Part 3: How PACS and powerful politicians exert pressure on legislators and voters
By Gretchen Garrity
 |
| From: Bauman Rare Books |
“Save us from weak resignation, To the evils we deplore…”
-- God of Grace and God of Glory
Once compromise and moral confusion enters an institution
all kinds of mischief ensues. The Missouri Legislature, like other institutions,
is composed of both good and bad individuals, and some who think they are doing
good. And there are manifold pressures on legislators by lobbyists, PACs, and other organizations who seek to influence legislation and votes.
In her famous anti-slavery novel “Uncle Tom’s Cabin,”
Harriet Beecher Stowe said, “There is one thing that every individual can
do, – they can see to it that they feel right. An atmosphere of sympathetic
influence encircles every human being; and the man or woman who feels strongly,
healthily and justly, on the great interests of humanity, is a constant
benefactor to the human race. See, then, to your sympathies in this matter! Are
they in harmony with the sympathies of Christ? or are they swayed and perverted
by the sophistries of worldly policy?”
The abortion amendment on the ballot in November--Amendment 3--is the result of the ‘sophistries of worldly policy.’ As noted in parts One and Two, A3 is not a pro-life amendment, but a cunningly devised piece of legislation that preserves a ‘right’ to abort children through regulation of the amendment’s provisions. For more information on the truth of A3 as opposed to what its proponents say, see the resources at the end of this article.
Missouri Right to Life PAC (MRL) and Her Health, Her Future (designed to be a fundraising arm in support of A3) are two Missouri PACs that seek to influence legislators and voters to support the cause of regulating abortion. Freedom Principle Missouri/Missouri First PAC is another ‘conservative’ organization that backs A3. In fact, MRL contributed $15,000 to President Byron Keelin’s Freedom Principle Missouri’s Missouri First PAC in an October 7 MEC filing.
Rudi Keller of The Missouri Independent explains how PACs
also influence state legislative races HERE.
Her Health, Her Future has raised more than $3 million, much of it coming in the last few weeks with anonymous donations of
$750,000, $1.25 million, and $900,000. These anonymous dark money donations coming in the last
weeks of an election season show the determination of certain forces that want
an abortion amendment that preserves abortion rights, but is acceptable and soothing to
pro-life voters.
To do that, the proponents of Amendment 3 have used
deceptive language and tactics and have launched an expensive campaign in
churches around the state to get out the Christian vote. The GOP establishment
on both the state and local levels have also heavily promoted A3.
 |
| Sen. Brattin's Chief of Staff, Tom Estes gets paid by HHHF PAC. From: X |
A3 is a litmus test for pro-life legislators, and groups
like MRL PAC have withheld endorsements based on SJR73(A3) votes. For instance, I asked
Sen. Mike Moon (District 29) about the influence Missouri Right to
Life has on candidates for legislative office. He said, “In the “eyes” of
the general public, MRL is looked at as the “pro-Life” authority. Especially
for new candidates running for office, the MRL endorsement is seen as a
must-have. In reality, though, a candidate can win without the MRL endorsement.”
This is precisely what happened with Rep. Burt Whaley (138th
District), who was endorsed by MRL as was his primary opponent, Tom Franiak in
2024. However, as an incumbent, Whaley was snubbed in the 2026 cycle by the MRL PAC.
Why? Because he was an absent vote on HJR73 (which is now Amendment 3 on November's ballot). In fact, though Whaley
has run on a pro-life platform and has sponsored identical personhood bills, HJR
109 and HB 3056,
MRL endorsed his 2026 primary opponent Tom Franiak, who again opposed Whaley.
According to MRL PAC, their endorsement
criteria is based upon:
“MRL PAC endorsements are non-partisan and are based on
the following guidelines:
• Pro-life Survey
- A candidate must complete an MRL PAC or National Right to Life PAC survey
verifying their pro-life position on abortion, euthanasia, human cloning,
embryonic stem cell research, and other issues that fall under the purview of
MRL.
• Voting record - When a candidate has held office, whether running for the same seat or a different seat, MRL PAC considers up to a four-year voting record to determine a candidate’s eligibility for endorsement. The percentage of pro-life votes required for endorsement is determined by MRL PAC and takes into consideration not only the candidate’s votes, but also the degree of involvement in advancing pro-life legislation and the importance of specific votes.”
