Transkrip penuh untuk The Amendments Explained

back into office or out of office based on how. They do while they're there. We we kind of want to bring them down. So we have citiz we call them citizen advocacy days. You know, maybe it's Mama Bear Day where we're focused on parental rights, or it's the march for life where we're having people come down. And the point of that is to remind these legislators that there really are a lot of actual voters that care about these issues that are Willing to spend their time just at least once during the session coming down and being in their office or being visibly present. So it's a lot of that kind of stuff. And then a lot of our work is to make sure that the average family, the person that's home raising their kids, running their business, can't be down at the General Assembly, knows what's going on. So we do emails and other forms of communication so that you know our job as citizens is to really be an informed voter, right? To make a good choice of who we send to Richmond, but then it's also to be aware. of what they actually do because sometimes they go to Richmond and what they do is not exactly what they said they would do in the campaign. So there's some accountability, there's some transparency. we view all of that as our job while they are here in Richmond. Julie Tucker: So I know this is a big question, but over twenty six years you've been in Virginia public policy for almost three decades. What changes what are the top two or three changes that you've seen during that time? Victoria Cobb: I mean, you know, some people would cite the obvious sort of partisan changes, right? So, I mean, the General Assembly has dramatically shifted to the left and is now, you know, overwhelmingly filled with Democrats. That was not the case when I got here. Although I would say in my early years, we had a lot of Republicans, but not a lot of people that cared about life and marriage and those kind of things. So, in one sense, maybe not as hostile, maybe the underlying values weren't as bad, but they weren't willing to do the kinds of things that would have secured our Commonwealth in a Good way for the issues of the unborn and so forth. So, I mean, you know, it's interesting how it shifts. I would say there are some other shifts that are less obvious but are really important. one shift that I point to that has changed over these 26 years is that it used to be that reason and facts and analysis helped carry the day on issues. you could go in and really talk to people about Common sense, social science, data, and and legislators would hear that and they would respond to that and understand what your Why they needed to vote a certain way. I would tell you that that has turned into a season where it's whoever brings the greatest victim and the greatest victim story with the most emotion forward seems to carry these legislators. So we've gone from a thinking people to a feeling people. And that that change, although it's subtle and it's not a specific partisan thing, but it has deeply impacted the ability for our age. Issues to carry the day because truth at the end of the day is what should matter. you know, what does the data say? What does the science say? And we know that data and science back up what the creator created the how the creator created the world to function. but in reality, what we find is that there's this identity politics and there's these intersectionality and all these ridiculous things that end up meaning that people show up with you know, and and I don't mean to diminish the d the victim situation sometimes, but whatever has the biggest sob story and whoever's wearing the most identity, you know, markers, somehow that turns into what we should issue public policy around. And that's not always what's actually best for the family. So that's a really significant shift that's happened over the years. I would also say that our legislators are much less experienced in public policy than they were years ago. two reasons for that. One is People used to stay in office a little bit longer. So their terms were longer, so they had a little bit more institutional knowledge. and two, they usually had to have held lower office or be a a businessman in the community that that had been around for a while, knew what they were talking about. where are people who are now more comfortable electing not just outsiders, but actually people that just Don't have a lot of experience. They're they're activists, they're young, they're community organizers, they're so we're getting a very different flavor of elected official in the General Assembly. I've just seen that change over the years. And sometimes that can be okay. Sometimes that's a little bit eye-opening. I mean, you know, AOC, for example, you know, comes to mind on the federal level. That's a name that more people know than than our state guys. But it changes the dynamic a bit of how things are debated. I think the passion levels. have gone up, the civility levels have come down. there used to be something called the Virginia Way, and that was sort of the what we we'd sort of say, like that's not the Virginia Way. Like when you were kind of not being civil, not having open dialogue. That that thing that we call the Virginia Way is essentially a thing of the past. And that's a little bit disheartening just when you watch the General Assembly now. So there's some changes that aren't necessarily directly an issue, but they have affected I think the way that our state government operates. Julie Tucker: So the Family Foundation first of all I want to applaud you for the biblical worldview that you take towards all of these issues. And I know that you guys have just traversed the state and beyond in educating Virginians about particularly two of the three proposed constitutional amendments. So here in Southwest Virginia we got all three on a sign, but I know you guys are doing a deep dive on the first two. Can we let's jump into amendment one,

