---
title: "Virginia — abortion law"
description: "Virginia is the most permissive state for abortion in the Southeast. Abortion is legal for any reason through the second trimester of pregnancy — about 26 weeks and 6 days after the last menstrual period. After that point, in the third trimester, abortion is available only when continuing the…"
type: "legislation"
jurisdiction: "Virginia"
as_of_date: "2026-07-12"
source_url: "https://www.abhortion.org/legislation/va.html"
---

# Virginia — abortion law

_Virginia · United States_

## Overview

**Legal to ~27 weeks; third-trimester limited**

Virginia permits abortion freely through the first and second trimesters (~26 weeks 6 days LMP); after the second trimester, abortion is lawful only in a hospital with three-physician certification of life or health endangerment.

Virginia is the most permissive state for abortion in the Southeast. Abortion is legal for any reason through the second trimester of pregnancy — about 26 weeks and 6 days after the last menstrual period. After that point, in the third trimester, abortion is available only when continuing the pregnancy would risk the woman's death or substantially and irremediably harm her physical or mental health, and only in a hospital with three physicians certifying that need. There is no waiting period, no mandatory ultrasound, and no requirement that abortion clinics meet hospital-style building standards. A constitutional amendment to protect reproductive freedom went on the November 2026 ballot. Virginia remains a major destination for abortion seekers from states with stricter bans.

> "Notwithstanding any of the provisions of § 18.2-71 and in addition to the provisions of § 18.2-72, it shall be lawful for any physician licensed by the Board of Medicine to practice medicine and surgery, to terminate or attempt to terminate a human pregnancy or aid or assist in the termination of a human pregnancy by performing an abortion or causing a miscarriage on any woman during the second trimester of pregnancy and prior to the third trimester of pregnancy provided such procedure is performed in a hospital licensed by the State Department of Health or operated by the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services."
> — Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-73

**Legal analysis**

Virginia Code §§ 18.2-71 through 18.2-76.1 govern abortion. Section 18.2-71 makes it a Class 4 felony to cause an abortion or miscarriage, but §§ 18.2-72, 18.2-73, and 18.2-74 create lawful pathways. First-trimester abortions may be performed by any licensed physician or jointly licensed APRN (§ 18.2-72, as amended 2020 and 2023). Second-trimester abortions require a physician and, on the face of § 18.2-73, performance in a hospital — though the hospital requirement was struck down by the district court in Falls Church Medical Center, LLC v. Oliver, No. 3:18-cv-428 (E.D. Va. Sept. 30, 2019), and the case was later voluntarily dismissed on appeal. The practical enforceability of the hospital requirement remains uncertain. Third-trimester abortions under § 18.2-74 require a hospital, a physician, and certification by the physician plus two consulting physicians that continuation is likely to cause death or substantially and irremediably impair mental or physical health, plus life-support measures if there is evidence of viability. The Reproductive Health Protection Act of 2020 (ch. 898, 899) eliminated the 24-hour waiting period, mandatory ultrasound, TRAP facility licensing, and state-scripted counseling. No provision of the Virginia Constitution currently protects abortion.

*Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-73, § 18.2-73, [Virginia Law (LIS)](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter4/section18.2-73)*

**Editor's note.** The second-trimester hospital requirement in § 18.2-73 was struck down by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on September 30, 2019, in Falls Church Medical Center, LLC v. Oliver. The case was voluntarily dismissed on appeal on July 28, 2020. Whether the district court's injunction survives the voluntary dismissal and whether Virginia would enforce the hospital requirement post-Dobbs is a live question with no definitive appellate ruling.

## At a glance

Every machine-readable determination in the research document. Each value is derived from a sourced finding below.

| Field | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Legal classification | Gestational limit |
| Gestational limit weeks | 27 |
| Limit measured from | Last menstrual period |
| Abortion currently available | Yes |
| Ban or limit enjoined | No |
| Mother expressly exempt | Yes |
| Mother prosecutable in practice | No |
| Self managed abortion criminalized | No |
| Abortion charged as homicide | No |
| Fetal homicide law | Yes |
| Fetal wrongful death action | Yes |
| Personhood language in law | No |
| Personhood contradiction | Yes |
| Medication abortion distinct status | No |
| Mailing pills banned | No |
| Method bans | D and x |
| Telehealth prescribing allowed | Yes |
| Physician only law | No |
| Provider max penalty | Class 4 felony, 2–10 years, fine up to $100,000 |
| Helpers criminally exposed | Unclear |
| Travel assistance criminalized | No |
| Civil bounty law | No |
| Shield state | No |
| Waiting period hours | — |
| State scripted counseling | No |
| Ultrasound required | None |
| In person visits required | 1 |
| Parental involvement | Consent one parent |
| Judicial bypass available | Yes |
| Spousal consent or notice on books | No |
| Medicaid coverage | Hyde only |
| Private insurance restricted | No |
| State funding posture | Neutral |
| Rape incest exception | No |
| Exceptions present | Life, Physical health, Mental health, Fatal fetal anomaly |
| Major pending change | Yes |

## Definitions

**No statutory definition of 'abortion'**

Virginia's abortion article does not define 'abortion'; the operative statute criminalizes administering drugs or using means to destroy an 'unborn child' or produce abortion or miscarriage, with lawful pathways in subsequent sections.

Virginia law does not provide a single statutory definition of the word 'abortion.' Instead, the criminal statute at § 18.2-71 makes it a crime to give a woman drugs or use other means with the intent to destroy her 'unborn child' or produce an abortion or miscarriage — and that crime applies unless one of the lawful exceptions in later sections applies. The separate vital-records law defines 'fetal death' as death prior to complete expulsion or extraction regardless of pregnancy duration, and 'induced termination of pregnancy' as intentional interruption of pregnancy with intent other than producing a live birth. Nothing in Virginia statutory law expressly carves out miscarriage management, ectopic pregnancy treatment, or IVF embryos from the reach of the abortion provisions; however, the broad lawful pathways in the first and second trimesters and the focus on intent to terminate a pregnancy make prosecution for those contexts practically unheard of.

> "Except as provided in other sections of this article, if any person administer to, or cause to be taken by a woman, any drug or other thing, or use means, with intent to destroy her unborn child, or to produce abortion or miscarriage, and thereby destroy such child, or produce such abortion or miscarriage, he shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony."
> — Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-71

**Legal analysis**

Article 9 of Chapter 4, Title 18.2 (Crimes and Offenses Generally) contains no definitional section. Section 18.2-71, the baseline prohibition, targets '[e]xcept as provided in other sections of this article, if any person administer to, or cause to be taken by a woman, any drug or other thing, or use means, with intent to destroy her unborn child, or to produce abortion or miscarriage, and thereby destroy such child, or produce such abortion or miscarriage, he shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony.' The lawful pathways in §§ 18.2-72, -73, and -74 then carve back from that prohibition. The Virginia vital-records statute, § 32.1-249, defines 'fetal death' as 'death prior to the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a product of human conception, regardless of the duration of pregnancy.' There is no statutory language explicitly protecting treatment of ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage management, or IVF/embryo disposition from the abortion statutes, though these have not been applied to those contexts in reported decisions.

*Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-71, § 18.2-71, [Virginia Law (LIS)](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter4/section18.2-71)*

## Current status

**Legal through second trimester; third trimester restricted**

Abortion is legal for any reason through the second trimester (~26 weeks 6 days LMP); after that, it requires three-physician certification of life or health endangerment in a hospital.

Abortion is legal in Virginia for any reason up to the end of the second trimester, which means about 26 weeks and 6 days measured from the first day of the last menstrual period. During the first trimester, both physicians and advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) can provide abortion care. During the second trimester, the procedure must be performed by a physician, and under current practice may be done in a clinic — though the statute on its face still says a hospital is required. In the third trimester, abortion is limited to a hospital setting and requires three physicians to certify that continuing the pregnancy is likely to result in death or substantially and irremediably impair the woman's physical or mental health.

> "it shall be lawful for (i) any physician licensed by the Board of Medicine to practice medicine and surgery or (ii) any person jointly licensed by the Boards of Medicine and Nursing as an advanced practice registered nurse and acting within such person's scope of practice to terminate or attempt to terminate a human pregnancy or aid or assist in the termination of a human pregnancy by performing an abortion or causing a miscarriage on any woman during the first trimester of pregnancy."
> — Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-72

**Legal analysis**

Virginia operates a trimester framework codified in 1975 (Va. Code §§ 18.2-72, -73, -74). First trimester (§ 18.2-72): lawful for any licensed physician or jointly licensed APRN to perform. Second trimester (§ 18.2-73): lawful for any physician, with a hospital requirement on the face of the statute. The hospital requirement was held unconstitutional in Falls Church Medical Center, LLC v. Oliver, No. 3:18-cv-428 (E.D. Va. Sept. 30, 2019). The case was voluntarily dismissed on appeal (No. 19-2382, 4th Cir., dismissed July 28, 2020). Whether the district court ruling retains effect post-dismissal is a live legal question; in practice, second-trimester abortions are provided in clinic settings. Third trimester (§ 18.2-74): lawful only when performed in a hospital by a physician with certification from the physician and two consulting physicians that continuation is likely to cause death or substantially and irremediably impair mental or physical health, and with life-support measures available if there is evidence of viability. There is no fetal anomaly exception in the third trimester, though the physical/mental health exception can accommodate severe fetal anomaly scenarios. The Reproductive Health Protection Act of 2020 (chapters 898 and 899) repealed the 24-hour waiting period, mandatory ultrasound, targeted regulation of abortion providers (TRAP) facility licensing, and physician-only requirement for first-trimester medication abortion.

**Conflicting authority.** The second-trimester hospital requirement (§ 18.2-73) was struck down by the district court, but after the case was voluntarily dismissed on appeal, no appellate ruling exists to confirm the injunction's continuing effect. Providers currently perform second-trimester abortions in clinic settings. No Virginia enforcement action has been reported challenging this practice.

*Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-72, § 18.2-72, [Virginia Law (LIS)](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter4/section18.2-72) · Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-74, subsection (b), [Virginia Law (LIS)](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter4/section18.2-74) · Falls Church Medical Center, LLC v. Oliver, No. 3:18-cv-428 (E.D. Va. Sept. 30, 2019), [Center for Reproductive Rights](https://reproductiverights.org/cases/falls-church-healthcare-center-et-al-v-norman-oliver-et-al)*

**Editor's note.** The post-dismissal effect of the Falls Church district court injunction warrants monitoring. The 2020 Reproductive Health Protection Act repealed many challenged restrictions but did not amend § 18.2-73's hospital language.

## Law-in-effect vs. law-on-the-books

**No active injunction; partial district court ruling**

Virginia's abortion statutes are not subject to any current statewide injunction; the 2019 Falls Church district court ruling striking the hospital requirement is of uncertain effect after voluntary dismissal of the appeal.

Nobody has stopped Virginia from enforcing its abortion laws through a court order right now. The closest thing is a 2019 federal district court ruling that said the requirement that second-trimester abortions happen in a hospital was unconstitutional, but that lawsuit was later withdrawn voluntarily, and no higher court has ever confirmed the ruling. In practice, the state has not tried to enforce the hospital requirement, and second-trimester abortions are routinely provided in clinics. The third-trimester restrictions and parental consent requirements are fully in effect and are not blocked by any court.

> "Following the passage of the Reproductive Health Protection Act, which repealed the majority of the challenged laws in this case, and a decision from the district court striking down a hospitalization requirement for second trimester abortions, this case was voluntarily dismissed July 28, 2020."
> — Falls Church Healthcare Center v. Norman Oliver, No. 3:18-cv-428 (E.D. Va. Sept. 30, 2019), appeal dismissed, No. 19-2382 (4th Cir. July 28, 2020)

**Legal analysis**

Following the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022), Virginia's abortion statutes face no federal constitutional bar. The only federal court ruling that directly limited a Virginia abortion statute was Falls Church Medical Center, LLC v. Oliver, in which Judge Henry E. Hudson of the Eastern District of Virginia struck down the second-trimester hospital requirement (§ 18.2-73) and certain physician-only provisions on September 30, 2019. The case was appealed to the Fourth Circuit (No. 19-2382), but the appeal was voluntarily dismissed by stipulation on July 28, 2020, after the General Assembly passed the Reproductive Health Protection Act, which mooted several challenged provisions. Under the Fourth Circuit's local rules and Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), when an appeal is voluntarily dismissed, the district court judgment is typically vacated unless the parties agree otherwise or the court orders otherwise. The precise status of Judge Hudson's ruling is thus unsettled. No Virginia Attorney General opinion or enforcement action has addressed this question. The 2020 Reproductive Health Protection Act eliminated the 24-hour waiting period (§ 18.2-76), mandatory ultrasound, TRAP facility licensing (12VAC5-412, repealed), and state-scripted informed consent, leaving §§ 18.2-71.1 (partial birth infanticide ban), 18.2-76 (informed consent), and 16.1-241(W) (parental consent) fully enforceable.

*Sources — Verify before publication · Medium confidence · Falls Church Healthcare Center v. Norman Oliver, No. 3:18-cv-428 (E.D. Va. Sept. 30, 2019), appeal dismissed, No. 19-2382 (4th Cir. July 28, 2020), [Center for Reproductive Rights](https://reproductiverights.org/cases/falls-church-healthcare-center-et-al-v-norman-oliver-et-al)*

**Editor's note.** The post-dismissal effect of the district court's 2019 injunction is a legal gray area. An editor should consult the Fourth Circuit docket (No. 19-2382) to confirm whether the court vacated the district court judgment upon dismissal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b).

## Exceptions

### Life of the mother

**Life exception, third trimester**

The third-trimester restriction expressly permits abortion when the physician and two consulting physicians certify that continuing the pregnancy is likely to result in the woman's death.

At any stage of pregnancy, including the third trimester, a physician may perform an abortion if it is necessary to save the woman's life. For third-trimester abortions, this requires certification by the performing physician and two additional consulting physicians, entered into the hospital record, stating that continuing the pregnancy is likely to cause death.

> "the physician and two consulting physicians certify and so enter in the hospital record of the woman, that in their medical opinion, based upon their best clinical judgment, the continuation of the pregnancy is likely to result in the death of the woman"
> — Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-74(b)

**Legal analysis**

Va. Code § 18.2-74(b) requires the physician and two consulting physicians to certify 'in their medical opinion, based upon their best clinical judgment, the continuation of the pregnancy is likely to result in the death of the woman or substantially and irremediably impair the mental or physical health of the woman.' This life exception also operates as a defense to prosecution under the baseline prohibition in § 18.2-71, since §§ 18.2-72, -73, and -74 all begin with 'Notwithstanding any of the provisions of § 18.2-71.' There is no explicit life exception in the first or second trimester because those procedures are already lawful for any reason.

*Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-74(b), subsection (b), [Virginia Law (LIS)](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter4/section18.2-74)*

### Physical health

**Physical health exception, third trimester**

Third-trimester abortion is lawful when three physicians certify that continuing the pregnancy would substantially and irremediably impair the woman's physical health.

If continuing a pregnancy into the third trimester would cause a substantial and permanent physical health problem, Virginia law permits an abortion in a hospital with certification by the performing physician and two consulting physicians. The impairment must be both substantial (not minor) and irremediable (not fixable). The law does not require that the woman be at death's door — it sets a lower bar for health than for life — but it does demand a significant and lasting physical harm.

> "substantially and irremediably impair the mental or physical health of the woman."
> — Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-74(b)

**Legal analysis**

Va. Code § 18.2-74(b) permits third-trimester abortion when 'the continuation of the pregnancy is likely to ... substantially and irremediably impair the ... physical health of the woman.' This is a dual standard: the impairment must be both 'substantial' and 'irremediable.' The certification must be from a physician plus two consulting physicians, entered in the hospital record. No separate physical-health exception is needed in the first or second trimesters because abortion is lawful for any reason during those stages.

*Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-74(b), subsection (b), [Virginia Law (LIS)](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter4/section18.2-74)*

### Mental health

**Mental health exception, third trimester**

Third-trimester abortion is lawful when three physicians certify continuing the pregnancy would substantially and irremediably impair the woman's mental health.

Virginia is unusual among states with gestational limits in having an express mental health exception. If continuing a pregnancy would cause a substantial and permanent mental health problem, an abortion is permitted in the third trimester with certification from the performing physician and two additional consulting doctors. The law uses the same 'substantially and irremediably impair' standard for mental health as it does for physical health.

> "substantially and irremediably impair the mental or physical health of the woman."
> — Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-74(b)

**Legal analysis**

Va. Code § 18.2-74(b) explicitly includes 'mental ... health' alongside physical health in its exception for third-trimester abortions. The standard requires three-physician certification that continuation 'is likely to ... substantially and irremediably impair the mental or physical health of the woman.' This is noteworthy because few state abortion restrictions include a mental health exception. The exception is not defined in terms of specific diagnoses and is left to the three physicians' 'best clinical judgment.'

*Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-74(b), subsection (b), [Virginia Law (LIS)](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter4/section18.2-74)*

### Rape

**No rape exception needed**

Because abortion is legal for any reason through the second trimester, no standalone rape exception exists or is needed; state Medicaid funds abortion in cases of rape with law-enforcement reporting.

Virginia does not have a separate 'rape exception' in its abortion laws because there is no need for one: abortion is legal for any reason up to about 27 weeks. However, for state Medicaid funding purposes, abortion is covered in cases of rape when the incident is reported to law enforcement within a specified timeframe. This funding provision is limited — it only affects who pays, not whether the abortion is legal.

**Legal analysis**

The absence of a rape exception in the abortion article (Va. Code §§ 18.2-71 through -76.1) reflects the permissive first- and second-trimester regime, not a gap. For Medicaid funding only, Va. Code § 32.1-92.1 permits state reimbursement for abortion when the pregnancy results from rape or incest, provided the incident is reported to law enforcement or relevant agencies within specified time periods. This is a funding rule, not a criminal law exception.

*Sources — No law on this point · High confidence*

### Incest

**No incest exception needed**

Because abortion is legal for any reason through the second trimester, no standalone incest exception exists; state Medicaid covers abortion for incest with reporting.

As with rape, Virginia does not need a separate incest exception because abortion is broadly legal through 27 weeks. State Medicaid covers abortion in cases of incest when reported to the proper authorities.

**Legal analysis**

See analysis under rape exception. Va. Code § 32.1-92.1 covers incest for state Medicaid funding purposes only.

*Sources — No law on this point · High confidence*

### Fatal fetal anomaly

**Fetal anomaly funding, not exception**

Virginia has no standalone fetal anomaly exception because abortion is broadly lawful, but state Medicaid funds abortion where the fetus has an 'incapacitating physical deformity or mental deficiency.'

Virginia's laws do not have a separate exception for fatal fetal anomalies because abortion is generally available through the second trimester regardless of reason. Notably, the state does provide Medicaid funding for abortions when the fetus has a 'gross and totally incapacitating physical deformity' or a 'gross and totally incapacitating mental deficiency' — a funding provision beyond what the federal Hyde Amendment alone would cover.

> "Funding of certain abortions where fetus is believed to have incapacitating physical deformity or mental deficiency; physician's certificate."
> — Va. Code Ann. § 32.1-92.2

**Legal analysis**

Va. Code § 32.1-92.2 authorizes state Medicaid funding for abortions 'where the fetus is believed to have an incapacitating physical deformity or mental deficiency.' The statute requires certification by a physician who has performed a physical examination and appropriate tests. This provision is independent of the Hyde Amendment and represents state-level funding beyond Hyde's minimum requirements. It does not operate as a criminal law exception, because abortion is already lawful through the second trimester. It could functionally extend access into the third trimester by funding care that meets the § 18.2-74 standard.

*Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Va. Code Ann. § 32.1-92.2, section header, [Virginia Law (LIS)](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title32.1/chapter3/section32.1-92.2)*

**Editor's note.** Editor should verify the full text of § 32.1-92.2 at the Virginia LIS website for the precise statutory language of the physician certification requirement.

