Virginia's 2026 Constitutional Amendments: Protecting Life, Marriage, and Virginia's Constitutional Foundation
- Citizens Defending Freedom Press Staff
- Aug 5
- 12 min read
This November, Virginia voters will be asked to decide three proposed amendments to the Virginia Constitution. While each addresses a different area of public policy, together they would make significant changes to the Commonwealth's governing document that could shape Virginia law for generations to come.
The three proposed constitutional amendments would:
Question 1/HJ 1 (Reproductive Freedom): Create a constitutional right to "reproductive freedom," including contraception, “fertility care,” and abortion.
Question 2/HJ 3 (Marriage): Remove Virginia's constitutional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman and replace it with new constitutional language recognizing marriages between two adults regardless of sex, gender, or race.
Question 3 (Voting Rights): Establish a constitutional right to vote while automatically restoring voting rights to individuals convicted of felonies upon their release from incarceration, among other changes to Virginia's voter qualification provisions.
Constitutional amendments are unlike ordinary legislation. Once adopted, they become part of Virginia's Constitution and cannot be easily amended or repealed by a future General Assembly. For that reason, every proposed amendment deserves careful examination—not simply through the abbreviated language that appears on the ballot, but through the actual constitutional text voters are being asked to approve.
This article focuses on two of the three proposed amendments: HJ 1, relating to abortion and "reproductive freedom," and HJ 3, relating to marriage. Although these amendments address different issues, they both concern institutions that Christians have historically understood to predate government itself.
At Citizens Defending Freedom, we believe every human life is created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), and that marriage is a covenant established by God between one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:4–6). Civil government did not create these institutions; rather, it has a responsibility to recognize, protect, and uphold them.
Virginia law requires proposed constitutional amendments to be presented to voters with a "neutral explanation" written in plain English.
At Citizens Defending Freedom, we believe voters deserve complete transparency—not only about what appears on the ballot, but also about the full implications of the amendments they are being asked to approve.
Because the abbreviated ballot language cannot fully capture every consequence of these proposals, this article examines the actual text of HJ 1 and HJ 3 to explain how they would reshape Virginia in ways that are not readily apparent from the ballot summaries.
____________________________________
Virginia's Proposed Constitutional Amendment on Abortion: What the Ballot Says—And What The Amendment Really Does
One of the proposed constitutional amendments before Virginia voters is HJ 1, which would create a new constitutional right to "reproductive freedom," including contraception, "fertility care," and abortion.
The ballot asks voters:
Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to:
(i) protect the freedom to make personal decisions about prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, abortion, miscarriage management, and fertility care;
(ii) protect doctors, nurses, and patients from being punished for these decisions; and
(iii) allow for restrictions on access to abortion during the third trimester of pregnancy except when the patient's health is at risk or the pregnancy cannot survive?
However, what appears on the ballot is only a condensed summary of a much longer constitutional amendment. Section 11-A: Fundamental Right to Reproductive Freedom spans multiple paragraphs and creates a new constitutional right that would become part of Virginia's Constitution if approved by voters.
The amendment has also prompted significant debate among Virginia lawmakers over its scope and potential legal effects.
For example:
State Senator Mark Peake questioned the amendment's application to minors, observing that it contains "no age mentioned in the constitutional amendment that just says any individual has a right to an abortion [and] doesn't distinguish between adults and minors."
House Minority Leader Todd Gilbert likewise argued that the proposal extends well beyond previous abortion jurisprudence, stating on the House floor that "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."
Former Lieutenant Governor Winsome Earle-Sears, who was constitutionally required to sign the resolution in her capacity as President of the Senate, attached a handwritten note above her signature stating, "I am morally opposed to this bill; no protection for the child."
It is also important to note that the ballot language itself has become the subject of a legal challenge. A lawsuit filed by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, the Virginia Medical Freedom Alliance, and others argues that the proposed ballot language that will be presented to voters is misleading because it fails to disclose several of the amendment's most significant legal consequences, including its potential impact on parental rights, abortion regulations, health and safety standards, and other areas of Virginia law.
