Playback speed:
The unborn in Virginia are now in the crosshairs.
With new political leadership and a General Assembly openly committed to expanding abortion, there is no longer any ambiguity about what lies ahead. If the Church remains passive, the result will not be confusion—it will be carnage.
Thousands of unborn children will die, not because Christians were unaware, but because too many chose silence, delay, or comfort over obedience. Scripture has a name for that: the sin of omission.
Dr. Michael Huffman, Executive Director of the Virginia Assembly of Independent Baptists, has requested that the following letter be published verbatim. We are honoring that request because this is not speculation. It is a firsthand account of how life-and-death decisions are being handled by those who now hold power in Richmond.
Read this letter with sober eyes. What happens next will determine whether the blood of the unborn cries out against the Church—or whether the Church finally stands.
Here is the letter from
Dr. Michael Huffman
Executive Director
A Revealing Encounter: My Interview with Delegate-Elect Jessica Anderson on Abortion Rights in Virginia
In November 2025, Jessica Anderson, a Democrat and community advocate, narrowly defeated Republican incumbent Amanda Batten to become Delegate-elect for Virginia’s 71st House District, encompassing parts of Williamsburg, James City County, and New Kent County. Anderson campaigned heavily on protecting reproductive rights, supporting a proposed constitutional amendment to enshrine abortion access in the state constitutional measure that would put the decision to voters via referendum in 2026 if advanced by the legislature. As someone deeply concerned about the biblical, moral and ethical implications of unrestricted abortion policies, I sought an interview with Anderson to discuss her views on a key resolution tied to this amendment.
The conversation quickly exposed significant inconsistencies and evasions in Anderson’s positions, raising serious questions about her preparedness to legislate on such a profound issue.
First, it became evident that Anderson had not thoroughly read or engaged with the text of the reproductive rights resolution she champions. When pressed on specific language, particularly provisions that could broadly expand abortion access without clear limits, she appeared unfamiliar with details, offering vague responses about “protecting freedoms” rather than addressing the resolution’s implications directly. This is troubling for a delegate-elect who has made reproductive rights a cornerstone of her platform, pledging to vote yes on advancing the amendment to referendum. If she hasn’t closely examined the resolution’s wording, how can voters trust her to represent their interests thoughtfully in Richmond?
A central point of contention arose when discussing abortion as a form of birth control. Anderson firmly denied that women use abortion in this way, insisting it is a rare, deeply considered medical decision driven by complex circumstances. Yet, public reports from her own campaign reveal a different story: As a college student, Anderson experienced birth control failure and chose abortion, crediting the procedure with enabling her to build the family she later desired. This personal experience aligns precisely with using abortion as backup contraception after primary methods fail—a scenario many women face and one that contradicts her blanket denial. Her dismissal of this reality not only undermines her credibility but ignores the broader data showing repeat abortions often linked to contraceptive inconsistencies or non-use.
The interview grew tense when I described the abortion procedure in detail, outlining the medical steps involved in common methods like dilation and evacuation. Anderson became uncomfortable eventually attempting to redirect the conversation. This reaction is telling: A staunch advocate for expansive abortion rights, who supports policies potentially allowing procedures up to later stages, seemed unable to confront the graphic reality of what she endorses. If describing the procedure causes discomfort, it begs the question—why push for policies that normalize it without acknowledging its gravity?
Perhaps most revealing were Anderson’s refusals to answer direct hypotheticals that test the limits of her “reproductive freedom” stance. When asked whether a woman should have the right to an abortion solely because she prefers a boy over a girl (sex-selective abortion), she declined to respond, offering no clear condemnation or support. Sex selection, while rare in the U.S., raises profound ethical issues about discrimination and the devaluation of life based on characteristics like sex. Her silence here avoids grappling with whether unrestricted rights could enable such practices.
Similarly, when questioned about religious violations embedded in the resolution’s language—specifically, how broad protections might force faith-based institutions or individuals to participate in or fund procedures against their conscience—she again would not engage, sidestepping the issue entirely. Virginia’s diverse population includes many whose religious beliefs view abortion as morally wrong; ignoring potential conscience protections dismisses these valid concerns.
Anderson’s performance in this interview highlights a broader pattern in extreme pro-abortion advocacy: strong rhetoric about “rights” and “freedom,” but reluctance to confront uncomfortable truths, ethical edge cases, or personal inconsistencies. As Delegate-elect, she will soon vote on measures with life-altering consequences. Virginians deserve leaders who have read the fine print, acknowledge real-world applications (including their own histories), and answer tough questions head-on—not ones who evade when the discussion gets difficult.
This encounter left me convinced that Anderson’s positions prioritize ideology over nuanced understanding, potentially at the expense of ethical safeguards and religious liberties. As the fight over Virginia’s reproductive rights amendment continues, voters in the 71st District—and across the Commonwealth—should demand more transparency and accountability from those shaping these laws.
The Virginia Assembly of Independent Baptists is hard at work at our state Capital to ensure your religious freedom. We would love to come to your Church and energize you and the congregation for righteousness with the laws that are passed. To schedule a meeting, please call 804-960-4015 and we will get you on our schedule. If you have any questions, please call me at 804-960-4014 or email me at director@vaib.org.
Yours for the Master,
Dr. Michael Huffman
Executive Director
