With the new year comes a new session of the Virginia Legislature, and job one of the Democrat-dominated chambers this week is writing a pro-abortion amendment into the state constitution. H.J. Res. 1 and S.J. Res. 247 will likely hit the floor in at least the lower chamber this week; it’s being fast-tracked. The amendment mirrors constitutional amendments in several other states. Abortionists, who otherwise ignored state law when they relied on the federal courts as cudgels for abortion-on-demand, have now found a new respect for state constitutions (especially in states that allow popular-driven initiative and referendum, which they have almost exhausted) as vehicles to ensconce abortion-on-demand through birth. Virginia is just the latest iteration.

Why Virginia? A couple of reasons. Virginia and New Jersey are the only two states that hold elections in the year after presidential elections. Democrats, stung by Glenn Youngkin’s 2021 win of the governorship, want to use abortion as a bludgeon to regain control of the state. Youngkin is barred from a second term by state law. Ex-Congresswoman Abigail Spanberger is riding on what so far looks like a campaign of vibes and smiles to seal Democrat deals and win the governor’s mansion. Also, Virginia borders a number of very pro-life states (West Virginia, Kentucky, North Carolina and south). Abortionists would have a great advantage if Virginia were the regional abortion center.

Constitutional amendments in Virginia go through an extended approval process. They need to be approved by majorities of the Legislature (likely this year). A state legislative general election must intervene (the lower chamber is up for grabs in November, and Dems hope to make abortion their “seize-and-keep control” issue). Flipping the House of Delegates from Democratic control in November is probably the best chance to stop this amendment. Then the new Legislature must reapprove the amendment. Only then does it go up for popular approval by referendum.

The likely political tropes over the next year will be: Virginia women need “reproductive freedom!” Virginia Dems will ensure it! And here’s your chance to show how, in a purple state, people abhor Donald Trump! The template for most of these pro-abortion amendments seems to have been settled and it’s a Trojan horse. They all proclaim “reproductive freedom” is guaranteed, without defining too much what that means, although it is often explicitly said to cover abortion, contraception, and fertility control. (Using “they want to take away your birth control” remains a powerful sub-trope of the abortion set.)

All these amendments establish a legal presumption that abortion cannot be regulated except by the “least invasive means” and only when “science-based evidence” (usually from Planned Parenthood) supports such restrictions. In other words, requiring ultrasounds to be shown to a pregnant woman is not necessary. In order to feign moderation, the amendments also usually say the state “may” (not has to but can) regulate third trimester abortions. That’s where the abortionists want you to stop reading. The text, however, continues that no regulation may interfere with abortions a doctor (any doctor) will say is necessary to protect the life, physical, or mental health of the individual — in other words, a built-in escape clause that renders the potential limitation nugatory.

By the way, “individual” is the preferred term of art in these amendments. It’s not just to bow to gender ideology fictions that men can give birth or there are “birthing people” (though, at least implicitly, it incorporates that vision of “gender” into law). It’s also covertly to import constitutional protections for “gender reassignment procedures.” If “reproductive freedom” covers “fertility,” then a person’s desire to transition to another gender and get rid of his fertility is constitutionally protected. (So too would any use of artificial reproduction, whether hetero- or homo-sexual and involving the couple’s and/or donor gametes. Could a state restrict non-genetic gestational surrogacy? Probably not.

Finally, because the amendment discusses “individuals” whose “autonomy” usually explicitly cannot be violated, these amendments silently eliminate any parental role — not just consent but even knowledge — involving abortion, surrogacy, gender “care,” or any other physio-sexual interventions. Parents simply cannot deny an “individual” her “autonomy” just because she is a minor!

One can see how truly radical these amendments are, which is what the abortionists do not want to discuss. That’s why they need to be rushed through approvals without extensive hearings or debate. It’s also why they will be sold as protecting first trimester abortions, about which many Americans feel non-controverted, so as to appear to be simply guarantees of “run-of-the-mill abortions” many are not bothered by. (Reread that last sentence to ask what’s wrong with our culture). But the truth is, behind that innocent façade, these amendments import a whole wagonload of sexual and gender ideology most Americans — if exposed to honest debate — would reject. Which is why honest debate has to be avoided at all costs.

Virginia Catholics and others of good will need to communicate clearly with legislators now. This is a state legislature, which means some legislators sometimes buckle. One reason Virginia still requires parental consent for abortions after most other pro-life laws were repealed under Ralph Northam was that one Democratic legislator, a parent, stood up and said that was a bridge too far.

Bundling the whole agenda into an innocuous appearing amendment can pull the wool over the eyes of people who might object to the particular elements in that package. One reason Glenn Youngkin won the governorship was precisely for having stood up for parental rights when he exposed how Virginia schools were doing things behind parents’ backs. The folks doing those things hope that by packaging their whole agenda in more innocent looking wrapping, they can not just undo but permanently enshrine their agenda.

It’s up to Catholics and all Virginians of good will to say: Not this time!