reproductive freedom. So walk us through some of the concerns you have with the actual language of this amendment. I know there's a red markup on your website that highlights this as well, but what is what does the average voter not understand f from hearing the phrase reproductive freedom? You know, where's the issues with this? Victoria Cobb: Yeah. Yeah, I mean, fundamentally, if you are not engaged in the public policy process, just that, you know, the man on the street, you know, so to speak, you're gonna be told and you're gonna hear that this is just an amendment to affirm or confirm what already exists. They're gonna say things like, you know, we had Roe struck down, and all this does is sort of secure what was. the reality is this is so much more. And so, what we're trying to do is help citizens understand what's actually at play here. if it were simply securing the right to abortion that are already existed, they wouldn't be pushing the parameters in every direction. now obviously the Family Foundation doesn't want to secure the right to abortion anyway. We don't believe that's helpful, fruitful for families. We know women who regret their abortions and the lives that are lost from it. we look at our state. And we say, wow, we actually had 39, almost 40,000 abortions last year. Isn't that have we not taken an entire generation that we're just constantly altering by removing so many of these young, young people that could be the you know the future, that could be the you know the cure to cancer, whatever, and we're allowing abortion to be what what changes that whole landscape. So we think enough is enough. and we're devastated by where we are. And I I just how people contrast that with our live birth rate. so basically for every ten babies that are born in Virginia, we're aborting four. I mean, just You know, that isn't for even for people who think abortion should be legal for some reason at some point. Most people think that's a pretty catastrophic number when they actually hear it. It's just people don't think of it that way. They like to think of abortion. They're comfortable thinking about abortion as in the rare case of a rape. Well, that's a very, very rare percentage. or they like to think of it as, you know, there's such a s a terrible fetal abnormality, this child's not gonna live anyway. I mean, that's what people feel comfortable justifying abortion with, but that is not what's happening. Virginia. there are not 40,000 of those annually. That's absurd. So we're using it as an elective decision in our in our citizenry. So, first of all, we just hate where we are. But but beyond that, this isn't just keeping us where we are. So, what it does, it actually gives the fundamental right to reproductive freedom. And it wraps it, first thing it does is it wraps it in this nice sounding language. So they put all these words. So they're they're giving the right to reproductive freedom, but they're They're also talking about the right to, you know, postpartum care, the right to miscarriage care, birth control. The reality is that none of those things are contested in Virginia. None of those things have anybody Julie Tucker: Yeah. Victoria Cobb: saying it shouldn't happen. They're already happening. That kind of care is in every hospital. Everyone gets access to that care already. So what's interesting is they've put all these words around it because all of us would agree with all the other words. It's the word abortion where we start disagreeing. And so they they make it, know, it's It's I've told people it's like when I give my dog medicine he doesn't want, I put a bunch of peanut butter on a spoon and I jam the pill in and I make him swallow it. He doesn't know he's swallowing the pill, he thinks he's swallowing the peanut butter. That's what they're trying to do on this amendment is make us swallow a bunch of peanut butter and jam in that bad pill. And so on the issue of abortion, the fundamental right that they're giving actually g goes to all individuals. They do not specify adults. What that means is it will mean that your teen, your grandchild, your child has a right to abortion, and it goes on to basically say no one can get in the way. Well, when it does that, it's saying a parent can't have to be required to be involved in the process. Our current law requires parental consent because we think if young girls go through this tragic situation, they deserve and need the guidance of an adult. And you know, people say, Well, what about abuse? What about the parent that's well, we have judicial bypass. We do have a case where a child in a An abusive situation can go to a judge and work with an adult there in the court system to go through that process and see if that's really where she should go. But we also know that most teens, the reality is they need their parent in that moment. That's why the law's there. The law's been there for 20 years. So, and and it's real important for people to know, most Virginians agree with that law. It's really like 70 plus percent agree with parental consent for abortion. But this constitutional amendment will give your teen that right. And what that means is that. The law that's on the books. Is considered basically unconstitutional, unenforceable, because it bumps now if we were to pass it with this new constitutional right. And so you'll hear, and this is really important, people are gonna hear the people that support this amendment, and you're gonna hear them say, we already have parental consent. Well, yeah, right up until this passes. people really Julie Tucker: Mm-hmm. Victoria Cobb: need to be heads up about how the constitution trumps the law. So that's the first piece. the second piece is that currently in Virginia, we only allow late term abortion in specific cases. So you yes, you can get an abortion. Up until the moment of birth, now. But when you do that, after the second trimester, we say, if it's going to be third

