Virginia Enshrines Unfettered Abortion On Demand In Constitution
Virginia voters approved a constitutional amendment that, according to initial returns, passed by about 62 percent and woudl permit abortion on demand at any point during pregnancy for any reason. Teh campaign backing the amendment outraised it’s opponents by roughly three to one.
the measure places virtually no limits on when abortions can be performed and sharply restricts the ability of future legislatures to regulate the practice, framing most restrictions as violations of a “essential right to reproductive freedom.” The Federalist argues the language would allow abortions up to birth – even for reasons such as maternal “anxiety” – and could prevent prosecution in extreme cases. As many third-trimester infants can survive outside the womb, critics say the amendment effectively permits late-term killings.
The amendment also removes age limits and parental-notification requirements, limits informed-consent rules, and could force unwilling doctors to provide abortions under threat of job loss. Critics warn it could let unlicensed or unqualified people perform abortions at facilities that don’t meet medical inspection standards; a pro-life OB/GYN group says similar laws elsewhere have led to podiatrists and optometrists doing surgical abortions.
A post-election legal challenge was allowed to proceed in Tazewell Circuit Court, with Judge Jack Hurley setting a hearing for nov. 13. The lawsuit contends the ballot language was deceptive and failed to inform voters that the amendment allows unrestricted, on-demand abortions while blocking regulatory and medical safeguards; it also raises procedural claims about how the amendment was placed on the ballot. Challengers hope those arguments – similar to ones used against a prior gerrymandering plan – could overturn the amendment.
The article was written by Breccan F. Thies, White House correspondent for The Federalist.
Virginia voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment that will allow abortion on demand, at any point in a pregnancy, for any or no reason at all in Tuesday’s election.
As of press time, approval of the amendment received about 62 percent of the vote, though final vote tallies are still being made and not all precincts have reported.
The “yes” campaign for the amendment raised about three times more money than the “no” campaign.
The abortion amendment is extremely permissive. Not only are there zero parameters regarding when one can obtain an abortion within the timeframe of her pregnancy, but the measure also forecloses essentially all opportunities for legislative regulation in the future.
As The Federalist reported, the measure allows killing unborn babies for any reason (including the mother experiencing “anxiety”) up to the moment of birth, but also categorizes the placing of any constraints on such late-term abortion as an infringement of a “fundamental right to reproductive freedom.”
Nearly all third-trimester babies can already survive outside the womb, but the amendment creates a glidepath to their murder anyway.
The amendment strips any age restriction or parental notification requirement for abortion, meaning minors can obtain abortions without their parents’ knowledge or consent. It also labels requirements to provide any kind of informed consent about what abortion truly involves and the associated risks an infringement on the “right,” while reportedly forcing doctors who do not want to perform the procedure to do so under threat of losing their jobs.
The measure would ostensibly allow even unlicensed, unqualified people to perform abortions at facilities that are not subject to medical inspections. According to Dr. Christina Francis, a board-certified OB/GYN hospitalist and CEO of the American Association of Pro-Life OBGYNs (AAPLOG), states with similar laws have seen podiatrists and optometrists conduct surgical abortions.
In Virginia, the fight over the abortion amendment is not over. Last week, a judge in the Tazewell Circuit Court allowed a post-election challenge to move forward, provided the amendment was approved by voters.
As The Federalist reported, Judge Jack Hurley set a Nov. 13 hearing date for the challenge, rejecting a request from the Democrat-run Virginia government to stop the challenge. Hurley is the same judge who consistently ruled against Democrats in their 10 Democrat-1 Republican gerrymandering scheme, which ultimately failed in the commonwealth’s Supreme Court after voters approved the plan.
Virginia has a longstanding practice of not allowing challenges to the results of an election until after it has taken place.
The challenge both addresses the “deceptive” language used on the ballot, asserting that no normal voter would be able to understand that it would allow abortion on-demand, at any time, as well as block any regulatory or medical safeguards whatsoever.
The lawsuit also makes procedural arguments that are similar to those made about the gerrymandering plan, related to how the proposal ended up on the ballot and other logistical issues concerning how it was pushed through the legislative process. Challengers are hopeful that the shoddy work of Democrats could tank their plan once again.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
