Democrat Dishonesty on Full Display Again in Virginia

Earlier this year, Virginia Democrats put one of the most deceptive ballot questions in recent memory before voters, asking them to approve a constitutional amendment to “restore fairness” to the commonwealth’s congressional map. In reality, the amendment would have replaced an already fair map with statistically the most partisan gerrymander in the country.

The state supreme court ultimately struck down the amendment on a technicality, even though it passed by a narrow margin in an April referendum. But that hasn’t stopped liberals in Richmond from putting a pair of equally dishonest constitutional amendments on the ballot this November.

Americans everywhere should pay attention to this deceitful wordplay, because it could be coming to an election near them in the not-too-distant future. Here are the amendments, what Democrats claim they do, and what they actually do.

Question 1: Abortion

Ballot language: “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?”

That all might sound reasonable to a voter who considers themselves a moderate on abortion or doesn’t really care about the issue. But the deceptive ballot language masks a much darker reality.

Virginia already has one of the most lenient abortion regimes in the country. Abortion is completely legal in the first trimester and is legal in the second trimester so long as it is performed in a licensed hospital. Even in the third trimester, a mother can still abort her baby so long as a physician and two consulting physicians certify that continuing the pregnancy is likely to cause the woman’s death or “substantially and irremediably impair” her mental or physical health.

In other words, so long as an expectant mother can find three lefty doctors who certify that continuing her pregnancy will harm her “mental health,” then abortion is completely legal up until the moment of birth. (Notably, Virginia Democrats, who wrote the existing abortion laws in the state, are so radical on abortion that they have even defended infanticide in the past.)

The natural question then becomes: Why does Virginia need a constitutional amendment that seemingly only reaffirms what is already law?

Well, for one, Democrats don’t want to risk a future Republican legislature and governor reversing their “progress” toward completely unrestricted abortion.

But the real devil is in the details.

First, the amendment makes abortion legal at any point in a pregnancy so long as one abortionist signs off on it.

Notice also the second clause, “to protect doctors, nurses, and patients from being punished for these decisions.” Heading over to the actual text of the amendment, we see what that means:

“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.” (my emphasis)

In other words, the amendment appears to grant sweeping immunity to anyone performing an abortion – not just a qualified doctor or nurse. The language clearly says that the state can’t take action against “any individual” so long as that individual claims he or she is helping someone else exercise her right to an abortion.

Abortions can be dangerous procedures. Many women suffer lifelong complications. As National Review pointed out, “Under this provision, a person who is not licensed under Virginia law to perform abortions would face no liability for doing so. That would include instances in which the person botches the abortion.”

The abortion amendment also eviscerates Virginia’s parental consent law, which requires parental sign-off for abortions performed on a minor. The amendment recognizes abortion rights for any “individual,” not just any adult female, meaning that parents would have no right to know if their minor daughter is undergoing a procedure that could be a serious risk to her health.

Democrats also appear to have intentionally worded the amendment to cover transgender surgeries and drugs. The amendment uses the phrase “reproductive freedom,” which under Virginia law includes “sterilization procedures.” It also includes the phrase “fertility care,” which includes puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones.

Again, the amendment would supersede parental consent laws on the books in Virginia. Should it pass, parents could find themselves legally barred from having any say in whether their kids are placed on dangerous, life-altering drugs or even put under the knife to remove healthy body parts in the name of “gender-affirming care.”

Question 2: Same-Sex Marriage

Ballot language: “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?”

This ballot question might seem even more reasonable to uninformed Virginia voters. It all but calls anyone who opposes it a racist and a bigot. It’s emotional blackmail by the Democrats who wrote it, daring anyone to speak out against what appears on the surface to be a totally acceptable change to the state constitution.

But again, we should ask: Why does Virginia need a constitutional amendment to affirm something that is already completely legal in Virginia? In fact, the Supreme Court case that legalized interracial marriage nationwide, Loving v. Virginia, specifically invalidated the Old Dominion’s ban on interracial marriage.

The answer is that the amendment isn’t really about protecting interracial or gay marriage at all. It’s about criminalizing opposition to gay marriage and gender ideology – particularly for Christians. The amendment could be interpreted to require clergy to perform gay wedding ceremonies that violate their sincerely held religious beliefs. Notably, Republicans in the state legislature introduced an alternate version of the amendment that specifically provided conscience rights protections for clergy and religious Virginians – but Democrats blocked it.

Americans will no doubt recall the infamous Supreme Court case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, when the state of Colorado attempted to force a baker to create a cake for a gay wedding, despite the fact that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. If this amendment passes in Virginia, it would create a legal path for activists to sue any Virginian perceived as opposing gay marriage or LGBTQ+ ideology.

(I’d be remiss not to also mention the third terrible amendment on the ballot in Virginia this year, although this one isn’t necessarily deceptive. Question 3 would automatically restore voting rights to every felon the moment they get out of prison. Currently, voting rights are restored on a case-by-case basis at the governor’s discretion. Democrat Governor Abigail Spanberger has restored the voting rights of virtually every felon let out under her watch. This amendment would restore rights for even violent offenders, those who owe fines, and those who have not yet paid restitution to victims.)

Virginia Democrats got away with blatantly lying to voters on the redistricting amendment this past spring, and it would have worked were it not for a courageous decision from the state supreme court. Now, they’re running the same cynical playbook again. Voters shouldn’t fall for their crooked lies a second time.