### Ectopic pregnancy & miscarriage care

**No express carveout**

Virginia's abortion statutes do not expressly except ectopic pregnancy or miscarriage management, but the lawful pathways make prosecution for these contexts practically non-existent.

The Virginia abortion statutes do not contain an explicit section saying that treating an ectopic pregnancy or managing a miscarriage is not an abortion. However, because abortion is legal for any reason through the second trimester, and because the statutory language targets intentional destruction of an 'unborn child' to produce abortion or miscarriage, standard medical treatment for ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage management has never been treated as criminal abortion in Virginia.

**Legal analysis**

No Virginia statute expressly carves out ectopic pregnancy treatment or miscarriage management from the abortion prohibitions. The vital-records statute defines 'spontaneous fetal death' as distinct from 'induced termination of pregnancy' (§ 32.1-249). In practice, the lawfulness of first- and second-trimester abortion for any reason and the intensely fact-specific elements of § 18.2-71 ('intent to destroy her unborn child') make prosecution for treatment of ectopic pregnancy or miscarriage management legally unsupportable and practically unheard of.

*Sources — No law on this point · High confidence*

## Methods

### Procedural surgical

**Legal; D&X banned, D&E not restricted**

Procedural abortion is legal through the second trimester; intact D&E (partial birth infanticide) is banned as a Class 4 felony, but standard D&E is expressly not covered by this ban.

Surgical abortion procedures — including suction aspiration and dilation and evacuation (D&E) — are legal in Virginia through the second trimester. Virginia does ban what it calls 'partial birth infanticide,' which is an intact D&E (or D&X) procedure, as a Class 4 felony. However, the law explicitly says that standard suction curettage, suction aspiration, and dilation and evacuation involving dismemberment of the fetus before removal are not covered by this ban. The mother cannot be prosecuted under this ban for any act performed by a physician.

> "The term 'partial birth infanticide' shall not under any circumstances be construed to include any of the following procedures: (i) the suction curettage abortion procedure, (ii) the suction aspiration abortion procedure, (iii) the dilation and evacuation abortion procedure involving dismemberment of the fetus prior to removal from the body of the mother"
> — Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-71.1(B)

**Legal analysis**

Va. Code § 18.2-71.1 makes 'partial birth infanticide' a Class 4 felony. Subsection (B) explicitly excludes from the definition 'the suction curettage abortion procedure, the suction aspiration abortion procedure, [and] the dilation and evacuation abortion procedure involving dismemberment of the fetus prior to removal from the body of the mother.' This means standard D&E is lawful. The ban targets the intact D&E/D&X procedure where a living infant is partially delivered and then killed. Subsection (E) provides a life-preservation exception for the physician. Subsection (F) provides: 'The mother may not be prosecuted for any criminal offense based on the performance of any act or procedure by a physician in violation of this section.' This state ban parallels the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act but is narrower in scope because it targets the killing of a 'human infant who has been born alive.'

*Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-71.1(B), subsection (B), [Virginia Law (LIS)](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter4/section18.2-71.1)*

### Medication

**Legal; no distinct restriction**

Medication abortion (mifepristone/misoprostol) is governed by the same trimester framework as procedural abortion; Virginia does not ban mailing abortion pills or require in-person dispensing.

Medication abortion — using pills to end a pregnancy — is legal in Virginia under the same rules as procedural abortion. It can be used in the first trimester and is subject to the same provider rules: a physician or APRN may prescribe it. Virginia does not have a separate law banning the mailing of abortion medication, does not require that the pills be swallowed in a doctor's office, and does not block telehealth prescribing of medication abortion. In practice, telehealth medication abortion is available to Virginia residents from both in-state and out-of-state providers under protective laws in other states.

**Legal analysis**

Virginia has no stand-alone medication abortion statute. Medication abortion is governed by the general abortion provisions: lawful in the first trimester when provided by a physician or APRN (§ 18.2-72), and lawful in the second trimester when provided by a physician (§ 18.2-73). The 2020 Reproductive Health Protection Act eliminated the physician-only requirement for first-trimester medication abortion, allowing APRNs to prescribe. Virginia has no prohibition on mailing abortion pills, no requirement for in-person dispensing, and no specific telehealth ban for medication abortion. The Virginia Board of Medicine has not adopted regulations restricting telehealth abortion prescribing. Federal FDA preemption arguments regarding mifepristone's REMS (Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy) do not directly affect Virginia, as the state imposes no restrictions beyond what FDA already requires. GenBioPro, Inc. v. Sorsaia litigation in West Virginia is relevant to the Fourth Circuit's treatment of FDA preemption but does not involve Virginia.

*Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-72, § 18.2-72, [Virginia Law (LIS)](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter4/section18.2-72)*

### Self managed

**Woman not prosecutable; legal gray area**

Virginia's abortion statute (§ 18.2-71) targets a person who administers drugs to 'a woman' with intent to destroy 'her unborn child,' not the woman herself; no reported prosecution of a pregnant woman for self-managing abortion.

Under Virginia's criminal abortion law, the person who faces criminal liability is the person who gives drugs or uses other means on the woman — not the woman herself. The statute says 'if any person administer to, or cause to be taken by a woman, any drug ... with intent to destroy her unborn child.' This language, using 'he' and 'a woman' as separate actors, has been understood to exclude the pregnant woman from prosecution for the abortion crime itself. Virginia has had at least one high-profile case — in 2017, a Chesterfield County woman was charged with child neglect after an alleged self-induced abortion — but the charges were ultimately dropped. The partial birth infanticide statute (§ 18.2-71.1(F)) expressly says the mother may not be prosecuted. The fetal homicide statute (§ 18.2-32.2) uses the word 'unlawfully,' which arguably excludes lawful abortions, but provides no express mother exemption.

> "if any person administer to, or cause to be taken by a woman, any drug or other thing, or use means, with intent to destroy her unborn child, or to produce abortion or miscarriage, and thereby destroy such child, or produce such abortion or miscarriage, he shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony."
> — Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-71

**Legal analysis**

Va. Code § 18.2-71 is directed at a third party: 'if any person administer to, or cause to be taken by a woman, any drug or other thing, or use means, with intent to destroy her unborn child ... he shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony.' The pronoun 'he' and the phrase 'taken by a woman' in the third person indicate the woman is the object, not the subject, of the prohibition. The Virginia Supreme Court has not directly addressed whether a woman can be prosecuted under § 18.2-71 for self-managing an abortion. The partial birth infanticide statute, § 18.2-71.1(F), explicitly states: 'The mother may not be prosecuted for any criminal offense based on the performance of any act or procedure by a physician in violation of this section.' The fetal homicide statute, § 18.2-32.2, targets killing the 'fetus of another' and criminalizes 'unlawful' killing — lawful abortion is not 'unlawful.' In 2017, Michelle Roberts was charged with child neglect in Chesterfield County after an alleged self-induced abortion; the charges were dropped in 2018, and she was not charged under the abortion statute. No Virginia appellate decision has upheld prosecution of a woman under the abortion statutes for self-managed abortion.

*Sources — Verified at source · Medium confidence · Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-71, § 18.2-71, [Virginia Law (LIS)](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter4/section18.2-71) · Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-71.1(F), subsection (F), [Virginia Law (LIS)](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter4/section18.2-71.1)*

**Editor's note.** The Roberts case is a cautionary example that prosecutorial creativity can stretch other statutes (child neglect) even where the abortion statute does not reach the woman. This risk, though low, is not zero.

## Actors

### Who may perform

**Physicians and APRNs; APRNs first trimester only**

First-trimester abortion may be performed by any licensed physician or jointly licensed APRN; second- and third-trimester abortion requires a physician.

In the first trimester (the first ~13 weeks of pregnancy), either a licensed physician or an advanced practice registered nurse (APRN) who is jointly licensed by the Boards of Medicine and Nursing may perform an abortion. In the second and third trimesters, only a physician may perform the procedure. There is no requirement that abortion providers have hospital admitting privileges.

> "it shall be lawful for (i) any physician licensed by the Board of Medicine to practice medicine and surgery or (ii) any person jointly licensed by the Boards of Medicine and Nursing as an advanced practice registered nurse and acting within such person's scope of practice to terminate or attempt to terminate a human pregnancy or aid or assist in the termination of a human pregnancy by performing an abortion or causing a miscarriage on any woman during the first trimester of pregnancy."
> — Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-72

**Legal analysis**

Va. Code § 18.2-72, as amended in 2020 (chapters 898, 899) and 2023 (chapter 183), permits first-trimester abortion by '(i) any physician licensed by the Board of Medicine to practice medicine and surgery or (ii) any person jointly licensed by the Boards of Medicine and Nursing as an advanced practice registered nurse and acting within such person's scope of practice.' Second-trimester abortion under § 18.2-73 and third-trimester abortion under § 18.2-74 require 'any physician licensed by the Board of Medicine.' The 2020 Reproductive Health Protection Act repealed the requirement that abortion facilities be licensed as hospitals or meet hospital-style building standards (12VAC5-412, repealed effective July 8, 2020). Admitting-privileges requirements, previously in effect, were among the provisions challenged in Falls Church and were repealed by the RHPA.

*Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-72, § 18.2-72, [Virginia Law (LIS)](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter4/section18.2-72)*

### Criminal civil exposure

#### Pregnant woman

**Expressly exempt from partial-birth ban; not targeted by general statute**

The pregnant woman is not the subject of § 18.2-71's prohibition; § 18.2-71.1(F) expressly exempts her from prosecution; no reported case of a woman prosecuted under the abortion statutes.

Virginia's criminal abortion law is written to punish the person who performs the abortion, not the pregnant woman. The statute talks about someone giving drugs 'to a woman' to destroy 'her unborn child,' which means the woman is not the one the law is targeting. The partial-birth abortion ban explicitly says the mother cannot be prosecuted. Even the fetal homicide law talks about killing 'the fetus of another,' which implies the pregnant woman is not the target. In practice, no woman has ever been convicted under Virginia's abortion laws for obtaining or self-managing an abortion. A 2017 case where a woman was charged with child neglect after an alleged self-induced abortion ended with charges dropped.

