How Should Christians Consider Virginia's 2026 Constitutional Amendments on the Ballot?

Virginia has two critical constitutional amendments on the Ballot in 2026:

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.

The Dog Days of Probate

 This guest post is courtesy of Jordan Burgan, Regent Law 3L:

One of the fundamental principles of Wills, Trusts, and Estates law is that every testator has the constitutionally protected opportunity to transfer their wealth as they see fit. This freedom can lead to some truly unusual and sometimes controversial results. At its core, estate planning is meant to honor the intent of the testator, but in practice, that intent does not always prevail. When unconventional bequests collide with family expectations or public policy concerns, the result is sometimes prolonged litigation that can unravel the most carefully drafted plans.

A well-known example of this is Quaker State Refining Company heiress Eleanor Ritchey, who left her 150 rescued dogs the bulk of her $4.3 million estate. Her will instructed the trustee to supervise and provide for the dogs until all had been placed in homes or died, after which the remaining assets would go to Auburn University’s School of Veterinary Science. While the plan reflected Miss Ritchey’s clear affection for animals, it did not go unchallenged. Just one year after her death, relatives contested the will, triggering five years of contentious legal battles that ultimately ended in a out-of-court settlement. The result: her two half-sisters and a half-brother receiving 15% of the estate, nearly $2 million; a diversion from her original intent.

But shouldn’t the deceased’s intent control? After all, isn’t that the very purpose of creating a will or trust with specific, often deeply personal, thoughtful instructions? While the law places great weight on testamentary intent, it also balances that intent against competing legal interests, including family protections and judicial oversight. A will or trust may be the testator’s final opportunity to have the last word, but even with careful planning, those words can be diluted or even rewritten by competing legal pressures.

References:

AP, Dog’s Death will Enrich a Veterinary School, NEW YORK TIMES (Dec. 27, 1983), https://www.nytimes.com/1983/12/27/us/dog-s-death-will-enrich-a-veterinary-school.html.

Happy 250 Years - Keep American Families Free!

 

In just days, America will mark 250 years of faith and freedom. Right now, Regent graduates are on the front lines of defending that legacy.   David Cortman is a Regent alum who has argued and won landmark religious liberty cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. His story is a powerful reminder of what your past support helped make possible.

As senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, David is on the front lines of America's most consequential battles for faith and freedom. Churches, ministries, and individuals facing pressure to compromise their faith now have a defender in the nation's highest court, because you helped put him there.   David traces it all back to Regent, and to the generous friends who made it possible.

"All those who have supported Regent over the years are having Kingdom impacts far beyond what they will ever know this side of heaven," he told us. "I am a life that was changed."

Breaking James Talarico's Consent Spell

 

ByJoseph A. Kohm Jr., Sr. Lecturing Fellow, Regent Law

Editor's Note: Reposted from The Center for Christian Thought and Action, Regent University, at https://ccta.regent.edu/breaking-james-talaricos-consent-spell/. 

James Talarico, the Democratic nominee for Senate in Texas, is a seminarian working on his M.Div. at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary.  Instead of shying away from issues regarding faith on the campaign trail, he often leads with them, claiming “God is non-binary,” or that he’ll “be giving sermons” on defending abortion care for the Trans community. Another tenet of Talarico’s progressive form of Christianity, one that he repeats frequently, is that Mary, the mother of Jesus, “consented” to her pregnancy. In a November 6, 2022, tweet on X, Talarico wrote, “We only have Jesus because a woman consented to creating him.”

A few weeks ago, while visiting the Uffizi Museum in Florence, Italy, I was in a room dedicated to the paintings of Sandro Botticelli (1455-1510). The room is dominated by two of Botticelli’s most famous works, The Birth of Venus and Primavera, both over 5 feet in height and nine feet in length. Twenty feet away from Venus, set in a corner, is another Botticelli, Madonna of the Magnificat.  The painting is circular, just four feet in diameter, and much less attention-grabbing than the other two, yet my immediate visceral reaction as my eyes met this work was of James Talarico’s take on what he calls, “my favorite story in all of scripture.”

Did Mary consent to her pregnancy, and how does a 15th-century painting help us answer that question? In the second half of Luke 1:38, we read Mary saying to Gabriel, “Let it be done to me according to your word.” Commonly known as “Mary’s fiat,” fiat being the Latin for “let it be,” it is just here where James Talarico invokes the concept of “consent” as an incantation to keep hearers under the false belief that the Christian life is compatible with maintaining autonomy over personal decisions and lifestyle. The contemporary concept of consent serves as the currency which legitimizes almost any form of sex between any number of people. The dangerous and false enchantment of consent is even being employed to eliminate protections provided to children who would obviously be harmed by any form of sexual activity with adults. 