trimester, we say there have to be three doctors, and they have to affirm that it is medically necessary for ear to prevent irreparable harm to a woman's health. So there are lot of importantness with the important things about these terms. The first one is three doctors. Why three? Well, that gives you outside judgment. That gives you not just the person providing the abortion making that decision, but three people that go together and go, yeah, there's not a better path here. Now, I will tell you, many doctors will say it's never safer to abort the child than birth the child at that late date. So that's even Julie Tucker: Mm. Victoria Cobb: contested, but that is what our law allows. And the next thing is that it's supposed to be for irreparable harm to the woman. Woman's health. First of all, irreparable harm is very different than what they're doing in this constitutional amendment. This constitutional amendment will say it has to be one doctor and it can be for anything that's medically indicated. Medically indicated is a wide open standard. It just means if this occurs, this is one of the options you can take to pursue in the medical world. So you know you get X diagnosis and there might be three paths. That's medically indicated. They're all medically indicated. That's fine. That's what the standard is dropping to. So it's not irreparable harm. It's medically indicated. And Julie Tucker: Mm-hmm. Victoria Cobb: it is not just for the physical health of the woman. It includes Julie Tucker: Mm-hmm. Victoria Cobb: mental health. And mental health is undefined. And we all know mental health is a very wide open spectrum that doesn't have great definitions around it. And there's no definition in this. Mental health can be emotional. Anxiety. Well, I don't know. Julie Tucker: Mm-hmm. Victoria Cobb: I we've been some of us on this this podcast have been pregnant. We know what the anxiety looks like when you're about to give birth and change your entire life and become a parent. And we know what those hormones are doing. it is tragic to think that that moment of panic for some women could turn into an abortion. And Julie Tucker: Mm. Victoria Cobb: I'm not saying that it will, but I'm saying that's what it provides. and a lot of people tell us that third trimester is like it's it's never done, or we're just using that as a scare tactic. And to that, I just think folks need to know that if that were the case, they wouldn't be changing the law. If it were never done, and it's just a scare tactic, why are we writing words in a constitution about it? We are because they want to widen that specific standard. So that is also happening. The rest of the amendment, interestingly enough, doesn't Julie Tucker: What? Victoria Cobb: even talk about a doctor. so be before third trimester. Anybody can actually perform your abortion. So that's even more Julie Tucker: Mm. Victoria Cobb: alarming is that there's no medical care standard around even the abortion process prior to the third trimester. and because it's this very clear right, it goes on to say that there can be basically no instance where anything burdens that right. And so the problem we have with that is courts. Prior to Roe, there were many cases around safety standards around abortion facilities. And in many cases, courts literally ruled that somehow it was not a compelling state interest for the state to put rules, medical rules, around facilities. So that literally we have a court case that says we don't need a doctor who's performing an abortion to have a relationship with the nearby hospital, even though abortions get botched Julie Tucker: Mm. Victoria Cobb: and women get sent to the hospital. We don't we're not that what they call them admitting privileges. We're not gonna require admitting privileges. That's gonna be considered blocking a woman's right. We know that that's how the courts have treated those things in the past. So we know that when we put this in our constitution, we're not gonna be able to put any kind of safety standards around those facilities. In Virginia right now, we don't inspect facilities, which is a big deal. We should be. We inspect all sorts of other, you know, if you get your outpatient knee surgery, you've got much better care. But We did inspect them for several years before the Northam administration wiped out all of our safety standards. Julie Tucker: Mm-hmm. Victoria Cobb: And during those years, what we found was horrifying. And some of us who are pro-life kind of get it. We go, you know what, if you don't value the human life in the womb, you're not gonna value the woman's life enough to have the standards that you need either. But nevertheless, what we found was there were clinics that had literally 39 pages of violations, 66 pages of violations. In one case, This is the example I use because I think it's the most telling. these were announced inspections, by the way. So you knew they were coming, which is even more alarming. But in one case, this was under Governor McCuliffe, who calls himself the I'm the brick wall for reproductive rights. That was how we used to like to say it. Like, I'm not gonna let anything get through your right to abortion. His own health commissioner. Immediately suspended the license of a abortion facility after what they saw. Like on the spot, it is unsafe. Women cannot come in here. And it was literally things like they had unlicensed doctors. I didn't even want to know what who those people were or what they were acting like, but they were not actual doctors licensed doing abortion. They also had a woman delivered to the ER from their abortion facility because they didn't have sutures on hand. I don't know a facility that does outpatient surgery. That does not have sutures available. That is insanity. Cindy Mac: Yeah. Victoria Cobb: But that's what we know happened when there were inspections. So we don't have inspections now, but we can't imagine what's happening