> "The mother may not be prosecuted for any criminal offense based on the performance of any act or procedure by a physician in violation of this section."
> — Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-71.1(F)

**Legal analysis**

Va. Code § 18.2-71 uses 'he' as the actor and 'a woman' / 'her unborn child' as the object, strongly supporting the interpretation that the woman is not a principal or accomplice. § 18.2-71.1(F) provides an express mother-exemption: 'The mother may not be prosecuted for any criminal offense based on the performance of any act or procedure by a physician in violation of this section.' The fetal homicide statute, § 18.2-32.2, targets killing 'the fetus of another' — the woman cannot kill her 'own' fetus under this language. Virginia's general accomplice statute, § 18.2-18, could theoretically reach the woman as an accomplice, but no reported case applies it. The 2020 Reproductive Health Protection Act eliminated criminal penalties for self-managed abortion by focusing the code on provider conduct.

*Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-71.1(F), subsection (F), [Virginia Law (LIS)](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter4/section18.2-71.1) · Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-32.2, subsection (A), [Virginia Law (LIS)](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter4/section18.2-32.2)*

#### Physician

**Class 4 felony; license consequences possible**

A physician who performs an unlawful abortion faces Class 4 felony charges (2-10 years, fine up to $100,000) and potential Board of Medicine discipline.

If a physician performs an abortion outside the lawful pathways described in the statute — for example, performing a third-trimester abortion without the required certifications or without being in a hospital — they face a Class 4 felony, which carries 2 to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $100,000. The Virginia Board of Medicine can also take disciplinary action, including license revocation, against a doctor who performs an illegal abortion. For the partial-birth procedure ban, the penalty is also a Class 4 felony.

> "if any person administer to, or cause to be taken by a woman, any drug or other thing, or use means, with intent to destroy her unborn child, or to produce abortion or miscarriage, and thereby destroy such child, or produce such abortion or miscarriage, he shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony."
> — Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-71

**Legal analysis**

Va. Code § 18.2-71 sets the baseline penalty: 'he shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony.' Va. Code § 18.2-10(e) provides that a Class 4 felony is punishable by imprisonment for not less than 2 nor more than 10 years and a fine of not more than $100,000. The partial birth infanticide ban, § 18.2-71.1(A), is also a Class 4 felony. The informed consent statute, § 18.2-76(H), imposes a civil penalty, not criminal liability, for failure to obtain informed written consent. Va. Code § 54.1-2915 permits the Board of Medicine to take disciplinary action, including license revocation, for 'procuring or performing a criminal abortion.' Bills introduced in 2024 (HB519/SB716) to remove that ground for discipline were vetoed by Governor Youngkin.

*Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-71, § 18.2-71, [Virginia Law (LIS)](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter4/section18.2-71) · Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-10(e), subsection (e), [Virginia Law (LIS)](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter1/section18.2-10)*

#### Prescriber pharmacist

**APRN prescribers liable same as physicians**

Non-physician APRNs who provide abortion outside lawful first-trimester bounds face the same Class 4 felony exposure as physicians; pharmacists filling out-of-state abortion prescriptions face no distinct Virginia abortion penalty.

APRNs are authorized to provide abortion in the first trimester only; if they provide abortion care outside that authorized period or otherwise violate the statute, they face the same Class 4 felony penalty as a physician. Pharmacists who fill prescriptions for abortion medication — including those written by out-of-state providers via telehealth — are not addressed by a separate Virginia abortion statute. Pharmacists are subject to standard Board of Pharmacy professional standards, but dispensing FDA-approved medication pursuant to a valid prescription is not independently criminalized under Virginia's abortion laws.

> "it shall be lawful for (i) any physician licensed by the Board of Medicine to practice medicine and surgery or (ii) any person jointly licensed by the Boards of Medicine and Nursing as an advanced practice registered nurse and acting within such person's scope of practice to terminate or attempt to terminate a human pregnancy ... during the first trimester of pregnancy."
> — Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-72

**Legal analysis**

Va. Code § 18.2-72 limits APRN authority to the first trimester. An APRN performing or prescribing abortion beyond the first trimester would fall under § 18.2-71's Class 4 felony prohibition, as the statutory safe harbor would not apply. The baseline prohibition reaches 'any person' who administers drugs or uses means with intent to produce abortion. APRNs are within this class. No Virginia statute separately targets pharmacists for filling abortion medication prescriptions. Federal Comstock Act arguments about mailing abortion-related items have not been applied to Virginia pharmacists by state authorities.

*Sources — Verified at source · Medium confidence · Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-72, § 18.2-72, [Virginia Law (LIS)](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter4/section18.2-72)*

**Editor's note.** No Virginia statute separately addresses pharmacists or out-of-state telehealth prescribers; the analysis of their exposure is based on general statutory interpretation principles.

#### Nurses and staff

**Accomplice liability possible**

Nurses, medical assistants, and clinic staff who aid an unlawful abortion could face accomplice liability under Virginia's general complicity statute, though no reported prosecutions exist.

Clinic staff — nurses, medical assistants, counselors, and others — who help with an abortion that turns out to be unlawful could theoretically be charged as accomplices under Virginia's general complicity law. In practice, no Virginia nurse or clinic staff member has been prosecuted under this theory, and the risk is low in the context of abortions that are lawful under the statute.

**Legal analysis**

Va. Code § 18.2-18 provides that 'every principal in the second degree and every accessory before the fact' may be indicted and punished as a principal. Nurses and clinic staff who knowingly assist an unlawful abortion could be reached under this provision. The risk is attenuated by the broad lawfulness of abortion through the second trimester and the fact that no Virginia prosecutor has sought to apply accomplice liability to clinic staff in the abortion context. The conscience clause, § 18.2-75, provides protection for those who refuse to participate, not for those who do participate.

*Sources — Semi-verified · Low confidence · Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-18, [Virginia Law (LIS)](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter1/section18.2-18)*

**Editor's note.** No reported case applies accomplice liability to clinic staff in Virginia's abortion context. The analysis is based on general criminal law principles. Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication.

#### Other helpers

**Encouraging/promoting abortion a misdemeanor**

Va. Code § 18.2-76.1 makes it a Class 3 misdemeanor to encourage or promote a prohibited abortion by publication or referral, but the statute is constitutionally suspect under Bigelow v. Virginia.

Virginia has a law on the books making it a Class 3 misdemeanor to encourage or promote an abortion that is illegal under state law — for example, through advertising or a paid referral service. This law was struck down in part by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bigelow v. Virginia (1975), which said a newspaper could not be punished for running a truthful ad about out-of-state legal abortion services. The statute remains in the code but has not been enforced in decades and likely violates the First Amendment as applied to any truthful speech. A non-profit that funds abortion care or an employer that reimburses travel for abortion is not directly targeted by this or any other Virginia statute.

> "If any person, by publication, lecture, advertisement, or by the sale or circulation of any publication, or through the use of a referral agency for profit, or in any other manner, encourage or promote the performing of an abortion or the inducing of a miscarriage in this Commonwealth which is prohibited under this article, he shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor."
> — Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-76.1

**Legal analysis**

Va. Code § 18.2-76.1 provides: 'If any person, by publication, lecture, advertisement, or by the sale or circulation of any publication, or through the use of a referral agency for profit, or in any other manner, encourage or promote the performing of an abortion or the inducing of a miscarriage in this Commonwealth which is prohibited under this article, he shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor.' In Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809 (1975), the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated application of this statute to a newspaper that ran a New York abortion clinic advertisement, holding that the First Amendment protects truthful commercial speech about lawful services. The statute, by its terms, applies only to promoting abortions 'which is prohibited under this article.' Since abortion is broadly lawful through the second trimester, the statute's reach is limited. The statute is almost certainly unconstitutional as applied to truthful speech. No Virginia case has upheld application of this statute since Bigelow. The Class 3 misdemeanor carries a maximum fine only, not jail time.

*Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-76.1, § 18.2-76.1, [FindLaw](https://codes.findlaw.com/va/title-18-2-crimes-and-offenses-generally/va-code-sect-18-2-76-1) · Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809 (1975), [Justia Supreme Court](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/421/809)*

**Editor's note.** § 18.2-76.1 remains on the books despite Bigelow. Its continued validity as applied to any truthful speech about lawful abortion services is doubtful.

## Aiding & assisting

### Travel assistance

**No travel ban or trafficking law**

Virginia has no 'abortion trafficking' statute or any law criminalizing assistance with travel to obtain an out-of-state abortion; residents may freely travel for abortion care.

Virginia does not have a law that makes it a crime to help someone travel — whether in-state or out of state — for an abortion. Unlike states such as Idaho and Tennessee, Virginia has not enacted an 'abortion trafficking' statute. A parent can take a minor out of state for an abortion without facing a new Virginia criminal charge, though helping a minor evade Virginia's parental consent law by taking her out of state could raise other legal questions not yet tested in Virginia courts.

**Legal analysis**

No Virginia statute criminalizes abortion-related travel. The general aiding-and-abetting statute, § 18.2-18, applies only to Virginia offenses, and since out-of-state abortion is not a Virginia offense, assisting travel for a lawful out-of-state abortion does not create accomplice liability under Virginia law. Virginia has not enacted legislation analogous to Idaho Code § 18-623 ('abortion trafficking') or Tennessee's aiding statute. The 'encourage or promote' statute, § 18.2-76.1, is limited to encouraging abortion 'in this Commonwealth which is prohibited,' so it does not reach out-of-state services. Virginia legislators have introduced bills that would penalize assisting minors in obtaining abortions without parental consent, but none have passed.

*Sources — No law on this point · High confidence*

### Funding

**No liability for funding lawful abortion**

Virginia imposes no criminal or civil liability on individuals or organizations that pay for lawful abortion or abortion-related travel; abortion funds operate openly in the state.