Later, MRL PAC gives itself broad parameters in its endorsement criteria, “MRL PAC also considers the political realities and circumstances of each race.” A polite way of saying they will endorse whomever they want and for whatever reasons.
I mentioned to Sen. Moon the situation with Rep. Whaley and
asked him his thoughts. He replied, “In my opinion, MRL wants to be a 'king-maker' (they want to endorse the candidate most likely to win). MRL has
endorsed congressional candidates simply because they had the most money (and,
appeared most likely to win because of it).”
Whaley won both primaries in large landslides, which proved Sen. Moon’s assertion that a candidate does not need MRL’s endorsement to win. Sen. Moon has also won his races without the endorsement of MRL PAC. Candidates are waking up to the political limits of PAC endorsements, especially when those PACs and 501(c)3 organizations compromise on their own principles for political expediency.
I asked Rep. Whaley about the situation with MRL PAC. He told me, "During the 2026 General Assembly session, I had the following conversation with [Executive Director and Chief Lobbyist] Susan Klein and another individual. I explained the reason for my absent vote. During our conversation, Susan stated three times that HJR 73 (A3) was a very important vote. She also expressed concerns about the personhood bills that Sen. Mike Moon and I are sponsoring, alleging that the bills criminalized women for having abortions."
Here you see the emphasis on women and not pre-born babies that has characterized MRL's focus for some time. Whaley went on to say, "I stated that we must move toward a culture of life rather than a culture of death. I further explained I would like to see mothers who have aborted their children participate in mandatory trauma-informed counseling, educational programming on the developmental stages of a baby from conception to birth, a postpartum recovery program, and a visit to a pregnancy resource center."
Rep. Whaley also said, "Based on the conversation, it seemed clear that I would not receive an endorsement from MRL for the 2026 election cycle. Ultimately, I was not endorsed by MRL during either the primary or the general election for the 2026 election cycle."
ENDORSEMENTS NOT WHAT THEY'RE CRACKED UP TO BE
I also asked Sen. Moon how candidates and
legislators viewed MRL’s endorsement, or lack thereof. He replied, “It is my
belief (due to having discussions with candidates and legislators about the MRL
endorsement) that most candidates for elected office revere the endorsement and
will do whatever is necessary to gain it.
Here’s a truth I discovered when I was first elected in
2013: I was encouraged to allow a campaign consultant to review the MRL survey
before submitting my answers. I questioned the request and was told it was
simply to ensure that I had provided the answers wanted by MRL. My rebuttal
was: If I don’t know my position well enough to answer the survey, how will I
be able to defend my position? (I didn’t offer the survey for review.)
Later, perhaps a year or so, I related my experience to a
lobbyist. The lobbyist told me that he previously worked for HRCC (House
Republican Campaign Committee) and part of his responsibilities was to complete
surveys for candidates (once complete, the candidate would sign the survey and
submit it to the MRL).
As a result of this new-found information, I contacted
the MRL staff responsible for endorsements, Dave Plemmons [the chairman of MRL PAC], and related the
story told by the former HRCC staffer. Mr. Plemmons told me that he didn’t care
who completed the survey. He was only interested in the candidate’s signature.
I imagine that there may be a good number of elected
officials who did not personally complete the MRL survey (and, as a result, do
not truly know what they believe about the sanctity of life).
I have cast some fairly hard votes – often being the only Republican House or Senate member to vote against a bill sanctioned by MRL. Some have actually told me afterward they wished they had voted the same as I did (they feared reprisal in their next election).”
THE GOP SCHISM RUNS BOTH WAYS
Missouri’s First Lady Claudia Kehoe is the treasurer of
Her Health, Her Future. The political cachet that brings is illustrative of how things work
in Jefferson City. MRL
declined to endorse Mike Kehoe in 2024 for the general election, and it is commonly believed because he
was in favor of rape and incest exceptions for abortion legislation. The
non-endorsement caused a rift noted HERE. MRL PAC endorsed Jay Ashcroft in July of 2023, more than a year before the primary.
