Amendment 1 is the "Fundamental Right to Reproductive Freedom" - an amendment enshrining both abortion and gender transition into the laws of the Commonwealth.
Amendment 2 - is the "Marriage" Amendment - which would similarly enshrine marriage expansion.
What follows is a thoughtful Biblical analysis courtesy of Joseph Kohm, III, Sr. Policy Director at DoNoHarm that canhelp Christian citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia think through the issues presented in each amendment, and then to discern how to vote accordingly on these amendments.
Biblical Breakdown of Virginia’s Proposed Constitutional
Amendments 1 & 2:
This guide is offered to help Christians think critically and
Biblically about two amendments to the Constitution of Virginia that will
appear on our ballots this November. For each amendment, the full official text
is reproduced first, exactly as it appears from the Virginia Department of
Elections. Beneath it are reflections on the language phrase by phrase, asking
a single question: how does this measure stand in relation to the truth God
has revealed in Scripture?
Amendment
1, titled “Fundamental Right to Reproductive Freedom”
The Question as It Appears
on the Ballot
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?
The Full Text of the
Proposed Amendment
The amendment would add a new
section to Article I (the Bill of Rights) of the Constitution of Virginia:
Section 11-A. Fundamental
right to reproductive freedom.
That every individual has
the fundamental right to reproductive freedom, including the ability to make
and carry out decisions relating to one’s own prenatal care, childbirth,
postpartum care, contraception, abortion care, miscarriage management, and fertility
care.
An individual’s right to
reproductive freedom shall not be, directly or indirectly, denied, burdened, or
infringed upon unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the
least restrictive means.
Notwithstanding the above,
the Commonwealth may regulate the provision of abortion care in the third
trimester, provided that in no circumstance shall the Commonwealth prohibit an
abortion (i) that in the professional judgment of a physician is medically
indicated to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant
individual or (ii) when in the professional judgment of a physician the fetus
is not viable.
The Commonwealth shall not
discriminate in the protection or enforcement of this fundamental right.
The Commonwealth shall not
penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against an individual
based on such individual’s own exercise of this fundamental right or such
individual’s own actual, potential, perceived, or alleged pregnancy outcomes,
including miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion. The Commonwealth shall not
penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against any individual
for aiding or assisting another individual in exercising such other
individual’s right to reproductive freedom with such other individual’s
voluntary consent.
For the purposes of this
section, a state interest is compelling only if it is for the limited purpose
of maintaining or improving the health of an individual seeking care,
consistent with accepted clinical standards of care and evidence-based
medicine, and does not infringe on that individual’s autonomous decision
making.
This section shall be
self-executing. Any provision of this section held invalid shall be severable
from the remaining portions of the section.
The
heart of the Amendment: the life of the unborn child
Scripture teaches that every human being is made in the image of
God (Genesis 1:27) and that God forms and knows each child in the womb. “You
knitted me together in my mother’s womb,” the psalmist says; God’s eyes saw us
when we were still unformed (Psalm 139:13–16). To the prophet God said, “Before
I formed you in the womb I knew you” (Jeremiah 1:5), from which we derive our
conviction that human life begins at the moment of conception. Additionally, when
Mary greeted Elizabeth, the unborn John leaped for joy (Luke 1:41–44). From
these truths the historic Christian conviction follows: the unborn child is a
person, known and loved by God, and the deliberate ending of that innocent unborn
life cannot be reconciled with the commandment “You shall not murder” (Exodus
20:13) or with God’s hatred of hands that shed innocent blood (Proverbs
6:16–17). The amendment’s central purpose—to establish abortion as a
fundamental right—therefore stands in direct conflict with the value God places
on the life each abortion ends.
On the words: “every individual has the
fundamental right … including … abortion care”
By placing “abortion care” among the highest class of
constitutional rights, the amendment would enshrine as a foundational liberty
the very act that ends the life of an unborn child. Scripture calls God’s
people to “defend the weak and the fatherless” and to “rescue the weak and the
needy” (Psalm 82:3–4), and to “speak up for those who cannot speak for
themselves” (Proverbs 31:8–9). No one is more voiceless than a child in the
womb. A constitution that names abortion a fundamental right, while giving the
unborn no standing at all, inverts the biblical call to protect the most
defenseless among us.
