Cross Post

David Rice of Hick Christian has written a critique of a Freedom Principle Missouri presentation about the new Amendment 3, due to be voted on in November's election.

The New A3 is still pro Abortion

A3 still allows for Abortion—95% of the abortions in this state won’t be touched at all

 By David Rice

Tonight, I attended a local Missouri Republican Assembly’s meeting. They were hosting Missouri Freedom Principle’s speaker, Katie Sickles, speaking on Amendment 3.

No, not Amendment 3, from 2024, but the new 2026 Amendment 3 which is a tacky attempt to fix a terrible constitutional amendment with a bandaid. For some stats, go here.

Around 4000 women are having telehealth abortions yearly. After the Ban went into place after the Dobbs decision, Abortion nearly doubled. I covered here in my article, Sausage Factory.

Below, you can listen to Gretchen Garrity and me question Katie Sickles. Some of our questions land and some don’t. We got push back. We were alone, going into a room, where we were the outnumber twenty to two with our contrarian views. When I walked in, people saw me, and their faces dropped. It’s funny how quickly I can take the joy out of a room.

We’re abolitionists stuffed into a room of compromisers at the Nixa’s Godfather’s. Like real pepperoni on vegan pizza—so authentic that it hurts.

I recorded the whole lecture, but it’s kind of boring, but you can find the full spiel on YouTube here.

 

There are two ways to think about this bill. One is to argue that we still exist under the old Roe v Wade tyranny. We must win every battle, inch by inch, slowly over time.

Katie Sickles, of Missouri Freedom Principles (run by Byron Keeling who once told me I could work for him as an editor if I stopped being so Christian even on my own substack), holds we have to win this fight over time. She also holds we can trust the legislators. She held that it was only one Senator who stopped IP Reform in 2024 which would have stopped Amendment 3 from reaching the ballot. It’s a long story, but Mary Elizabeth Coleman was not the fly in the ointment. She was one person in a Super Majority Republican Senate working with Senate President Pro Tem, Caleb Rowden, to kill IP reform. I covered it here.

Bryon knows that because he asked to publish this letter and this photo on my substack then:

Open Letter to House of Representatives from Freedom Principle

But now he’s running around the state trying to convince us we can trust the Senate and House again. Somehow they’re wonderful—again. His friend and co-journalist, Cary Wells, started to record Gretchen and me. I’m sure he was hoping to embarrass us.

The problem is they aren’t embarrassed that they are committing to a law which does nothing.

Amendment 3 changes almost nothing. Really.

It aims at the lowest-hanging fruit, medical restrictions and fetal anomalies, and protects them, while doing nothing really to protect children from elective abortion, telehealth abortion, out of state abortion, or abortion activist judges.

They claim that they will add parental consent, but ta-da!, it will have the Separation Clause built in so that if the courts strike down parental consent, the rest of the bill still stands.

Surely, No judge will strike down parental consent. You know. Judges always care about what’s best for children.

The law does nothing to address tyrannical judges, which rule from the bench with long terms, with no oversight. They admit judges are the issue, but don’t do anything to attempt to correct their overreach which can strip away the effectives of this amendment or any other future amendments.

Essentially, 95% of current abortions will continue with the hope that one day, Missouri legislators will grow a backbone and stop it. Or Missouri Christians will begin to vote. Or Missouri PACS will educate future children some day to not want to have abortion.

Worse, it will legalize abortion again in Missouri hospitals so that hospitals can charge for the procedure and it requires Missouri taxpayers to pay for it if it is medically necessary.

Section 36(a), subsection 2 reads exactly: “No public funds shall be expended for the purpose of performing or inducing, or otherwise assisting, any abortion.”

That’s the blanket prohibition on taxpayer funding. No exceptions listed in that subsection.

Read subsection 5 immediately after:

“A woman’s right to reproductive freedom shall include the right to health care in cases of miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies, and other medical emergencies, and the provisions of this section shall not be construed to limit a woman’s access to such health care.”

That subsection 5 creates a constitutional right to access medical emergency care without restriction. It doesn’t say “except when publicly funded.” It says the rest of the section cannot be construed to limit access to that care.

So you have subsection 2 prohibiting public funding for abortions and subsection 5 guaranteeing unrestricted access to medical emergency care — and those two provisions are in direct constitutional tension with each other. When a Medicaid-eligible woman presents with a medical emergency requiring termination, subsection 5 guarantees her access while subsection 2 purports to prohibit public funding. Courts resolving that conflict would almost certainly rule that the access guarantee in subsection 5 overrides the funding prohibition in subsection 2 for the excepted categories — because you cannot constitutionally guarantee a right and simultaneously prohibit the funding mechanism that makes it accessible for indigent patients.

That is the hidden taxpayer funding mechanism built directly into the amendment’s own text. And nobody in the campaign on either side is explaining it to Missouri voters.

That’s how it’s written. That’s how the whole thing is written. It says one thing, then says something else. Of course it needs the Separability Clause. It’s going to be challenged here, there, and everywhere.

During the above heated questioning, I proposed that the only solution is two step.

1. Personhood. Unequivocal personhood. Every person must be given it without exception. That would eliminate 95% of the elective abortions we have, plus more, allowing for the tiny percentage of medically necessary ones.

2. We must criminalize it. Women, men, doctors, nurses, and everyone else must go to prison for murder.

And yes, it sucks, and yes, it will be hard. Guess what? It will probably be so unpopular, it will cost us more than just an election or two. It might lead to a Civil War. That’s the price we were forced to pay when they made this decision 50 years ago. It gets steeper every year we put it off.

