At the Basilica of Saint Andrew in Roanoke on Sunday, a priest read a letter to the congregation at the end of Mass from Virginia’s two Catholic bishops that condemned two constitutional amendments before voters this fall.
The priest was met with a round of applause.
But the language used in the bishops’ letter, which was sent to hundreds of Catholic churches across the commonwealth, does not accurately convey the effects of the reproductive healthcare constitutional amendment, according to the patron of that amendment.
Ballot Question 1, if approved, would enshrine access to the whole spectrum of reproductive healthcare into Virginia’s constitution, including abortion, prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, miscarriage management and fertility care. It would also protect doctors, nurses and patients from being punished for providing that care, and it would 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 letter, written by the Virginia Catholic Conference and approved and signed by Bishops Michael Burbidge of Arlington and Barry Knestout of Richmond, claimed that the constitutional amendment would allow minors to access abortion care without parental or guardian consent. The letter also claimed that the amendment would “endanger women’s health and safety” and would lead to the denial of healthcare for any infant born alive after an attempted abortion by healthcare providers.
State Sen. Jennifer Boysko, D-Fairfax, who patroned the constitutional amendment in the Senate, called that characterization by the bishops a “scare tactic” to motivate their congregations to vote against the measure.
“That’s not how abortion works, and that’s not what we’re talking about here,” she said in an interview. “I think it’s unfortunate that they’re not using accurate information. … Fearmongering is not good policy.”
Some issues raised in the bishops’ letter are already law
The bishops said in their letter that Ballot Question 1, if approved by voters, “would endanger women’s health and safety and even push parents out of life-changing and irreversible decisions for their minor daughters.” The letter added that, “When debating the language of the proposed constitutional amendment, legislators even rejected a proposal to require that any baby born alive after an attempted abortion would receive the same level of care and treatment as any other infant.”
“This is a scare tactic,” Boysko said, and pointed out that the amendment would not alter Virginia’s current legal framework regarding abortion care.
Under current law, minors must obtain written, notarized consent from a parent or legal guardian to obtain abortion care. If consent is obtained, a doctor must notify the parent or legal guardian either in person or by telephone 24 hours before the procedure is scheduled to take place.
Virginia’s current law allows for third-trimester abortion for patients only under dire circumstances — if the patient is at risk of dying, if continuing the pregnancy could severely impair the patient’s health, or if the pregnancy cannot survive.
Current law also requires healthcare providers to care for infants born after an attempted abortion.
“They’re really taking an uninformed position on this. I respect the Catholic bishops’ sincerely held beliefs,” Boysko said. “I understand that we all have a freedom of religion, a freedom of personal beliefs. I hold a different view to what the Catholic bishops are sharing with people, and I do not believe that [their letter] is accurate.”
“It’s important to note that these false narratives are being pushed by organizations that want to ban abortion and who don’t even support a right to contraception,” said Jamie Lockhart, executive director of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia.
Jeff Caruso, executive director of the Virginia Catholic Conference, said that he had verified the information in the letter regarding Ballot Question 1 before it was sent out to Catholic churches across the commonwealth. He pointed to the constitutional amendment’s own language when asked how he had verified the information, and argued that the language allows for minors to access abortion care.
“The proposed constitutional amendment would provide a ‘fundamental right’ to ‘abortion care’ for ‘every individual’. This includes minors,” he said via email.
“The proposed amendment also says, ‘The Commonwealth shall not discriminate in the protection or enforcement of this fundamental right.’ In addition, it says 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.’ Please note in particular the words ‘in no circumstance,’” Caruso added.
He also noted changes to the proposed amendment that were rejected by the General Assembly that would have required parental or guardian consent for a minor seeking an abortion and would have required healthcare providers to render care to infants born after an attempted abortion.
Both are currently mandated under Virginia law.
Thirteen states enacted a total ban on abortion between when the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022 and April of this year, according to data collected by KFF, a nonpartisan independent organization that focuses on healthcare issues.
Roughly 60% of adults believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases, including about 57% of people who identify as Catholic, according to a nationwide poll released by Pew Research in March.
Marriage equality amendment also in the church’s crosshairs
Virginia’s two Catholic bishops also took aim at the marriage equality constitutional amendment in their letter.
Ballot Question 2, if approved, would remove a ban on same-sex marriage that currently exists in Virginia’s constitution and affirm other marriage rights between two consenting adults.
The amendment would remove the prohibition on marriages between persons of the same sex or gender from the Virginia Constitution’s Bill of Rights. It would be replaced with the fundamental right to marry and would require the state to recognize and treat equally under the law any lawful marriage between two adults, regardless of the sex, gender or race of either person. The proposed amendment would prohibit the state from denying a marriage license to two adults because of their sex, gender or race.
Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriages dates to 2006, when voters approved a constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to one man and one woman.
That provision was overridden and rendered moot by the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision in 2015. The federal high court ruled 5-4 that the 14th Amendment requires states to recognize lawfully licensed marriages between two people of the same sex.
If Obergefell were to be overturned, the ban on same-sex marriage in Virginia’s constitution could go back into effect.
In the church letter, the bishops said that they “affirm the dignity of every person” but also said that marriage is “created by God” and “will always be the union of a man and a woman.”
“God’s design for marriage — woven into the fabric of our being — was established before any nation, religion or law,” the letter continued. “We are called to honor and preserve it. The marital union — between a man and a woman who give themselves completely to each other — is a unique and irreplaceable bond that is the basis of the family and society.”
Caruso said that the letter was self-explanatory when asked to elaborate on the church’s position.
Former Democratic state Sen. Adam Ebbin, who patroned the constitutional amendment, said in response to the letter that everyone is entitled to their opinion, “as misguided as it might be.”
“Virginia is in the 21st century and this has nothing to do with what’s going on in the church — no one is telling the church that they have to marry divorced people or people who they don’t want to marry, they should respect that not everyone follows their view,” Ebbin said.
He added that he felt confident that the constitutional amendment will pass, regardless of the bishops’ letter.
Restoration of rights amendment gets tepid support from the church
The third ballot question that voters will decide on in November would determine whether to amend Virginia’s constitution to allow formerly incarcerated people to automatically regain their right to vote upon their release from prison.
The bishops, in their letter, told parishioners to vote their conscience — in contrast to the condemnation of the first two ballot questions.
“Through the work of the Virginia Catholic Conference, we have consistently supported this measure and continue to do so,” the letter said. “In your own assessment of this proposal, we invite you to consider the Church’s teaching on participation in the common good, rehabilitation, restoration, mercy and second chances — as well as times when you have witnessed God’s redemptive work in your own life and the lives around you.”
Asked why the tone of the letter changed from the first two ballot questions to the third, Caruso said the first two “concern fundamental matters of right and wrong.”
He said that Ballot Question 3 is different “because people who believe what the Catholic Church teaches could still arrive at differing judgments about what Virginia’s law about restoring voting rights should say.”
Caruso added that the bishops support Ballot Question 3.
