and other content that helps you apply a biblical worldview to today’s politics and culture, consider making a donation here.