In his sermon, “The Weight of Glory,” C.S. Lewis tells us, “Spells are used for breaking enchantments as well as inducing them.” Encountering Botticelli’s Madonna is to be put under a spell, and his spell breaks the modern-day consent-based enchantment Talarico is trying to weave regarding Mary by revealing two things.

First, Botticelli’s painting reminds us that one of our most important purposes as humans is to reflect God’s glory. Each of us, with our unveiled faces beholding the glory of the Lord, are to be transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to the other. (2 Cor. 3:18) In Botticelli’s Madonna, heaven meets earth as two angels crown Mary under the sun’s radiant glow. Mary is composing the first words of her prayer of praise, the Magnificat, “My soul doth magnify the Lord.” God doesn’t need us to magnify Him, but in doing so, we mirror back to Him the glory which we derive from Him.

Second, Botticelli’s Madonna teaches us that we are only our true selves, living our purpose or telos, if our wills are aligned with God’s. An ingredient James Talarico leaves out of his enchantment is that before Mary tells Gabriel, “Let it be,” she says, “I am the servant of the Lord.” Mary models the biblical discipleship posture of self-surrender and obedience, which subsumes any idea of consent. In Botticelli’s Madonna, the Christ child is seated on Mary’s lap, revealing her telos, lived out through her obedience, as the mother of Jesus.

Spells are invoked to produce a specific result or effect. In J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, Gandalf spoke “Mellon,” the Elvish word for “friend,” and the Doors of Durin opened into Moria. The effect of placing oneself under James Talarico’s consent-based spell leads to a diminished view of God’s glory and a failure to follow Mary’s example to magnify Him. Even worse, the illusion provided by the spell of consent provides a soothing excuse for ignoring God’s glorious purpose for our lives.

Happy Father's Day, Dad!

 

Celebrating fatherhood takes on a unique meaning for every single person on Father’s Day weekend. Having, knowing, being loved by a father provides a child with a biological parent who is entrusted with an altruistic investment in his offspring's success unlike any other person on the planet. 

Dads create superior outcomes for their children when raised in married families with their mom. Though renowned economist Dr. Gary Becker views this entrustment from an economic lens (Gary S. Becker, A Treatise on the Family (Harvard U. Press 1993), additional research suggests that being raised by one’s biological parent creates stronger parental investment and more effective parenting behaviors. (See Martin Daly & Margo Wilson, The Truth About Cinderella: A Darwinian View of Parental Love 63-93 (1998). Having that male role model within a committed relationship framework changes everything. From communication patterns, to security, to behavioral modeling that contributes to well-rounded development, there are thousands of definitive studies showing fathers are one of the most significant and important contributors of children’s physical, psychological, emotional and intellectual development. (See Lynne Marie Kohm, Rethinking Mom and Dad, 42 Capital U. L. Rev. 441 (2014).  

Thank you, dad. Happy Father’s Day!

How to Have Difficult Conversations With those you Love

This guest post is courtesy of Moriah Gaskill, Regent Law 3L:

How do you approach challenging conversations? When discussing estate planning, difficult topics appear inevitable. Yet, we often struggle with the thought of our own mortality and the mortality of the one’s closest to us. As a result, these conversations can evoke fear, stress, or a sense of isolation. There is something illusive and frighting about the thought of continuing life without the ones you love the most. But what if we could approach these discussions in a constructive and more comforting way?

In our Wills, Trusts, and Estates class, our professor, Mrs. Kohm, often spoke about the opportunity to leave a legacy by creating an estate plan. Legacies afford us the privilege of impact. As Christians, our lives, money, and time, are not our own, but instead, are instruments used to serve others and fulfill Christ’s purpose for our lives. Therefore, what it we made service and love the focus? We can support our loved ones in their estate planning process by extending patience and by listening to what is most important or concerning to them. Additionally, we can cultivate an environment where he or she feels both emotionally and physically safe to engage in vulnerable conversations. Just as a poet’s message can outlive their life through their work, similarly, a person’s mission can be reflected through charities, organizations, and persons in which or in whom they have invested.

How can you confront disunity or family discord when discussing estate planning? I believe one way we can unpack the dynamics of familial relations, and hopefully encourage more familial harmony, is by intentionally listening to the underlying interests and concerns of a person. What appears on the surface is not always fully reflective of the underlying emotion or motive. Our life experiences, positive or negative, values, past hurts, misunderstandings,

Actions, reactions, and traumas can have a significant impact on our relationships, which can not only affect our lifetime interactions, but also can affect the interactions between the loved ones left behind. Therefore, it is essential to have the right spiritual and mental posture when we engage in conversations that can be emotionally complex. We must seek clarity, encourage the truth to drive the conversation, validate legitimate feelings, and be prepared to propose creative solutions.