I was yelled at by a tall, balding man because no one is going to want to fund it, or create the media for it. He thinks I should come up with a magical wand and fix it. I told him I wanted smarter Christians. The problem with some people is that if you gave them a quilt, they couldn’t find the pattern.

It wasn’t that long ago that no one wanted to criminalize owning slaves. There was a time when no one criminalized beating children or wives. We have regressed to a time when Republicans are arguing that we can legalize abortion for most of the babies, just save a tiny amount.

I’ve been in the signal groups. I’ve seen what they argue. We’ll save a lot of babies.

That’s not what they presented tonight.

Tonight, they admitted that the only thing this new Amendment 3 will do is give the legislators the ability to campaign on broken promises year after year, promising to do something about abortion, but never really accomplishing anything at all.

Byron Keeling gave away the plot before the meeting when he was referencing John Adams to Carey Wells. John Adams was seen as wise during his time. Men like him treated slaves as 3/5ths of a person. They stymied those religious zealots who wanted abolition because they preferred to gradually eliminate slavery. Keeling argued that this was why we needed incrementalism.

Every compromise set up by Adams catastrophically failed, including the Missouri Compromise. Adams thought he could predict the future. He was as blind as Jefferson’s Deism.

Missouri Abortion incrementalists think they can predict the future. They can’t. It will get worse the more we throw babies on the altar. There is only one choice, and it must be terrible, final, and irrevocable. Personhood, with criminal outcomes—just like we did for slavery. It’s not radical, unless it was and is for slavery.

Byron—That’s moral cowardice. Eventually, someone will demand payment from the empty shells of men who puff out their chests—but they lack conviction. Their shells will crack, and no one will pick up the pieces. Keeling is a hollow-shaped egg man, sitting on the walls of little kingdoms, courting tiny men with no power, all while lacking any internal substance.

We will absolutely pay for it in blood and more death than we can imagine. The Civil War was horrendous.

What will come from Moloch’s altars will be far worse, and we act as we can incrementally make deals with Moloch. Just a little Moloch.

Did you know that in Missouri, 11% of our residents are Black, yet 48% of our abortions are of Black babies? At what point do we stop punting the problem down the road into the lives of poor whites or minority groups while we act outraged in our White Protestant Churches?

I have one final point of contention. Katie Sickles referenced a poll in which over 80% of Protestants and over 80% of Lutherans voted against A3 in 2024, but only 52% of Catholics did.

The reason A3 lost by implication? Catholics. Is the Senator to blame for IP reform failing? A Catholic again!

Those damn Catholics.

Here are some demographics.

Out of the 6M people in Missouri, roughly 16% are Catholic, so about 960K.

58% of the state is Protestant. I’m not sure why she separated Lutherans from Protestants. I doubt she’s a historian, but Lutherans are Protestants. That’s roughly 3,480,000 Protestants.

Amendment 3 passed by a margin of about 95,000 votes — a margin of about 3.2%. KSDK The total votes cast works out to roughly 2.97 million, split approximately:

• Yes: ~1,535,000 (51.7%)

• No: ~1,440,000 (48.3%)

Simply, there aren’t enough Catholics on their own to have passed A3. Even if every Catholic voted no or yes as a block. But that’s not what her poll, which she doesn’t link to or share the source for, says.

Of the people that responded, the ones who were Catholic, 52% voted no on it. Was that 20 people? 500? 2000?

But she’s repeating it on Facebook, YouTube, and in meetings across the state.

Those damn Catholics who can’t vote.

Do you know who formed the first prolife groups? Catholics, unambigiously, Catholics.

Protestants were still struggling with when life began when I was at Seminary in 2002. I was at the largest Protestant Seminary in the world, by size if not by prestige, and they hadn’t answered the question. In 1973, W.A. Criswell was still claiming life didn’t begin until after a child was born...

...Notice who is sponsoring Katie Sickles going around talking about this supposed prolife bill:

 Rice details a timeline that I did not include here. Do read the whole thing at the link above. 

Books are a library's mission

From: Ancient Mother

Would a public library ever have the imagination to do something like this for the children, instead of shelving hundreds of age-inappropriate books from ideologically-driven publishers who use schools and libraries to funnel their politics? 

Would they have the courage to refocus on the historical mission of a library, which is to provide quality books to the community? So many public libraries nowadays have become "community centers" that focus on a plethora of craft activities and non-literary resources to try and remain relevant.

When our nation was a bit younger, the importance of literacy and books was illustrated by the Book Boat Women.

The Book Boat Women of the Mississippi 1904
In 1904, when river towns along the Mississippi had little access to schools or libraries, a small group of women brought knowledge to the water. They were known as the Book Boat Women educators, widows, and dreamers who turned old… pic.twitter.com/UFyR80TSEH

— Sophia Proneikos (@Pergament_F) November 10, 2025

 What if a public library had the courage to fill their shelves with quality literature  that uplifts and encourages the good and the beautiful? What if they had ongoing book clubs for children and adults instead of endless craft events? What if they actually promoted literacy? What if they became a resource for after-school tutoring in reading?

