Delegate raises questions about scope of proposed 'reproductive freedom' constitutional amendment, urges study

Delegate Zehr (Delegate from Campbell) used a point of personal privilege during the House morning hour to renew a request—made over two years—for a study panel to examine the potential effects of HJ1, the proposed constitutional amendment that would add a right to “reproductive freedom” to the Virginia Constitution.

Zehr said the General Assembly has not done the legal or policy work needed to understand what the amendment would change. "We don't know for certain what it will do," Zehr said, noting that the amendment would introduce new constitutional language that has no settled definition in the Code of Virginia, the existing state constitution or case law.

Why it matters: Zehr argued that amending the Constitution without technical study risks producing outcomes the legislature cannot anticipate or control. He described the request for study as a basic form of due diligence before voters decide whether to ratify constitutional language.

What Zehr pressed on: He listed specific, concrete questions he said remain unanswered by the amendment's current text and floor debate: - "What does 'reproductive freedom' mean?"—asking whether the phrase would permit a minor to obtain an abortion without parental notice or consent. - Whether the amendment would affect obligations to medical professionals or hospitals if an infant survives an abortion procedure. - Whether the amendment would extend to gender-affirming care and at what ages. - Whether the amendment could be read to allow a person to unilaterally terminate parental obligations.

Zehr contrasted those unknowns with the claim of amendment supporters about its intent, saying: "The patron on the other side have told us what they think it will do, but we don't know."

Discussion vs. action: Zehr said his request for study had been denied for two years and reiterated that the legislature had not performed a "red team," legal review or other due diligence. There was no motion recorded on the floor to create a study panel during this session; Zehr's remarks were recorded as discussion only. No formal vote or committee referral on a study or red-team exercise occurred in the transcript.

Context: The remarks took place during the first morning hour under a point of personal privilege. Zehr framed the issue as both legal and practical: changes to constitutional text can have unintended consequences that later statutes or administrative rules cannot easily fix. He also connected the subject to public concerns about parental rights, medical ethics and protections for minors.

Ending: Zehr concluded by urging colleagues to perform a study prior to amending the Constitution, saying, "Passing laws without knowing what they'll do is bad. Amending the Constitution without knowing what it will do is far, far worse." No committee action or floor motion to create a study panel was recorded in the transcript afterwards.