No Virginia law makes it a crime to pay for someone's abortion or to donate to an organization that funds abortion care and travel. Abortion funds — nonprofit organizations that help people pay for the procedure, transportation, lodging, and child care — operate openly throughout Virginia. Employers may also cover abortion care and travel expenses in their health plans without legal exposure under Virginia law.

**Legal analysis**

Virginia has no statute criminalizing the funding of abortion or abortion-related expenses. The general abortion prohibition in § 18.2-71 applies to the person who 'administer[s]' drugs or 'use[s] means' — the provider, not the funder. Funding a lawful abortion (through the second trimester) involves no criminal conduct whatsoever. The encouragment statute, § 18.2-76.1, does not reach funding of lawful abortion services. Virginia has no SB8-style civil enforcement mechanism.

*Sources — No law on this point · High confidence*

### Mailing pills

**No Virginia ban on mailing pills**

Virginia has no statute prohibiting the mailing or receiving of abortion medication; federal Comstock Act questions remain unresolved but have not been applied to Virginia-specific conduct.

Virginia does not prohibit sending or receiving abortion medication by mail. There is no Virginia law that bans mailing mifepristone or misoprostol into the state, and no state official has attempted to enforce any such ban. The federal Comstock Act is a dormant 19th-century federal statute that some argue prohibits mailing abortion-related items, but it has not been enforced in the modern era and its application to FDA-approved medications is vigorously contested.

**Legal analysis**

Virginia has no statutory or regulatory provision addressing the mailing of abortion medication. The baseline abortion prohibition in § 18.2-71 applies to the person who 'administer[s] to, or cause[s] to be taken by a woman, any drug,' which targets the provider, not the postal carrier or the recipient. Federal preemption arguments regarding the FDA's approval of mifepristone and authorization of mail-order dispensing under the REMS would likely preempt any state attempt to ban mailing of FDA-approved medication, though this question is currently being litigated in other jurisdictions and has not been tested in Virginia courts.

*Sources — No law on this point · High confidence*

### Providing information

**Statute on books, constitutionally unenforceable**

Va. Code § 18.2-76.1 criminalizes encouraging or promoting a prohibited abortion, but the Supreme Court in Bigelow v. Virginia struck down its application to truthful speech; First Amendment likely bars enforcement.

Virginia still has a law making it a Class 3 misdemeanor to encourage or promote an abortion that is illegal under Virginia law. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down this law in 1975 in Bigelow v. Virginia, holding that truthful advertising about legal abortion services is protected by the First Amendment. Since then, nobody has been prosecuted under this law, and it is almost certainly unenforceable against anyone providing truthful information about abortion, including websites, hotlines, or referral services.

> "A State may not, under the guise of exercising internal police powers, bar a citizen of another State from disseminating information about an activity that is legal in that State."
> — Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809, 824-25 (1975)

**Legal analysis**

See analysis under 'other_helpers' above. Va. Code § 18.2-76.1 was held unconstitutional as applied in Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809 (1975). The Supreme Court held that a Virginia newspaper could not be convicted for publishing an advertisement for out-of-state legal abortion services. The holding was grounded in the First Amendment's protection of truthful commercial speech about a lawful activity. The statute's remaining possible applications are extremely narrow: it would only reach encouraging or promoting abortion that is 'prohibited under this article,' meaning third-trimester abortions performed outside § 18.2-74's requirements. Even there, truthful speech is likely protected.

*Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809, 824-25 (1975), [Justia Supreme Court](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/421/809)*

**Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication.

### Civil bounty

**No civil bounty law**

Virginia has no SB8-style private civil enforcement mechanism; individuals cannot sue abortion providers or helpers for damages.

Virginia has not adopted any law like the Texas SB8 that allows private citizens to sue abortion providers or anyone who helps someone get an abortion. There is no civil bounty mechanism in Virginia.

**Legal analysis**

No Virginia statute authorizes private civil enforcement against abortion providers, patients, or helpers. The informed consent provision, § 18.2-76(H), authorizes a civil penalty but it is collected by the state, not by private plaintiffs, and applies only to failure to obtain informed written consent, not as a general abortion prohibition enforcement mechanism.

*Sources — No law on this point · High confidence*

## Procedural requirements

### Waiting period

**No waiting period**

Virginia eliminated its 24-hour mandatory waiting period in 2020 with the Reproductive Health Protection Act; no mandatory delay now exists.

There is no mandatory waiting period in Virginia. A person can have an abortion on the same day as their initial appointment. The 24-hour waiting period that previously existed was repealed in 2020.

**Legal analysis**

The 24-hour waiting period previously codified in Va. Code § 18.2-76 was repealed by the Reproductive Health Protection Act of 2020 (chapters 898 and 899, effective April 9, 2020). The current § 18.2-76 requires informed written consent but imposes no temporal delay between consent and procedure.

*Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · 2020 Va. Acts chs. 898, 899 (Reproductive Health Protection Act), [Virginia LIS](https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20201/SB733)*

**Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication.

### Mandatory counseling

**No state-scripted counseling**

The 2020 Reproductive Health Protection Act eliminated state-scripted counseling; informed written consent is still required but without state-mandated content.

Virginia requires that a person give informed written consent before an abortion, but the state no longer dictates exactly what the provider must say. Before 2020, the state required a script that included statements about fetal development and alternatives to abortion. Those requirements were repealed. Now, the provider must obtain the patient's informed written consent following the standard of care, but there is no government-prescribed script.

> "Before performing any abortion or inducing any miscarriage or terminating a pregnancy as provided in § 18.2-72, 18.2-73, or 18.2-74, the physician or, if such abortion is performed during the first trimester of pregnancy, the advanced practice registered nurse, shall obtain the informed written consent of the pregnant woman."
> — Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-76(A)

**Legal analysis**

Va. Code § 18.2-76(A) requires that 'before performing any abortion ... the physician or, if such abortion is performed during the first trimester of pregnancy, the advanced practice registered nurse, shall obtain the informed written consent of the pregnant woman.' Unlike the pre-2020 version, the current statute does not prescribe specific disclosures. The 2020 RHPA eliminated the detailed informed consent requirements including mandates about fetal development information, alternatives to abortion, and the offer to view an ultrasound image.

*Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-76(A), subsection (A), [Virginia Law (LIS)](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter4/section18.2-76)*

### Ultrasound requirement

**No ultrasound requirement**

Virginia repealed its mandatory ultrasound requirement in 2020; no ultrasound is required by statute before an abortion.

Virginia does not require a person to have an ultrasound before getting an abortion. The mandatory ultrasound law was repealed in 2020. A provider may still perform an ultrasound as part of their own medical practice, but the state does not compel it.

**Legal analysis**

The pre-2020 version of § 18.2-76 required an ultrasound at least 24 hours before an abortion, with the offer to view the image and hear a description. These provisions were repealed by the Reproductive Health Protection Act of 2020.

*Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · 2020 Va. Acts chs. 898, 899, [Virginia LIS](https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20201/SB733)*

**Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication.

### In person visits

**One in-person visit**

Because the waiting period and ultrasound requirements were repealed, only a single in-person visit is legally required for procedural abortion; medication abortion may be prescribed via telehealth.

Virginia law requires only one in-person visit: the appointment where the abortion is performed and informed consent is documented. Because there is no mandatory waiting period or ultrasound requirement, no separate counseling visit is needed. Medication abortion can be prescribed via telehealth, so no in-person visit at all may be required for that method.

**Legal analysis**

Va. Code § 18.2-76 requires informed written consent but does not mandate that it be obtained in person. The repeal of the 24-hour waiting period and ultrasound requirement means there is no statutory obligation to make two trips. For procedural abortion, the procedure itself requires physical presence. For medication abortion, Virginia imposes no in-person dispensing requirement, and telehealth prescribing is practiced.

*Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence*

**Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication.

## Minors

### Parental involvement

**Parental consent required; judicial bypass available**

An unemancipated minor must obtain notarized written consent from an authorized person (parent, guardian, or adult with care and control) or a court order; exceptions exist for abuse/neglect and medical emergency.

In Virginia, if a person under 18 wants an abortion and is not emancipated, they must get notarized written permission from a parent, legal guardian, or an adult who has care and control of them and with whom they live (like a grandparent or adult sibling). If they cannot or do not want to ask for permission — for example, because of abuse at home — they can go to a juvenile court and ask a judge for permission instead (this is called judicial bypass). There are exceptions: no consent is needed if the minor reports abuse or neglect and the doctor reports it to child protective services, or if there is a medical emergency.

> "A physician shall not knowingly perform an abortion upon an unemancipated minor unless consent has been obtained or the minor delivers to the physician a court order entered pursuant to this section and the physician or his agent provides such notice as such order may require."
> — Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-241(W)

**Legal analysis**

Va. Code § 16.1-241(W) governs consent for minors. The statute requires that a physician 'not knowingly perform an abortion upon an unemancipated minor unless consent has been obtained or the minor delivers to the physician a court order.' 'Consent' requires that either the minor delivers a notarized written statement from an authorized person consenting to the abortion, or an authorized person is present and provides written authorization witnessed by the physician. An 'authorized person' is defined as '(i) a parent or duly appointed legal guardian or custodian of the minor or (ii) a person standing in loco parentis, including a grandparent or adult sibling with whom the minor regularly and customarily resides and who has care and control of the minor.' The statute includes exceptions for abuse/neglect (if the minor declares abuse and the physician reports it) and medical emergency (defined as a condition that 'so complicates the medical condition of the pregnant minor as to necessitate the immediate abortion of her pregnancy to avert her death or for which a delay will create a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function'). Anyone who knowingly and falsely signs as an authorized person is guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor.

*Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-241(W), subsection (W), [Virginia Law (LIS)](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title16.1/chapter11/section16.1-241)*

### Judicial bypass

**Judicial bypass: mature minor or best interests**

A minor who elects not to seek parental consent may petition the juvenile court; the judge must authorize the abortion if the minor is mature and well-informed or if the abortion is in her best interest; expedited timeline and appeal guarantee.

