"This Just Gets More and More Ugly"
Just when you think that the abortion amendment could not be more ungodly, inhuman, and just against all decency, the left just keeps imposing their radical, far-left agenda. Now, I have spoken many times about HJ1/SJ247 in both the Capitol Alerts and in the pulpits of many Churches, and have explained the radical, progressive, and un-Godly allowances that this Constitutional Amendment will afford.

I have even been asked by some, “Abortion is already legal up to 26 weeks, why do they need a Constitutional Amendment?” Remember, the reality is that an abortion can be performed by current statute into the third trimester, with certain restrictions.

Currently the Code of Virginia §18.2-74 states that during third trimester:
“The physician and two consulting physicians certify and so enter in the hospital record of the woman, that in their medical opinion, based upon their best clinical judgment, the continuation of the pregnancy is likely to result in the death of the woman or substantially and irremediably impair the mental or physical health of the woman”.

However, what the left is trying to achieve is a “fail-safe.” Meaning, that the current code of Virginia (§18.2-74) could be changed by a more conservative legislative body; however, a Constitutional Amendment would be more difficult to change, as it requires two separate legislative sessions and a referendum to the voters of the Commonwealth. That is a quick explanation why they seek a Constitutional Amendment on this issue (it would be the same reason why they are seeking a Constitutional Amendment on the marriage issue as well).

As ugly as this Resolution is, there is a part that we find to add to the progressive, heinous desires of the left, notice what the resolution states:
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.

So, the resolution states that “every individual has the right to reproductive freedom, including the ability to make and carry out decisions relating to one’s own…. postpartum care.” The resolution will allow “every individual” to make all decisions regarding the care that is received after the birth of a child. Now, keep in mind that the resolution states that “every individual,” meaning that it is not just the woman that the resolution will allow to make the decisions related to her reproduction.

This resolution is so awful, un-Godly, and vague that it will allow other people, other than the mother, to make decisions about her reproductive health, including postpartum decisions. What about “postpartum depression?” I had a meeting a few weeks ago with James Bopp Jr., Senior Legal Counsel with the National Right to Life, and we spent about an hour together reviewing this Amendment. His first words when he read it were, “Oh my, the poor women of Virginia.”

We discussed the fact that since this resolution will allow “every individual” to make decisions regarding their postpartum care, the question was asked, “What happens when a woman is so depressed that she no longer wants to live? Will this resolution pave the way to allow assisted suicide?” Attorney James Bopp, Jr. affirms that the vague language, coupled with the climate of our society, could allow for a woman to legally seek assisted suicide. It also adds to the possibility of this when you consider that the left, in the Virginia General Assembly in past sessions, have already tried to pass legislation that would make assisted suicide legal in the Commonwealth, though by God’s grace they were unsuccessful, but it is still on the agenda of the left.

Understand this- the desire of the left is to have government involved in every area of our lives and that they have already attempted to pass legislation to make assisted suicide legal (which is incomprehensible for me), therefore this does not seem too far-fetched. Also, when you consider the current legal battle in the state of Kansas, this thought seems even more plausible.

Plaintiffs argue their right to make end-of-life decisions is not contingent on whether they are pregnant.
Compassion & Choices, If/When/How: Lawyering for Reproductive Justice, and Irigonegaray & Revenaugh have filed a state lawsuit on behalf of three Kansas women and two Kansas physicians. The lawsuit, Vernon v. Kobach,  challenges the constitutionality of a Kansas law that invalidates a person’s end-of-life treatment decisions in their living will if they are pregnant.

Kansas’s Natural Death Act recognizes that, “adult persons have the fundamental right to control the decisions relating to the rendering of their own medical care, including the decision to have life-sustaining procedures withheld or withdrawn in instances of a terminal condition.”

Kansas law denies this fundamental right to pregnant people, automatically invalidating their living wills through the Pregnancy Exclusion.
Plaintiffs include three individuals capable of becoming pregnant – each of whom either have children, are pregnant, or want children in the future – and two Kansas OB-GYNs who regularly provide care to pregnant and pregnancy-capable patients. While all of Patient-Plaintiffs’ living wills include provisions regarding pregnancy, their specific treatment decisions vary, reflecting their different expectations about their medical care if they become terminally ill while pregnant. They all want their health care decisions followed if they become incapacitated and terminally ill, regardless of their pregnancy status. Physician-Plaintiffs bring this case alongside Patient-Plaintiffs because they want to ensure that their patients’ end-of-life decisions are respected and that they do not face legal or professional consequences for providing treatment without clear guidance or informed consent.