there. The only way to get inspections back is you get an administration with a rational brain that puts those back in the law. But if the constitution makes that impossible, we're permanently in a state where these facilities harm not only the unborn child, but the woman herself as well. So these amendments are a mess. Julie Tucker: You you to our listeners, I did not give her my bulleted list of questions in advance and she ripped through every one of Cindy Mac: Mm-hmm. Julie Tucker: them and then some. And I particularly like the peanut butter and bad pill analogy. Cindy Mac: Mm. Julie Tucker: so just what is the biggest thing that you believe voters are missing? 'Cause the way you explain that, Victoria, even if I was, you know, pro abortion, you you've made me think about what all this does. What do you think is that voters are missing when they read or hear about Amendment One. Victoria Cobb: I mean, I think the biggest thing is that they when we hear abortion, we run to our camps, right? Like we hear the word, and whichever camp you're in, you run in that direction. If you're pro-life, you run this way. If you're if you're pro-choice, you run this way. And the reality is that these are about the parameters around abortion. This unfortunately, I mean, I'd love an amendment where we were actually banning some abortion and pulling it back, but that's not what this is about. And so most voters just don't understand that this isn't the cut and dry, are we gonna have abortion in Virginia? This unfortunately is Much deeper than that. And really, I think most Virginians actually would agree with us on safety standards, they'd agree on parental rights, they'd agree on late trimester, but they're just not understanding that that's really what this is about. It has nothing to do with whether it's legal or not, because it is legal now, and unfortunately, it will remain legal no matter how we vote on this. It's really about are we gonna have any rules around it, protect anyone involved with it? you know, is there gonna be any ability to hold doctors accountable, which is another piece of this? Really mention, but they basically shield anybody that's involved in providing the abortion. Well, that's all your medical professionals in this case, since they don't define doctor, we don't know who else is going to be involved, but anybody involved with providing an abortion, but there's also bad actors that help women get abortions. They're called sex traffickers, pimps, coercive boyfriends. And this amendment, because it's just worded so badly, is going to make it hard to hold those people accountable. So there's just so much that people are going to miss. And what's really unfortunate is if people wait. Wait till they go to the ballot box to learn about this. Even what they're gonna read when they get in there isn't gonna be accurate. So I would say the average person doesn't realize that the summary that goes on your ballot is not the full language that goes into the Constitution. And they don't know the process of how that works. In Virginia, those summaries aren't written by some neutral third party, some outside lawyer that says, let's, you know, explain what this is gonna do in layman's terms. It's written by the same people that brought you the amendment, the politicians. So if they like this thing, they want you to vote for it, how are they gonna write the summary? Well, they're gonna write it sort of Tilting you in a direction. Well, this one is extreme because it doesn't actually list any of these impacts I'm talking to you about. And it almost makes it sound like it does something else. It almost, you would walk in, and any layman reader would read it and think, okay, this is going to keep abortion legal, but it's still going to let me have some standards around third trimester, because that's literally how the definition is written. And it's so bad that our law center is actually litigating over it because we've never seen a more Fraudulent explanation to the voter. And we think voters have the right to not be defrauded by their government when they're trying to decide what goes in their constitution. So there's actually litigation on this. But I just I worry about the average person that just, okay, it's election day. I'm gonna go see what's on the ballot, and they're gonna read this, and they just won't have an honest understanding what's happening. Cindy Mac: Well, and I think that's why it's so important what the Family Foundation is doing is getting out and educating voters, because you're right. The the verbiage on all three of these amendments is just unbelievably misleading. It's it's more deceitful than what we saw in in April. And I love what you said about the sex traffickers, but this is a sex trafficker's dream right here. And Victoria Cobb: It is. Cindy Mac: this is by no stretch of the imagination reproductive freedom and it definitely is not women's health care. It's just Victoria Cobb: Yeah. Cindy Mac: it's atrocious. I cannot believe like they're destroying every anything they can at the wall to see if it sticks. And unfortunately, because people aren't engaged, they're not paying attention to what's happening, they can't get their heads out of their phones for more than five minutes. They don't know what they're voting for. So thank you so much for Victoria Cobb: And I think Cindy Mac: what you guys are doing. It's so important. Victoria Cobb: Well, and I think I think the average person doesn't think through, even if you support abortion and you wanna keep that abortion right, the politicians could have given us language that secured abortion without making it unsafe, without overturn, but they chose to go so far. And honestly, we we can say no to this. And the pro-choice voter, you know, they can push for a better amendment in the future. Now we're gonna still oppose it because I don't wanna see abortion expanded in any way, shape, or form. I don't wanna see it

locked in our constitution. But it's it's they're giving us a false choice. Like, if you don't do this, you know, there'll be no abortion in Virginia. That's not true. Unfortunately, we're highly we are the most permissive state in the entire Julie Tucker: Mm. Victoria Cobb: American South for abortion. so we will still very much have abortion. So the voter just needs to understand this isn't a yes or no the you know situation where if I don't accept all this unsafe stuff, we won't have abortion anymore for the the rare case of rape or whatever it is that the person thinks there's a valid reason for abortion. we absolutely will still unfortunately have abortion in Virginia for those cases and more, and we need to get them to these politicians to start working towards scaling back abortion, but certainly not making it more unsafe. Cindy Mac: Mm. Julie Tucker: So we see a similar approach with the marriage amendment, which is the second one, in that the language is doing something that voters might not understand. So same sex marriage is already