A minor can go to a juvenile and domestic relations district court and ask a judge for permission to have an abortion without telling a parent. The judge must approve the abortion if either the minor is mature enough and well-informed enough to make the decision on her own, or if the abortion is in her best interest. The court must hear and decide the case within four days of filing. If the judge says no, the minor can appeal to circuit court, which must decide within five days. If either court misses its deadline, the abortion is automatically authorized. The entire process is confidential, no filing fees can be charged, and the minor has the right to a free court-appointed lawyer.

> "After a hearing, a judge shall issue an order authorizing a physician to perform an abortion, without the consent of any authorized person, if he finds that (i) the minor is mature enough and well enough informed to make her abortion decision, in consultation with her physician, independent of the wishes of any authorized person, or (ii) the minor is not mature enough or well enough informed to make such decision, but the desired abortion would be in her best interest."
> — Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-241(W)

**Legal analysis**

Va. Code § 16.1-241(W) provides a detailed bypass procedure. After a hearing, the judge must issue an order authorizing the abortion without consent if the judge finds that '(i) the minor is mature enough and well enough informed to make her abortion decision, in consultation with her physician, independent of the wishes of any authorized person, or (ii) the minor is not mature enough or well enough informed to make such decision, but the desired abortion would be in her best interest.' If authorization is based on best interests, the order may require notice to an authorized person unless the judge finds notice not in the minor's best interest. The court must consider the totality of circumstances and must find notice not in the best interest if the authorized person is abusive or neglectful. 'Court proceedings under this subsection shall be heard and decided as soon as practicable but in no event later than four days after the petition is filed.' The appeal to circuit court 'shall be heard and decided no later than five days after the appeal is filed.' If either court misses its deadline, the court 'shall immediately authorize a physician to perform the abortion without consent of or notice to an authorized person.' The minor has the right to court-appointed counsel. Proceedings and records are confidential. No filing fees may be charged.

*Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-241(W), subsection (W), [Virginia Law (LIS)](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title16.1/chapter11/section16.1-241)*

## Paternal spousal rights

### Consent or notice laws

**No spousal or paternal consent law**

Virginia has no statute on the books requiring spousal or paternal consent or notice for an abortion.

Virginia does not require a husband's or the biological father's permission or notification for an abortion. No such law exists in the Virginia Code.

**Legal analysis**

No Virginia statute requires spousal consent, spousal notification, or paternal consent for abortion. The parental consent law at § 16.1-241(W) applies only to unemancipated minors and requires consent from an 'authorized person' (parent, guardian, custodian, or person in loco parentis), not from the father of the fetus.

*Sources — No law on this point · High confidence*

### Enforceability

**Not applicable — no law to enforce**

Since Virginia has no spousal or paternal consent/notice statute, Planned Parenthood v. Danforth and Planned Parenthood v. Casey raise no enforceability question.

There is no spousal or paternal consent law in Virginia, so there is nothing to enforce or challenge.

**Legal analysis**

Virginia's abortion statutes contain no spousal or paternal involvement requirements. The Danforth/Casey line of cases addressing spousal consent is therefore not directly relevant to current Virginia law.

*Sources — No law on this point · High confidence*

### Other paternal rights

**Father has no veto; wrongful death standing for mother only**

The biological father has no legal right to block or be notified of an abortion; the fetal wrongful death action is vested solely in the natural mother.

A biological father in Virginia has no legal right to prevent or be told about an abortion. Under Virginia's wrongful death law, only the 'natural mother' can sue for the wrongful death of a fetus — the father cannot bring such a claim. Virginia has no putative father registry that affects abortion decisions.

> "Actions for fetal death under subsection B shall be brought by and in the name of the natural mother."
> — Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-50(B)

**Legal analysis**

Va. Code § 8.01-50(B) provides: 'Whenever a fetal death, as defined in § 32.1-249, is caused by the wrongful act, neglect, or default of any person, ship, vessel, or corporation, the natural mother of the fetus may bring an action pursuant to this section against such tortfeasor. Actions for fetal death under subsection B shall be brought by and in the name of the natural mother.' The father has no standing to bring a fetal wrongful death action. No Virginia statute gives the biological father any right to notice, consent, or veto over an abortion. No reported Virginia case has recognized a father's right to enjoin an abortion.

*Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-50(B), subsection (B), [Virginia Law (LIS)](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title8.01/chapter3/section8.01-50)*

## Fetal personhood

### Fetal homicide law

**Fetal homicide: felony; 'unlawful' killing required**

Virginia criminalizes killing 'the fetus of another' as a Class 2 felony for premeditated killing or 5-40 years for deliberate/malicious killing, but only for 'unlawful' acts, implicitly excluding lawful abortion.

Virginia has a fetal homicide law that makes it a serious felony to kill a fetus. The law applies when someone kills 'the fetus of another' — meaning a third party who attacks a pregnant woman. The statute applies at any stage of pregnancy. The law uses the word 'unlawfully,' which means that lawful medical procedures — including lawful abortions — are not covered. The pregnant woman is not the target; the law covers only killing 'the fetus of another,' not the woman's own fetus. This law does not apply to abortion providers acting within the lawful pathways.

> "Any person who unlawfully, willfully, deliberately, maliciously and with premeditation kills the fetus of another is guilty of a Class 2 felony."
> — Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-32.2(A)

**Legal analysis**

Va. Code § 18.2-32.2 has only two subsections: (A) premeditated killing is a Class 2 felony (20 years to life); (B) deliberate and malicious killing is punishable by 5 to 40 years. Both subsections require the killing to be 'unlawful.' The word 'unlawfully' has been construed by the Virginia Court of Appeals to mean that lawful acts — including lawful abortion — do not trigger the statute. In Lawrence v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 378 (2018), the court held the statute applies to any stage of prenatal development. The statute does not contain express subsections exempting abortion or the pregnant woman (unlike some other states' fetal homicide laws). However, the requirement that the killing be 'unlawful' and the limitation to the 'fetus of another' together exclude lawful abortion from the statute's reach. The pregnant woman cannot kill the 'fetus of another' — it is 'her' fetus.

*Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-32.2(A), subsection (A), [Virginia Law (LIS)](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter4/section18.2-32.2)*

### Wrongful death

**Fetal wrongful death action from conception**

Virginia permits the natural mother to bring a civil wrongful death action for a fetal death caused by a wrongful act, defined from conception onward; only the mother may sue.

If someone's wrongful act causes the death of a fetus at any stage of pregnancy — from conception onward — the pregnant woman can sue for damages under Virginia's wrongful death law. This does not apply to a lawful abortion. Only the mother can bring this type of lawsuit. The father has no standing to sue for fetal wrongful death in Virginia.

> "Whenever a fetal death, as defined in § 32.1-249, is caused by the wrongful act, neglect, or default of any person, ship, vessel, or corporation, the natural mother of the fetus may bring an action pursuant to this section against such tortfeasor."
> — Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-50(B)

**Legal analysis**

Va. Code § 8.01-50(B) authorizes a fetal death action whenever 'a fetal death, as defined in § 32.1-249, is caused by the wrongful act, neglect, or default of any person.' Va. Code § 32.1-249 defines 'fetal death' as 'death prior to the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a product of human conception, regardless of the duration of pregnancy.' This means the action lies from conception onward — there is no viability threshold. The action is vested solely in the 'natural mother.' Lawful abortion is not a 'wrongful act' and thus does not give rise to a claim under this section. The mother cannot sue a provider for a lawful abortion performed with her consent. This provision was added in 2012 legislation (chapters 725 and 726).

*Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-50(B), subsection (B), [Virginia Law (LIS)](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title8.01/chapter3/section8.01-50)*

### Personhood definition

**No general fetal personhood definition**

Virginia has no constitutional or statutory provision generally defining 'person,' 'human being,' or 'child' to include the unborn for all purposes; fetal homicide and wrongful death apply in specific contexts.

Virginia does not have a general law declaring that a fetus is a 'person' with the same rights as a born human being. The fetal homicide law and the wrongful death law give specific, limited legal recognition to the fetus for particular purposes — criminal punishment of third-party violence and civil damages. These do not create general fetal personhood and do not override the abortion laws.

**Legal analysis**

Virginia has no statutory or constitutional provision comparable to, e.g., Missouri Rev. Stat. § 1.205 or Alabama Const. Art. I, § 36.01, defining 'person' to include the unborn for all legal purposes. A 2012 'personhood bill' (HB 1) that would have construed 'person' to include the unborn was not enacted; the General Assembly instead adopted the more limited fetal wrongful death provision at § 8.01-50(B). The fetal homicide statute, § 18.2-32.2, uses the term 'fetus of another' rather than 'person' or 'unborn child' in its operative clauses. The Virginia Constitution's Bill of Rights (Article I) contains no fetal personhood provision.

*Sources — No law on this point · High confidence*

### Contradictions analysis

Virginia's legal regime contains a significant internal tension between its permissive abortion framework and its fetal-protection statutes. On one hand, the Code permits abortion for any reason through the second trimester (~27 weeks), treats the woman as outside the reach of the criminal abortion statute, and has systematically repealed restrictions (waiting period, ultrasound, TRAP licensing) to reduce barriers. On the other hand, the same Code treats the fetus as a homicide victim 'regardless of the duration of pregnancy' when killed by a third party (Va. Code § 18.2-32.2, as construed in Lawrence v. Commonwealth), and permits a wrongful death action from conception onward (Va. Code § 8.01-50(B)). The contradiction is managed — but not resolved — by the word 'unlawfully' in the fetal homicide statute, which implicitly excludes lawful abortion. But the underlying moral logic is contradictory: the law says a fetus at 8 weeks is sufficiently a 'victim' for a third party's homicide conviction and the mother's civil damages, yet the same fetus may be lawfully aborted for any reason at the mother's request. This is not unique to Virginia — many states with fetal homicide laws and permissive abortion regimes share this tension — but Virginia's juxtaposition is particularly stark given that the wrongful death action attaches from conception (not viability) while abortion is legal through 27 weeks. The 2026 constitutional amendment ballot measure, which would create a 'fundamental right to reproductive freedom,' would deepen this tension if adopted.

