The Virginia House of Delegates on Tuesday passed an amendment aimed at enshrining induced abortion — the direct and intentional killing of a preborn child — as a constitutional right. The vote was along party lines, with 51 Democrats voting for the amendment and 48 Republicans opposing it.
According to The Virginian Pilot, the Senate Privileges and Elections Committee also voted Tuesday to advance the “reproductive freedom resolution[]” in an 8-6 party line vote. The amendment will need to pass both the House and Senate twice before Virginia voters consider it for final approval in 2026.
The proposed amendment, sponsored by House Majority Leader Charniele Herring, would alter the Constitution of Virginia by adding section 11-A to Article 1 with the new section titled, “Fundamental right to reproductive freedom.” The term “reproductive freedom” is a popular euphemism for induced abortion. However, the amendment groups life-affirming acts such as “prenatal care” and “childbirth” together with “abortion care” — which intentionally ends preborn lives.
As approved by the House of Delegates, the amendment states:
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.
An individual’s right to reproductive freedom 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 amendment allows the Commonwealth of Virginia to place only extremely loose restrictions on abortion in the third trimester, stating that the Commonwealth may “in no circumstance… prohibit an 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 or … when in the professional judgment of a physician the fetus is not viable” (emphases added).
In other words, preborn children old enough to live outside the womb could be legally killed by dismemberment or lethal injection because of a mother’s mental health issue or because an abortionist determined the baby to be “not viable” — when viability (the ability to survive outside the womb) is known to be viewed by abortionists as subjective.
In addition, the amendment would reduce the number of doctors needed to sign off on a third-trimester abortion from three to just one. As Del. Nick Freitas noted, the debate on the amendment proved just how extreme this measure is.
“Virginia already allows abortion in the sixth month of pregnancy, but that isn’t enough for Democrats,” said SBA Pro-Life American Regional Political Director Caitlin Connors. “Their eagerness to break legislative protocol to make third-trimester abortions one of the first votes of 2025 shows just how extreme the Democrat party has become. Their actions are a reminder of the high stakes of Virginia’s legislative races this year. GOP candidates must expose their opponents’ radical agenda for all-trimester abortion, the elimination of parental rights and forced taxpayer funding of abortion.”
Induced abortion — directly and intentionally killing a preborn child before delivery — is not medically necessary. Even in a medical emergency, the child can be delivered through induced labor or C-section and would not have to be actively killed prior to that delivery. If the baby is too young to survive an early emergency delivery to save the mother’s life, this does not constitute an intentional killing of that child. An induced abortion carries the purpose of ensuring that the baby dies.
The amendment also ensures that no woman shall be prosecuted or penalized for their “own exercise of this fundamental right or such individual’s own actual, potential, perceived, or alleged pregnancy outcomes, including miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion.”
This language of “pregnancy outcomes” is problematic, according to legal experts who believe it could decriminalize leaving a child to die at birth if that child is born with a health condition that had previously gone undetected or if the baby survives an abortion, or that if a pregnant woman determines a “potential” or “perceived” outcome for her child, that child could be killed at any point during pregnancy, even using abortion drugs in the last days of pregnancy. Such language could significantly reduce a child’s right and ability to receive life-saving and life-sustaining care after birth, regardless of what doctors advise, and based solely on the mother’s ‘perception.’
The amendment as approved may also invalidate the parental consent law for minors wishing to obtain an abortion, with lawmakers raising concerns over the amendment’s use of the term “individual” as opposed to “adult.” Though Herring claimed the amendment would not invalidate parental consent, she also justified removing required parental consent by asserting how requiring it might harm underage incest victims seeking abortions after parental sexual assault.
During discussions, Del. Carrie Coyner expressed her concern about the removal of parental consent. “I am filled with an overwhelming concern for young girls across our commonwealth who may soon be faced with life-changing decisions,” she said, adding, “I am required to be present for every single one of my children’s doctor appointments today. Yet this amendment would allow my daughter to make a decision that would change the course of her life without consulting me. How can we place such a heavy burden on young women across the commonwealth… We should not be sidelined in such a critical decision.”
Tell President Trump, RFK, Jr., Elon, and Vivek:
Stop killing America’s future. Defund Planned Parenthood NOW!