legal nationwide, but why are Virginians then a being asked to amend the Virginia constitution if it's already legal nationwide? Victoria Cobb: Yeah, so twenty years ago we decided as Virginians that this civil unions and then marriage was coming into play. And we said we're gonna put in our constitution a definition of marriage that's between a man and a woman, because we know kids deserve a mom and a dad. And ultimately, that is still true today. It was true then that it is to intentionally create households where a child will never be able to have a parent maybe of their own sex, where they, you know, where a young girl learns from her mom about puberty. We know that there are heroic single parents that are raised. Their kids every day, but the idea that we're intentionally depriving kids is tragic. So that that was put in place for that reason. That's why the Constitution has that in it. and fast forward to 2015, U.S. Supreme Court says, we don't care what your constitution says, we don't care that an overwhelming majority of Virginians decided that. We're going to say that same-sex marriage has to be the law of the land. Okay, so that's where we are today. There are same-sex marriages happening all across Virginia. what voters are gonna hear is that what this does is it enshrines that, it ensures that that will always be the pla the case in Virginia. If the Supreme Court were to overturn The Obergafell decision that gave us same-sex marriage, Virginians will still have it. That's what they'll be told. That is technically true. That is what this will do. But it does a lot more than that. And that's again, they're pushing the envelope, right? They're giving us this, it'll do this thing that er most people feel like is okay or whatever, and then they're pushing it. so where they're pushing it beyond even that, so they could have just struck the words out of our constitution. That would have been one option. They could have just said, you know, marriage will between be between you know two adults of the same sex, but they went further. And what they did is they replaced the words with new words. And now it says that any two and it's interesting, they at least have adults in there. Notice that in the abortion amendment, they don't define the right as going to adults. But in the marriage amendment, they put the word adults because we called them out when the first draft was gonna basically not even say adults had to get married. But nevertheless, it's interesting that they can use the the term, they know how to use the term when they mean it. So they could have used it in the abortion case. But anyway, so it's any two adults get married, of any, and the way they put it is any sex, gender, or race. And, you know, again, what are they doing there? Well, the first thing they're doing is putting race in there so that if we vote against it. We look like racists, right? So that's the first the first piece is just clarifying, you know, for anybody that, you know, how dare you vote against this. obviously, we are well past the days of of bigotry around that, and we do not want that. And it'd be great if they, you know, actually did it just for that purpose, but we know why they have that in there. But then also they are separating sex and gender. that'll Julie Tucker: Mm-hmm. Victoria Cobb: be the first time in the in the foundational document of our Commonwealth that we're saying that there's these two distinct things, and people have to remember. The concept of gender didn't even exist 50 years ago. I mean, it is so new in civilization and it is so undefined. They can't even decide how many genders there are. It depends on the day. So we're putting in this term that is undefined that changes definition on a reg. I mean, I mean, I feel like I've watched 50 definitions of of gender since it came in vogue. Julie Tucker: Yeah. Victoria Cobb: And and and again, when you say sex is one thing, gender is another thing, that basically says that in our constitution, we're giving a right for someone to say that they are a biological sex, but they feel that they are a different gender. And once you've kind of separated those things in such an important document, that's gonna be the thing that gives transgender rights a foothold. It means that when we battle, and you know we've had these exhaustive battles in the Commonwealth over boys and girls' sports, men and women's locker rooms, you name it. Pronouns. When we have those battles in the future, if we say yes to this amendment and it goes to our constitution, we have those battles in future, they're going to point to the constitution. And they're going to say, we have a case for the fact that our sex and our gender are allowed to be different. And you have to honor that. You have to give us the rights that flow. Because again, these are rights we're handing out. I know it says we're handing the right to

marriage, but we're in that rights section. It's just not a great idea to have those two things distinct. If you have any understanding that transgenderism is not productive and, in fact, harmful for the individuals that are caught in the deception of not understanding how their bodies were created. I mean, it's tragic even for the people that demand the rights. so all that to say that is and we did bring this up. They could have in the same way they they in the second draft they put in adult and they put in two because we also their first draft incidentally you know did not define between two adults and we called them on it. Maybe we shouldn't have 'cause maybe more people if this were about polygamy we'd actually, you know, have a bet have a have an even better shot at the ballot box. But bottom line, they fixed it when they knew that we could make a fair accusation because again, that's not crazy talk anymore. Read the articles, you know, poly relationships of various types are growing and growing to being pushed into the norm. So all that to say, we really pushed them on that. They fixed it, but they would not fix just eliminating the word gender out of this, which they just claim they they claim they weren't trying to do anything extra, but they wouldn't pull it out. So we know where they're going with that. and