## Telehealth & interstate questions

### Telehealth prescribing

**Telehealth prescribing permitted**

Virginia does not restrict telehealth prescribing of medication abortion; no in-person requirement exists for mifepristone or misoprostol.

Abortion medication can be prescribed through telehealth in Virginia. There is no law requiring an in-person visit before getting abortion pills. A Virginia resident can have a video or phone visit with a provider — including an out-of-state provider — and receive a prescription for abortion medication.

**Legal analysis**

Virginia imposes no statutory or regulatory restriction on telehealth prescribing of abortion medication. The Board of Medicine's telehealth regulations do not exclude abortion from telehealth-eligible services. No in-person dispensing requirement exists in statute. The 2020 Reproductive Health Protection Act, by removing the mandatory ultrasound and 24-hour waiting period, removed the practical obstacles to telehealth medication abortion. Out-of-state clinicians prescribing into Virginia via telehealth may be subject to the prescribing rules of both their home state and Virginia, but Virginia's lack of restrictions creates no conflict. FDA's mifepristone REMS, as modified in 2023, permits certified pharmacies to dispense mifepristone and does not require in-person dispensing — removing what was previously the primary federal obstacle to telehealth medication abortion.

*Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence*

**Editor's note.** The status of mifepristone REMS is subject to ongoing federal litigation (FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, and newer challenges from Louisiana and other states). This could affect telehealth access nationally, but Virginia has no state-level telehealth ban to complicate the picture. Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication.

### Out of state travel

**Out-of-state travel unrestricted**

Virginia residents may freely travel out of state for abortion; no Virginia statute criminalizes or restricts such travel.

There is nothing in Virginia law that prevents a resident from traveling to another state for an abortion. Virginia does not try to reach conduct that happens outside its borders.

**Legal analysis**

No Virginia statute purports to restrict or criminalize travel for out-of-state abortion. Virginia has not enacted anything analogous to Idaho's 'abortion trafficking' law or to the model legislation proposed by some anti-abortion groups that would restrict interstate travel for abortion. The general complicity statute applies only to Virginia offenses.

*Sources — No law on this point · High confidence*

### Shield or hostile laws

**No shield law; hostile bills vetoed**

Virginia has no shield law protecting providers or patients from other states' investigations; shield-law bills in 2024 were vetoed by Governor Youngkin; new bills may be viable under Governor Spanberger.

Virginia does not currently have a 'shield law' — a law designed to protect abortion providers and patients from legal actions originating in other states (such as extradition requests, subpoenas, or professional license actions). Bills that would have created such protections were passed by the General Assembly in 2024 but vetoed by then-Governor Glenn Youngkin. With the election of Governor Abigail Spanberger in November 2025 (taking office January 2026), new shield legislation may have better prospects.

**Legal analysis**

In 2024, the General Assembly passed several shield-law bills, including SB 16, SB 1098, and companion measures, which would have prohibited Virginia agencies from cooperating with out-of-state investigations related to lawful abortion care, barred extradition for abortion-related charges, and protected provider licenses. Governor Youngkin vetoed all four reproductive health shield bills on April 5, 2024. His veto message cited concerns about disrupting the 'cooperative extradition system.' In the 2025 session, similar bills were passed but again vetoed. With Governor Spanberger's election in November 2025 and the continued Democratic majority in both legislative chambers, shield legislation in the 2026 session is plausible. Separately, the Consumer Protection Act amendment (SB 754, signed by Youngkin on March 24, 2025, effective July 1, 2025) prohibits businesses from obtaining or disclosing personally identifiable reproductive or sexual health information without consent, providing some data-privacy protection for abortion seekers.

*Sources — Semi-verified · Medium confidence*

**Editor's note.** Shield-law prospects should be monitored in the 2026 legislative session. The change in governorship may change the legislative landscape. Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication.

## Funding and insurance

### Medicaid

**Hyde-only plus fetal anomaly**

Virginia Medicaid covers abortion in cases of life endangerment, rape, incest (with law enforcement reporting), and where the fetus has an incapacitating physical deformity or mental deficiency.

Virginia's Medicaid program covers abortion in the same limited circumstances as the federal Hyde Amendment: when the pregnancy threatens the woman's life, or when it results from rape or incest that was reported to law enforcement. In addition, Virginia goes slightly beyond Hyde by covering abortion when a physician certifies that the fetus has a severe incapacitating physical deformity or mental deficiency.

**Legal analysis**

Va. Code § 32.1-92.1 prohibits state funding of abortion except for 'procedures undertaken to save the life of the mother,' or where the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, provided the incident is reported to law enforcement or child protective services within specified time frames. Va. Code § 32.1-92.2 separately authorizes state funding where 'the fetus is believed to have an incapacitating physical deformity or mental deficiency,' requiring a physician's certificate based on physical examination and diagnostic tests. Together, these provisions cover Hyde categories plus one additional category (fetal anomaly), making Virginia's Medicaid coverage slightly broader than the minimum required by federal law.

*Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Va. Code Ann. § 32.1-92.1, [Virginia Law (LIS)](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title32.1/chapter3/section32.1-92.1) · Va. Code Ann. § 32.1-92.2, [Virginia Law (LIS)](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title32.1/chapter3/section32.1-92.2)*

**Editor's note.** The precise statutory text of §§ 32.1-92.1 and 32.1-92.2 should be read at the Virginia LIS website for exact language regarding reporting timeframes.

### Private insurance

**No coverage ban; exchange ban repealed**

Virginia does not prohibit private insurance plans from covering abortion; the 2021 repeal of the exchange-plan coverage ban means ACA marketplace plans may now cover abortion.

Private health insurance plans in Virginia may cover abortion. There is no state law that bans or limits abortion coverage in private plans. In 2021, Virginia repealed a previous law that had prohibited ACA marketplace health plans from covering abortion. Now, exchange plans may include abortion coverage, though individual insurers decide whether to offer it.

**Legal analysis**

Virginia has no statute prohibiting private health insurance coverage of abortion. The 2021 legislation (HB 1896/SB 1276, enacted as chapters 101 and 102 of the 2021 Special Session I) repealed the prohibition on abortion coverage in qualified health plans sold through Virginia's health benefits exchange. The 2020 Reproductive Health Protection Act lifted the ban on abortion coverage for state employees. No 'rider' requirement mandates that abortion coverage be purchased separately.

*Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence*

**Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication.

### Exchange plans

**Exchange plans may cover abortion**

Since 2021, ACA marketplace plans in Virginia are not prohibited from covering abortion; whether a particular plan does cover it depends on the insurer.

Virginia's ACA marketplace health plans can now include abortion coverage. The ban on abortion coverage in exchange plans was repealed in 2021. However, not all exchange plans actually cover it — it depends on the specific insurer and plan.

**Legal analysis**

The 2021 repeal of the exchange-plan abortion coverage ban (HB 1896/SB 1276, ch. 101, 102 of 2021 Special Session I) removed the statutory prohibition at former § 38.2-3451. The current version of § 38.2-3451 does not prohibit abortion coverage. Federal ACA rules require plans that cover abortion to segregate funds and provide notice, but Virginia imposes no additional restrictions.

*Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence*

**Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication.

### State funding of providers

**No defunding statute; mixed funding posture**

Virginia does not have a statute defunding abortion providers from all state programs; state funds may flow to providers for non-abortion services.

Virginia does not have a law that broadly cuts off all state funding to organizations that provide abortions. Providers like Planned Parenthood can receive state funds for non-abortion services like family planning, cancer screenings, and STI testing. There is no Texas-style family planning defunding program in Virginia.

**Legal analysis**

Virginia has no statute analogous to Texas's exclusion of abortion providers from state family planning programs or other wholesale defunding mechanisms. Virginia participates in the federal Title X family planning program and does not impose additional state-level provider exclusion criteria. Individual budget bills may contain specific funding restrictions or allocations, but no permanent statutory defunding provision exists.

*Sources — Semi-verified · Medium confidence*

**Editor's note.** Annual budget riders may impose temporary funding restrictions. Check the current biennial budget act for any abortion-provider funding restrictions. Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication.

## Penalties

| Actor | Offense | Penalty | Verification |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Physician (unlawful abortion) | Producing abortion or miscarriage outside lawful pathways, Va. Code § 18.2-71 | Class 4 felony: 2–10 years imprisonment, fine up to $100,000 | Verified at source |
| Physician (partial birth infanticide) | Knowingly performing partial birth infanticide, Va. Code § 18.2-71.1(A) | Class 4 felony: 2–10 years imprisonment, fine up to $100,000 | Verified at source |
| APRN (abortion beyond first trimester) | Producing abortion or miscarriage outside lawful first-trimester pathway, Va. Code § 18.2-71 | Class 4 felony: 2–10 years imprisonment, fine up to $100,000 | Verified at source |
| Provider (failure to obtain informed consent) | Failure to obtain informed written consent, Va. Code § 18.2-76(H) | Civil penalty only (not criminal) | Verified at source |
| Any person (encouraging/promoting prohibited abortion) | Encouraging or promoting prohibited abortion, Va. Code § 18.2-76.1 | Class 3 misdemeanor: fine only (max $500) | Verified at source |
| Person falsely signing minor's authorization | Knowingly and willfully signing false authorization for minor's abortion, Va. Code § 16.1-241(W) | Class 3 misdemeanor: fine only (max $500) | Verified at source |
| Pregnant woman | No criminal offense under Virginia abortion statutes (exempted) | None | Verified at source |

