Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What are Abigail Spanberger's endorsements or ratings from Planned Parenthood and pro-life groups?
Executive Summary
Abigail Spanberger has received explicit endorsements from major pro-choice organizations in 2025, most notably Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia and Reproductive Freedom for All, which cite her congressional record defending abortion access, contraception, and related state protections [1] [2]. Major national pro-life groups have assigned her low scores or negative ratings consistent with her voting record protecting reproductive rights; for example, the Susan B. Anthony List has given her an F in its scorecard, reflecting votes against pro-life legislation [3]. Public material reviewed shows strong alignment between Spanberger’s votes and pro-choice endorsements, while pro-life organizations characterize her record as opposed to their policy goals; direct, formal endorsements from mainstream pro-life groups for Spanberger are not evident in the sources provided [4] [5].
1. What supporters are publicly saying — Planned Parenthood and allies make the case
Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia publicly endorsed Abigail Spanberger for Governor in May 2025, praising her record of defending reproductive freedom, contraception access, and support for state protections such as a Right to Contraception Act and reproductive constitutional amendments; the endorsement frames her as a defender of access compared with her opponent [1] [4]. Reproductive Freedom for All (formerly NARAL) and other pro-choice groups also issued endorsements later in June 2025, repeating the theme that Spanberger’s congressional votes and public commitments align with expanding and protecting abortion and contraception access at the state level [2]. These organizations emphasize Spanberger’s sponsorship or support for legislation like the Women’s Health Protection Act and measures to expand provider capacity, casting endorsements as policy-driven rather than purely partisan [6] [5].
2. What opponents highlight — pro-life groups and negative ratings
Pro-life organizations have not been shown to endorse Spanberger; instead, at least one prominent pro-life group assigned her an F, signaling consistent opposition between her record and pro-life legislative priorities [3]. The Susan B. Anthony List’s scorecard — cited in the analysis material — lists votes by Spanberger against measures such as the Born-Alive Survivors Protection Act and pain-capable limits, and notes her support for bills that protect or expand abortion access, which directly informs the low rating [3]. The available sources document criticisms from pro-life advocates framing Spanberger’s record as actively opposed to protections for the unborn, while no evidence in the provided material shows that pro-life groups offered any favorable ratings or endorsements of her candidacy [3] [5].
3. How Spanberger’s voting record ties the endorsements and ratings together
Spanberger’s congressional votes — supporting the Women’s Health Protection Act, opposing various restrictions, and backing contraception protections — align closely with the criteria used by pro-choice groups to endorse candidates, and these votes are cited in endorsements by Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia and other reproductive-rights groups [6] [5]. Conversely, the same roll-call choices explain low scores from pro-life scorekeepers, who evaluate votes on measures like bans, restrictions, and survivor-protection bills and concluded she opposed those initiatives [3]. The convergence of endorsements and ratings around concrete votes illustrates a clear, evidence-based split: pro-choice groups reward votes expanding access, while pro-life groups penalize votes restricting it, with Spanberger placed firmly on the pro-choice side in the materials reviewed [1] [3].
4. What’s missing, and where nuance matters for readers
The reviewed sources show strong pro-choice endorsements and documented negative ratings from pro-life scorecards, but they do not present a comprehensive catalog of every pro-life organization’s evaluations or any formal communications from Spanberger responding to specific pro-life scorecards [4] [1]. Some endorsements cited are from state-level organizations and PACs (e.g., REPRO Rising Virginia PAC), and timing matters: many endorsements referenced are from May–June 2025, reflecting the election-cycle context in which groups prioritize gubernatorial influence over state abortion policy [1] [2] [5]. Readers should note endorsements often serve advocacy goals and are chosen to influence specific electorates; likewise, scorecards use differing methodologies, so comparisons between organizations require attention to their criteria and timing [3] [2].
5. Bottom line for voters and researchers seeking completeness
Available, recent evidence establishes that Abigail Spanberger received high-profile endorsements from Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia and other pro-choice organizations in 2025 and that prominent pro-life groups have given her poor ratings based on her voting record — with no indication in the provided materials of endorsements from mainstream pro-life organizations [1] [3] [2]. For a fully documented vote-by-vote picture, consult primary sources: the specific congressional roll-call records, the full Susan B. Anthony List scorecard, and the official endorsement announcements from Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia and Reproductive Freedom for All, all of which are cited in the materials above and provide the original language and dates for these determinations [6] [3] [1].