RFAs: Making Christian ethics and common sense unconstitutional

By Robert G. Marshall ( bio - articles - email ) | Jun 18, 2026

As of June, 2026 ten states have added voter-approved constitutional Reproductive Freedom Amendments (RFA’s) to their state constitutions: Arizona, California, Colorado, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New York, Ohio, and Vermont. Nevada voters passed an abortion-rights amendment in 2024 but have to approve it again in 2026 to make it part of their Constitution.

These amendments are a very hot topic right now. Virginia has an RFA pending for November, 2026. Missouri has a potential RFA “repeal” constitutional amendment to its state constitution which would undo much of the previously 2024 passed RFA. Constitutional challenges to laws existing at the time of passage of a state RFA have been filed in Ohio, Arizona, Michigan and Missouri producing legal cases in the following policy areas:

• Gestational bans (6-week, 15-week, and near-total bans)
• Mandatory waiting periods
• Mandatory counseling requirements
• Ultrasound requirements
• Telemedicine restrictions
• Medication-abortion restrictions
• Physician-only provider requirements
• Clinic licensing and admitting-privileges requirements
• Funding restrictions and related regulations

What follows here is, first, an enumeration of the legislative consequences of reproductive freedom amendments and, second, a presentation of important information from polls on these and related issues, which can prove valuable in opposing or modifying reproductive freedom amendments.

---

REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM AMENDMENTS: LEGISLATIVE CONSEQUENCES:

---

Ohio: Some of these legal challenges are still being litigated on procedural grounds. For example, in Ohio, the “case concerns the enforceability of…Ohio’s ‘six-week ban’ or the ‘heartbeat ban.’…and prohibits abortions after the detection of fetal cardiac activity. But this particular appeal is less about abortion, and more about civil procedure… The State concedes that R.C. 2919.195 (heartbeat law) is unconstitutional, but contends that the injunction is overbroad.” (January 7, 2026, Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost)

Michigan: In May, 2025, the Michigan Court of Claims struck down the Mandatory 24 hour abortion waiting period, informed consent requirements which included a written description of abortion with risks, an MI produced depiction of the child’s development, any available pre-natal care and parenting resources and screen for coercion. Michigan’s Attorney General Dana Nessel, said, “This ruling affirms what Michiganders made clear when they voted to enshrine a fundamental right to reproductive freedom in our state constitution.” (AG Dana Nessel, 5/13/2025, AG Nessel on Northland v. Nessel Opinion) Nessel is correct about what the Amendment did, but she could have asked whether or not Michigan voters were clear regarding some of the legislative consequences of the false “Reproductive” Freedom Amendment.

Arizona Abortion Regulation Laws Unconstitutional: The RFA passed in 2024 affirming an individual’s supposed right to an abortion before viability of the child in the womb, with the mendacious exception unless it was justified by a narrow state interest consistent with laughable throw away provision of “evidence based medicine.” The Arizona Superior Court struck down laws requiring mandatory 24 hour abortion waiting period, multiple clinic visits, and bans on telemedicine. Banning eugenic abortion was declared illegal as were requirements that the woman be given information on gestation and physiologic development of the child, abortion risks, availability of public and private assistance benefits, and that the child’s father must pay for child support. [Isaacson v. Arizona case filed 2/2/2026 in the Superior Court of Maricopa County, see superior_court_of_arizona-opinion.pdf.]

Arizona Doctor Only Abortion Law attacked: Nurse practitioners and Nurse Midwives challenged Arizona’s law limiting the performance of abortion only to licensed doctors, citing the 2024 voter-passed RFA as arbitrarily restricting Arizonans’ constitutional right to abortion access. The case, was filed 2/24/26 before the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa Court. It is currently pending, claiming it bears no relationship to patient safety which seems odd in light of the 50+ year litany of claiming that abortion was safe for women if performed by licensed doctors. (Gill et al. v. State of Arizona | American Civil Liberties Union)

Missouri pro-life regulation prohibitions undone: Voters in Missouri passed their RFA in November 2024. Abortionists filed challenges to previously existing statutes nullified or suspended implementation of the following Missouri laws:

