Committee Chair Del. Marcia Price, D-Newsport News, flanked by House Majority Leader Charniele Herring, D-Alexandria (left) and Del. Elizabeth Bennett-Parker, D-Alexandria, at a news conference in Richmond on Nov. 13, 2024. (Markus Schmidt/Virginia Mercury)

MARKUS SCHMIDT

(VM) – A Democratic-led House of Delegates panel on Wednesday advanced three proposed constitutional amendments, including a revised measure seeking to enshrine abortion rights in the state’s highest law. The new proposal would also require third-trimester abortions to be approved by one doctor instead of three, as the law currently mandates.

The 22-member House Privileges and Elections Committee further backed amendments to extend constitutional protections to marriage equality and the automatic restoration of voting rights for felons who have served their time.

“The right to love, the right to vote, the right to bodily autonomy and privacy, these are the very rights and freedoms that are crucial to the foundation of this commonwealth and this nation,” committee chair Del. Marcia Price, D-Newport News, said in a brief news conference Wednesday afternoon. “We showed up today to do our jobs and to do everything within our power to protect these rights and freedoms for all Virginians.”

The revised abortion amendment language in HJ1 shocked the committee’s Republican members, who only saw the changes after the meeting was already underway. Price called a  five-minute recess to allow lawmakers to review the new language before deliberations and voting proceeded.

“I think we’re still trying to figure out what happened today,” a visibly frustrated House Minority Leader Del. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah, said after the three-hour hearing. “Something this important and impactful — literally life-and-death decisions — I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything pushed through this fast where we didn’t get a chance to see it.”

Gilbert warned that Price’s decision to not allow the committee more time to review the revised legislation would set a precedent for the way the House conducts its business in the future.

“We were literally given five minutes to huddle and look at it before we had to decide what we were grappling with, and I think we still don’t know, other than it’s pretty clear that this is a pretty extreme version of efforts to protect abortion that goes well beyond what has been done in other states,” Gilbert said.

Price, however, defended her decision to move forward with taking a vote on the proposal.

“We have an entire legislative process just like any other committee, and [the resolution] will go to the floor where (Republicans) will also have a chance to either put forward amendments or have their voice heard as well,” she said at the news conference.

Amending the state Constitution takes several years in Virginia. The proposed amendment must be approved by the legislature in two separate years, with a General Assembly election occurring in between. Only then can the amendment proceed to a statewide referendum for voters to decide.

Because the next election in Virginia is in November 2025, the earliest the three amendments that the committee advanced Wednesday could be put on the ballot is November 2026 — if the measures pass in the 2025 and 2026 legislative sessions.


The abortion rights amendment

Under current Virginia law, third-trimester abortions require approval from three doctors. The new amendment would reduce this requirement to just one doctor when a late-term abortion is deemed necessary to protect the life of the pregnant individual, or their physical or mental health, or when a physician determines the fetus is not viable.

At Wednesday’s hearing, dozens of abortion opponents lined up to speak against the proposal.

Among them was Olivia Turner, president of the Virginia Society for Human Life, who told the panel that her group opposed both the original amendment and its substitute.

“We don’t know what’s going on with this new version, and how it will impact our ability as the people of Virginia to pass rational and reasonable protective laws in the future,” Turner said.

And Gilbert, the House Minority Leader, said that the amendment capsized Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case that established abortion as a constitutional right and that was repealed in 2022.

“Roe v. Wade has within it a compelling state interest in protecting the life of the unborn at a certain point in the pregnancy. This amendment doesn’t contain that protection at all, it leans in the other direction,” Gilbert said.

“The legislation we just saw, which was dropped on us literally today without any ability to look at it, reflect on it, think about it, compare notes, talk to experts, only leans into the protection of the patient, which is the mother. And so there is no more protection for the unborn, which was envisioned and embodied in Roe (v.) Wade.”

But House Majority Leader Charniele Herring, D-Alexandria, the sponsor of HJ1, said that in her amendment both the state interest in protecting the unborn and life of the mother are considered.

“The parameters are set out so if there is a live fetus, there are protections. But if there is a miscarriage, then the physician and the mother will be able to make a decision to abort and to complete a miscarriage. So they do coexist,” Herring said.

Abortion rights advocates urged the committee to vote in favor of the amendment.

“This amendment will protect Virginians’ rights to make their own reproductive health care decisions, including access to abortion, contraception, fertility treatment and miscarriage care,” said Jamie Lockhart, executive director of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia.

“Right now, with no state or federal protections in place, Virginians face the constant risk that anti-abortion politicians could restrict or ban essential care. No one is more qualified than an individual and their health care provider to make these complex personal decisions.”

After defeating a Republican motion to kill the proposed amendment, the committee moved to advance the measure by a 12-9 party-line vote.


Restoration of rights amendment

HJ2, sponsored by Del. Elizabeth Bennett-Parker, D-Alexandria, seeks to automate the process of restoring voting rights to people convicted of felony crimes who have served their sentences. The proposal comes in response to a 2023 policy change implemented by Gov. Glenn Youngkin that requires people with felony convictions to proactively apply to regain their voting rights upon release from prison and is not automatically restoring rights for any group of offenders — a shift from Virginia’s three previous governors.

Bennett-Parker told reporters Wednesday that her amendment proposes automatic restoration of voting rights for individuals who have been released from incarceration, which she said would foster “a more just and bare” society.

“The disenfranchisement of people with all convictions is a relic of Virginia’s Jim Crow past and was intentionally inserted into the 1902 Virginia Constitution to disenfranchise as many Black voters as possible,” Bennett-Parker said.

She added that the right to vote is fundamental and the amendment ensures that if a person has served their time they deserve to have their rights to participate in democracy restored.

“Virginia is the only state to permanently disenfranchise all individuals with felony convictions unless they individually petition the governor for rights restoration. The current system has no transparency and changes every four years, so no one knows what steps to take to get their rights restored. This amendment creates a process that is bound by transparent rules and criteria that will apply equally to everybody.”

The committee backed HJ2 with a 12-9 party-line vote.


Marriage equality amendment

Although the U.S. Supreme Court granted same-sex couples the right to marry in the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling in 2014, the state Constitution still includes the 2006 Marshall-Newman Amendment, which defines marriage as solely between one man and one woman and bans recognition of any legal status that approximates “the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage.”

Because it could become law again should the Supreme Court overturn its 2014 ruling one day, Del. Mark Sickles, D-Arlington, sponsored HJ9 in an effort to repeal the current constitutional provision and enshrine marriage as a “fundamental right inherent in the liberty of persons,” unrestricted by factors like sex, gender or race.

Jeff Caruso, executive director of the Virginia Catholic Conference, told the committee that his group has opposed efforts to repeal the Marshall-Newman Amendment for more than 16 years.

“We affirm the dignity of every person, we also affirm that marriage has an original design and purpose, which predates any nation, any religion and any law, and we urge you to uphold that principle today.”

Narissa Rahaman, executive director of Equality Virginia, pushed back against that notion and reminded the panel that today there are more than 20,000 same-sex couples in Virginia who have more similarities than differences with couples in traditional marriages.

“Here in Virginia we have seen how a state has evolved in its thinking about same-sex couples, and LGTBQ people overall. Now it’s time for our state to fully complete our evolution and finish the job in protecting marriage equality for all,” Rahaman said.

The committee advanced the amendment on a bipartisan 16-5 vote, with four Republicans joining Democrats.

“I think our straightforward amendment will be welcomed by Virginia citizens and I’m really appreciative of the vote today in the committee,” Sickles said.

All three amendments are now set to be voted on by the General Assembly during its 2025 session, which begins in January.