by Charlotte Rene Woods, Virginia Mercury
June 24, 2025

Women Speak Out Virginia is sending 100 people out to knock on 150,000 doors in Richmond and Virginia Beach between now and late July. Their aim: influence voters to elect candidates this fall who oppose a proposed constitutional amendment to enshrine reproductive rights into Virginia’s constitution.

“As the largest pro-life voter contact program in the country, we are known for our impact on elections,” SBA Pro-Life America Virginia state director Marlene Downing said in a statement. “Our doorstep conversations change the minds of persuadable voters and energize pro-life Americans to go to the polls.” (SBA Pro-Life is a partner of Women Speak Out Virginia.)

Abortion and other reproductive health measures don’t always fall along partisan lines. Red, blue and purple states have sent reproductive rights messages in recent years with red states such as Kansas rejecting an amendment to strip residents of abortion rights and Ohio enshrining abortion rights in its constitution. Virginia’s amendment to do similarly has only advanced because of Democratic majorities in the House of Delegates and state Senate. 

It must pass again in the 2026 legislative session. From there, it would appear on statewide ballots for voters to finally approve or reject. But that depends on whether Democrats can retain their control in the House this year — where all 100 seats are up for election. A handful of competitive districts will be paramount to the amendment’s success or defeat — several of which SBA is focusing on this summer.

Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia director Jamie Lockart said that opponents of the amendment “see this as their last attempt to stop this.”

That’s because amending the state’s constitution — be it adding something or taking something out — is harder to do than passing a single law. But it also means that enshrined protections are unable to be undone within a single legislative session.

In the years since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, a federal case that had protected access nationwide, states have sought restrictions and bans or placed protections in their constitutions. Other reproductive health choices like contraception or fertility treatments have been legislated on or challenged in courts. Amid this shifting landscape, Virginia is currently the least-restrictive southern state when it comes to abortion — and it’s seen a surge of out-of-state patients since the fall of Roe. 

This year, Virginia’s reproductive rights amendment will likely feature as a prominent selling point for candidates — whether they’re vowing to defend it or defeat it. 

What current law allows

Current state law allows most abortions up to around 26 weeks of pregnancy and later abortions require three physicians to attest that continuing a pregnancy would threaten the life of the parent or “irremediably impair” their physical or mental well-being. 

Later abortions make up about 1% of abortions, according to data from Kaiser Family Foundation, a health data nonprofit. About 4% of abortions in Virginia occur between 14 and 20 weeks of pregnancy — this is usually when severe fetal anomalies are more likely to be detected. Most abortions in Virginia happen under 13 weeks. 

A recent Pew Research Center poll noted support for abortion has remained fairly consistent in recent decades, with 62% of Americans surveyed agreeing that it should be legal in all or most cases. 

The amendment, if approved, would largely shore up Virginia’s existing protections for abortions and would remove the three physician thresholds needed for later abortions. 

Del. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah, challenged the motion on the House floor earlier this year, calling it a “word salad” designed to “cloud the true intentions.”  He argued that lowering the doctor threshold to just one doctor removes safeguards.

“The abortion doctor can do that,” he said. Supporters of the amendment countered the change is intended to address barriers faced by rural patients.

He also accused Democrats of supporting infanticide with the amendment, and opponents of the state’s current abortion laws have argued the amendment would allow the procedure up to “the moment of birth.”

State and federal law prohibit infanticide and such accusations have been widely debunked by medical experts.

Still, SBA door-knockers are expected to focus on that message as they did in a press release announcing their campaign.

Director Downing asserted that Democrats are “determined to wipe away all limitations on abortion in Virginia” and said that they would repeal Virginia’s parental involvement laws. 

Republicans had sought changes to the amendment that could shore up existing state law regarding parental consent for minors seeking surgeries, including abortion. Democrats rejected the efforts with House Majority Leader Charniele Herring, D-Alexandria, referencing both existing law and a judicial bypass option some minors can petition for. 

“The law is the law unless the court says it’s not,” she said at the time. 

Vulnerable candidates get Planned Parenthood support

While Herring’s seat is reliably Democratic leaning, Republicans and abortion opponent groups like SBA Pro-Life have their eyes on others. Between Richmond and Virginia Beach, the canvassing efforts will target potential voters with vulnerable Democratic candidates 

Targeted contests include incumbent delegates Nadarius Clark, D-Suffolk, and Michael Feggans, D-Virginia Beach, along with Democrats running in competitive districts near Richmond, Petersburg and Williamsburg.

May Nivar, is challenging Del. David Owen, R-Henrico. He secured his election by a little over 700 votes in 2023. Jessica Anderson and Kimberly Pope Adams face rematches with incumbents Del. Amanda Batten, R-James City County, and Del. Kim Taylor, R-Petersburg, the latter of which won by 53 votes last time. Meanwhile, challenger, Lindsey Dougherty will challenge Del. Carrie Coyner, R-Colonial Heights as well.

Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia plans to support the Democratic candidates through door knocking and other campaign events throughout the rest of the year. Democrats can also expect support from ReproRising Virginia, whose executive director calls “reproductive freedom” a “winning issue.”

“Our organization will be doing everything we can to elect champions statewide, but especially to the House of Delegates,” Lockhart, of Planned Parenthood, said. “We’re confident that when voters have the ability to vote on protecting their rights, they will resoundingly do so.” 

Virginia Mercury is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Virginia Mercury maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Samantha Willis for questions: info@virginiamercury.com.