then the next piece that's important in this is that we wanted them to put a very explicit freedom for our faith community clause in there. Because again, out of same-sex marriage flows everything that we've been experiencing. So once you get same-sex marriage, which we have, you know that you then in every facet of society get basically forced. to try to affirm, celebrate, be a part of. And that's every institution is is kind of coming against the individual who maybe for a faith reason does not support same-sex marriage. And so it's from that Wh whenever you put it in the policy, you get people losing their jobs because they won't comply with June Pride Month or pronouns or any of these things. And so we wanted some very explicit language around people of faith. And in particular, the easiest would have been, and they don't have this in there. So sometimes it's about what's in there, and sometimes it's about what's not in the amendment. And they they just don't have any language protecting clergy in particular. You know, it the idea that we can't be just explicitly clear that a pastor who their definition of marriage is done by God, not by the state. And they should be able to clearly enforce only a biblical definition of of marriage. But instead, they're gonna deal with the state law. And I we tell people our law center will defend any pastor to the moon and back. that doesn't want to do same-sex marriage. And we believe under the US Constitution and the First Amendment, we have solid grounds and we will protect them. But when you do this and you do it so lackluster and you don't put clarity in your Constitution, there will be A same-sex couple that walks into a church, demands to be married, a pastor that says no, and they will litigate. And they will Julie Tucker: Yeah. Victoria Cobb: this thing will be difficult and and you know, judges are not always as they should. So the concern is just even I tell people the pain is the process. I mean the punishment, let alone whether you're found guilty or innocent by the end. When you go through litigation like that, a church having to walk through the procedure of litigation, if you think about Jack the Baker. You know, didn't Cindy Mac: Mm. Victoria Cobb: want to bake a cake celebrating same-sexual marriage. It was like seven years of course. Julie Tucker: Mm. Victoria Cobb: That is nothing we wish for any church. So why couldn't the General Assembly ensure that we were crystal clear that that's what we intended? And they'll say, we have a statute about that. Again, constitution, bigger than statute. We don't like not having clarity. When you insert something so significant. There should be clarity that flows from it. So this amendment is troubling on a number of fronts. And I just personally don't like the fact that marriage was defined as something that has rights, benefits, and obligations. We believe marriage Julie Tucker: Mm-hmm. Victoria Cobb: is a serious undertaking, and we believe we should have that described that way because we actually teach family life education based on what our law says. So when our constitution has now changed it, if you look at the new words, it's basically going to be a personal privilege of you know, it's it's like your it's like your right because you love. Somebody to it's your aiming for happiness. There's nothing anymore about obligations. and I just I also think that's just very unfruitful for where we want to go for solid solid families and future when we think about family life education is supposed to be teaching from how we describe these things in our code. So from a number of reasons, it's just no good. Julie Tucker: You know, again, listeners, she did not have the bullet points, but she almost went through them systemically. So I'm starting to think she's perhaps a little psychic. so Victoria Cobb: Ha ha ha Julie Tucker: the most important thing when voters walk into the ballot box you know, fill out their ballot and and and check yes or no on this amendment. What's the most important thing they need to keep at the top of their mind? 'Cause there's a Victoria Cobb: There was Julie Tucker: lot here. Victoria Cobb: That the language that's going in is not the language they are seeing, and they really need to know ahead of time. They just need to not like walk in and think they're reading something and it makes sense because they're just not. And it I, you know, that's what's tragic about it is we should at least expect that we get enough honesty from our politicians that when we're asked to make a big-time policy decision, we at least know what it's gonna be about. And so we need

folks to just be thinking, these are bad ideas, we have people trying to push the envelope. and it's just a no across the board. You're gonna get three amendments, it's just an easy no. you know, none of them are fruitful and helpful and in fact in many cases very, very harmful. and you just I mean you have to be honest about what our General Assembly is now. It is full of very, very left-wing ideologues who have an agenda. They're pretty honest about it sometimes if you listen carefully. And these amendments are to take our constitution in the direction of their agenda. And it's it's tragic just because it's not just a law. A law you can reverse the next year. You know, you'd if they if you know if if if they had passed a law on abortion and we argued you can't have safety standards, and they actually wanted safety standards. Found out, you're right, we can't have we could go back and we could fix that the next year. Just go back to General Assembly, we all get on board. Okay, we we want safety standards. With an amendment, it is changing your constitution, it is a multi-year process. And amendments just I mean, they're typically it's generations that are gonna pay the price of something that's bad that's in your constitution. if you think about We're changing the marriage amendment. It's twenty years from when we touched it last time. And that's twenty years of of damage done when it's done if it were in reverse. You know, if we did the if we said yes this time, you know, it'd be twenty years of damage before, you know, we really reverse that. Cindy Mac: Victoria, you spoke about