Three weeks before Election Day, a Virginia parent has written what the Committee thinks is the clearest case yet against Amendment #1. His name is John M. Grondelski. His piece ran in American Thinker on Sept. 30 under the headline “Why every parent should vote no on Virginia Amendment 1.” Every Republican in Fairfax should read it before Nov. 3. In the Committee’s view, every parent should read it twice.
His argument fits in one line. The amendment says “individual,” not “adult.” That one word is where parents get written out.
Here is how he puts it: “Amendment 1 does not say ‘adult’s.’ It says ‘individual’s.’ Minors are individuals. That wording was deliberate.” The last sentence is his read on why the drafters chose that word. The rest is simply the text.
The Committee checked. He is right about the words. Amendment #1 says “every individual” has a fundamental right that “shall not be, directly or indirectly, denied, burdened, or infringed upon” unless the state has a “compelling state interest.” The word “parent” is not in it. Neither is “minor,” “guardian” or “adult.” Not once.
Grondelski’s case rests on a law most parents never think about until they need it. Today, a doctor cannot knowingly perform an abortion on an unemancipated minor unless an authorized person consents or a judge signs an order. The statute defines an authorized person as a parent, a legal guardian or custodian, or someone standing in loco parentis. It carves out two exceptions: a reported suspicion of abuse or neglect, and a medical emergency. He writes that this law “would be gone if Amendment 1 passes.” That is his prediction. The amendment does not name the law, and its supporters say the law would survive.
In the Committee’s view, he is pointing at a real door. A consent rule exists to put a parent in the decision. The amendment says a state interest counts as compelling only if it “does not infringe on that individual’s autonomous decision making.” A parent in the room is exactly what a lawsuit would call an infringement.
Virginia law already treats the two differently. Minors can consent on their own to birth control, pregnancy and family planning care, with sterilization excluded. Abortion falls under a separate statute that requires an authorized person’s consent or a court order. In the Committee’s view, that difference is why the word “individual” deserves a close read.
The sharpest line in the piece is about a school form. Grondelski fills one out every August. “A Virginia school district won’t give a kid an aspirin without parental consent. The paradox is, under Amendment 1, they still won’t give my daughter an aspirin without my consent but can help facilitate her abortion without my knowledge.”
That is his family and his school district, and it is the author’s own reading of what the amendment would allow. It is also the version of this debate that lands at a kitchen table. When something goes wrong after a secret procedure, he asks, who is left to pick up the pieces? Mom and dad. The same people who were shut out of the decision.
Supporters say parents should relax. House Majority Leader Charniele Herring (D-Alexandria), who sponsored the resolution, said in January 2025: “The law is the law until the court says it’s not.”
The Virginia Mercury reported that Herring was emphasizing that current parental-consent law remains intact, and University of Richmond law professor Meredith Harbach said amending the constitution would not by itself override those existing safeguards. Fair enough, as far as today goes. In the Committee’s view, Herring’s own phrasing leaves the open question: it describes the law as it stands today, and says a court can change that. And the text a court would read never mentions parents.
Grondelski’s last point is the one Republicans should carry to the polls. In his words, “this is a constitutional amendment, which means the policy it sets is pretty much carved in stone.” The Committee checked that too. Undoing an amendment takes two General Assemblies with a House election in between, then another statewide vote. Get this wrong and there is no quick fix.
The Fairfax GOP membership voted overwhelmingly to oppose all three amendments. Read Grondelski’s piece, then send it to a parent who has not made up their mind. Then vote NO on Amendment #1 on November 3.
Further reading: John M. Grondelski, “Why every parent should vote no on Virginia Amendment 1,” American Thinker, Sept. 30, 2026.