Books, the kind you can hold in your hand, the kind that have a certain fragrance that wafts up from the pages is not something that goes out of style or becomes obsolete. Physical books have been de-emphasized in favor of the digital. And humans are poorer for it. Their ability to concentrate has been markedly affected. Reading scores are in the dirt at many school districts. It's a big problem, and libraries can be a solution instead of part of the problem. A mom discusses it here. Her solution? A home library. She says, "I’m shocked by some of the books that my kids pick up. Books that go deeply against our family values. I want my children surrounded by books that lift their minds and challenge them to become better human beings - the most prominently displayed books at our library aren’t going to get them there." 

While most of the article is behind a paywall, she gives some excellent insight into the problems in our public libraries.

If our libraries make actual books a priority, there is great good that can be accomplished for the community. As it is, the return on investment for the taxpayer is diminishing by the year.

The town of Hay-on-Wye in Wales is completely dedicated to books and has 26 bookshops but only 2000 residents. That’s one bookshop per 77 people.

[📹 happyenchantedhome]https://t.co/iydrtrDwrK

— Massimo (@Rainmaker1973) February 15, 2026

Missouri...

 Pro-life is not what it used to be:

The two greatest enemies of abolishing abortion at the state level since 2016 have been the following:

1. The Republican party. Most of the states where an abolitionist bill has been released are Republican super majority states like Indiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas and these… https://t.co/ITmKR8Gt6w

— J.C. Ryle (@JCRyle) February 12, 2026

Sifting the Christians

From: Broken Believers

 "The characteristic of the modern State is that those who appear to govern do not in fact govern. They are constrained by forces which they do not name, which they rarely understand, and which they cannot openly oppose. The result is that public men become timid. They avoid plain speech. They fear exposure more than injustice, and loss of position more than loss of honor. In such a condition courage disappears first, and freedom follows it." -- Hilaire Belloc

 By Gretchen Garrity

Pro-life Christians and Christian politicians, still reeling from the 2024 vote to enshrine abortion in the Missouri Constitution, are now being confronted with the issue of how to undo it. 

How did it come about that Roe v. Wade was overturned on June 24, 2022 but abortion in Missouri was voted in on Nov. 5, 2024? In 2022, Missouri had immediately acted on the overturning of Roe v. Wade by means of a trigger ban, which effectively outlawed abortion except to save the life of the mother.

Less than 24 months later, a well-organized and well-funded campaign to allow for the legal murder of pre-born persons was conducted and passed in Amendment 3. The pro-life response was to provide a new and improved Amendment 3 added to the November 2026 ballot. The ballot language is as follows:

“Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:

• Repeal the 2024 voter-approved Amendment providing reproductive healthcare rights, including abortion through fetal viability;

• Allow abortions for rape and incest (under twelve-weeks’ gestation), emergencies, and fetal anomalies;

• Allow legislation regulating abortion;

• Ensure parental consent for minors’ abortions;

• Prohibit gender transition procedures for minors?

State governmental entities estimate no costs or savings. Greene County estimates it may experience an unknown increase in tax revenue. Other local governmental entities estimate no costs or savings."

The ballot language purports to make clear exactly what your Yes or No vote would mean. Let's examine it more closely.

The language is couched in such terms that a Yes vote seems to bring more restrictions on abortion. But does it accomplish the end of abortion? Does it really restrict abortion?

Issue No. 1: Does the new and improved Amendment 3 curtail or restrict in any way chemically-induced abortions, which comprise about 63% of abortions nationally?

The simple answer is NO, chemical abortions wherein the mother takes an abortion pill and aborts her baby at home, is not addressed in the new Amendment 3. At this time there is no legislation in Missouri that regulates this type of abortion, and under reporting of these abortions is common.

Issue No. 2: How is rape of minors construed for the purposes of abortion in the new Amendment 3? 

Because a minor (anyone under 18) cannot legally consent to sexual relations, all babies conceived by minors can be considered the result of rape and thereby aborted.

Issue No. 3: "Ensures parental consent for minors' abortions" is an addition designed to fool voters. According to an article in the Missouri Independent, "Missouri’s parental consent law requires a minor attempting to access abortion receive at least one parent’s consent. The other parent must also be notified. If that’s not possible, they can also ask a judge to bypass the requirement." Read the article to see how deeply invested some groups are in ensuring your teen can get an abortion without your consent. 

That clause is added to convince voters that the "improved" Amendment 3 is adding something new. It is not. Amendment 3 ensures nothing for parental consent that was not already in Missouri law.

Issue No. 4: What is meant by "emergencies" in the ballot language?

According to the actual proposed language of Art. 1, Section 36(a), which will replace Section 36.1 of the Missouri Constitution should Amendment 3 be approved, a medical emergency is "a condition that, based on reasonable medical judgment, so complicates the medical condition of a pregnant woman as to necessitate the immediate termination of her pregnancy to avert the death of the pregnant woman or for which a delay will create a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman. A medical emergency shall include, but not be limited to, an ectopic pregnancy at any point following the diagnosis of such and treatment for a miscarriage;"  

First, ectopic pregnancies do not end in abortion because such pregnancies are not viable.  According to The Heritage Foundation, "Treating an ectopic pregnancy is different from having an abortion. Abortion is an intentional, unnatural procedure that kills the baby in the womb. An ectopic procedure, in contrast, attempts to save the life of both mother and unborn child. A number of  treatment options are available, but each seeks to separate the embryo from the fallopian tubes."   

The treatment is not considered an abortion, so why was this included in the language of Amendment 3? If you want to get down to brass tacks, this kind of language is a form of witchcraft, because it seeks to manipulate the citizen to believe and vote a certain way.