What if it is taboo to talk about death or incapacity in my family? Is there a way I can approach sensitive topics? Proverbs 18:21 reminds us that “life and death are in the power of the tongue, and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof.” Our words have power, and one of the challenges I have found is discussing topics such as incapacity, life sustaining treatments, or funeral arrangements without making these discussions declarations or confessions. To combat this issue, one solution is to use articles such as “the” or “a” as opposed to possessive determiners like “my.” Another solution might be to create hypothetical scenarios before approaching the loved one’s views on the matter. These methods may help create some distance between the person and the topic being considered. Everyone’s estate plan and approach may be just as unique as he or she is, therefore, it is important to keep the person at the heart of the plan.

In conclusion, estate planning requires patience, diligence, vulnerability, perspective, introspection, and love. Although the conversations surrounding estate planning can be challenging, one’s legacy can be impactful. “Let your estate plan be your love letter.”

Estate Planning for your Family in the Era of Online DNA Testing

 

This guest post is courtesy of Amanda Ash, Regent Law 3L:

          “Discovering your family history is a journey, and we’re here to guide you,” boasts DNA testing service Ancestry.com. Throughout history and literature, stories of long-lost heirs have captivated audiences. Today, with the rise of online DNA testing, these plots are increasing playing out in real life. A recent Wall Street Journal article highlighted how newly discovered relatives are disrupting long-settled estate and inheritance plans.   

          If you are handling an estate—or planning one—it’s important to understand how biology interacts with state law. In many jurisdictions, including Virginia, biology alone is rarely enough to substantiate an inheritance claim. Instead, inheritance depends on the law of the state where the decedent lived, the wording of any will, legally recognized relationships in effect at death, and strict timing requirements.

          Under Virginia law, when a decedent leaves a will, it controls the disposition of the estate. Vague terms like “child,” “descendent,” “issue,” and “issue of my body” create ambiguity that may open the door to claim by a relative unknown at the time of drafting. A best practice when drafting a will is to refer to heirs by full legal name and update the will when family circumstances change.

          If there is no will, the laws of intestate succession apply, and courts look to legally established relationships. Virginia law includes procedures for establishing paternity for children born out of marriage, requiring clear and convincing evidence. Such evidence may include the parent’s acknowledgement of the child or expert genetic testing weighed alongside other factors. Virginia also requires that claims of succession be filed within one year of the decedent’s death. In short, a previously unknown relative may be able to establish a claim, but many legal requirements must align for the claim to succeed.

Of special note when considering DNA results:

·        Adopted children have no inheritance rights from a biological parent because adoption severs the legal parent-child relationship (except in stepparent adoptions, where the birth parent remains a legal parent).

·        Children conceived with donated sperm are generally barred by contract from asserting inheritance claims through the donor.

·        Children whose parent’s rights were terminated may still inherit from the parent, but the parent cannot inherit from the child.

 

          In short, the best protection against unwanted surprises to your estate plan: draft a clear, specific will and update it as your circumstances evolve. Doing so ensures that your intentions are honored—even in a world where DNA testing continues to uncover unexpected branches on a family tree.

 

The Change Sparked in California Conservatorship Law by the #FreeBritney Movement

 

This guest post is courtesy of Gretchen Collins, Regent Law 3L, and Fall 2025 Wills, Trusts & Estates student. This post serves as an update to The Conservatorship of Britney Spears (Continues…)Links to an external site. post from 2020:

Since this blog’s 2020 post on Britney Spears’ conservatorship, California has reformed its conservatorship system. The #FreeBritney movement was a public outcry that exposed systemic failures in how courts protect the most vulnerable individuals’ autonomy and dignity.  

A conservatorship is a legal arrangement in which a court appoints a person (conservator) to manage another person's (conservatee) personal care and/or estate, when that person is deemed unable to manage these matters independently.

The Conservatorship Reform ActLinks to an external site., signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom in September 2021, transformed California conservatorship law in three critical ways. First, conservatees now have the right to hire independent legal counsel to represent their interests rather than relying on court-appointed counsel. Second, it allows interested persons to petition the court and mandates that all prima facie cases of abuse are thoroughly investigated (Cal. Prob. Code § 1851.6)Links to an external site.. Third, conservators found guilty of abuse of a conservatee now face civil penalties, including a fine of up to $10,000 in addition to other remedies (Cal. Prob. Code § 2112)Links to an external site..

