Virginia voters are dealing with the most important ballot question in years: whether to approve the misnamed “Reproductive Freedom Amendment” (RFA) to Virginia’s Constitution, which appears as Ballot Question #1. If ultimately adopted, the RFA would abolish all parental responsibility and decision-making involving their minor children in all areas of sexual behavior, contraception, abortion, and other medical interventions.

Advocates of the RFA are not eager to describe the amendment this way. In fact, the RFA’s actual language is not even shown on the ballot, but its first sentence (see actual text of RFA here) provides that “… every individual has the fundamental right to reproductive freedom.” Under this radical constitutional provision, there is NO minimum age!

What does the word “individual” mean here? The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (which includes Virginia) ruled, “the Supreme Court has explained, when used [a]s a noun, ‘individual’ ordinarily means a human being, a person. [Mohamad v. Palestinian Auth., 566 U.S. 449].” Moreover, the Virginia Code states that “person includes any individual” (VA Code § 1-230).

Since RFA has no age threshold, it would allow 12-year-olds to access or be subjected to birth control, abortion, sterilization, and gender transition surgery or drugs without parental consent or notice because “reproductive freedom” would become a fundamental right of the individual, no matter how young.

Under Roe v. Wade, the following commonsense state laws and policies have been found constitutional to preserve maternal health and individual fetal life. But if the RFA is approved by Virginia voters this November, the following protections could not be enacted because they would be overridden by Virginia’s Constitution: 

• Require abortion to be carried out by a licensed physician;
• Enforce medical licensing standards;
• Regulate procedures to protect the health of the pregnant woman;
• Provide health/safety standards in hospital/clinics to protect women;
• Require reporting and record-keeping;
• Protect the lives of unborn children after viability;
• Require waiting periods (e.g., 24 hours) before undergoing abortion;
• Require informed consent;
• Require parental consent or notification for a minor’s abortion (with judicial bypass);
• Require counseling before abortion;
• Prevent tax funding of abortion.

A 2025 UCLA Law School report found, “State reproductive freedom amendments have the power to transform the reproductive rights landscape. … [E]ven state laws that have long been on the books, or have been held constitutional under prior federal precedent, cannot stand.”

During debate in the Virginia legislature, two state senators offered amendments to the RFA to provide medical care to a child who survives an abortion, to require parental consent for a minor’s abortion, to provide safety standards for abortion, and to regulate transgender drugs or surgery performed on minors. All of these amendments were voted down.

When challenged in court, parental consent for abortion, which is currently Virginia law, and the current ban on certain late-term abortions would be found unconstitutional because RFA precludes any future limits on abortion or sexual “freedom.”

The RFA describes reproductive freedom as: “… including … prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, abortion care, miscarriage management, and fertility care.”

According to the Virginia Code, the word “‘Includes’ means includes, but not limited to …” (VA Code § 1-218). “Reproductive freedom” is therefore not limited to the laundry list of reproduction-related “rights” embraced in the RFA. In fact, surrogate pregnancy, human cloning, and in vitro fertilization are all related to “reproduction,” and it is very possible that insurance providers will be required to cover these, causing health insurance premiums to increase for everyone.

The RFA states, “reproductive freedom shall not be … denied, burdened, or infringed upon unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means.” This “compelling state interest” language gives the illusion that Virginia’s RFA is not extreme, but the reality is otherwise.

In 2020, Catholic University Law professor Elizabeth Kirk described to Kansas legislators what happens to state laws subjected to the “compelling state interest” test. She noted that a 24-hour waiting period, parental consent, informed consent, maternal health and safety regulations, and requiring hospital admitting privileges for physicians were all struck down. Concern for maternal health only from the second trimester was allowed to stand.

Kirk stated, “Two scholars described the federal courts’ jurisprudence in this area as having created a public health vacuum endangering the lives and health of women.”

If Virginia voters approve the RFA (Ballot Question # 1) (see the actual RFA language here because it was left off the ballot), conscience protections for doctors, nurses, or health insurance providers will also be challenged. Churches and private schools that do not fall in line with the RFA’s commands could have their tax-exempt status and accreditation challenged.

The best response to this radical overreach is to protect women, children, and parental responsibility for their minor children’s most serious life-altering decisions.