Would a medical emergency be considered a woman who is depressed or suicidal? Would a gallbladder attack be considered a major bodily function that was impaired? One can see there will be no end to the medical emergencies upon which an abortion doctor can have "reasonable medical judgment."

Additionally, the term "under twelve weeks' gestation" is included only for instances of rape and incest. Abortion for "emergencies" and "fetal anomalies" is not restricted to a gestational range. It is stated in the fair ballot language but that has no binding legal effect. So again, witchcraft is employed with misleading information in the fair ballot language that is not in the actual wording of the ballot or the amendment. 

There's more. Is an examination legally required to determine the age of the pre-born baby? According to Missouri law, Missouri Revised Statutes § 188.030.2(1), yes "Except in the case of a medical emergency." There's that term again. Medical emergency. One can imagine the abortion industry will find many such emergencies if Amendment 3 is passed.

Issue No. 5: Are there guardrails in the new Amendment 3 for determining a rape occurred? No. There are no provisions in the proposed Amendment 3 or any current Missouri statutes. There is NO requirement to provide proof of rape. There does not need to be a police report, a physical examination or any other threshold in order to procure an abortion. A woman can simply assert that a rape happened and procure an abortion.

Are you beginning to see how voters are manipulated?

 Issue No. 6: Abortions will be publicly funded. Though not noted in the ballot wording, when looking at the actual amendment language you will find: "No public funds shall be expended for the purpose of performing, inducing, or otherwise assisting any abortion, except in cases of medical emergency, rape, or incest, as otherwise authorized by law." So, yes pro-life taxpayer, you will be paying for abortions if Amendment 3 passes. Medical emergencies, rapes, incest and 'otherwise authorized by law' will "necessarily skyrocket" (to quote a former President) when the abortion industry is involved.

Issue No. 7: Amendment 3 tacked on the following clause, "Prohibit gender transition procedures for minors." Currently, Missouri has banned "gender transition surgeries, cross-sex hormones and other gender-affirming care for minors." The ban is due to expire in 2027. A good question to ask legislators who allow for temporary laws, is WHY? What political advantage is there by voting for temporary laws regarding children's health and welfare? And WHY tack on vague, lawyerly wording onto Amendment 3? Again, it's there to fool voters and lull them into a sense that some good is being done when it is not.

Are you feeling the chaos and confusion yet?

Sen. Mike Moon aptly describes the dilemma. He says, "Whether your decision to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ likely depends upon how much you trust in government.  How often have you seen the government enact a law (or, the people amend the constitution) and return to make additional changes after the law was passed (or, amendment adopted)?

I imagine the same action or inaction will occur with Amendment 3 (2026).  In my short 13-year experience in the MO General Assembly, I have witnessed a strong reluctance to re-visit the ‘hard’ topics in back-to-back sessions.  Although, we’ve been told that when Amendment 3 (2026) passes, “we’ll come back and make the necessary changes” (to remove the exceptions for rape, incest, and fetal anomalies).

The reality (again, my opinion) is that many of the ‘promise makers’ will be long gone from the legislature after the 2026 session, so they will have no ‘dog in the hunt’." 

Do read and subscribe to Sen. Moon's Report. He goes into detail about the sausage-making that happens in Jefferson City, and how a permanent solution to outlawing abortion in Missouri has been stopped by the likes of President Pro Tem Cindy O'Laughlin, who is aptly satirized HERE.

The Moral Implications for Christians

Legislators and presumed pro-life organizations who are pushing for a yes vote on Amendment 3 argue that some babies will be saved by the new A3. Is it true? Based on just the few arguments presented above, it is hard to imagine justifying the murder of many small persons in the hopes that a few may be saved.

There is not one single Bible verse that justifies killing babies in abortions.

— Stop Abortion Now (@LifeNewsToo) February 1, 2026

Is the language and intent of Amendment 3 justified in scripture? Paul addresses this issue in Romans.

"And why not say (as some people slander us by saying that we say), ‘Let us do evil so that good may come’?" (Rom. 3:8). 

The JB Phillips translation explains this concept more fully:

"It is like saying that if my lying throws into sharp relief the truth of God and, so to speak, enhances his reputation, then why should he repay me by judging me a sinner? Similarly, why not do evil that good may be, by contrast all the more conspicuous and valuable?...But, of course, such an argument is quite properly condemned."

The foundational Scripture that prohibits murder is Ex. 20:13, "Thou shalt not kill." There is no room for exceptions to murder. Jesus reiterated this commandment in the Gospel of Matthew, "...but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments...Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness..." (Matt. 19:17-19)

Nowhere in Scripture is it permissible to do evil that good may come. Nowhere is it suggested that Christians should compromise with or promote some murders so that other murders may possibly be averted. This type of mixture was condemned by Christ in Revelation when He confronted the compromising church at Pergamos. The Christians there had begun compromising with the pagan culture. They were apparently mixing Christian and pagan practices, and worse, some were teaching other Christians to do so also.

When pro-life groups run incremental legislation in red states, they delay the abolition of abortion.

There are more than a dozen states with Republican governing trifectas and legislative supermajorities. Planned Parenthood and the Democrats have no ability to stop these states…

— Ben Zeisloft (@BenZeisloft) February 2, 2026

Amendment 3 is a compromise with evil through the concept of Incrementalism. It is not a valid argument in terms of obedience to God's command to 'do no murder'. It can be implied in other things, such as implementing a plan to reduce taxes, or the phasing of a building plan. It is not valid to compromise on clear moral instruction from Scripture.