• Statewide abortion ban passed after the 2022 Supreme Court Dobbs Decision;
• Prohibitions on abortion at certain periods of gestation including prohibition on abortion after eight, fourteen and twenty weeks;
• Laws requiring women to wait 72 hours and make multiple visits to abortionists, abortion counseling, and informed consent information; requiring abortionists to have hospital admission privileges for any of their “mistakes;” abortion clinic health or safety regulations that differed from other health providers were enjoined because the Missouri RPA stated, “[t]he Government shall not discriminate against persons providing or obtaining reproductive health care or assisting another person in doing so.” (see Planned Parenthood case and reconsideration)

Abortion and Viability: The following five states have paper-thin RFA prohibitions to supposedly forbid abortion after the point of viability: Arizona, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, and Ohio. All of five of the RFA’s have express language permitting abortion after “fetal viability” when necessary to protect a pregnant woman’s life or health, with Arizona, Michigan, and Missouri expressly specifying “physical or mental” health. But there are really no limitations at all since any abortionist can claim that any abortion is safer, for the pregnant women, than any childbirth.

No Reproductive Litigation from some State Constitutional Amendments: The states of California, Colorado, Maryland, New York, and Vermont also passed misnamed RFAs. But, with a predominantly pagan population sufficiently hostile or evidentially indifferent to the notion that the lives of children before birth should be protected in any way, at the time of the Amendment’s passage there were no such laws or policies operational nor any restrictive past court decisions left to challenge. This happened because there are not a sufficient number who uphold the Natural Law in these states to convince the legislature to provide certain legal protections to children before birth, and this is made double difficult in the future because of the fake RFAs now in those state constitutions prohibiting such protective legislation or policies.

Fake Abortion Restrictions Supported by Voters: The states of Arizona, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, and Ohio, included language in their Constitutional Amendments allowing these states to regulate abortion in related to “fetal viability”, meaning that the child can survive outside the mother. However, their Amendments have express language permitting abortion after “fetal viability” if it is supposedly needed to protect a pregnant woman.

Strict Judicial Construction: Seven of reproductive freedom amendment states (AZ, MD, MI, MO, MT, OH, and VT) affirm the Reproductive rights are fundamental and require than any limitation of these rights must pass a judicial test known as “strict scrutiny”, which means that any restrictions must be achieved by the least intrusive or restrictive mean available.

Reproductive Freedom Amendments more Radical than Roe v. Wade decision: A 2024 UCLA Law School analysis states that, “reproductive freedom amendments have the power to transform the reproductive rights Landscape… [T]hey can unwind decades of restrictions…. [E]ven state laws that have long been on the books, or have been held constitutional under prior federal precedent, cannot stand where they contravene new, and stronger, constitutional guarantees for reproductive freedom.” (Cathren Cohen, Diana Kasdan The Promise of Reproductive Freedom Amendments: An Analysis of State Constitutional Protections and Their Impact on Anti-Abortion Laws, September 2025, see Appendix for the text of the ten RFA’s.)

Reproductive Freedom Amendments at War with Public Opinion: As has occurred in the other RFA states, the following widely supported public policies noted below would be made unconstitutional and/or illegal under the Virginia’s proposed RFA, H.J.Res. 1 and S.J. Res. 1 if approved by voters at the November 3, 2026 General Election.

Furthermore, persons, including parents attempting to “interfere” with their children such as 12 year old “individuals” exercising their newly found reproductive rights, perhaps “assisted” by a school counselor, Planned Parenthood employee or volunteer, may find themselves the object of litigation, including from their state Attorney General or local prosecutor, for not cooperating with their minor child seeking an abortion or a “sex change” or for impeding such efforts to exercise the “fundamental right” of Reproductive Freedom.

Proponents of the RFAs have consistently been lacking in candor regarding the multitude of legal effects of their radical and extreme proposal. But polling conducted after the Dobbs Supreme Court Decision (6/24/2022) confirms that the Democrat-crafted extreme abortion policies of Virginia’s S.J.Res 1 are widely rejected by a majority of voters in Virginia and nationwide.