The following sections below examine the amendment's actual language and explain how its provisions would affect parental rights, abortion regulation, government oversight, and provider accountability, among other topics.
#1: The Amendment Creates a Constitutional Right for "Every Individual" to An Abortion—Not Just Adults.
The amendment says:
"That every individual has the fundamental right to reproductive freedom..."
This would:
Grant the “right to an abortion” directly to minors as well as adults.
This provision could also open the door to:
Overriding parental notification or parental consent rights around abortion.
Inviting legal challenges to existing parental involvement laws.
Allowing children to make life-altering reproductive decisions without a parent's knowledge or involvement.
#2: "Reproductive Freedom" Is Broadly Defined.
The amendment says:
"...the fundamental right to reproductive freedom, including... prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, abortion care, miscarriage management, and fertility care."
The amendment establishes a constitutional right to "reproductive freedom" but does not define the full scope of that term or several of the specific categories it includes.
For example:
"Fertility care" is also not defined within the amendment. As a result, it could encompass any procedures affecting reproductive capacity, including medical procedures impacting fertility such as gender-transition interventions for minors.
Because these terms are vague, but would become constitutionally protected, their meaning would likely be determined through future litigation rather than by the amendment itself, potentially extending these protections beyond what many voters expect.
#3: The Amendment Weakens Virginia's Ability to Restrict Third-Trimester Abortions.
The amendment says:
“…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.”
This is problematic because:
While the amendment claims the Commonwealth may regulate third-trimester abortions, it simultaneously provides that "in no circumstance" may the Commonwealth prohibit an abortion if a physician determines it is necessary to protect the woman's physical or mental health or the fetus is nonviable. This language significantly narrows the state's ability to prohibit abortions later in pregnancy, effectively undermining the amendment's supposed allowance for third-trimester regulation.
The inclusion of "mental health" creates a broad exception that could similarly make meaningful limits on later-term abortions difficult to enforce. Because mental health can encompass a wide range of conditions and circumstances, virtually any pregnancy-related hardship could be asserted as affecting a woman's mental health, the exception could be interpreted broadly enough to substantially weaken third-trimester abortion restrictions.
The amendment would replace Virginia's current multi-physician safeguard that currently serves as an additional safeguard for women’s health by requiring independent medical review before later-term abortions may proceed. This amendment would eliminate that layer of protection and instead rely on the judgment of a single physician.
The amendment uses the word "physician" without clearly defining that term or establishing any additional constitutional qualifications, standards, or independent review.
#4: The Amendment Limits Accountability for Those Who Coerce Abortion.
What the amendment says:
“The Commonwealth shall not penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against an individual based on such individual's own exercise of this fundamental right or such individual's own actual, potential, perceived, or alleged pregnancy outcomes, including miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion. The Commonwealth shall not penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against any individual for aiding or assisting another individual in exercising such other individual's right to reproductive freedom with such other individual's voluntary consent.”
These provisions extend constitutional protections beyond the individual obtaining an abortion to those who assist that individual.
As a result, this would:
Limit the Commonwealth's ability to regulate individuals who facilitate abortions while reducing oversight of those assisting in abortion-related activities.
Complicate investigations involving coercion or exploitation where consent becomes disputed. Abusive partners, traffickers, or others who pressure a woman or minor into obtaining an abortion could later argue the procedure occurred with the individual's "voluntary consent," reducing accountability for those who coerce or facilitate abortions.
Complicate investigations involving forged or falsified consent. “Voluntary consent” can easily be forged or consent otherwise misrepresented, so individuals who aid or assist in obtaining an abortion could later claim the procedure occurred with the individual's "voluntary consent” when it actually did not. This would make it more difficult to investigate and prosecute coercive or fraudulent conduct.
#5: The Amendment Ties Virginia Law to "Accepted Clinical Standards" and "Evidence-Based Medicine" As Determined by the Abortion Industry.
The amendment says:
"For the purposes of this section, a state interest is compelling only 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."
However:
By embedding "accepted clinical standards of care" directly into the Virginia Constitution, the amendment reinforces standards established by the abortion industry, making those standards the benchmark against which future state regulations would be judged.
