Virginia House committee rushes approval of HJI “right to reproductive freedom” bill
Today’s post is by guest author Nathaniel Givens.
On November 13, I remotely attended a Virginia House of Delegates committee hearing on HJ1, a bill to add a “fundamental right to reproductive freedom” to the Constitution of Virginia. This was my first time attending a meeting like this, so I didn’t know what to expect. The final result should not have surprised me–the bill passed out of the subcommittee on a party-line vote–but the process was shocking.
HJ1 was moved to the end of the agenda.
The first surprise was a small one, although it foreshadowed the far stranger things to come. When the Chair, Delegate Price, started the meeting she moved HJ1 from the first position (where it had been listed in the public agenda) to the last without explanation or acknowledgement (video).
HJ1 versions were swapped last minute.
Over an hour later when Delegate Herring introduced HJ1, she immediately substituted a new version for the one that had been published online (video). After a motion that was seconded and voted on with lightning speed (that looked like it had been coordinated in advance), paper copies of the new text were distributed to the committee, who (at least among the Republicans) had never seen the new text before.
This wasn’t a question of tweaking a few words. The substitute version was substantially different and, as shortly became apparent, even the Democrats who were in favor of the bill did not understand the legal ramifications of their own new version.
After Delegate Herring briefly reviewed the new amendment, Delegate Cherry (R) asked for time to review giving the “rushed nature,” referring to the amendment as “haphazard, when it comes to the Constitution of Virginia.”
Delegate Herring took umbrage at this, retorting “this is not a haphazard approach.” She claimed that a year of work had gone into the substitute version to take into account the concerns of the Republicans and that “this was carefully crafted.”
Following that, Delegate Price–who is both the chair of the committee and one of the patrons of this bill–declared a 5-minute recess for Republicans to read and digest the new text. Yes. Five minutes.
When Delegate Price re-convened the committee she also doubled-down on the idea that “these conversations have been going on for years” and expressed appreciation for all of the public input that they’d received. But that raised my first real major concern about the process being followed. What’s the point of posting a bill online and inviting public response if you’re just going to swap in a new version at the last minute, after all that public response has been collected? All those written responses are responses to a bill that is no longer up for consideration, and the public never had a chance tor respond to the actual bill that the committee took up. Is this what public participation in democracy looks like?
At this point Delegate Gilbert (R) re-iterated the concerns expressed by Delegate Cherry, pointing out that “this is one of the most heavily-litigated types of legal issues that one can imagine” and expressing concern that “this is being rushed” and that–far from embodying current Virginia law–the bill would overturn existing laws in Virginia.
Without continuing a blow-by-blow, here are the conclusions I drew.
First, the main argument from Delegates Herring and Price in favor of moving ahead with this bill was because lives are at stake. “People are dying. This is urgent,” said Delegate Price. But the bills patrons wanted to have their cake (the bill won’t change any laws) and eat it too (we have to pass it now to save lives). This is especially true if, as the Republican delegates claimed, rushing it through the committee today would have zero impact in enacting the amendment, which will have to wait for a general vote in 2026.
HJ1’s patrons didn’t understand the effects of their own bill.
Second, despite their protestations to the contrary, the bill was manifestly not carefully drafted to allow existing Virginia laws to remain in place. In fact, it wasn’t carefully crafted at all. This fact was on full display in the most jaw-dropping moment of the entire hearing. In response to a claim from Delegate Leftwich (R) that the bill would prohibit parental consent laws, Delegate Price insisted the bill would have no such effect, and she called on the committee’s attorney to back up her position. But here’s what the attorney actually said (emphasis added, video):
With the definition of ‘compelling state interest’ it’s very possible that if this ended up at the supreme court in a case, they would have to decide that issue… because of the definition in here they could find either way. There’s no straight answer.
So the bill’s patrons asserted that the amendment was carefully crafted based on Republican feedback in such a way that it would leave Virginia’s abortion laws intact, but it turns out that in reality “there’s no straight answer” to that question. And the fact that Delegate Price asked that question in front of everyone clearly expecting an answer other than the one she got illustrates that the bill’s own patrons don’t know what effect their bill would have.
Regardless of how you feel about abortion laws, in what universe does it make sense to pass a bill to amend the Constitution of Virginia when the bill’s patrons can’t accurately state what their own bill does?
I expected to be alarmed from a pro-life perspective, but the process alone was enough to discomfit me as an ordinary citizen. A last-minute substitution that invalidates public participation. A bill that its own patrons don’t understand, and that will have effects that literally nobody can predict. An irrational imperative to rush the bill forward without study or deliberation despite it having no impact on the overall timeline. And yet, despite all this, when it came time to vote everybody just voted along party lines. It was incredibly depressing to witness.
HJ1 opponents substantially outnumbered supporters.
But there was one bright, shining ray of hope. During the fifteen minutes allotted for in-person statements in defense of the bill, about 18 people spoke, and that was it. During the fifteen minutes allotted for in-person statement in opposition to the bill, about 12 people spoke, but the line wasn’t done. Delegate Price graciously allowed everyone else to state their name and opposition to the bill, and by the time everyone who had arrived in-person was done, the opposition outnumbered the supporters by about 3-to-1.
In every political fight over abortion, the pro-choice side is always dramatically over-funded. This has always been a David vs. Goliath fight, and that won’t change. But that 3-to-1 ratio gives me hope that–if this amendment makes it all the way to the ballot in 2026, the good people of Virginia will say no to its reckless extremism.
If you appreciate our work and would like to help, one of the most effective ways to do so is to become a monthly donor. You can also give a one time donation here or volunteer with us here.
