Tactics to oppose so-called Reproductive Freedom Amendments

By Robert G. Marshall ( bio - articles - email ) | Jul 07, 2026

It is true that “you never get a second chance to make a first impression.” This is good to remember when combatting misleading “Reproductive Freedom Amendments” (RFAs) to state Constitutions. In 2026, these measures will be on the ballot in Virginia and Nevada, and will “enshrine” a deadly mix of soul-compromising social mayhem policies that destroy lives, erase parental rights, and usher in extremely, radical social and legal policies.

Missouri has placed on the November 2026 ballot a reversal of the 2024 approved Reproductive Freedom Amendment which greatly expanded abortion, abolished all parental responsibility and authority, and severely impacted families. On November 3rd, Missouri pro-lifers must vote YES! But in Virginia and Nevada, they must vote NO on RFAs.

RFA supporters frame the issue as protecting “freedom” but majorities of voters do not support some of the radical consequences of the RFAs. Polls do not decide questions of morality, but they can help us discern which policies will convince citizens to vote against the RFA to secure the common good.

Fifty-plus years of legal abortion since Roe v. Wade have solidified devastating public policies that have led to enacting RFAs in ten states so far. But we cannot lose hope as there are still majorities of citizens who support certain abortion restrictions.

Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) in 2024 found 57% of Virginians would vote yes on the RFA, with 24% saying they would vote no. In 2025, VCU’s polling had 62% supporting the RFA with 30% opposed. These hard figures have remained steady for decades across the USA. (VCU L. Douglas Wilder School of Government 2024 and 2025)

During this same period, adults who call themselves “Christian” ranged between 60% and 64% of the population, while self-described religiously unaffiliated ranged from 28% to 31% between 2020 and 2025. (Pew Research Religious Identity, 2/26/2025, Religious Identity in the United States, Pew Research Center)

A March 3, 2025 PEW Research survey of Catholics found that only 26% of Catholics who attend Mass weekly or more say abortion should be illegal in all cases while 11% say it should be legal in all cases, 35% say it should be illegal in most cases and 25% legal in most cases. Of Catholics who attend Mass monthly, less often or never, only 7% say abortion should be illegal in all cases, 30% say abortion should be legal in all cases, 23% say it should be illegal in most cases, 38% say it should be legal in most cases. (6 in 10 US Catholics say abortion should be legal in most or all cases, Pew Research Center). If accurate, these figures are disturbing to say the least.

Of course, we should never take counsel of our fears. The Apostle Luke recounts Jesus’ parable: “Or what king, going to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and take counsel whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand?” Our Lord does not suggest that the King with the smaller army give up, but rather he should determine whether he can overcome a 2 to 1 deficit or at least secure the best possible terms of peace. We are in this same position with polls showing that majorities of Virginians support the RFA. We must first consider how we might still win a victory. A key factor may well be that other polls show that majorities do not support some of the radical policies that will follow from passage of the RFA.

Pope John Paul II noted that:

…when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences…. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects. [Encyclical Evangelium Vitae (1995), 73]

RFA supporters will define RFA in terms of “choice” and “freedom.” Pro-family advocates will need to show how these RFA’s actually destroy freedom, e.g., “freedom of conscience” for doctors and nurses opposed to participating in abortion; “parental rights and freedom” to exercise protection of their minor children seeking an abortion or transgender interventions; “health care freedom” of pregnancy help centers from being coerced to provide abortion information; “freedom from unsafe abortion counseling, methods and unsafe drugs and chemicals” at abortion and transgender clinics; “freedom from destructive counseling” of minors about abortion, contraception, sterilization and transgender interventions without parental knowledge or consent.

Reputable polls have found that significant majorities of conservative, liberal and Independent Americans still support the following policies, all of which will become illegal and unconstitutional if an RFA is added to state constitutions. That is why we must highlight the following policies when educating the general public about the RFA:

• Abortion clinics safety standards required to protect woman
• Abortions should not be funded with tax dollars
• Abortions should not be permitted after fetal heartbeat detection
• Doctors and Nurses who oppose abortion need conscience protections
• Abortion pills should only be provided in person, not through the mail
• No sex/gender counseling or transgender medical intervention without parental consent
• Eugenic cloning should not be used to conceive or “select” characteristics of children
• No abortion should be performed by anyone other than a licensed physician
• No abortion or sex-change should be performed on a minor without parental consent
• A 24-hour waiting period should be required before abortion
• Pro-life pregnancy help clinics should not be forced to promote abortion
• Sports teams may require team participants to align with their biological sex.

Obviously these policies are important, and of course every abortion takes the life of an innocent child. Unfortunately, until a widespread respect for human life becomes part of the fabric of our society, and the nation understands that our rights, including our right to life, come from our Creator and are inalienable, we must explain to voters that the RFA is just too radical for “our state”, since it will erase every protection for the medical profession, churches, religious business owners, parents and their children, and undermine the health and safety of minors.

The RFA will make it legally impossible to pass any laws restricting/prohibiting abortion or transgender sex change policies, or restrict any “reproductive” drugs, devices or services to minors.

---

Addendum: Reminder of how RFA language is legally interpreted

---

The following list of common RFA legal expressions, as drawn from Virginia’s Reproductive Freedom Amendment, is a reminder of how an RFA’s language will be legally interpreted, as discussed in the third installment of this series. You will also find the text of the proposed Virginia RFA at the end of each of the first two installments. You can move back and forth among the articles in this series by using the Previous in series and Next in series links at the end.

“that every individual…” means no age limit, children and adults.

“has the fundamental right…” means a right eclipsing all other rights.

“to reproductive freedom…” means anything related to reproduction e.g., cloning, eugenic modification, birth control, abortion, drug/surgical sterilization, IVF, surrogacy, abortion pills by mail, and trans sex change promotion.

“including…” means the examples that follow are just the tip of the iceberg.

“reproductive freedom shall not be…denied, burdened, or infringed upon unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means” means, based on actual court cases, that no restrictions on abortion, sex changes or other reproductive services, drugs or devices may be imposed by legislatures which impede the “fundamental right.” Federal courts under Roe ruled that none of the following met the compelling state interest test: a 24-hour waiting period, parental consent, informed consent, humane disposal of the body of an aborted child. Maternal health was only compelling in the second trimester; federal courts struck down more than twenty first-trimester clinic health and safety regulations, including hospital admitting privileges and clinic licensure requirements.

“the Commonwealth may regulate the provision of abortion care in the third trimester…medically indicated to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual…” means anyone who is not a doctor may legally do abortions. Under an RFA, a physician only confirms a woman’s eligibility for abortion in the third trimester, or the viability of the child. Abortionists falsely claim abortion is safer than pregnancy. Life-saving treatment for children who survive abortion was voted down by RFA supporters. Third trimester abortions for wide-open mental health claims will be legal.

“The Commonwealth shall not discriminate in the protection or enforcement of this fundamental right…” means so-called reproductive health care will be paid with taxes and/or private insurance to ensure the “poor” can exercise their “reproductive rights” but the same poor families cannot protect their children from the “reproductive rights” industry.

“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.…” means any provider who harms a minor child may not be prosecuted by a parent or guardian for providing such “care” even for malpractice or death. The RFA establishes a minor is capable of “voluntary consent.”

---

Previous in series: RFAs: Making Christian ethics and common sense unconstitutional