## Recent changes

- **September 30, 2019** — U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson struck down Virginia's second-trimester hospital requirement as unconstitutional in Falls Church Medical Center, LLC v. Oliver, and upheld other challenged restrictions (physician-only law, TRAP licensing, mandatory ultrasound, waiting period — most of which were later repealed legislatively).
  *Sources — Falls Church Medical Center, LLC v. Oliver, No. 3:18-cv-428 (E.D. Va. Sept. 30, 2019), [Center for Reproductive Rights](https://reproductiverights.org/cases/falls-church-healthcare-center-et-al-v-norman-oliver-et-al)*
- **April 9, 2020** — Governor Ralph Northam signed the Reproductive Health Protection Act (SB 733/HB 980), repealing the 24-hour waiting period, mandatory ultrasound, TRAP facility licensing, state-scripted informed consent, and physician-only requirement for first-trimester medication abortion; expanded first-trimester provision to APRNs.
  *Sources — 2020 Va. Acts chs. 898, 899, [Virginia LIS](https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20201/SB733)*
- **July 28, 2020** — Falls Church Medical Center v. Oliver was voluntarily dismissed on appeal in the Fourth Circuit, leaving the district court's September 30, 2019 ruling (which struck down the second-trimester hospital requirement) in an uncertain procedural posture.
  *Sources — Falls Church Medical Center, LLC v. Oliver, No. 19-2382 (4th Cir., dismissed July 28, 2020), [Center for Reproductive Rights](https://reproductiverights.org/cases/falls-church-healthcare-center-et-al-v-norman-oliver-et-al)*
- **March 31, 2021** — Governor Northam signed HB 1896/SB 1276, repealing the prohibition on abortion coverage in qualified health insurance plans sold through Virginia's health benefits exchange, effective July 1, 2021.
  *Sources — 2021 Va. Acts chs. 101, 102 (1st Special Session), [Virginia LIS](https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20212/HB1896)*
- **June 24, 2022** — The U.S. Supreme Court decided Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, overturning Roe v. Wade. Virginia's abortion statutes, which already contained their own lawful pathways, remained independently enforceable without federal constitutional overlay.
  *Sources — Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org., 597 U.S. 215 (2022), [U.S. Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf)*
- **April 5, 2024** — Governor Glenn Youngkin vetoed four reproductive health shield-law bills (including SB 16 and SB 1098), preventing Virginia from adopting protections for providers and patients against out-of-state investigations.
  *Sources — Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia, press release, Apr. 5, 2024, [Planned Parenthood](https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/planned-parenthood-advocates-virginia-inc/press-releases/governor-glenn-youngkin-vetoes-four-reproductive-health-care-bills)*
- **January 15, 2025** — The Virginia House of Delegates and Senate passed HJ 1/SJ 247, the first legislative passage of a constitutional amendment to establish a fundamental right to reproductive freedom, sending it to the 2026 session for a required second passage before going to voters in November 2026.
  *Sources — HJ 1 / SJ 247, 2025 Va. Gen. Assembly, [Virginia LIS](https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20261/HJ1)*
- **March 24, 2025** — Governor Youngkin signed SB 754, amending the Virginia Consumer Protection Act to prohibit businesses from obtaining or disclosing personally identifiable reproductive or sexual health information without consumer consent, effective July 1, 2025.
  *Sources — SB 754, 2025 Va. Acts (effective July 1, 2025), [Virginia LIS](https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20251/SB754)*

## Pending changes

### Virginia Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment (2026) (Ballot measure)

**Status.** Passed first legislative passage (2025); requires second passage in 2026 General Assembly before November 3, 2026 ballot.

If adopted by voters, the Virginia Constitution would be amended to add Article I, § 11-A, establishing a 'fundamental right to reproductive freedom' including decisions about 'prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, abortion care, miscarriage management, and infertility care.' The amendment would permit regulation of abortion in the third trimester except where medically indicated to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual. This would constitutionally entrench Virginia's current abortion-access posture and likely invalidate any future legislative efforts to restrict abortion before the third trimester.

*Sources — HJ 1, 2026 Va. Gen. Assembly (second reference), [Virginia LIS](https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20261/HJ1) · Ballotpedia, Virginia Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment (2026), [Ballotpedia](https://ballotpedia.org/Virginia_Right_to_Reproductive_Freedom_Amendment_(2026))*

### Falls Church Medical Center v. Oliver — post-dismissal effect of injunction (Litigation)

**Status.** No active proceeding; the district court's 2019 injunction striking the second-trimester hospital requirement was never reviewed on appeal; its continued enforceability is legally uncertain.

If a new administration or prosecutor sought to enforce the hospital requirement in § 18.2-73, litigation would likely revisit whether the district court's 2019 injunction survived the voluntary dismissal of the appeal and whether the statute is constitutional post-Dobbs.

### 2026 Shield Law Legislation (anticipated) (Legislation)

**Status.** With Governor Spanberger's election and continuing Democratic majorities, new shield-law bills are expected in the 2026 session.

Would prohibit Virginia agencies from cooperating with out-of-state abortion investigations, bar extradition for abortion-related charges, and protect Virginia-licensed providers from adverse actions by other states.

## Key authorities

- **Va. Code § 18.2-71** — Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-71 _(Statute)_ · [law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/ch…](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter4/section18.2-71)
  Baseline criminal prohibition: Class 4 felony for producing abortion or miscarriage, which all other abortion provisions build from.
- **Va. Code §§ 18.2-72, 18.2-73, 18.2-74** — Va. Code Ann. §§ 18.2-72, 18.2-73, 18.2-74 _(Statute)_ · [law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/ch…](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter4/section18.2-72)
  The three lawful pathways: first trimester (physician or APRN), second trimester (physician in hospital), third trimester (physician in hospital with three-physician certification of life/health endangerment).
- **Va. Code § 18.2-71.1** — Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-71.1 _(Statute)_ · [law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/ch…](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter4/section18.2-71.1)
  Partial birth infanticide/D&X ban, with express exclusion of D&E and express mother exemption.
- **Va. Code § 18.2-76** — Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-76 _(Statute)_ · [law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/ch…](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter4/section18.2-76)
  Informed written consent requirement; previously contained waiting period and ultrasound mandate, now stripped to basic consent.
- **Va. Code § 18.2-76.1** — Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-76.1 _(Statute)_ · [codes.findlaw.com/va/title-18-2-crime…](https://codes.findlaw.com/va/title-18-2-crimes-and-offenses-generally/va-code-sect-18-2-76-1)
  Encouraging or promoting prohibited abortion — Class 3 misdemeanor; largely unenforceable after Bigelow v. Virginia (1975).
- **Va. Code § 16.1-241(W)** — Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-241(W) _(Statute)_ · [law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title16.1/ch…](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title16.1/chapter11/section16.1-241)
  Parental consent and judicial bypass framework for minors.
- **Va. Code § 18.2-32.2** — Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-32.2 _(Statute)_ · [law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/ch…](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter4/section18.2-32.2)
  Fetal homicide statute: killing 'fetus of another' is Class 2 felony or 5-40 years; 'unlawfully' element excludes lawful abortion.
- **Va. Code § 8.01-50(B)** — Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-50(B) _(Statute)_ · [law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title8.01/ch…](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title8.01/chapter3/section8.01-50)
  Fetal wrongful death action vesting solely in the natural mother; applies from conception.
- **Va. Code §§ 32.1-92.1, 32.1-92.2** — Va. Code Ann. §§ 32.1-92.1, 32.1-92.2 _(Statute)_ · [law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title32.1/ch…](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title32.1/chapter3/section32.1-92.1)
  State Medicaid funding: Hyde categories (life, rape, incest) plus fetal anomaly — slightly broader than federal minimum.
- **2020 Reproductive Health Protection Act** — 2020 Va. Acts chs. 898, 899 _(Statute)_ · [lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20201/SB733](https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20201/SB733)
  Repealed waiting period, ultrasound, TRAP licensing, and state-scripted counseling; expanded first-trimester authority to APRNs.
- **Falls Church Medical Center v. Oliver** — Falls Church Medical Center, LLC v. Oliver, No. 3:18-cv-428 (E.D. Va. Sept. 30, 2019) _(Case)_ · [reproductiverights.org/cases/falls-church-…](https://reproductiverights.org/cases/falls-church-healthcare-center-et-al-v-norman-oliver-et-al)
  Struck down second-trimester hospital requirement; the sole federal ruling directly limiting a Virginia abortion restriction.
- **Bigelow v. Virginia** — Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809 (1975) _(Case)_ · [supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/421/809](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/421/809)
  U.S. Supreme Court invalidated Virginia's prohibition on encouraging/promoting abortion as applied to truthful advertising about lawful services.
- **Va. Code § 18.2-75** — Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-75 _(Statute)_ · [law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/ch…](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter4/section18.2-75)
  Conscience clause: no person or hospital with written objection shall be required to participate in abortion procedures.
- **HJ 1 / SJ 247 — Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment** — HJ 1, 2026 Va. Gen. Assembly _(Ballot measure)_ · [lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20261/HJ1](https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20261/HJ1)
  Proposed constitutional amendment on November 2026 ballot to create fundamental right to reproductive freedom including abortion.

## Research notes

> Overall confidence: High. Analysis current as of July 12, 2026; research completed July 12, 2026. Before publication, verify (1) the full text of §§ 32.1-92.1, 32.1-92.2, and 18.2-32.2 at the official Virginia LIS website (law.lis.virginia.gov); (2) the Fourth Circuit docket in Falls Church Medical Center v. Oliver (No. 19-2382) to confirm whether the court's order dismissing the appeal vacated the district court judgment; (3) the status of any 2026 shield-law legislation; (4) the ballot language of the November 2026 constitutional amendment as certified by the State Board of Elections; and (5) any new Attorney General opinions from Jay Jones (who took office January 2026) regarding enforcement of abortion restrictions. Unresolved points: The post-dismissal effect of the Falls Church district court injunction on the second-trimester hospital requirement is uncertain; no Virginia court or official has addressed it since the July 2020 voluntary dismissal of the appeal — The full text of Va. Code § 32.1-92.2 (fetal anomaly Medicaid funding) was not verified at the primary source; the section header was confirmed but the full body text was not retrieved — Whether the Virginia Supreme Court would construe § 18.2-71 to reach a woman who self-manages an abortion using pills has not been directly tested — The precise status of the mifepristone REMS and any effect on Virginia telehealth prescribing is subject to ongoing federal litigation as of mid-2025 — The 2026 legislative session and new gubernatorial administration may produce shield-law legislation or other changes that would materially alter this analysis.