Virginia Professional-Life Group Recordsdata Swimsuit to Cease Abortions As much as Start Modification

A Virginia pro-life legal organization filed suit today in Tazewell County Circuit Court to block a proposed constitutional amendment that would guarantee abortions up to birth.

The lawsuit is arguing that the ballot language is materially misleading and hides sweeping changes to state law.

The Founding Freedoms Law Center, the legal arm of The Family Foundation of Virginia, filed the challenge on behalf of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, the Virginia Medical Freedom Alliance and Meagan Kade, a Tazewell County resident and Bluefield Town Council member. The lawsuit asks the court to declare the ballot question unconstitutional and to permanently enjoin enforcement of the amendment if voters approve it in November.

REACH PRO-LIFE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE! Advertise with LifeNews to reach hundreds of thousands of pro-life readers every week. Contact us today.

The measure, known as the Right to Reproductive Freedom Act, was passed by the Democrat-controlled General Assembly and signed into law Feb. 6 by Gov. Abigail Spanberger. It would enshrine a broad “right to reproductive freedom” in the state constitution, allowing unlimited abortions up to birth overriding existing statutes that protect babies from abortions or help pregnant women,

According to the complaint, the ballot language fails to tell voters that the amendment would:

Eliminate parental notification and consent requirements before a minor could obtain an abortion or sterilization procedure, including those performed as part of so-called gender-transition surgeries.

Prevent enforcement of statutory rape laws by protecting “consensual” sexual activity without age limits.

Allow any person, licensed or not, to perform abortions with full immunity from state penalties.

End the state’s authority to impose basic health and safety standards on abortion facilities.

Block regulation of commercial surrogacy, human reproductive cloning and genetic engineering of embryos.

The suit also notes that the ballot question deceptively suggests greater restrictions on third-trimester abortions when the opposite is true; the amendment would remove those safeguards and allow third-trimester abortions for virtually any reason, with only the abortionist’s judgment required.

“The amendment as written would put patients in danger and strip away basic informed consent,” said Sheila Furey, president of the Virginia Medical Freedom Alliance. “The ballot question gives voters none of that context.”

The lawsuit further claims the General Assembly violated state law by failing to timely publish copies of the proposed amendment before the last general election.

Meagan Kade, one of the plaintiffs, said the group is not asking the court to decide the merits of abortion policy.

“We’re not asking the court to decide one outcome over another,” Kade said. “We’re asking that the question be posed to voters honestly, and then let the citizens decide. That hasn’t happened. So we have no choice but to challenge what they’ve done.”

Josh Hetzler, executive director and chief counsel for the Founding Freedoms Law Center, emphasized that the suit seeks only accurate information for voters.

“We are not asking a court to take this question off the ballot,” Hetzler said. “We are asking the court to do what only a court can do, declare that the ballot language as written is unconstitutional, and to permanently enjoin enforcement of the amendment if it passes. Proposed constitutional amendments must be explained to voters neutrally and accurately. The question Virginians will be handed in November fails that test.”

“This amendment is the most consequential question Virginians will face in a generation, and they are being asked to vote on it without being told the truth about what it does,” Victoria Cobb, president of The Family Foundation of Virginia, said. “The Family Foundation is in court because the legislature failed in its duty to ask the question honestly, and Virginians deserve better than a rigged ballot.”

The case is the first legal challenge centered specifically on the wording voters will see on the ballot.