Republican state Sen. Mike Cierpiot had this to say:
“Their leadership, Ms. (Susan) Klein, and Mr. (Dave)
Plemmons and Mr. (Steve) Rupp have been much more interested in causing
Republican brush fires over issues with much smaller or no impact on the huge
effort for life.”
According to the Missouri Independent article, he accused
MRL “of focusing more on enforcing purity of thought and maintaining
its influence within the GOP than writing laws acceptable to most Missourians.”
The article went on:
“The problems with Missouri Right to Life was evident in
the 2024 elections when it made single-candidate endorsements, freezing out
candidates who had been ardent anti-abortion legislators. The organization
endorsed then-Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft in the Republican primary for
governor, then refused to endorse Republican nominee Mike Kehoe for the general
election.
Other Republicans who won without the endorsement of
Missouri Right to Life joined in the criticism. State Sen. Mary Elizabeth
Coleman, a Republican from Arnold, said the law triggered by the 2022 abortion
decision was negotiated in spite of Missouri Right to Life, not with its help.
‘I don’t know that I really care, frankly, that they
didn’t endorse me,’ Coleman said. ‘What I do care about is that they didn’t
endorse Gov. Kehoe in the primary, and they didn’t endorse him in the general.’”
Setting aside MRL’s obvious change of heart over rape and
incest exceptions after the 2024 election, it has to be noted that establishment Republicans like Cierpiot and Gov. Kehoe, are advocating for the regulation of
abortion rather than its abolishment. And once a squishy 'pro-life' candidate assumed the governorship, the troops fell in line.
 |
| From: X |
Considering that Missouri is historically a fervent pro-life state, the pro-abortion narrative that was built after abortion was narrowly approved in 2024 is making it difficult for legislators and establishment pro-life groups to hold the line. One might say there is a powerful segment of the Republican Party in Missouri that has succumbed to compromise, as was indicated when then-candidate Lieut. Gov. Mike Kehoe noted his support of rape and incest exceptions during the 2024 campaign season, and won despite the lack of endorsement from MRL.
Kehoe had the backing and endorsement of large lobbying organizations and copious campaign funds and apparently was willing to risk the lack of an MRL endorsement. Perhaps it is time candidates for legislative office should vet the establishment pro-life organizations like MRL.
Since Kehoe's election, MRL has fallen in line with rape and incest exceptions, and Claudia Kehoe’s Her Health, Her Future PAC is easily commanding funding in support of A3. The strategy is to pull in political support from churches, which are often weak and disengaged during mid-terms. To that end, there has been a campaign with establishment PACs like MRL and HHHF, along with the Missouri GOP to get Christians out to vote in favor of allowing abortion.
Gov. Kehoe is willing to expend political capital on supporting Amendment 3, when his support for both amendments 4 and 5 handed him embarrassing losses in the August primary. It may turn out that MRL’s lack of an endorsement for him contained a kernel of wisdom.Former state representative and former pastor Doug Richey, is one of many influencers who opposed rape and incest exceptions in 2022. "Fundamentally tied to the pro-life position is the idea that the baby in the womb is a human being. And that human being, being innocent of any crime, innocent of any wrongdoing in what took place to bring about that child's existence--that child's life should be protected," Richey said at the time. Richey is one of many who have fallen in line with MRL, HHHF and Gov. Kehoe by also advocating for Amendment 3.
According to reports, the 2024 abortion amendment that enshrined abortion up to fetal viability into the state constitution awoke the GOP to a realization that abortion exceptions would be needed in order to repeal the current amendment (or so that is the narrative). As a result, there has been an incrementalist retrenchment in how Republican legislators and establishment pro-life groups view the abortion battle.
Exceptions are now acceptable in the long march against abortion. Apparently one has to vote FOR abortion before one can vote AGAINST it. The retreat into abortion exceptions has greatly hindered
the pro-life movement’s integrity.
 |
| From: X |
According to MRL’s latest federal tax form 990, their mission briefly stated is, “To educate the public about abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia, and to support positive alternatives to abortion."