Satan greatly desires to "sift" Christians, to shake them loose from the foundation of Christ. A local pastor I know has said, "In matters of truth there is no compromise."

For a Christian to vote yes to murder certain unborn persons is a type of satanic compromise. It promises that by doing evil, good may come. Christians are accountable to God for their votes. Scripture is clear, murder is not permissible.

The Solution

The pro-life movement has been deeply subverted by those who compromise with the pagan concept of child murder. Organizations like Missouri Right to Life are content to allow the sacrifice of children while hiding under the cover of incrementalism. Instead of supporting personhood and equal protection bills that would effectively make abortion a crime, they now fight tooth and nail to prevent the criminalization of murder through abortion. Murder is a crime no matter who commits it or how small the victim.

You must understand that the leaders of the Pro-Life Movement are pro-choice liberals.

This is not distinguishable in any sense from how Planned Parenthood will oppose this bill. https://t.co/xiYeYTms2F

— James Silberman (@JSilbermanFTS) January 30, 2026

It is time for our legislators to SUPPORT, HEAR, and PASS a personhood or equal protection bill in Missouri. This would essentially stop abortion. Our leaders must be willing to lead and govern as they were elected to do.

That politicians like House Majority Leader Jon Patterson and President Pro Tem Cindy O'Laughlin continue to obstruct the bills put forth to abolish abortion is a disgusting stain on the now infamous GOP Super Majority in Missouri. Compromised GOP legislators continue to put forth and support amendments like A3, indicating a captured party that is at the mercy of "forces which they cannot openly oppose." They are willing victims of witchcraft--the manipulation of their minds and souls--in order to accomplish evil. 

Below are bills currently introduced in the Missouri Legislature, as well as the language of A3 that will be added to our state constitution should A3 pass. It must be noted that any of the bills below would have dramatic effect on ending abortion in Missouri.

Personhood resolutions ( From Abolish Abortion Missouri):

HJR 109 filed by Representative Burt Whaley

SJR 72 Filed by Senator Mike Moon

Equal Protection Bills:

HB 1682 Filed by Representative Burt Whaley

SB 951 Filed by Senator Mike Moon

 Additionally a repeal for Amendment 3 has been filed:

SJR 107 Filed by Senator Mike Moon

FULL TEXT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT

If Amendment 3 is passed, the following language will replace Section 36.1:

Section 36(a).

1. The state's duty to protect public health and welfare includes protecting the integrity and ethics of the medical profession. The state's interest in regulating the practice of medicine is even greater in areas of medical and scientific uncertainty or in areas that raise grave moral and ethical concerns, including abortion and gender transition procedures.

2. An abortion may be performed or induced upon a woman in cases of medical emergency, fetal anomaly, rape, or incest. In the case of abortions performed or induced in cases of rape or incest, the abortion may be performed or induced no later than twelve weeks gestational age of the unborn child.

3. The general assembly may enact laws that regulate the provision of abortions, abortion facilities, and abortion providers to ensure the health and safety of the pregnant mother. These laws shall include, but not be limited to, laws requiring physicians providing abortion care to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital; laws requiring facilities where abortions are performed or induced to be licensed and inspected for clean and safe conditions and adequate instruments to treat any emergencies arising from an abortion procedure; laws requiring physicians to perform a sufficient examination of the woman to determine the unborn child's gestational age and any preexisting medical conditions that may influence the procedure; and laws requiring ultrasounds to be performed only by physicians or licensed medical technicians.

4. No abortion shall be performed or induced upon a woman based on a prenatal diagnosis, test, or screening indicating a disability in an unborn child, except in cases of a fetal anomaly.

5. No public funds shall be expended for the purpose of performing, inducing, or otherwise assisting any abortion, except in cases of medical emergency, rape, or incest, as otherwise authorized by law.

6. Except in cases of a medical emergency in which consent cannot be obtained, no abortion shall be performed or induced upon a woman without her voluntary and informed consent, given freely and without coercion. In the case of a minor under the age of eighteen years who is not emancipated, no person shall knowingly perform or induce an abortion, except in cases of a medical emergency in which consent cannot be obtained, unless the attending physician has obtained:

(1) the written consent of the minor and a parent or legal guardian; and

(2) documentation of the consent is retained in the minor's medical record. Licensed medical physicians shall be required to provide women with medically accurate information. The general assembly may enact laws to provide for the right of a minor to consent to an abortion as granted by a court order.

7. Fetal organ harvesting after an abortion is not permitted under any circumstances.

8. A woman's ability to access health care in cases of miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies, and other medical emergencies shall not be infringed by the state.

9. No gender transition surgeries shall be knowingly performed on children under eighteen years of age, and no cross-sex hormones or puberty-blocking drugs shall be knowingly prescribed or administered for the purpose of gender transition to children under eighteen years of age. The provisions of this section shall not apply to the use of such surgeries, drugs, or hormones to treat children born with a medically verifiable disorder of sex development or to treat any infection, injury, disease, or disorder unrelated to the purpose of a gender transition.

10. Any action challenging the validity of any state law relating to reproductive health care shall be brought in the Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri. If a pleading, written motion, or other paper drawing into question the constitutionality of a state statute does not include the state, one of its agencies, or one of its officers or employees in an official capacity, the party bringing the action shall file a notice of constitutional question and serve it on the attorney general and the attorney general shall have the right to intervene in the litigation.

