Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Reproductive Freedom Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Virginia Senate approves constitutional amendment to enshrine reproductive health care; measure headed to voters
Summary
After floor debate and failed attempts to add parental- and born‑alive language, the Senate voted 21–18 to send a constitutional amendment on reproductive freedom — covering contraception, fertility care, miscarriage treatment and abortion — to a public referendum later this year.
The Senate of Virginia on third reading agreed to a constitutional amendment that would enshrine a broad ‘‘fundamental right’’ to reproductive health care, approving the measure 21–18 and sending it to the voters for a referendum.
Senator from Northern Fairfax County (Senator Boisco) framed the amendment as protecting “the full scope of reproductive health care” — from contraception and fertility treatment to miscarriage management and abortion — and argued it would keep politicians from making medical decisions for patients. Boisco said the change would prevent criminalization of clinicians and preserve patient access to care, and repeatedly noted the voters, not the legislature, would have the final say at the ballot box.
Opponents warned the amendment’s language is broader than the protections under Roe v. Wade and could invalidate longstanding, reasonable restrictions such as parental‑involvement laws. Senator Obenshain and several colleagues said the measure’s fundamental‑rights wording mirrors language in other states that, they argued, had been used in litigation to overturn restrictions on abortion. Speakers also urged explicit conscience protections for faith‑based providers and clearer ‘‘born‑alive’’ safeguards; several floor amendments seeking such clarifications were voted down in recorded roll calls earlier in the day.
The Senate rejected the Durant floor amendment and the Jordan floor amendment in recorded votes before agreeing to the underlying resolution. Proponents said existing Virginia statutes addressing parental notification and late‑term care remain in force and that the amendment was not intended to supersede those laws, while opponents said constitutional language would ultimately take precedence over statute and could spawn litigation.
The action is procedural: by approving the language, the General Assembly places the question before Virginia voters, who will decide in a later referendum whether to adopt the constitutional change. The Senate clerk recorded the vote on House Joint Resolution 1 as Ayes 21, Nos 18.