Their 990 is more in line with how MRL behaves politically than the rhetoric on their website. Like many NGOs, MRL seems to be heavy on “education” and short on actual solutions and outcomes, to the point that they are endorsing a pro-abortion amendment they have helped to cloak in pro-life language.
The abortion abolitionist movement has pointed out the spectacular failure of an incremental strategy of ending abortion. That pro-life organizations and Christian legislators have elected to use the same failed strategy may be indicative of a slow giving in to abortion by incremental degrees, rather than a renewed intention to end it.
A politically connected friend quipped, "They will run to break God's law before they will ever break with the GOP establishment."
I asked Sen. Moon what responsibility pastors and Christians in general had when pondering how to vote on A3. He said, "According to the Scripture, people in general are commanded to not murder because we are made in the image of God (Genesis). Since followers of Christ claim to believe that God is sovereign, we must, if we truly believe what we say we believe, we cannot justify with Scripture the unequal justice in A3.The Bible is replete with examples demonstrating how God
worked through the lives of people who followed Him and did not 'bow' to the
demands of the world around them.
Pastors must teach Biblical truth to the church (and, even
if, truth is not taught, Christians must seek what the Bible says, compare this
truth against A3) and vote accordingly."
I also asked Sen. Moon about incrementalism and he responded, "Incremental approaches have been tried for over 50 years. Although, some will argue that progress has been made to reduce the number of abortions in MO and across the nation, the (seemingly short) gains have been overtaken by those who support the murder of pre-born children – as was the case following the Dobbs decision. Today, it seems we are much farther away from ending (or seeing reductions in) abortion, than we were 50 years ago.
As a result of incrementalism, abortion is rampant in MO. If
A3 passes, abortion will remain legal in MO and, according to statistics,
abortion will continue to abound among MO women (due to the inability to
prevent out-of-state travel to procure abortion and/or acquiring abortion drugs
via mail order)."
GOPe RESISTS EQUAL PROTECTION AND PERSONHOOD BILLS
This is the hard truth that legislators and establishment pro-life groups are ignoring or purposely obscuring in their scramble to garner a political "win." I asked the senator about personhood and equal protection bills.
"Currently, even though, personhood and equal protection bills have been filed, heard in committee, and voted “do pass” in at least two sessions, there is no strong desire to see the measures placed on the ballot for votes state wide.
In my opinion, MO can pass bills to regulate abortion, but
until pre-born babies are recognized as persons and offered equal protection
and due process of law (holding those who murder [accountable]) abortion will abound in our
state." I noted in a previous article MRL's opposition to equal protection and personhood bills because they criminalize the act of abortion for the mothers.
 |
| From: X |
I further asked about how exceptions dehumanize babies conceived in rape or incest, and those who have fetal anomalies. Sen. Moon responded, "The exceptions create an unprotected class of humans. It has been argued that the exceptions are only a small percentage of the murders by abortion. Since A3 requires no accountability for the claims of rape or incest, the number of babies killed as a result cannot be estimated. In addition, in cases of medical emergency and fetal anomaly, no time limit is established to prevent the murder.
It should also be mentioned that in cases of medical
emergency, currently there are not restrictions on procedures to intervene
(and, in all cases, the mother’s life can be saved by performing an emergency
C-section, if necessary). There are not laws preventing such procedures.
I have discovered, even though, few are willing to admit,
that even with ectopic pregnancies, there have been successful removal and
implantation of the embryo resulting in live births (and, sparing the life of
the mother).
This attitude also opens the door for allowing the murder of
the elderly (since some only take up resources and are no longer able to
contribute to society)."
Sen. Adam Schnelting, who sponsored Amendment 3 and has reportedly admitted to authoring some of it, was against exceptions in 2019 when he added a trigger law amendment to HB 126. According to a May 18, 2019 article in St. Louis Today, Schnelting said at the time, "If we are in fact pro-life, what kind of hypocrite would I be to not have a bill that is 100 percent pro-life?"
Underscoring the schism in Missouri politics over the abortion issue, Christian pastors have entered the fray and are lining up on both sides of Amendment 3. In 2025, public testimony about A3 showed the split between Christian voters and legislators. According to an article at KSDK at the time, "Schnelting during Wednesday’s hearing said his amendment serves to clarify the state’s abortion laws, pointing to the millions of dollars in ads paid for by the Amendment 3 campaign, which he said misled voters."