Patient-Plaintiffs argue this law violates their fundamental rights of personal autonomy, privacy, equal treatment, and freedom of speech by categorically disregarding their clearly expressed end-of-life decisions if they are pregnant. Patient-Plaintiffs ask the court to affirm that the protections afforded under the Kansas Constitution apply equally to them and ensure that their most personal end-of-life decisions will be respected, regardless of their pregnancy status.

“Because I’m currently pregnant, I don’t get the peace of mind a living will is meant to provide,” stated Emma Vernon of Lawrence, Kansas, who is pregnant with their first child.
She continued, “I shouldn’t have to fear that my pregnancy could cost me my dignity and autonomy. I have already outlined the medical care I want if I am facing the end of my life, but my living will is not effective just because I’m pregnant. If something were to happen to me during this pregnancy I would have no control over the end-of-life care I receive. I am no less capable of planning my medical care simply because I am pregnant. I know what is best for me.”

Dr. Michele Bennett and Dr. Lynley Holman are both OB-GYNs based in Lawrence, Kansas. They argue that this law violates their patients’ fundamental rights and exposes them and other providers to civil, criminal, and regulatory sanctions because the Pregnancy Exclusion does not tell providers what end-of-life treatment they should administer to their incapacitated, terminally-ill, and pregnant patients with suspended advance directives.

“As a physician, I am deeply committed to honoring my patients’ autonomy and safeguarding their privacy. When a law compels me to act against my patients’ clearly expressed decisions, it not only undermines the trust at the heart of the patient-provider relationship, but also threatens the ethical foundation of medical care,” said Dr. Holman of Lawrence, Kansas. “Every individual deserves the dignity of making their own health care decisions without unwanted intrusion—and no provider should face legal or professional consequences for honoring that dignity.”

The other two plaintiffs, Abigail Ottaway and Laura Stratton, both of Lawrence, Kansas, have also taken great care to document their end-of-life wishes. Ms. Ottaway hopes to have children in the future, while Ms. Stratton is already a parent to two. Both have thoughtfully detailed the medical care they would want if they were terminally ill and pregnant—decisions that would have no effect under current law, despite the painstaking care they took to document them.

The complaint asks the court to permanently prohibit Defendants “from enforcing the Pregnancy Exclusion by invalidating otherwise valid health care directives based on pregnancy status or bringing any adverse action against a provider for following the directions in a pregnant, incapacitated individual’s validly executed [living will].”

“Our plaintiffs are simply asking for the same fundamental rights the Kansas Constitution guarantees to all Kansans,” stated Jess Pezley, senior staff attorney at Compassion & Choices. “Categorically stripping individuals of their right to make deeply personal end-of-life decisions because they are pregnant is not only offensive, it’s fundamentally at odds with the values enshrined in the Kansas Constitution.”

“Across the country, people are shocked and horrified to learn that their end-of-life directives might be invalidated because they are pregnant,” said Farah Diaz-Tello, Senior Counsel and Legal Director at If/When/How. “Everyone deserves to be able to make decisions about their body and their life; pregnancy is no excuse to deny someone’s fundamental rights.”

“I have lived in Kansas for almost 65 years; I have spent decades defending the constitutional rights of its people. Kansans greatly value their individual rights and personal freedom,” stated Pedro Irigonegaray, Partner at Irigonegaray & Revenaugh. “The Pregnancy Exclusion betrays those values by denying pregnant people the right to control their own medical decisions.”

The issue of Pregnancy Exclusions in advance directive laws gained national attention in 2013 with the tragic case of Marlise Muñoz — a Texas woman who was approximately 14 weeks pregnant when she was declared brain dead. Even after her death the hospital refused to cease medical interventions, citing Texas’s Advance Directive Act, which – like Kansas’s law – invalidates a pregnant individual’s refusal of life support.

A court ultimately ordered the hospital to disconnect the machines from her body, but only after Ms. Muñoz’s family endured months of trauma from the prolonged and unwanted treatment and the loss of Ms. Muñoz’s baby.
While the facts of that case were unique, it stands as a stark and extreme example of how Pregnancy Exclusions can be used to override the decisions of individuals and their families, even after they have died, stripping them of the right to make deeply personal end-of-life decisions.

More than 30 states have advance directive laws containing a Pregnancy Exclusion.

While there is an attempt to remove laws that protect the life of the child in other states regarding end-of-life directives, the Commonwealth of Virginia has no laws that would protect the life of the unborn, it is not a far reach to say that this resolution could pave the way to legal assisted suicide.

The more I study this resolution, the uglier it gets. We must win back the House of Delegates to defeat this resolution. We would love the opportunity to come to your Church and inform your congregation on what is at stake this November and to open God’s Word with you, please call and we will put you on the schedule. To schedule, please call 804-960-4015. Thank you and may the Lord richly bless you.

Yours for the Master,
Dr. Michael Huffman
Executive Director