11. The general assembly shall have the authority to enact laws to carry out the provisions of this section.

12. As used in this section, the following terms mean:

(1) "Cross-sex hormones", testosterone, estrogen, or other androgens given to an individual in amounts that are greater or more potent than would normally occur naturally in a healthy individual of the same age and sex;

(2) "Fetal anomaly", a structural or functional abnormality in the unborn child's gestational development that would make life outside the womb impossible;

(3) "Fetal organ harvesting", collection of fetal tissue, organs, or fluids, including any biological material, for the purpose of selling or collecting for scientific purposes, but shall not include the utilization of fetal tissue, organs, or fluids to determine the cause or causes of any anomaly, illness, death, or genetic condition of the unborn child, the paternity of the unborn child, or for law enforcement purposes;

(4) "Gender transition surgery", a surgical procedure performed for the purpose of assisting an individual with identifying with and living as a gender different from his or her biological sex;

(5) "Medical emergency", a condition that, based on reasonable medical judgment, so complicates the medical condition of a pregnant woman as to necessitate the immediate termination of her pregnancy to avert the death of the pregnant woman or for which a delay will create a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman. A medical emergency shall include, but not be limited to, an ectopic pregnancy at any point following the diagnosis of such and treatment for a miscarriage;

(6) "Puberty-blocking drugs", gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues or other synthetic drugs used to stop luteinizing hormone secretion and follicle stimulating hormone secretion, synthetic antiandrogen drugs to block the androgen receptor, or any other drug used to delay or suppress pubertal development in children for the purpose of assisting an individual with a gender transition;

(7) "Reasonable medical judgment", a medical judgment that would be made by a reasonably prudent physician, knowledgeable about the case and the treatment possibilities with respect to the medical conditions involved.

13. All provisions of this section are severable. If any provision of this section is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or unconstitutionally enacted, the remaining provisions of this section shall be and remain valid.

Think it through

 

This is how you change minds. You can clearly see this woman is conflicted. Her spirit is absolutely conflicted, but her pride won't let her own up to the fact that she is wrong. Nobody has the right to k*ll babies.

Baby lives matter. pic.twitter.com/ydtJqqTnTU

— Sassafrass84 (@Sassafrass_84) January 28, 2026

Some Babies Are More Equal Than Others

From: OG Magazine

 By Gretchen Garrity

The recent unpleasantness concerning a satire authored by David Rice (see HERE and Rice's satire HERE) has made me think further about the implications of the knee-jerk support for the enemies of pre-born babies, among whom it must be counted state senators Adam Schnelting and Rick Brattin, as well as their respective chiefs of staff Sherry Kuttenkuler Arthaud and Tom Estes (a pastor).

Let us be clear what the stakes are here. Surgical abortion entails wrenching open a womb and cutting up a pre-born baby as it struggles to avoid the scissors. The mutilated baby is then sucked into a bucket.

Chemical abortion causes a pre-born baby to be expelled from the womb, most often ending up in a toilet--to be flushed away to the sewer as so much shit. Imagine the horror that a young woman sees as her tiny child is expelled into the toilet. The pictures are out there on the internet if anyone cares to see. The reality of abortion becomes a true-life nightmare almost beyond belief. The ones shown are tame in comparison.

Many times more than one life is destroyed. The emotional repercussions echo throughout a woman's life, affecting not only her own mental health, but affecting her future relationships with her spouse and children.

I dare you to tell me that David Rice's depiction of the spiritual sin of supporting Amendment 3 is worse (which allows for the abortion of children based upon the circumstances of their conception or their physical condition).

From: Wikimedia

 Do you really want to know how the sausage is made in Jefferson City? Do citizens believe they have actual representation there? I regret to inform you that your representation is controlled and directed by a very small group of people. They select and place the party leaders who will enact their agenda.

Any representatives who oppose them are shunned, opposed and sidelined. Bills are heard or not heard based on how your representative adheres to the directives of their leadership. A good bill, a proper bill, is often amended in ways that pervert the original intent. Representatives and senators are forced to play by the system's rules in order to get even a smidgen of a proper law passed.

Citizens think they are electing representatives to represent their interests and values. But that system is long gone. Representatives and senators are reduced to supplicant beggars, hoping against hope to have their constituents' voices heard.

It is far past "taxation without representation." The elephant in the room is this: How has a Republican Super Majority managed to do almost nothing of substance in two decades for Missourians? Elected representatives outlawed abortion in Missouri only to have it ENSHRINED IN THE MISSOURI CONSTITUTION in the next election cycle. And you think elections are free and fair in Missouri.

Are taxes lower? Are schools improved? Are unborn babies safer? Are God-given rights being protected? Are your utilities lower? Is your food safer?

What exactly has a "Republican" super majority accomplished? Say it. NOTHING.

But let us get back to unborn babies.

The outrage over Rice's depiction of the sin of supporting abortion through Amendment 3 has  overshadowed the reality of abortion. Think about it. Lisa Pannett and her friends Cyndia Haggard and  Melissa Thomas and Gary Ridenhour (and others) are MORE OUTRAGED OVER RICE'S SATIRE than the reality of abortion.

From: Catholic Business Journal

 In fact, Pannett noted on her Facebook page, "I will also add I know these people portrayed in this article. They are not sexual deviants or looking to cut up babies. It’s sad we can’t disagree on policy without blatantly lying about people’s character. Know I will stand up for people that even hate my guts."

