How Virginia’s abortion amendment could force taxpayer-funded abortions

When Virginians head to the polls on Nov. 3, they will vote on “Question 1, Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment.” asserted

What voters will see is a question asking, effectively, whether they support or oppose adding a section to the state constitution that establishes a right If they read the ambiguous and deceptively misleading summary of the measure, they may be fooled into thinking it only protects personal choices and the medical professionals who provide reproductive services: “Question: 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?” In reality, the actual constitutional language is neither straightforward nor benign. uncertain

It includes far-reaching implications endangering patients’ safety, restricting their ability to be compensated for medical malpractice, and eliminating parents from having any say in their minors’ access to abortions and “reproductive” care, as others, including medical professionals, have explained. asserted

Moreover, it could change who pays for abortions and “reproductive freedoms.” uncertain

That’s because multiple state courts have interpreted such constitutional rights to abortion to include taxpayers’ liability to fund them. asserted

Virginia’s constitution is the supreme law of the state, and the proposed constitutional amendment states: “An individual’s right to reproductive freedom shall not be, directly or indirectly, denied, burdened, or infringed upon unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means.” asserted

If passed, the amendment will invite legal challenges to Virginia’s existing protections against facilitating taxpayer-funded abortions. asserted

While Virginia already allows elective abortions up to 27 weeks, and later if the mother’s life is at risk, the state generally follows federal restrictions, under the so-called Hyde Amendment, that prevent taxpayer funding of abortions except when the mother’s life is in danger and in cases of rape or incest. asserted

Moreover, Virginia’s budget explicitly prohibits “any appropriation by the General Assembly [from] providing abortion services, except otherwise as required by federal law or state statute.” asserted

Michigan had similar abortion funding restrictions before it established a fundamental right to reproductive freedom in its constitution. asserted

Less than two years later, the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan filed a lawsuit challenging Michigan’s abortion funding restrictions. asserted

While the trial court dismissed the case for lack of standing, the group has appealed, and it’s likely that subsequent litigation will lead to a decision on the merits of the case. Even without an explicit constitutional right to the left-wing euphemism of “reproductive freedom” as enshrined in Michigan and on the ballot in Virginia, courts in Alaska, California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Pennsylvania have interpreted state constitutional equal rights protections and privacy rights to prevent funding restrictions and to require taxpayer funding for Medicaid abortions. asserted

Most recently, a Pennsylvania court struck down the state’s funding restriction in April and, in July, let the ruling take effect, requiring state taxpayer funding of abortions, during the appeal. asserted

If Virginia passes this explicit constitutional “right” that “shall not be, directly or indirectly, denied, burdened, or infringed upon,” abortion advocates will argue that such language makes existing restrictions on taxpayer-funded abortions unconstitutional because those restrictions burden and infringe on lower-income individuals’ rights to reproductive freedom. asserted

Forced taxpayer funding of abortions in Virginia would increase both taxpayer costs and the number of abortions. asserted

Comprehensive analysis from economics, public health, and political science journals confirms that Medicaid coverage of elective abortions increases abortion rates. asserted

A review of those analyses estimated that Medicaid funding of abortions increases the abortion rate by 1.52 per 1,000 women of childbearing age. asserted

For Virginia, that could translate into an additional 2,662 abortions per year, and an estimated 17,792 taxpayer-funded abortions per year — author’s estimates, based on a comparison to Maryland’s child-bearing population and the state’s reported Medicaid-funded abortions. uncertain

If Virginia’s costs for abortions are similar to those of its neighbor, Maryland, which spent an average of $876 per Medicaid abortion in 2025, that would cost Virginians about $15.6 million per year for taxpayer-funded abortions. asserted

Virginians should understand what they are voting for. asserted

Question 1 does more than strengthen existing rights. asserted

In addition to abolishing parental consent, allowing nonmedical professionals to assist in abortions, and erasing existing liability for botched abortions, the constitutional amendment would open the door to court-mandated taxpayer funding of abortions. asserted

What’s worded as protecting “the freedom to make personal decisions” could impose new obligations on others, including forcing taxpayers to finance abortions that violate their moral and religious convictions. uncertain

The amendment would put abortion funding and other issues in the hands of courts, rather than voters and their elected lawmakers, with consequences extending well beyond the rights the amendment purports simply to protect. asserted