A legal group filed a lawsuit in Tazewell County Circuit Court challenging the ballot language for Virginia’s proposed constitutional amendment on reproductive freedom, arguing it is misleading and violates state law.
The lawsuit was filed by the Founding Freedoms Law Center, part of The Family Foundation of Virginia, 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 complaint named the Virginia State Board of Elections, the Virginia Department of Elections, Clerk of the Virginia House of Delegates G. Paul Nardo, Tazewell County Circuit Court Clerk Charity D. Hurst, and the county’s general registrar as defendants.
At issue is ballot language approved by the General Assembly through House Bill 781 and Senate Bill 449 for a November vote on whether to amend the Virginia Constitution to establish a right to reproductive freedom.
The ballot question asks whether the constitution should be amended to protect personal decisions about prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, abortion, miscarriage management, and fertility care; protect doctors, nurses, and patients from punishment for those decisions; and allow restrictions on abortion in the third trimester except when the patient’s health is at risk or the pregnancy cannot survive.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs said the question does not meet legal requirements that constitutional amendments be presented clearly and neutrally, and omits details about how the amendment could affect existing Virginia law.
According to the complaint, the amendment could affect laws governing abortion and reproductive care, including parental consent requirements for minors, provider licensing and safety standards, and restrictions on late-term abortions, depending on how courts interpret the language.
If approved, the amendment would add constitutional protections for decisions related to reproductive care, including abortion, contraception, and miscarriage management, while allowing some restrictions later in pregnancy under certain conditions.
Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that the ballot language is unconstitutional and an injunction that could prevent certification of the amendment if it is approved under the current wording.