Oh, the irony of that statement in light of the current campaign for A3 (2026), which has run the gamut from falsely claiming 99% of abortions will be stopped, to saying parental rights will be protected (they are already codified in state law), to ignoring the vast majority of abortions by chemical means via Telehealth.
In what is arguably the clearest statement on the moral implications of A3, the article quoted a pastor: "The Rev. Brian Davis, a Missouri pastor who came to Jefferson City on Wednesday to oppose Schnelting’s bill, called the rape and incest exceptions 'a failed attempt to manage evil.'"
Dr. Abby Johnson has spoken eloquently on the subject of abortion and equal protection for pre-born babies.
"Our ministry, And Then There Were None, serves women who have had abortions. Not women who were thinking about having an abortion. Not women who were “abortion determined.” Women who actually had the abortion...We know the pressures these women faced. We know the lies they were told. We know the pain many of them carry. And after years of listening, our ministry made a decision.We publicly embraced equal protection for the unborn. Not because it was popular. Not because it was politically expedient. Not because it would help fundraising. If anything, it made life harder. We did it because we became convinced it was right.
That should mean something. The testimony of former abortion workers should matter. The voices of women who have actually had abortions should matter. The experience of those who spent years inside the industry should matter..."
'FIGHTING' ABORTION IS EXPENSIVE
If it passes, A3 will make no significant dent in abortion statistics in Missouri. But many establishment pro-life groups and people may sit back and relax, content to know they won...something. The push for equal protection for pre-born babies will most likely continue to be opposed by establishment types. Instead, the abortion industrial complex, both pro- and anti-abortion will continue to cheerlead and raise funds. The show must go on.
Pastors and Christians like Tom Estes and Alex Bryant, and state employees like Sherry Kutenkuller Arthaud will continue to take payments from PACS like Her Health, Her Future for strategic planning, grassroots management, grassroots coordinating, etc.
According to HHHF's MEC filing reports, Estes, who earns about $91,000 a year as Sen. Rick Brattin's chief of staff, has received ten $5,000 payments since the end of December 2025 until the end of September 2026 for "strategic planning" services. Pastor Alex Bryant, who is listed on the MEC report as providing "grassroots management" has received five payments of $5,000 each between May and September. Sherry Kutenkuller Arthaud, chief of staff for Sen. Adam Schnelting, has received payments and reimbursements of over $14,000 since June for "grassroots coordinating." She earns $100,000 per year as Schnelting's chief of staff.
In a very important Oct. 19 debate hosted by Mizzou Law's Society for Biblical Jurisprudence, Sen. Mike Moon discusses Missouri Right to Life's politicking. His comments start around the 59:00:00 mark. You have to go to YouTube to access the video. Link HERE.
In all the vile rush to "win" back some semblance of a "pro-life" victory since 2024's Amendment 3 ballot approval, the most vulnerable among humanity--pre-born babies--have become a political football. While Republicans schism over what it means to be pro-life, the pro-abortion industry is pushing for over-the-counter abortion pills.
Pro-life candidates should not fear organizations like Missouri Right to Life or Her Health, Her Future or a lack of endorsement. Their moral influence is weak. The evidence these groups are more interested in political power than saving babies is clear.
It is time to pass equal protection and personhood bills. Establishment pro-life politicians who are content to be Incrementalists will never end abortion. And you might want to ask yourself if that has become the goal--always fighting, always regulating, never ending abortion.
Listen to Dr. Abby:
"The reality is that every successful human rights movement has eventually arrived at the same conclusion: Human beings are entitled to equal protection under the law."
Additional Resources:
- Jennifer Barker with (Informed Health Choice Missouri) ICHM gives a line-by-line analysis in this video. (There are also many helpful links below the video)
- Pro-life Laws are Keeping Abortion Legal
- Act for Missouri article on A3
- Abolish Abortion Missouri
- Foundation to Abolish Abortion
- Will A3 save 98-99% of babies?
- Updated analysis of 2025 abortions with provider bans (Foundation to Abolish Abortion)
- I had two abortions. Here's why the law would have stopped mine
