A lawsuit in Tazewell County, Virginia, is contesting the wording of a proposed bill that aims to enshrine the right to abortion in the state constitution ahead of November’s ballot.
The Freedoms Law Center, associated with the conservative group The Family Foundation, filed this lawsuit on Thursday. They are represented by the American College of Physicians and Surgeons, the Virginia Medical Freedom Alliance, and Bluefield Town Councilwoman Megan Cade. The complaint asserts that the ballot language is misleading and may have broader implications than suggested.
Victoria Cobb, president of the Family Foundation, remarked during the lawsuit’s announcement that the wording voters encounter at the polls is crafted to obscure the amendment’s actual intent. “Let’s be clear about what voters are not being told: this amendment does not allow anyone to vote at any time, for any reason, without meaningful safety standards,” she stated, claiming it would introduce a highly permissive abortion system in Virginia.
Cobb further emphasized, “If voters truly understood this amendment, they wouldn’t support it—yet politicians decided to keep them in the dark. This case is straightforward and should resonate with anyone who values self-governance. Virginians deserve to know precisely what they are voting for when it comes to amending their constitution.”
She insisted that the lawsuit isn’t about the morality of abortion itself but rather about whether lawmakers can misrepresent ballot information. “This is not just about abortion views; it’s about honesty in our political process,” she clarified.
The Democratic-controlled Virginia General Assembly passed a bill related to abortion voting in January. For any constitutional amendment in Virginia, it must first pass both the state House and Senate twice before being put to a majority vote. The language voters will see this November proposes amendments that include protecting personal decisions about various aspects of reproductive health.
The Virginia Constitution should be amended to protect the freedom to make personal decisions about prenatal care, childbirth, postnatal care, contraception, abortion, miscarriage management, and infertility treatment. Protect doctors, nurses, and patients from being penalized for these decisions. And would you allow restricting access to second-trimester abortions, except when the patient’s health is at risk or the pregnancy cannot continue?
The lawsuit argues that the proposed amendment could lead to significant deregulation of abortion, including removing parental consent requirements for minors, allowing unlicensed individuals to perform abortions, and retracting various safety standards. It also claims that the amendment could repeal statutory rape laws and limit the ability of states to regulate assisted reproductive technologies.
“The major implications are not even mentioned in the ballot language, but we believe that if voters were aware of these potential outcomes, many would choose differently,” said Josh Hetzler, legislative counsel for the group.
He pointed out additional flaws in the language, asserting it misleadingly suggests increased restrictions on late-term abortions when, in reality, it would eliminate current requirements, including consent from three physicians and stipulations regarding risks to the mother’s health.
Democrats have defended their amendment, asserting that it does not invalidate existing laws, and they note that many states with similar amendments enforce common-sense restrictions on abortion.
Hetzler and Cobb clarified that their goal is not to halt the amendment from reaching the ballot but to challenge the wording they believe misleads voters.
Abortion remains legal in Virginia up to 27 weeks of pregnancy. This legal challenge arises in a larger context where abortion is set to be a contentious issue in several states during the upcoming election cycle. Between seven states that have passed related measures and three that have rejected them, ballot measures can significantly alter state constitutions and override existing laws.