Note also the phrase “every individual.” The right is
granted to the individual, without limitation to adults. Such language will
weaken the God-given role of parents, whom Scripture charges to raise,
instruct, and protect their children (Deuteronomy 6:6–7; Ephesians 6:1–4;
Proverbs 22:6). That a minor’s gravest decisions could be removed from a
mother’s and father’s care is a serious one for families who take that
God-given responsibility to heart.
Lastly, because any abortion (surgical or chemical) requires the
work of others (whether the doctor performing the abortion, the pharmacist
creating the abortion-inducing drug, or the courier bringing the drugs to a
mother’s home), the amendment would create a fundamental right to the labor of
another human being. This is in direct conflict the Biblical prohibitions
against slavery from which we derive the right of each individual to own his or
her own labor and be free of government coercion to that labor at the risk of
violating their own consciences.
On the words: “shall not be … denied,
burdened, or infringed upon unless justified by a compelling state interest
achieved by the least restrictive means”
This sentence sets the highest legal standard—“strict
scrutiny”—against any law that would touch this right. Existing protections will
be struck down as an unlawful “burden.” Long-standing safeguards intended to
protect women and the unborn alike will fall under this standard. From a
Christian worldview, the effect is to remove commonsense legal guardrails that protect
life and health, contrary to the call to protect the vulnerable rather than
expose them (Isaiah 1:17).
On the words: “the Commonwealth may regulate …
the third trimester … except … to protect the life or physical or mental health
of the pregnant individual”
On its face this appears to permit some late-term regulation.
But the exception is broad: an abortion may not be prohibited when, in one
physician’s judgment, it is necessary to restore the mother’s “mental
health”—an expansive category—or when that physician judges the child “not
viable.” A child in the third trimester is fully formed, able to feel, and
often able to survive outside the womb. That such a life could be ended under a
broadly worded exception is a grave evil. Scripture never measures the worth of
a life by its size, usefulness or stage of development; God is the Lord of life
from its beginning (Deuteronomy 32:39).
On the words: “the Commonwealth shall not
discriminate in the protection or enforcement of this fundamental right”
Christians rightly ask how this “non-discrimination” language
might be used against those with conscientious and religious
objections—physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and faith-based institutions who
cannot in good conscience participate in abortion. Scripture is clear that when
human command conflicts with God’s law, “We must obey God rather than men”
(Acts 5:29). A provision that could be wielded to compel participation in what
believers regard as the taking of innocent life threatens the freedom of
conscience that God’s people are bound to keep.
On the words: “shall not … take adverse action
against any individual for aiding or assisting … with … voluntary consent”
This shields not only the woman but anyone who “aids or assists”
in abortions. The safeguard offered—“voluntary consent”—can be easily coerced
or falsely claimed by bad actors like abusive boyfriends, pimps and sex
traffickers, and the sentence will make it near-impossible for the state to
investigate such abortions. Scripture commands us to “seek justice, correct
oppression” and to defend those who are exploited (Isaiah 1:17). A law that eliminates
accountability for those who profit from or pressure abortion runs against the
biblical concern for the exploited and for justice.
On the words: “a state interest is compelling
only if it is for the … health of an individual seeking care … and does not
infringe on that individual’s autonomous decision making”
Perhaps the most revealing sentence in the amendment. It defines
the state’s interest so narrowly that only the health of the person seeking the
abortion may count—the life of the unborn child is given no weight
whatsoever. Scripture teaches that both the mother and the child in
the womb are our neighbors, made in God’s image, whom we are called to love and
protect. To write the unborn entirely out of the law’s protection, and to make
individual choice the measure of what the state may protect, elevates the will
of the self above the God who alone is Lord over life and death (Deuteronomy
32:39).
Summary
Amendment 1 would write into the Constitution of our
Commonwealth a right to end unborn life, while granting that life no
recognition or protection. However compassionately its supporters frame it, its
plain effect cannot be squared with the scriptural truth that human life bears
God’s image from the moment of conception and that we are charged to defend innocent,
defenseless life. For these reasons, Christians in Virginia believe
faithfulness calls them to vote NO on Amendment 1.
Amendment
2 — “Marriage” (Repeal and Replace)
The Question as It Appears
on the Ballot
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?
The Full Text of the
Proposed Amendment
The amendment rewrites Section
15-A of Article I. It works by removing the current definition of
marriage and inserting new language in its place.
What would be REMOVED from the
Constitution:
That only a union between
one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this
Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. … This Commonwealth and its
political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for
relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design,
qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or
its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or
other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations,
qualities, or effects of marriage.