I beg to differ, Lisa. The people you are standing up for are supporting an amendment that allows for the dismemberment of babies up to 12 weeks (well after a heartbeat can be detected). This is not just policy. This is the intentional murder of children based upon the circumstances of their conception and their possible physical condition.

You must face up to the fact that the people you know are advocating for the cutting up of babies. It is not simply policy, Lisa. It is the lives of children. David Rice was not lying about their character. He was exposing their politics. In fact, I would say that your spirit was not so affected by the heinous description in his satire, but by the foundational truth he exposed.

These individuals are going about convincing citizens to vote yes on Amendment 3 in November. They are compounding their sin. It is disgusting that you and Cyndia Haggard and Melissa Thomas and Bill Eigel and Gary Ridenhour and others are so deeply deluded you protect the supporters of abortion. God have mercy on your delicate souls.

"For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ." -- Gal. 1:10

Tell me, ladies and gents, is it true that our elected officials are being pressured to repudiate David Rice? In Sen. Mike Moon's latest Capitol Report, he stated: 

"In the article, I was presented in a good light.  Nonetheless, I derive no satisfaction in the depiction of those with whom I vehemently disagree.  I would much rather witness the defense of their position in a public debate.  I understand invitations to support their beliefs have been extended.  I also understand there has been no acceptance of these invitations – not one.

Why not?"

While Sen. Moon is the ultimate gentleman, as befits his status as a state senator, I also ask the question, 'Why has there not been acceptance of invitations to support the beliefs' of individuals like Sen. Schnelting or Sen. Brattin?'

We know why. There is no defense of their position. Psalm 139 speaks to God's knowledge of Man. Beginning in Verses 13-14, "For You formed my inward parts; you covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made..."

But the Psalm continues in verses 19-20, "Oh, that You would slay the wicked, O God! Depart from me, therefore, you bloodthirsty men, For they speak against You wickedly; Your enemies take Your name in vain."

To accede in any way, shape or form to the murder of pre-born babies is to place oneself in the category of a bloodthirsty man. I hope and pray that Pannett, Haggard, Thomas, Ridenhour and anyone else who has decried a political satire over the support of abortion publicly repudiate the position of those who support Amendment 3.

In the end, silence is consent.

Committing Abortion

 

From: Abe Books

 By Gretchen Garrity

"You adulterous people! Don’t you know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? So whoever wants to be the friend of the world becomes the enemy of God."  James 4:4

My friend and fellow writer David Rice wrote a scathing and brutal satire regarding certain political figures' support for Amendment 3: "Prohibit Abortion and Gender Transition Procedures for Minors Amendment" that is on the Missouri ballot for November of this year.

The satire described in visceral detail the spiritual crime of supporting an amendment that pays lip service to pro-life policies, but in reality changes almost nothing of the current state of affairs in Missouri regarding abortion. 

While a previous Amendment 3 enshrined the right to abortion in the Missouri constitution, this new Amendment 3 supposedly adds a few restrictions. The "pro-life" movement gladly accepts another round of incrementalism hoping to curtail the murder of pre-born babies at some point in the distant future.

Among other provisions, Amendment 3 states, "...prohibit abortions except in cases of "medical emergency, fetal anomaly, rape, or incest," and permit abortions in cases of rape or incest only through 12 weeks of gestation..."

Do any pro-life proponents believe that there are not doctors willing to provide an abortion on the merest pretext? Who decides what a medical emergency is? Most surgical abortions are procured within the 12-week time frame. Additionally, the majority of abortions now are chemically induced by pills, which are not covered in this amendment.

The bottom line is that abortion will continue unabated in Missouri--without missing a heartbeat. Almost nothing is gained. In exchange for a Yes vote on Amendment 3, supporters will gain a bit on the transgender front (which is already on its way out) and which has nothing at all to do with abortion.

This is how the sausage is made. Corrupt lobbyists and legislators dangle a shiny thing in front of you in order to distract you. A little poop in the brownie won't matter because you won't be able to taste it, right?

Sen. Adam Schnelting

 In essence, we are back to square one on the abortion issue. Proponents on each side of the issue continue on as before, while babies are being murdered and women are being traumatized. The political rhetoric to score points continues on. The fundraising on both sides continues on. The lies on both sides continue on. The status quo remains.

Declaring pre-born babies as persons is a third way of making abortion untenable. See linked personhood bills below.

By affirming the personhood of pre-born babies, it necessarily categorizes abortion as a crime. Committing abortion is committing a crime. This is the crux of the matter. It matters not if a child has been conceived in rape or incest. It matters not if a child is unwanted. The circumstances of a child's conception does not negate the personhood of that child.

There have been several personhood bills introduced in the Missouri Legislature in the last several years. The Republican Majority has been unwilling to seriously consider these bills. Why? Here are several current bills:

SB951

HB 1682

HB2688

HJR109 

HB3056

HB1661

No one of substantive thinking and reasoning can credibly deny that our culture is in a death spiral. Abortion, sex trafficking, drugs, transgender ideology, Critical Race Theory (which has jump started white guilt and self-hatred) as well as the breakdown of the nuclear family have been largely triumphant over a weakened Christian culture.

Aside from the Catholic Church, which was valiant in the early years of the pro-life movement but has waned, it is Protestant laypeople who are now propping up the pro-life movement. Pastors are lethargic and cowardly. Sheep without a shepherd are easily scattered.  

