Bedford County Supervisor Files Suit Challenging Reproductive Rights Constitutional Amendment

Later this year, Virginians are expected to formally approve or reject a measure to enshrine reproductive rights into the state’s constitution. But a new lawsuit filed this week in Bedford County seeks to upend the ballot referendum, arguing that state lawmakers didn’t follow the correct process in advancing it so far.

The plaintiff, Bedford County supervisor Charla Bansley, said in the legal complaint filed March 2 that the ballot initiative is invalid because Virginia’s House of Delegates did not distribute the amendment to all circuit court clerks and post it for public inspection three months prior to the 2025 House of Delegates election.

Bansley, who is represented by Liberty Counsel, claims that Bedford County, Campbell County and the city of Lynchburg told her attorney that the amendment was not sent to their circuit court clerks for public posting. The jurisdictions are not named as plaintiffs in the case.

To amend the state constitution, resolutions must pass the legislature two years in a row, with a House of Delegates election in between. Lawmakers successfully passed the resolution to send a ballot referendum to voters statewide this coming November in both the 2025 and 2026 legislative sessions.

Since “approval of the proposed constitutional amendment occurred prior to full satisfaction of the constitutionally mandated requirements for the amendment process,” the amendment “cannot be submitted to the voters at this time,” the lawsuit stated.

If approved, the amendment would ensure that Virginians have access to contraception and fertility treatments like in vitro fertilization, as well as their right to obtain an abortion in most instances.

Current state law allows abortions for any reason up to around 26 weeks of pregnancy, with guidance for rare later-stage abortions. Since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned federal abortion protections four years ago, Virginia is now the only Southern state without a near-total ban or deep restrictions on the procedure.

In recent years, Republican state lawmakers have proposed a variety of restrictions ranging from near-total bans to a 15-week limit with no exception for severe fetal anomalies, which are often diagnosed around or after 15 weeks.

Democratic lawmakers and other proponents of the measure argue the amendment will strengthen reproductive rights in Virginia.

While two other constitutional amendments — one to protect same sex marriages and another to automatically restore voting rights to ex-felons who have completed their sentences — moved through the legislature at the same time, they have not faced such legal challenges. They also advanced with bipartisan support, while every Republican in the state legislature voted against the reproductive rights amendment.

The Mercury asked Bansley’s lawyers if materials related to the other two amendments, which had been advanced at the same time as the reproductive one, were also not sent to the jurisdictions named in their suit. The Mercury also asked why the lawsuit was filed now in 2026, since the alleged mistakes occurred in 2025. Liberty Counsel did not respond to either query by the time of this publication.

A fourth constitutional amendment, which is slated to appear on ballots in a special election next month, would permit a rare mid-decade redistricting of congressional maps.

That proposal is also subject to several lawsuits in an attempt to thwart it.

Bansley and her legal team say the reproductive rights amendment should not be put to voters, due to what they describe as a flawed process.

“(The state constitution) requires strict step-by-step compliance with the amendment process so that voters receive proper notice and can evaluate proposed changes to their governing changes before a consequential election,” Liberty Counsel chairman Matt Staver said in a statement. “These procedures exist to protect the people’s right to transparent, orderly constitutional change, and any misstep undermines the integrity of the amendment process and can interfere with the will of the voters.”

Sen. Jennifer Boysko, D-Fairfax, who carried her chamber’s version of the amendment, called the lawsuit “a frivolous attempt to silence Virginia voters,” who will otherwise be able to voice their preference by vote this fall.

There is no word yet on when a hearing may be held.

by Charlotte Rene Woods, Virginia Mercury

---

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.