Early voting has already begun in the Old Dominion, and Virginians are currently answering two questions that could permanently embed transgender ideology into the commonwealth’s constitution. Our Virginia readers should familiarize themselves with these major proposals.
Although neither proposed constitutional amendment is, on its face, “gender”-related, they both have broad language that may implicate “gender”-related issues.
Question 1, for example, reads as follows and seems on its face merely to concern the legality of various reproductive decisions:
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?
Question 2, meanwhile, appears as a straightforward codification of the judicially guaranteed right to same-sex marriage:
Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to (i) remove the ban on same-sex marriage; (ii) affirm that two adults may marry regardless of sex, gender, or race; and (iii) require all legally valid marriages to be treated equally under the law?
However, both questions contain words or clauses that could place beyond the reach of future voters broad issues concerning how the commonwealth treats gender-dysphoric children.
For example, whereas Question 1 purports to only establish a constitutional right to reproductive freedom, its list of pregnancy-related categories includes “fertility care,” an umbrella phrase so broad it could potentially encompass sterilizing procedures, including those employed during pediatric “gender transitions.”
The reader will note that the text is silent on the question of age. Finally, as noted by the Guttmacher Institute, Virginia’s abortion laws are currently quite permissive compared to the rest of the United States.
Question 2 is, if anything, even broader in its potential implications. By “affirm[ing] that two adults may marry regardless of sex [or] gender” (emphasis added), the proposed amendment asks Virginians to embed those classifications into their constitution as distinct and separate legal categories. That distinction of “sex” and “gender” is rooted in transgender ideology.
Such a codification could have massive consequences for future adolescents, not only in healthcare settings but in private spaces and on the courts and playing fields on which boys and girls are meant to have equal athletic opportunity.
Additionally, Virginians considering this amendment should know that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in Obergefell v. Hodges and Loving v. Virginia already mandate same-sex and interracial marriage, respectively, in the Commonwealth and all other 49 states.
Both of these constitutional amendments may have broader implications for the Commonwealth and its laws than first appears from the text. Virginia voters should take their time to familiarize themselves with these proposals and understand the full implications before casting their ballot.
