There were tears, yells and a call of “out of order” but by the end of the day Virginia’s Senate on Tuesday passed three resolutions aimed at enshrining certain civil rights into the state’s constitution.
The resolutions, presented by Democrats, would protect abortion and other reproductive healthcare access in the state’s constitution, automatically restore voting rights to people who complete felony sentences, and remove a prohibition on same-sex marriage.
Tuesday’s vote is part of a two-year process in which the resolutions must pass each chamber twice before appearing on statewide ballots for voters’ final approval or rejection.
The resolutions, which already passed the House of Delegates last week, were met with robust pushback from Republican lawmakers. Some offered amendments that were not accepted.
Republicans argue parental consent
In the reproductive healthcare resolution, Republicans wanted to insert existing state code requiring parental consent for minors seeking abortions and protections for newborns.
Infanticide is also already prohibited by state code and federal law. In Virginia state code, “partial birth infanticide” means “any deliberate act that is intended to kill a human infant who has been born alive but has not been completely extracted or expelled from its mother.” It also “shall not under any circumstances be construed to include” abortion procedures.
“We don’t legislate through the constitution, we establish baseline rights,” Sen. Jennifer Boysko, D-Fairfax told The Mercury earlier in the day. “We legislate through code where our parental consent laws currently live and where they should stay.”
She called the focus on parental consent in arguments from her GOP colleagues “an attempt to distract from the real motive these folks have: to ban abortion entirely.”
Many Virginia Republicans have previously supported or introduced restrictions and near-total bans in recent years.
Sen. Travis Hackworth, R-Tazewell, who previously introduced a life-at-conception law, cried as he reflected on the premature birth of a granddaughter who did not live.
In recalling knowing her for a brief time he said: “I remember the promise … that I would always fight for her.”
He used the personal experience to urge his colleagues to vote against the resolution.
Several Republican lawmakers cautioned that the current laws could potentially be overridden should the constitutional amendments pass without their inclusion.
On the other hand, Democrats and legal scholars have noted a U.S. Supreme Court case affirms parental consent is protected under the 14th Amendment.
Sen. Luther Cifers, R-Goochland, said current law allows most abortions through the second trimester and questioned how much enshrining that in the constitution might be needed.
“Which is it — is current law enough, or do we need constitutional guarantees?” Cifers posited.
As the debate heated, Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell, D-Fairfax, referenced Republican tactics in the U.S. Senate that led to the conservative majority on the Supreme Court that overturned the federal abortion protections guaranteed in Roe v. Wade. At that point, Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears slammed her gavel and declared Surovell “out of order.”
Democrats and reproductive rights advocates have stressed in recent years that a constitutional amendment would protect that law from partisan shifts in the legislature. They’ve also argued that their amendment is built on the framework outlined in Roe v. Wade.
In the years since Roe was overturned, Republican-majority legislatures have enacted bans or restrictions on abortion. However, states across the political spectrum have also passed constitutional amendments affirming the right to abortion
The measure was eventually passed along party lines. Afterward, Sen. Ghazala Hashmi, D-Chesterfield shared how undergoing an abortion-adjacent procedure called dilation and curettage amid two miscarriages ensured she did not face life-threatening complications from sepsis. The procedure can also be used after an abortion to prevent infection as well or used to help diagnose the causes of irregular uterine bleeding.
In passing the amendment, Hashmi said Virginia is one step closer to ensuring people don’t have to be near death before receiving care.
“What we have done today is going to save lives,” she said.
Restoring voting rights
The resolution to restore voting rights to people who complete felony sentences passed the Senate on party-line votes. The House version passed with bipartisanship support.
In both chambers, Republicans sought failed floor amendments to require people to have completed restitution payments they may owe in addition to having already completed their prison sentences before their rights can be restored. Another amendment sought to restrict people with violent offenses from automatic restoration and require them instead to individually petition the governor for a case-by-case assessment.
That process is what is currently underway for all people with felony convictions in Virginia, but petitioners have said they have little criteria as to what earns a “yes” from Gov. Glenn Youngkin. His restoration numbers have been lower than previous governors from both parties who had worked to streamline the process. And a mass generic rejection email with no explanation or blind carbon copy feature sent to hundreds of formerly incarcerated people last fall prompted many of them to wonder if Youngkin’s individualized process was happening at all.
They began communicating with each other in an email thread which was forwarded to The Mercury in October 2024.
“I am a Republican and would have voted for Sears next year,” wrote one of the rejected applicants. “But I’m second-guessing my own party the way this whole thing was handled.”
Earle-Sears is running for governor against former congresswoman Abigail Spanberger.
Meanwhile, Sen. Mamie Locke, D-Hampton, stressed that it’s her party which has been going to bat for people who have served their time and want to participate again in democracy.
Same-sex marriage prohibition likely to fall
The resolution that has gathered the most bipartisan support would remove a prohibition on same-sex marriages from the constitution that has been on the books since the early 2000s.
Though such unions are federally protected, advocates argue that Virginian’s marriages could be at risk should a federal court case protecting them be overturned. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas raised that possibility in his concurring opinion when the court overturned Roe v. Wade.
Sen. Adam Ebbin, D-Alexandria, said he is glad to see his resolution advance, but that he’s “disappointed” only three Republicans in the Senate backed it.
“I think it’s really kind of indefensible not to be supportive of complying with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision,” he told members of the press following the vote.
(This story originally appeared in the Virginia Mercury and is being republished here with permission.)