The post Anti-abortion group targets Democrats to stop Va.’s reproductive rights constitutional amendment appeared first on virginiamercury.com

Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Left

This article presents detailed coverage of Virginia’s reproductive rights debate, highlighting Democratic efforts to enshrine abortion protections in the state constitution while also including perspectives from Republican opponents. The framing tends to emphasize the challenges faced by pro-choice advocates and provides context on recent legal and political developments that favor reproductive rights. Although it reports views from both sides, the article leans slightly toward supporting reproductive freedoms, given the emphasis on Democratic initiatives and Planned Parenthood’s role. The balanced tone and factual presentation, however, avoid strong partisan language, placing it close to the center-left spectrum.

SUMMARY: A server recalls the best celebrity table experience when Jerry Seinfeld’s wife made a reservation, and Jerry arrived with Steve Martin and Tom Hanks. The server was shocked and unsure how to act, trying to stay cool without making them uncomfortable. In a playful moment, they made a cigarette cart as a joke for Tom Hanks, who had requested one. The group seemed to be out for a casual night, each with their partner. The server appreciated how these famous actors enjoyed the restaurant like regular patrons, making the experience memorable and special.

Celebrity Table: Richmond sommelier serves Tom Hanks, Jerry Seinfeld, and Steve Martin

Source

by Charlotte Rene Woods, Virginia Mercury
June 23, 2025

Could Virginia become part of a growing national movement to elect presidents based on securing the popular vote? 

Though America is in its 47th presidency (with many presidents serving multiple terms), just five times has a candidate won the popular vote but lost the election. Although the majority of Americans voted for the losing candidate in those contests, the winners garnered enough Electoral College votes to ascend to the White House. 

The most recent example of this came in 2016, when Democrat Hillary Clinton lost the presidency to Republican Donald Trump in 2016, despite winning the popular vote. In 2000, Democrat Al Gore was also defeated despite earning the popular vote, and lost to former President George W. Bush.

National Popular Vote, a bipartisan network of advocates nationwide, is examining whether the outcome of Virginia’s gubernatorial and House of Delegates elections could influence the state to join a growing coalition of states to support the popular vote. The organization has advocated for an interstate compact where participating states agree to honor whichever presidential candidate wins the national popular vote.

Any potential movement on the matter in Virginia would not get started until next year when the 2026 legislative session convenes. However it is a debate, typically led by Democrats, that Virginia’s legislature has explored before. 

An effort for Virginia to join the interstate compact cleared the House of Delegates in 2020 before falling in the state Senate. Lawmakers have also presented the measure again in subsequent years, but it has failed to advance. 

So far, 17 states and the District of Columbia have agreed to a compact modeled by National Popular Vote. The agreement outlines how states’ electoral colleges would award all of their votes to whichever candidate gets the most votes nationwide.

Currently, presidential candidates need to win 270 electoral college votes to win — and each amount of electoral college votes is apportioned by the population size of each state. Enough states have signed onto the NPV measure to account for 209 electoral college votes, and should Virginia join, it would add 13 more. 

Democratic gubernatorial nominee Abigail Spanberger declined to weigh in on whether or not she would sign a bill to join the compact and staff for Republican nominee Winsome Earle-Sears did not respond by the time of this publication. 

The popular vote proposal is not without pushback. The electoral college process often receives fresh scrutiny each time a presidential election occurs — and particularly when it benefits a candidate who failed to win the popular vote. But the electoral college is meant to be the counterweight to states with larger populations; each state, large or small, has a different number of electoral college votes allotted to them. 

The conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation has defended the electoral college process. “Large cities like New York City and Los Angeles should not get to unilaterally dictate policies that affect more rural states, like North Dakota and Indiana,” the statement said. The Heritage Foundation has been a policy recommendation source for Republicans including Trump for the past several decades.

More than a rural/urban divide, sometimes electoral college debates fall along partisan lines too. 

National Popular Vote has bipartisan members, while groups like The Heritage Foundation support conservative and Republican candidates and coalitions nationwide. Cities like New York City and Los Angeles represent predominantly liberal-leaning large localities in large U.S. states, which proponents of the electoral college argue could carry too much weight without it. 

But former chairman of Michigan’s Republican Party Saul Anuzis said the idea of reform shouldn’t be partisan. He also serves as a National Popular Vote advisor. 

“This isn’t a Republican or Democratic idea — it’s a small-d democratic one,” he said.

Anuzis noted that presidential candidates focus on states that are considered swing states during election cycles, instead of engaging more deeply with voters nationwide. 

Though a politically purple state, having oscillated between partisan control of its legislature and governorship, Virginia has not been as frequent a campaign destination for presidential hopefuls as other states have been.

“When the compact kicks in, you’d see candidates campaigning for votes in Richmond, Roanoke and throughout Virginia, not just Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Arizona,” Anuzis suggested. “That’s how you rebuild trust and make elections feel like they belong to everyone.”

Virginia Mercury is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Virginia Mercury maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Samantha Willis for questions: info@virginiamercury.com.

The post Electoral college reform group eyes Virginia’s elections with hope appeared first on virginiamercury.com

Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Left

This article presents a mostly balanced overview of the debate surrounding the National Popular Vote interstate compact, highlighting both the bipartisan nature of the National Popular Vote initiative and the conservative defense of the Electoral College by groups like The Heritage Foundation. However, the coverage subtly leans center-left by emphasizing the historical context of popular vote losses favoring Democrats and framing the compact as a democratic reform. The inclusion of Democratic candidate Abigail Spanberger and the lack of Republican response, alongside quoting a bipartisan National Popular Vote advisor, reinforces this tilt without overt partisanship. The tone remains informative with mild center-left framing.