Britney Spears’ case sparked these reforms. After petitioning in 2020 to remove her father as conservator, Spears delivered an emotional testimony in June 2021, describing her father’s conservatorship as abusive. That September, exercising rights granted by the Conservatorship Reform Act, she hired her own attorney. In November 2021, after 13 years, Judge Brenda Penny terminated her conservatorship (Britney Spears Conservatorship Explained by a Probate Lawyer, Keystone Law Group, Oct. 2024).Links to an external site. Her case brought conservatorships publicity, fueled a public outcry, and encouraged legislators to take action to prevent situations like hers in the future.

Building on this momentum, California introduced Assembly Bill 1663Links to an external site. in 2022, adding two key protections. Courts are required to use the least restrictive means when determining whether a conservatorship is appropriate.  A court must evaluate the allegations regarding the prospective conservatee’s capacity and any alternatives available to provide the necessary support before restricting an individual’s autonomy. Courts must also tailor conservatorships for persons with developmental disabilities to that individual’s specific needs. This expressly limits the scope of a conservatorship and requires courts to evaluate the unique circumstances surrounding requests.

Despite these changes, significant gaps remain.  Although interested persons may now report abuse, conservatees possess only limited authority to challenge their own conservatorship status. Advocates continue to push for stronger protections, including enhanced oversight, increased funding for investigations, and greater awareness of alternatives. Numerous alternatives exist, including supported decision-making, powers of attorney, and advance directives, all of which provide necessary support without stripping away autonomy. Conservatorships are meant to be a last resort when all other less restrictive means have been examined or exhausted.

The #FreeBritney movement awakened a hunger for justice. The public outcry forced legislators and legal professionals to evaluate their own roles in perpetuating systemic failures. When Spears delivered her emotional testimony, it sparked reform. Media attention brought change to California’s conservatorship law, but its lasting legacy may be in challenging legal professionals to question whether the means accomplish the goal of protecting, rather than controlling, vulnerable individuals.  

Happy Mother's Day Mom!

 

Celebrating motherhood takes on all new meaning for every single person on Mother’s Day weekend. Having, knowing, being loved by a mother provides a child with a biological parent who is entrusted with an altruistic investment in their offspring's success unlike any other person on the planet. 

Though renowned economist Dr. Gary Becker views this entrustment from an economic lens (Gary S. Becker, A Treatise on the Family (Harvard U. Press 1993), additional research suggests that being raised by one’s biological parent creates stronger parental investment and more effective parenting behaviors. (See Martin Daly & Margo Wilson, The Truth About Cinderella: A Darwinian View of Parental Love 63-93 (1998). That biological relationship may be "both necessary and sufficient" to explain the superior outcomes for children raised in married families with their mom.

Having that female role model within a committed relationship framework changes everything. From communication patterns, to security, to behavioral modeling that contributes to well-rounded development, there are thousands of definitive studies showing mothers are one of the most significant and important contributors of children’s physical, psychological, emotional and intellectual development. (See Lynne Marie Kohm, Rethinking Mom and Dad, 42 Capital U. L. Rev. 441 (2014).  

Gratitude to mom today is now understood even by social scientists. Happy Mother's Day mom!

Eugenics Rebranded

This guest post is courtesy of Mary Truitt, Regent Law 2L:

“That which has been is what will be. That which is done is what will be done. And there is nothing new under the sun.” Ecclesiastes 1:9.

In the twenty-first century, we are living through our own version of the industrial revolution, but with rapid technological developments. Among the array of incredible developments has been the ability to create life outside of the womb. This has greatly expanded families, but it has also resulted in millions of lives frozen indefinitely. It has created an ethical dilemma that continues to foster problems.  

Nucleus Embryo recently launched a new technology that allows parents to screen their embryos for the potential for genetic diseases and traits. It’s been marketed under the pretense of “preventative medicine.” The idea is that parents can choose the healthiest embryo to implant. Yet doing so necessarily discards the embryos that have genetic diseases or may be prone to developing a disease or health issue later in life. This process ranks embryos against one another, thereby devaluing embryos not considered perfect. This technology perpetuates the notion that children are a commodity and the weak do not deserve to live.

Our culture often struggles to call out the evil as we see it because it is not identical to historical examples. The fear is that by drawing modern comparisons, we’ll downplay the evil of our past. Yet in so doing, we are failing to understand the depth of evil right in front of us. Nucleus Embryo is eugenics. It allows parents to discard their weaker children by destroying rejected embryos because they have imperfections. It is not the disease that is being prevented from existing, but rather the child from being born.

Let us never forget that “…the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.” Therefore, Scripture calls us to “be sober, be vigilant.”1 Peter 5:8. Satan uses new tactics to employ the same evil. There is nothing new under the sun. Christians should be watchful that we may fulfill the command to “learn to do good; seek justice, rebuke the oppressor; defend the fatherless, plead for the widow.” Isaiah 1:17.