Doctor: Serial Baby Murderer Kermit Gosnell ‘Could Not Have Been Prosecuted’ Under Virginia’s Abortion Amendment

The proposed late-term abortion constitutional amendment on Virginia’s ballot is so permissive that even serial baby murderer Kermit Gosnell “could not have been prosecuted” if that were the law, a medical doctor with more than 30 years’ experience explained in a Wednesday meeting. Dr. Timothy Boley, a leader of Virginia Medical Professionals for Women’s Safety (VMPWS), spoke to a group of reporters Wednesday, noting that the amendment is not just about expansive abortion access, but also about getting rid of legal liability for those who perform them. WMPWS is a group of nearly 300 doctors opposed to Virginia’s abortion amendment. The amendment shields abortionists from criminal and civil liability because they are providing a “fundamental right to reproductive freedom,” Boley said, referencing the ballot language. Any laws passed by the Virginia legislature to create any kind of safeguards would immediately be voided because abortion at all stages, for any reason, would be enshrined as a constitutional right in the commonwealth. Boley said that kind of liability shield would have made it impossible to prosecute someone like Gosnell, who ripped apart numerous women by inserting razor blades into their wombs, intent on killing their unborn babies, and massacred countless unborn babies over the course of decades, often in late-term. If Gosnell committed his atrocities in Virginia under the proposed amendment, he would go unpunished as a provider of a “fundamental right.” Dr. Christina Francis, a board-certified OB/GYN hospitalist and CEO of the American Association of Pro-Life OBGYNs (AAPLOG), who was also on the call, added that “someone can’t be penalized for assisting someone in obtaining an abortion, and that definitely opens up the door for immunity to medical malpractice that is committed in the process of performing an abortion.” “So you could have unlicensed people performing abortions who then have no criminal or civil liability for permanently harming or even killing a woman through the process of a botched abortion,” she added. The amendment would essentially make the abortion industry untouchable, not just in terms of legal liability, but for basic procedural safety, to the point where people not even certified to conduct the procedure would be able to do so. “The language in question one is broad enough to restrict the commonwealth’s ability to adjust safeguards, including safeguards concerning who performs abortions, where they’re performed, and the standards for even higher risk third trimester procedures,” Boley said. “It would allow abortions to be performed by unlicensed people in locations with no medical inspections. We would never have or accept this lack of accountability in any other area of medicine.” “If you needed surgery, you would expect a qualified medical professional licensed to be doing the procedure in an approved licensed facility, and that there would be certain qualifications … for patient safety,” he added. Francis said that in other states that already have similar laws to the would-be amendment in Virginia podiatrists and optometrists were conducting surgical abortions. Virginia’s abortion laws are already extremely permissive, allowing elective abortion through the second trimester, but the amendment would allow such procedures all the way through the third trimester, “when babies can almost universally survive outside the womb,” Francis said. As VMPWS’s declaration states, “When pregnancy poses a threat to maternal health in the third trimester, DELIVERY and NOT ABORTION is appropriate medical care, and abortion does nothing to improve maternal safety or health.” Abortion-seeking mothers can simply cite things like anxiety or depression and have their fully-formed baby murdered in the womb. This can happen at any age, without parental knowledge or consent for minors, or even informed consent regarding the procedure itself. Doctors would not only be barred from counseling women against abortion, but would also be forced to violate their consciences and perform abortions under threat of losing their jobs, according to WMPWS. “The primary objective of this proposed amendment is to codify ‘abortion on demand’ for any reason and at any time during a woman’s pregnancy,” VMPWS states. As The Federalist reported, there is currently a legal challenge to the amendment pending, should Virginia voters approve it. On Tuesday, a Virginia judge allowed the challenge to proceed, setting a hearing date, over the objections of Virginia’s Democrat-controlled government. Breccan F. Thies is the White House correspondent for The Federalist. He is a co-recipient of the 2025 Dao Prize for Excellence in Investigative Journalism. As an investigative journalist, he previously covered education and culture issues for the Washington Examiner and Breitbart News. He holds a degree from the University of Virginia and is a 2022 Claremont Institute Publius Fellow. You can follow him on X: @BreccanFThies. Abortionabortion amendmentabortion on-demandChristina FrancisElection 2026Kermit Gosnelllate-term abortionmurderTimothy BoleyVirginiaVirginia Medical Professionals for Women's Safety