Non-Citizens: Few to no Reproductive Restrictions in Virginia: Consider the following: An individual exercising his “reproductive rights” does not have to be an American citizen or even a citizen of Virginia where “services” are offered. For example, Virginia IVF centers, such as the Virginia Center for Reproductive Medicine, advertise their “services” to same sex couples (Surrogacy—Virginia Fertility Center—Gestational Carrier). Virginia and other RFA states are likely to become major destinations for Chinese women seeking to parent an “anchor” baby conceived via IVF, born in the USA, later educated in Chinese Communist schools, who subsequently shows up in the USA seeing to register to vote, with the penultimate prize of legally claiming citizen status for their “birth tourist” Chinese parents. Chinese officials estimate that at least 50,000 of their citizens come to the USA every year for IVF babies (Peter Schweitzer, The Invisible Coup, Harper Books, 2026).

---

USEFUL POLLING INFORMATION:

---

With all this in mind, the following polling information should be very useful in opposing the barrage of legislative and constitutional assaults on human life.

Abortion Clinic Safety Requirements: 90% of voters favor health/safety regulations for abortion clinics. (Marketing Resource Group, March, 2023)

Tax Paid Abortions: 57% of Americans oppose tax paid abortions (consistent with national polls conducted for over 50 years) with only 41% supporting it (Knights of Columbus-Marist Poll January 2025) .

In Person Distribution of Abortion Pills: 59% agree that abortion pills should be given only in person to patients by a healthcare provider, 40% disagree (Marist Poll-Knights of Columbus, January 2026).

Heartbeat Abortion: A fetal heartbeat is an early indicator of the presence of a child in the womb. The child’s presence becomes visible on a transvaginal ultrasound between 5.5 and 6 weeks gestation. 64% of Florida voters believe abortion should be prohibited “…once the fetal heartbeat is detected or after six weeks of pregnancy [with] exceptions for rape, incest and human trafficking up to 15 weeks of pregnancy.” (Mason-Dixon Polling & Strategy Gulf Coast Catholic, 3/26/25)

Protect Conscience of Doctors/Nurses Opposed to Abortion: 63% of voters oppose and 36% support forcing health care personnel to perform, participate in, or cooperate or assist with abortions against their conscience, religion, or ethical objections. (Knights of Columbus-Marist Poll January 2026)

Abortion Pill distribution through the Mail: 63% of Americans do not agree with dispensing abortion pills via the mail. (Knights of Columbus-Marist Poll January 2025)

Promote Sex/Gender ID to Students: 69% of American adults oppose allowing schools/teachers to counsel students on sex/gender identities without parental knowledge/consent. (Rasmussen Reports, National Survey, September 18, 2025)

Having Children by Cloning: Cloning is a type of reproduction. Human cloning is illegal in Virginia, “No person shall perform human cloning…so as to initiate a pregnancy….” (VA Code § 32.1-162.22) The penalty if $50,000 per incident. This year (2026) 9% of Americans say Human Cloning is morally acceptable, 86% say it is morally wrong, 1% say it depends, and 4% have no opinion. Cloning would be protected by SJRes 1. (George Gallup, Polled May 1-16, 2026 Cloning | Gallup Historical Trends)

Parental Consent for Students sex/gender change: Note that the vast majorit of voters favor for requiring parental consent before school counselors/others can help students change their sex/gender. [71% of registered voters support, 21 % oppose. (CRC Research, March 2023 for Parents Defending Education)]

Abortion only by Licensed Virginia Physicians: Poll respondents, by more than 2 to 1, want drug/surgical abortions provided only by licensed physicians who have hospital admission privileges. [69% support, 30% oppose. (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2020)]

Health and Safety Standards for Abortion providers: Regulate manner, place and conditions for performing abortions to protect safety of woman; [90% voters support. (Marketing Resource Group, March, 2023)

Twenty-four hour waiting period for Abortion: 63% of voters support a 24-hour abortion waiting period. (Marketing Resource Group, March, 2023)

Coercion of Prolife Pregnancy Centers to support Abortion: 84% of Americans agree and 15% disagree that Pro-Life pregnancy resource centers helping needy pregnant women should be allowed to provide services without abortion involvement. (Knights of Columbus-Marist Poll, January 2025)

---

Previous in series: Beware the legal meaning of reproductive freedom amendments