For this reason, it creates a "no-guardrails" constitutional framework for the abortion industry, making it substantially more difficult to impose new oversight or accountability measures on abortion providers.
#6: The Amendment Does Not Expressly Preserve Patient Accountability or Parental Rights.
While the amendment creates broad “right” to "reproductive freedom," it does not preserve two protections that are equally important: accountability for abortion providers and the role of parents in helping their minor children make life-altering decisions.
As a result:
There is no express guarantee that women can seek accountability for negligent abortion providers. While the amendment focuses on access to abortion, it fails to address the rights of women who may suffer injuries resulting from negligent or substandard care.
Although the amendment grants a constitutional right to "every individual," it does not expressly preserve a parent's right to be notified of, consent to, or participate in major reproductive decisions involving their minor child.
#7: The Amendment Prohibits the Commonwealth from "Discriminating" in the Protection of This “Right.”
The amendment says:
"The Commonwealth shall not discriminate in the protection or enforcement of this fundamental right."
As a result, this language could potentially:
Invite challenges to parental consent and notification laws since requiring parental involvement for minors—but not adults—could be challenged as “discriminating” against the “right” to an abortion.
Create conflicts for medical professionals who decline to participate in abortions, as healthcare providers or institutions that refuse to provide or facilitate abortions based on conscience, medical judgment, or religious convictions could face claims that they are denying or discriminating against the exercise of a constitutional right.
Open the door to taxpayer-funded abortions since recognizing abortion as a fundamental constitutional right could lead to claims that government programs may not exclude abortion from public funding without engaging in unconstitutional discrimination.
#8: The Amendment Does Not Expressly Address Protections for Infants Born Alive During an Abortion.
Broad statements are made throughout the amendment, including:
"...in no circumstance shall the Commonwealth prohibit an abortion..."
"The Commonwealth shall not penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against an individual based on such individual's own exercise of this fundamental right..."
"An individual's right to reproductive freedom shall not be... denied, burdened, or infringed upon unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means."
As a result, the amendment could:
Lead to “born-alive” abortion, whereby, if an infant is born alive during an abortion, providing life-saving medical care to the infant could be alleged to burden the newly created constitutional right to an abortion.
Recap: Key Takeaways on Proposed Constitutional Amendment Question 1
HJ 1 would do far more than add abortion to Virginia's Constitution. Based on the amendment's text, it would also fundamentally reshape the Commonwealth's constitutional approach to abortion by:
Creating a new constitutional right to abortion for "every individual," including minors, raising significant concerns about parental rights, parental consent, and parental notification.
Establishing a broad, undefined constitutional right to "reproductive freedom," leaving key terms such as "fertility care" open to sterilization procedures that could also include transgender operations for minors.
Expanding constitutional protections for abortion while narrowing the Commonwealth's ability to regulate the abortion industry, including third-trimester abortions and future health and safety standards.
Reducing independent safeguards and accountability by replacing existing statutory protections with broader constitutional language and limiting the Commonwealth's ability to investigate, regulate, or penalize those involved in coercive, abortion-related activities.
Leaving important issues unresolved, including parental involvement, accountability for negligent abortion providers, and protections for infants born alive during an abortion.
Embedding these changes directly into Virginia's Constitution, making them substantially more difficult to modify than ordinary legislation.
Taken together, HJ 1 would not simply preserve existing abortion law, but would establish a fundamentally new constitutional framework governing abortion in Virginia, with significant implications for parental rights, medical regulation, government oversight, and the Commonwealth's ability to protect women, children, and unborn life.
___________________________________
From Life to Marriage: Understanding Virginia's Proposed Constitutional Amendment to Redefine God’s Design
Just as HJ 1 would reshape Virginia's constitutional treatment of unborn life, Ballot Question 2/HJ3 would alter Virginia's constitutional understanding of another institution that has long been regarded as foundational to both Scripture and civil society: marriage.
HJ 3 would amend the Virginia Constitution by removing its existing definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman and replacing it with new constitutional language recognizing marriages regardless of sex, gender, or race.
