Winsome Earle-Sears Warns of Consequences of Virginia’s Proposed Constitutional Amendments

Former lieutenant governor discusses parental rights, reproductive freedom, marriage, and religious protections during a Royal Examiner interview as she travels across Virginia ahead of the November election.

Former Virginia Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears is traveling across the Commonwealth urging voters to examine two proposed constitutional amendments on the November 3 ballot, warning that their legal implications could extend far beyond the issues described in the ballot questions.

During an interview with the Royal Examiner, Earle-Sears discussed her opposition to Question 1, which would establish a constitutional right to reproductive freedom, and Question 2, which would remove Virginia’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and establish equal marriage rights for two adults regardless of sex, gender, or race.

Earle-Sears, Virginia’s 42nd lieutenant governor and president of the state Senate, said her concerns began when the General Assembly debated the amendments.

“What problem are these two amendments trying to solve?” she asked.

She pointed out that abortion remains legal in Virginia and that same-sex marriages are already recognized under federal law. She questioned why those protections needed to be added to the state Constitution.

Her central concern is that the amendments could affect parental authority, religious freedom, and other existing legal protections.

Question 1: Reproductive Freedom

The official ballot question asks whether Virginia’s Constitution should be amended to protect personal decisions involving prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, abortion, miscarriage management, and fertility care.

The proposal would also protect patients and healthcare providers from certain penalties related to those decisions and allow restrictions on third-trimester abortions, with exceptions when medically necessary to protect the patient’s life or health or when the fetus is not viable.

The amendment would add Section 11-A to Article I of the Virginia Constitution.

Its opening language states:

“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.”

Earle-Sears focused much of her criticism on the words “every individual,” arguing that the language could apply to minors and potentially affect parental involvement in medical decisions.

“I’m here to try to protect the rights of parents,” she said.

She questioned whether existing Virginia laws requiring parental involvement in certain medical decisions would remain enforceable if challenged under the new constitutional language.

The amendment also states that an individual’s reproductive freedom shall not be directly or indirectly denied, burdened, or infringed upon unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved through the least restrictive means.

Another provision would prohibit the Commonwealth from penalizing or prosecuting individuals for assisting someone who voluntarily exercises their reproductive rights.

Earle-Sears argued that these provisions could create situations in which minors receive reproductive healthcare without parental knowledge or approval.

She described a hypothetical situation in which a parent discovers that their underage daughter received an abortion without permission and questioned whether the parent would have any legal recourse.

She also argued that lawmakers considered adding language that explicitly protects parental authority but rejected the proposal.

Her concerns represent a disputed interpretation of the amendment. The proposed language does not explicitly eliminate parental consent or notification requirements. Whether existing laws would be affected depends on how courts interpret and apply the amendment.

Supporters of Question 1 argue that the amendment would protect personal healthcare decisions from future government restrictions. The proposed language would allow Virginia to regulate third-trimester abortions but prohibit the state from banning them when a physician determines they are medically necessary to protect the patient’s life or physical or mental health, or when the fetus is not viable.

Earle-Sears also criticized the rejection of a proposed legislative amendment concerning medical care for infants born alive following an attempted abortion.

She argued that the Constitution should have explicitly included such protections. However, rejecting that proposal does not repeal existing legal protections for infants born alive.

For Earle-Sears, the larger concern is that once lawmakers or voters adopt constitutional language, courts may interpret it in ways they did not anticipate.

Question 2: Marriage

Question 2 asks voters whether Virginia should remove its constitutional prohibition on same-sex marriage and recognize the right of two adults to marry regardless of sex, gender, or race.

Virginia’s existing Constitution recognizes marriage only between one man and one woman. That provision has been unenforceable since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which established a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

However, Virginia’s Constitution still includes the prohibition.

If approved, Question 2 would replace that language with provisions that prohibit the Commonwealth from denying a marriage license to two adults because of their sex, gender, or race and require that lawful marriages be treated equally.

Earle-Sears questioned the inclusion of both “sex” and “gender” in the proposed amendment, arguing that the distinction could lead to legal interpretations beyond the immediate issue of marriage.

She also raised concerns about religious freedom, particularly protections for clergy and others who object to participating in certain marriages because of their religious beliefs.

According to Earle-Sears, lawmakers considered language explicitly addressing religious objections but did not include it in the final proposal.

She argued that relying on existing laws to protect religious freedom could create uncertainty if a court later interpreted a constitutional amendment differently.

The proposed marriage amendment, however, addresses the Commonwealth’s recognition and licensing of marriages. It does not explicitly require clergy to perform marriages that conflict with their religious beliefs.

Supporters say the amendment would remove discriminatory language from Virginia’s Constitution and protect marriage equality under state law if federal constitutional protections were changed in the future.

Earle-Sears maintains that the amendment’s wording deserves closer examination because of the potential for future legal challenges.