Sen. Rick Brattin

It is largely the pro-life movement that is currently splintering the Republican Party. Weak and accommodating legislation like the current Amendment 3 is indicative of a compromising GOP "super majority." It is plain to all but a few diehard partisan Republicans that both parties are controlled--and played--by moneyed interests who willfully direct legislation.

Abortion, the selling of baby parts, and medical experimentation is big money. Women are often devastated by aborting their children and may end up with further medical issues, as well as the emotional devastation of the decision to kill their child. The sorcery of Big Pharma (the word comes from pharmakeia (φαρμακεία) which is partly defined as magic spells) benefits many ways from abortion.

Back to David's satire, which you can read HERE. He spares no one. Sen. Adam Schnelting, his Chief of Staff Sherry Kuttenkuler Arthaud, Sen. Rick Brattin, Scott Faughn, and Pastor Tom Estes who is Sen. Brattin's Chief of Staff are all rhetorically skewered by Rice for their support of Amendment 3.

Pastor Tom Estes

Essentially, Rice's satire details the spiritual crime of supporting a constitutional amendment that approves of the murder of pre-born children in certain cases. The moral slicing and dicing it takes to legislatively destroy the Sixth Commandment is indicative of how far Christians and Republicans have fallen.

Realize that Republicans could have passed a personhood bill at any time in the last several years. THEY CHOSE NOT TO. Instead, they are compromising with grave evil. This moral chasm is as great as that of Lazarus and the Rich Man, and it is precisely this that has caused the divide in the Republican Party in Missouri.

Some interesting fallout of David's satire occurred yesterday. A particular champion of conservative values, Lisa Pannett, took great offense at his article. Pannett is one half of the Shield Maidens, who are savvy political pundits (Pannett is a lobbyist) navigating the corruption in Jefferson City.

The graphic physical description of the spiritual sins being committed by politicians who support Amendment 3, was too much for her sensibilities. She took to Facebook to complain. A few others, including former state senator Bill Eigel (who frankly sounded like a prudish school marm) also sounded off at Rice's satire. There was outrage, there was disgust, there was a reactionary gathering of offended individuals, and it wasn't long before talk of a lawsuit was bandied about.  

Scott Faughn

Hmmm...what happened to free speech rights? Apparently the time-honored American sport of satirizing public figures was a bridge too far for some on the "Right." The depiction of aborted babies being made into political sausage by compromising Republicans was too much.

The real thing, the physical murder of certain babies that Schnelting and Brattin and Estes and Kuttenkuler Arthaud are willing to compromise with by supporting Amendment 3 apparently pales in comparison to Rice's satire.

Sherry Kuttenkuler Arthaud

No, in the estimation of the self-righteous, Rice's sin is greater, and he must be shut down. Money must be raised to hire lawyers to conduct lawfare. Rice, who has done great work on behalf of Republican causes in Missouri, must be buried.

This is the state of reasoning in Republican circles. I cast about for a reason why the satire triggered a few others. Most of them are quite active in political circles. Perhaps they were concerned they may someday come under scrutiny from Rice's pen. Perhaps they felt compassion for the objects of David's scorn. Perhaps they see an avenue to get rid of this troublesome fellow.

Perhaps some have been traumatized by abortion themselves, whether through procuring one or knowing someone who has. If so, that speaks directly to the emotional damage that abortion inflicts on women as well as their babies.

 

Prediction: accurate
"Just think, my dear ladies, of how many mentally disturbed women we are going have in the United States in the next 10 or 15 years when the guilt of abortion begins to attack the mind and soul."pic.twitter.com/MKYphIXia3

— The Chivalry Guild (@ChivalryGuild) January 11, 2026

Whatever went on in the minds of those who improperly, unchristianly I might add, decided to publicly attack Rice, it is a very bad look. Pannett had already voiced her objections to Rice in a private chat. He ably defended his satire to her.

Taking it public was a mistake. You won't stop him or others like him from writing stinging critiques of public figures. In fact, you have called into question your own bonafides as darlings of all things conservative.

Jefferson City is a stronghold of spiritual evil. Very few survive it unscathed, uncompromised. Weak-minded Republicans (the majority) are mostly useless. You don't win by playing by the rules of evil systems. You break the system. If you are in Jefferson City thinking you are going to win by playing within the system, you have already lost.

If you doubt that the system can be destroyed, you are an unworthy Republican, let alone Christian. The system, of itself, will eventually fall. All such compromised systems fail in the end, whether you personally do anything about it or not. They flourish like a green bay tree and then are gone. They fall like the Tower of Babel. Failing to accept their Messiah, the Jews saw their temple destroyed within a generation, not one stone left upon another.

The personal, spiritual question for Republicans, conservatives, pro-life advocates is this: What are you doing in Jefferson City if you aren't pulling down strongholds? Where is your moral clarity? If you are more offended by a writer's depiction of spiritual sin than by the abomination of actual abortion, then you should sit down.

And if you find yourself suggesting a lawsuit to shut down free speech, you have become what you purport to hate. I have observed the spirit of compromise that permeates Jefferson City's Republican Party. To compromise with sin is to make yourself an enemy of God.

Committing abortion is committing a sin. It should be illegal as it is the murder of a person. The stuffy Republicans who cannot abide descriptions of visceral spiritual sin but who would advocate for supporters of Amendment 3 over free speech should spend some time in self-reflection. They should withdraw their threats of a lawsuit, not least because they will lose. If they persist, they show themselves to be the comrades of the lawfare crowd.

Above all, they should seek moral clarity. I suggest they open their Bibles at Genesis and commence reading through to Revelation.