the lack of protection for churches and businesses, ministries, in in this amendment. And you know if this passes, those lawsuits, I'm sure they already got them ready to go. They're gonna they've got it all lined up, they've got players in place to go into these churches to start the ball rolling. They're gonna come fast and they're gonna come furious. And I'm very concerned about churches. literally going bankrupt over over trying to fight these pastors. Do you think do you think we're going to see pastors go to jail if this happens? Victoria Cobb: I I mean I have no I have no pretense that they, I mean, the bottom line is they've been running a play for a while, right? Like when we think about this, this is not, I mean, society didn't get this way on accident. We are not where we are without people who intentionally thought we need to not not just sort of start pushing the envelope on all these issues, but really get to the top of the institutions, whether it's the corporations or the universities. I mean there was some very real intentionality. You can actually go back to a a a thing written in the 70s after the ball and it it's a it's a game plan and they've been running the the running the plan. And and folks, the plan isn't over. The plan moves from same sex marriage and transgenderism to pedophilia to polyamorous. I mean the plan we think we're sort of at the you know, this has gotta be the the as bad as it can get. No, no. and and you know I I hate to say it, but 20 years ago we're talking about the marriage amendment. They would say, marriage is just between, you know, two people who love each other. What's your what's your problem? I mean, that was really the debates we would have. And I'd say, no, there's a there's a downstream trickle effect that happens when you do this, and now we're here. So we need to in this moment go, we're not crazy to be worried about things like pedophilia and polygamy and all all of the various deviations of what God designed. I mean fundamentally this is about do we trust the creator of the universe who said how families are meant to flourish to be the guide? And I mean thousands of years of civilization and we're we're thinking we're smarter than how this has always worked and how people have always benefited from those institutions. Cindy Mac: It's really scary too to see what's happening in our churches. We had a lady, this was not in our county, it was another county, but we had a lady that was going around notifying pastors that they were having an event where they would learn about these amendments. She was literally thrown out of a church and told, We do Victoria Cobb: Yeah. Cindy Mac: not want to discuss them. We will not be involved in this. Well then what are you doing? What are you doing? Victoria Cobb: Yeah. Cindy Mac: And I think that's the big problem is we've got churches full of Christians who don't know what scripture says. So we've allowed the government and society to tell us how to be Christians instead of scriptural. People need to Victoria Cobb: Yeah, we're being discipled by culture. Cindy Mac: absolutely, absolutely. Victoria Cobb: We're being disciple by culture. And I think this is a good moment to kind of you know put a word out to our pastors. you know, they do amazing work sharing God's word and shepherding God's people, but we need to really encourage them to be comfortable speaking about the whole council of God's word, even during election season, and maybe especially during election season, because these are issues, they're not candidates, they're not parties. These are issues that the God's word speaks very clearly to. and people really are looking for guidance from. Their church, and so we're asking pastors to step into this. Don't step away, be willing to speak about these issues and what's going to be coming on the ballot. we're having a one-voice Sunday, September 13th. Churches all across Virginia are all participating. So basically, this is the moment we're gonna mention these ballots. The entire Catholic Church from top to bottom is participating, and then Protestants we're just bringing them, you know, they're not as structurally hierarchical, so we're we're inviting all of them to join. just to make sure that right before early voting starts, we're we're saying what. What does God's word say about these things? What what is

loving our what does loving our neighbor look like in this moment? and you know, there are it's it's amazing to me. there's just such forces that have convinced our churches. This idea of separation of church and state and even on issues that are clearly biblical. and and we even had a issue where a church has referenda signs outside on their their church lawn and the county, and you can guess what kind of county this was, but up in Fairfax apparently sent them a letter trying to tell them they couldn't do that. That's a hundred percent wrong. th this is actually a very different election than even candidates and political parties. The gu the IRS treats it more like More like you're lobbying. More like a as if a pastor was walking into a senator's office and saying, vote this way, which is completely legal and allowed. That's how the that's actually how this election is looked at is because the people become the legislators. That's kind of the idea, like we're actually making the law this time instead of the legislators. And so it's a very different thing to have a county try to threaten a church that somehow it's doing something wrong and do it incorrectly. So our pastors are just under tremendous pressure. and we just, you know, we just need to help them understand that this is a moment that they absolutely should trust. And we need to know that Ohio, for example, they had an amendment on their ballot and their exit polling discovered that 30 it was right about a third about 33% of weekly church attenders voted wrong because the the lies the campaign you know that they were putting on commercials about miscarriage and rape and all the things it that they just people got led astray so we just are praying for our churches to really speak clearly so that people can vote carefully Cindy Mac: I'm surprised it was only thirty three percent when you've