Supporters of Question 1 point to its third-trimester language as proof that the amendment permits limits. We should read the words before accepting that assurance. The amendment says Virginia may regulate abortion in the third trimester, but it also says the Commonwealth may never prohibit one when a physician judges it medically indicated to protect the woman’s life or physical or mental health, or judges the unborn child not viable.
That exception is not narrow. It does not define what degree of mental-health concern must exist. It does not require an immediate emergency. It does not require another physician to agree. The constitutional decision rests on the professional judgment of one physician, while the state is forbidden from prohibiting the abortion.
That matters because constitutional language outranks ordinary statutes. Current Virginia law contains safeguards for abortions performed after the second trimester. It generally requires the procedure to occur in a licensed hospital, requires certification by the attending physician and two consulting physicians, and requires life-support measures when there is clearly visible evidence of viability. Question 1 would place a broader rule above those laws and invite courts to decide whether existing safeguards burden the fundamental right.
We should not confuse the ability to “regulate” with the ability to protect. A regulation that cannot prevent the death of a viable child whenever one physician invokes physical or mental health is not a meaningful prohibition. It is a permission structure presented as a limitation.
We also reject the claim that questioning this language means ignoring dangerous pregnancies. Medical emergencies demand care. Doctors must be free to save a mother’s life. When treatment tragically results in the child’s death, that is morally different from intentionally ending the child’s life when both patients could be protected. Good medicine recognizes two human lives and seeks the best outcome for both.
The amendment’s language does not establish that balance. It creates a fundamental right to abortion, restricts Virginia to the least restrictive means, narrowly defines the interests the state may defend, and then removes third-trimester prohibition whenever one physician supplies the required judgment. The unborn child’s life is never identified as a constitutional interest.
We cannot judge this proposal by its campaign summary. We must judge the text courts will enforce. Once these words enter the Bill of Rights, lawmakers will not be free to rewrite them when unintended consequences appear. Judges will define their reach, and protections will begin from a constitutional presumption favoring abortion.
A child in the third trimester is not a political abstraction. That child can move, respond, grow, and in many cases survive outside the womb. Virginia should protect both mother and child with medicine and humane law. We should not constitutionalize an exception broad enough to swallow the promised safeguard.
Question 1 does not establish a firm third-trimester limit. It establishes a limit that disappears when its exception is invoked. We should read the language, understand its force, and vote no.
Follow Us