Why She Signed Measures She Opposed

Earle-Sears also discussed a decision she faced while serving as lieutenant governor and president of the Virginia Senate: signing legislation and constitutional amendment resolutions she personally opposed.

Although her position required her to fulfill certain constitutional responsibilities, she wanted to ensure that her signature would not be mistaken for an endorsement of the measures.

In one instance involving House Bill 174, she signed the legislation but added a written statement explaining her position:

“As the Lt. Governor, I recognize and respect my constitutional obligations to the procedures laid out in the Constitution of Virginia. However, I remain morally opposed to the content of HB 174 as passed by the General Assembly.”

She took a similar approach in 2025 when the General Assembly gave first passage to a proposed constitutional amendment protecting abortion rights.

After signing the resolution, she added another written statement:

“I am morally opposed to this bill; no protection for the child.”

Her opposition also showed up in her legislative actions. On January 28, 2025, Earle-Sears cast a tie-breaking vote against legislation establishing a right to contraception. The Senate subsequently reconsidered the measure and passed it.

In an interview with the Royal Examiner, Earle-Sears said she wrestled with signing measures she believed were morally wrong.

She questioned how future generations might interpret her signature if no record of her objections existed.

“I figured, sign it, state your case, let history show,” she said.

Earle-Sears explained that refusing to sign would not necessarily have stopped the measures from advancing, since other Senate officials could potentially have completed the required procedural steps.

Instead, she carried out her responsibilities while placing her opposition in the official record.

For Earle-Sears, the distinction was important. Signing a measure as part of her constitutional duties did not mean she supported its contents.

Her written objections also reflected the religious convictions she discussed throughout the interview, particularly her belief that public officials must remain accountable for their actions even when fulfilling the legal requirements of their offices.

Military Service Shaped Her Views on Responsibility

The interview also explored Earle-Sears’ personal background, including her military service and the circumstances that led her to join the U.S. Marine Corps.

Born in Jamaica, she recalled how the death of her grandmother disrupted her plans to attend college and left her searching for direction.

She described returning to Jamaica for the funeral and struggling with grief and uncertainty about her future.

While visiting her family, she came across a Marine Corps recruitment advertisement in a magazine.

“The Marines, the few, the proud, the Marines,” she recalled reading.

The advertisement gave her a new direction in life.

She enlisted in 1982, eventually became a corporal, and trained as a journeyman electrician.

Earle-Sears also recalled advice from her grandfather, who encouraged his grandchildren to learn a skilled trade even if they planned to pursue higher education.

“A college degree is good. But get a trade because they can never take that from you,” she recalled him saying.

She said her military experience helped develop her understanding of leadership, discipline, and responsibility.

The discussion also touched on the growing value of skilled trades and opportunities for young people to pursue careers outside the traditional four-year college path.

Continuing Her Statewide Tour

Earle-Sears said she plans to keep traveling across Virginia ahead of the November election, speaking with groups about the amendments and encouraging voters to review their wording.

She acknowledged that some audiences already share her concerns but said she believes those conversations remain important.

Her opposition to the amendments also stems from her religious convictions.

“I’m a Christian first and a Republican second,” she said.

Earle-Sears described the criticism she has faced during her political career and said she remains committed to speaking publicly about issues she considers important.

She also reflected on a question a Thomas Jefferson historical interpreter posed during preparations for America’s 250th anniversary celebration.

“Will it then be said of you that the world is better off for you having lived?” she recalled.

For Earle-Sears, the question was whether people are willing to sacrifice and serve others, even when it’s difficult.

She said her current speaking tour reflects that commitment.

She also said some people, including religious leaders, are reluctant to speak publicly about controversial moral issues because they fear criticism.

Earle-Sears argued that public participation requires a willingness to discuss difficult subjects and accept disagreement.

Voters Have the Final Say

Both constitutional amendments will appear on Virginia’s November 3 ballot.

A “yes” vote on Question 1 would add the proposed reproductive freedom protections to Virginia’s Constitution. A “no” vote would leave the Constitution unchanged on that issue.

A “yes” vote on Question 2 would remove the existing constitutional marriage prohibition and replace it with equal marriage protections for two adults. A “no” vote would leave the existing constitutional language in place, although current federal law still makes the prohibition unenforceable.

The amendments have generated debate over the balance between individual rights, government authority, parental involvement, and religious freedom.

Earle-Sears maintains that voters should carefully consider the legal language rather than relying solely on campaign messages or ballot summaries.

She said her goal is to ensure voters understand the concerns she believes the amendments raise before they decide.

Throughout the interview, Earle-Sears returned to the importance of personal responsibility, faith, and participation in government.

She closed by reflecting on the religious convictions behind her opposition to the proposals.

“Righteousness exalts a nation. These are not righteous.”

Town Talk, sponsored by National Media Services, Inc., is a Royal Examiner series that introduces you to local entrepreneurs, business owners, nonprofit leaders, and public officials who help shape Warren County. Conversations cover a wide range of topics about our community and the people making a difference.