For many Virginians, this amendment is about far more than marriage licensing. It asks whether the Commonwealth's highest governing document should continue to recognize marriage as the institution that has historically united one man and one woman, or whether it should adopt a fundamentally different constitutional understanding of marriage against God’s Word.
The ballot asks voters:
Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to:
(i) remove the ban on same-sex marriage;
(ii) affirm that two adults may marry regardless of sex, gender, or race; and
(iii) require all legally valid marriages to be treated equally under the law?
Although same-sex marriage was legalized nationwide following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, HJ 3 goes a step further by placing that definition of marriage into Virginia's Constitution itself. As a result, even if the Supreme Court were to overturn Obergefell—as it overturned Roe v. Wade—same-sex marriage would remain constitutionally protected in Virginia unless the Commonwealth's Constitution were amended again.
Because constitutional amendments are significantly more difficult to amend or repeal than ordinary legislation, Virginians deserve to understand not only the ballot summary, but also the full scope of the constitutional changes they are being asked to approve.
#1: The Amendment Removes Virginia's Constitutional Definition of Marriage.
The amendment repeals:
"That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth..."
This would:
Remove Virginia's constitutional recognition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Replace the Commonwealth's historic constitutional definition of marriage with a fundamentally different constitutional framework.
Rewrite Article I of Virginia's Constitution.
#2: Lawmakers Removed Religious Liberty Protections from the Amendment Before Final Passage.
Notably, the final version of HJ 3 contains no constitutional protection for religious organizations or clergy who decline to perform marriages based on their sincerely held religious beliefs.
This is significant because:
That language was deliberately removed before the amendment received final approval. The House Privileges and Elections Committee adopted a substitute that deleted the religious liberty provision, and the version now presented to Virginia voters contains no comparable constitutional protection.
Religious organizations and clergy remain protected under Virginia statute—but not under the Virginia Constitution. Virginia Code § 20-13.2 currently provides that religious organizations and clergy acting in their religious capacity may refuse to perform marriages. However, unlike a constitutional provision, a statute can be amended or repealed by a future General Assembly with a simple majority vote.
The amendment constitutionalizes a new definition of marriage while leaving religious liberty protections outside the Constitution. Lawmakers ultimately removed language that would have expressly protected religious organizations and clergy within the Virginia Constitution.
#3: The Amendment Asks Virginians to Constitutionally Affirm a View of Marriage That Fundamentally Conflicts with God's Design.
At Citizens Defending Freedom, we firmly believe marriage did not originate with government. From the opening chapters of Scripture, God established marriage as the covenantal union of one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24), a design that Jesus Himself reaffirmed during His earthly ministry (Matthew 19:4–6).
Marriage is foundational to the family, the raising of children, and the flourishing of society because it reflects God's created order rather than a policy preference established by the state.
Thus, this amendment asks Virginians to do more than preserve the current legal status of same-sex marriage. It asks them to enshrine into Virginia's Constitution a definition of marriage that differs from the one established in Scripture. For Christians, that is not simply a legal or political question, but a fundamentally moral and biblical one.
_________________________________
Conclusion
The decisions Virginians make this November will extend far beyond a single election cycle. Constitutional amendments become part of the Commonwealth's highest law and shape not only today's public policy, but also the legal framework inherited by future generations.
Although HJ 1 and HJ 3 address different issues, both ask voters to redefine foundational institutions that have long been understood to precede civil government itself. HJ 1 would create a new constitutional framework governing “reproductive freedom.” HJ 3 would understand marriage within Virginia's Constitution. Together, they represent some of the most radical proposed constitutional changes Virginia voters have considered in decades.
Faithful citizenship requires both conviction and careful discernment. Scripture teaches that every human being bears the image of God and that marriage is a sacred covenant established by God for the flourishing of families and society. Because these truths are foundational, constitutional amendments affecting life and marriage deserve thoughtful consideration grounded in both biblical principles and a careful reading of the actual constitutional language.
Before casting your ballot, we encourage every Virginian to read each proposed amendment in its entirety, compare it with the abbreviated ballot summary, pray for wisdom (James 1:5), and make an informed decision based upon the full text of the constitutional changes being proposed.