What the amended section would
SAY (the resulting text):
Section 15-A. Marriage.
That marriage is one of the
vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness. This
Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not deny the issuance of a
marriage license to two adult persons seeking a lawful marriage on the basis of
the sex, gender, or race of such persons. This Commonwealth and its political
subdivisions shall recognize any lawful marriage between two adult persons and
treat such marriages equally under the law, regardless of the sex, gender, or
race of such persons.
The
heart of the Amendment: God’s design for marriage
Scripture teaches that marriage is not a human invention to be
redefined at will but an essential institution established by God at creation.
“God created man in his own image … male and female he created them” (Genesis
1:27), and “a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his
wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). Jesus Himself affirmed
this as the abiding pattern: the Creator “from the beginning made them male and
female,” and “what therefore God has joined together, let not man separate”
(Matthew 19:4–6; Mark 10:6–9). Marriage, according to God, is the covenant
union of one man and one woman—ordered toward building each other up in Christ,
reflecting the gospel by standing as a living picture of Christ’s love for His
Church (Ephesians 5:31–32) and raising children, who are “a heritage from the
Lord” (Psalm 127:3). The amendment would redefine the institution of marriage
in our state constitution to be opposed to God’s design for it.
On the words: “marriage is one of the vital
personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness”
The new language recasts marriage as a personal right
ordered to individual happiness. This is a subtle but profound
redefinition. In Scripture, marriage is first a covenant before God and a good institution
ordered to the flourishing of husband, wife, and children and the stability of
the wider community—not chiefly an instrument of personal fulfillment. By
reducing marriage to a vehicle for adult happiness, the amendment strips away
and reduces the deeper meaning God assigned it and puts the desires of adults,
rather than God’s design and the good of children, at the center.
On the words: “shall not deny the issuance of
a marriage license to two adult persons … on the basis of the sex, gender, or
race of such persons”
Here God’s man-and-woman definition is replaced by “two adult
persons … regardless of … sex” or “gender,” thereby writing same-sex marriage
into Virginia’s Constitution. This severs marriage from the created order that
Jesus affirmed—male and female, joined as one (Matthew 19:4–6; Romans 1:26–27).
Notice, too, that the amendment lists “sex” and “gender” as separate
categories. Scripture knows humanity as created male and female (Genesis 1:27)--embedding
a distinction between “sex” and “gender” in our foundational law departs from
that truth and will be used to press that departure into other areas of public
life, such as women’s private spaces and opportunities. Indeed, this
distinction would erase women, according to God’s creation, in Virginia law,
erasing women’s rights and opportunities inspired by biblical truth that took
millennia to build. On the inclusion of “race”: interracial marriage is
already fully lawful and is not in dispute among authentic Christians. Placing
race alongside sex in a single clause invites people to treat an objection
rooted in God’s design for male and female as though it were the same as racial
prejudice—two things Christians should be careful to distinguish.
On the words: “shall recognize any lawful
marriage between two adult persons and treat such marriages equally under the
law”
This requires the Commonwealth to recognize and equally enforce
all such marriages, and it contains no explicit protection for religious
conscience. Pastors, congregations, faith-based schools, ministries, and
believers in their work and businesses hold, as a matter of deep biblical conviction,
that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. The absence of any
conscience or religious exemption means people of faith will face pressure from
the government and activists to act against their beliefs. Scripture
teaches that we owe civil authorities honor and obedience in what is true
(Romans 13), yet “we must obey God rather than men” where the two conflict
(Acts 5:29). A provision in our Constitution that will set the state’s
definition of marriage against the church’s obedience to God is, for that
reason, something Christians cannot support.
What the
amendment removes
We must also name plainly what the amendment removes from
Virginia’s Constitution. The amendment strikes from the Constitution the words
recognizing marriage as “a union between one man and one woman.” This removal
deletes from Virginia’s foundational law the created, covenantal understanding
of marriage that Christians receive from Scripture. What replaces it is a
definition shaped by individual choice rather than by God’s design, opening the
door the numerous godless implications for Virginia law.
Summary
Amendment 2 would redefine marriage in the Constitution of
Virginia—removing the man-and-woman understanding rooted in creation and
affirmed by Christ while offering no protection for religious conscience.
Christians believe marriage is God’s institution and not ours to redefine, therefore
faithfulness to Scripture requires that we vote NO on Amendment 2.
No comments:
Post a Comment