only got four percent of American Christians have a actual biblical Victoria Cobb: No, we don't have biblical. Cindy Mac: worldview. Victoria Cobb: Yeah. You're right. That is a significant challenge we face is we've got to do a better job just the body of Christ discipling on everything. Cindy Mac: Mm. One more question, Victoria. That's September thirteenth. What are you calling that? Victoria Cobb: One voice Sunday. So it's just we're s we're gonna speak with one voice as the body of Christ against these amendments. There's a flyer, you can go on our website, familyfoundation.org, and we have a ton of there's two banners if you go there that kind of scroll across. There's a bunch of stuff that scrolls across the top. One's on the abortion amendment, one's on the marriage amendment. but if you click on that, tons of resources, including a flyer about one voice sundae that you could maybe take to your pastor. It also has a video that's done by Bishop Darrell Husband, a wonderful pastor here in Richmond. And and it's an opportunity. Some churches are literally showing it. So it's three minutes. So if you have announcements or you have time that you can show that. Some are sending it out to their email list. So maybe not doesn't fit with the service, but you can actually still provide it to your congregations. And that that's another option. So there's some resources there that people can take advantage of. Cindy Mac: Yeah, thank you. Julie Tucker: So I'm sure Victoria, when you travel and you're discussing these first two amendments, everybody wants you to go to the third one and Victoria Cobb: Yeah. Julie Tucker: say, Well, what do we do about the third one? Can you tell me the Family Foundation's stance on restoring voting rights? Victoria Cobb: Yeah, I mean technically it's outside of our mission, but I'll tell you, you know, it's it's interesting because as believers, of course, we believe in restoration. We believe that people make mistakes and get to serve their time and all all those things, right? So, you know, there's that principle over here. In fact, you know, my organization has people who have served time and have come out and are restored to Christ and restored to our society. So there's there's all that principle there. But then there's sort of the well, what is the civil society? How do we handle all of those things? And right now, Virginia's law is that a governor makes an individual decision. Around people's restoration of rights. So have they served their time? Have they paid restitution? Are they, you know, capable of voting? All those things. And then they get restored individually by the governor. This amendment would restore en masse automatically. And it would restore a felon's rights even if they haven't paid restitution, even if they haven't completed all the things connected to their their sentence. And so, there's a lot of concern around changing the system to be this automatic restoration of rights. and it's interesting, you know, I can't help but note that the governor just did a basically a mass restoration of rights, which I believe is unconstitutional unless unless she literally went one by one by one for thousands. because it's not supposed to work like that. And actually Terry McCullough got called on the carpet for that and had to, I think it was it could have been Norman Nor Northam. I can't remember one of them actually did that and actually the court pulled it all back because it wasn't done correctly. So I'm a little confused how she just did what she did. But I find it interesting that she just did that right before everybody gets to vote about this issue. remember there are intentionality and politicians are they're they're working plans. and so anyway, all that to say that's the third amendment is do you automatically restore all the the rights, the voting rights and whatnot of a felon, even if restitution has not been paid, etc. Julie Tucker: So you think that's the biggest thing voters need to understand about amendment three is do you automatically store restore these rights or do we keep a procedure? Victoria Cobb: Yes. Do we want do we want to keep the same where the governor looks at an an individual and and figures out, are we in a place where your rights should be restored? Julie Tucker: So even though I know and I love the fact that you said the first two amendments are in scope for the Family Foundation, Third Amendment is kind of out of scope. So I love that you guys prioritize and strategize, but you still have a stand on it that offered a biblical worldview. So Victoria Cobb: Yeah, yeah. Yes. Julie Tucker: thank you for that. Victoria Cobb: Yeah, for sure. Julie Tucker: Cindy, do you have any follow up questions about amendment three? Cindy Mac: No, she covered it. She sh it's like she's done this once or twice. I know. Julie Tucker: Yeah. Victoria Cobb: We are speaking a lot of places, so I get the common questions and so maybe I just hit them hit them before they come because we we're we're out so far. We we literally are at about a hundred and I think we're about a hundred and sixty events this year on my team somewhere. You know, we've got a whole team of people, it's not just me, I promise I'm not everywhere, but you know, we're really hitting it hard. Cindy Mac: Victoria, thank you so much for joining us and for helping helping our listeners better understand what's actually being proposed. We really appreciate you being here with us. Victoria Cobb: For sure. Thanks for having me. Cindy Mac: Three amendments, three proposed changes to Virginia's Constitution. Whatever you do, don't wait until you're standing in the voting booth to find out what they say. Read them, understand them, ask questions, and know what you're going to vote before you cast your ballot. And that's all the time we have for today. Thank you for joining us. Be sure to follow us on Facebook at Grace Griffith Dunction. You can email us at podcast at Grafegrip Dunction.us. And listen on Spotify and Apple Podcasts or watch us on YouTube. Grace, grit, and gunction. We don't promise easy answers, but we do promise honest conversation. Until next time, be sure to leave with grace and with grit and move forward with a whole lot of