Monday, February 23, 2026

The People of Omelas

From: Mr. Biggs

By Gretchen Garrity

"They all know it is there, all the people of Omelas. Some of them have come to see it, others are content merely to know it is there. They all know that it has to be there. Some of them understand why, and some do not, but they all understand that their happiness, the beauty of their city, the tenderness of their friendships, the health of their children, the wisdom of their scholars, the skill of their makers, even the abundance of their harvest and the kindly weathers of their skies, depend wholly on this child's abominable misery." -- The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas

In a recent article (HERE) I wrote that Missouri's parental consent law for procuring abortions for minors requires at least one parent sign off on the procedure. That statute was added in 2019 and you can read it HERE.

However, according to Kate Sickles, a spokesperson for Freedom Principle Missouri (FPM), the Amendment 3 that passed in 2024 (see HERE) is said to strip parental consent rights from the law. The full text of the 2024 amendment is here:

Be it resolved by the people of the state of Missouri that the Constitution be amended:

Section A. Article I of the Constitution is revised by adopting one new Section to be known as Article I, Section 36 to read as follows:

  1. This Section shall be known as "The Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative."
  2. The Government shall not deny or infringe upon a person's fundamental right to reproductive freedom. which is the right to make and carry out decisions about all matters relating to reproductive health care: including but not limited to prenatal care. childbirth. postpartum care. birth control. abortion care. miscarriage care. and respectful birthing conditions.
  3. The right to reproductive freedom shall not be denied. interfered with. delayed. or otherwise restricted unless the Government demonstrates that such action is justified by a compelling governmental interest achieved by the least restrictive means. Any denial. interference. delay. or restriction of the right to reproductive freedom shall be presumed invalid. For purposes of this Section, a governmental interest is compelling only if it is for the limited purpose and has the limited effect of improving or maintaining the health of a person seeking care. is consistent with widely accepted clinical standards of practice and evidence-based medicine. and does not infringe on that person's autonomous decision-making.
  4. Notwithstanding subsection 3 of this Section, the general assembly may enact laws that regulate the provision of abortion after Fetal Viability provided that under no circumstance shall the Government deny. interfere with. delay. or otherwise restrict an abortion that in the good faith judgment of a treating health care professional is needed to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant person.
  5. No person shall be penalized. prosecuted. or otherwise subjected to adverse action based on their actual. potential. perceived. or alleged pregnancy outcomes. including but not limited to miscarriage. stillbirth. or abortion. Nor shall any person assisting a person in exercising their right to reproductive freedom with that person's consent be penalized. prosecuted. or otherwise subjected to adverse action for doing so.
  6. The Government shall not discriminate against persons providing or obtaining reproductive health care or assisting another person in doing so.
  7. If any provision of this Section or the application thereof to anyone or to any circumstance is held invalid. the remainder of those provisions and the application of such provisions to others or other circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
  8. For purposes of this Section, the following terms mean:

(I) "Fetal Viability" - the point in pregnancy when. in the good faith judgment of a treating health care professional and based on the particular facts of the case. there is a significant likelihood of the fetus's sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures.

(2) "Government" -

a. the state of Missouri or

b. any municipality, city, town, village, township, district, authority, public subdivision or public corporation having the power to tax or regulate, or any portion of two or more such entities within the state of Missouri.

At a meeting on Feb. 19 in Nixa, Kate Sickles asserted that the current Missouri Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 36, has taken away parental right of consent to a minor's procurement of an abortion. She specifically mentioned the use of the word "person" in the amendment as justification for that viewpoint. GOP groups like Freedom Principle Missouri aver that the language of Article I, Section 36 allows for minors to obtain abortions without parental consent. In essence, they are interpreting Art. 1, Sec. 36 to state that point. 

"PERSON" NOT LEGALLY DEFINED

Nowhere in the amendment language is "person" legally defined.

While the Missouri Constitution does take precedence over any conflicting state statute, the current abortion law as stated does not specifically define a person in such a way that it conflicts with state law protecting parental consent rights.

In fact, Missouri's constitution does not clearly define "person." In state statute, there are many legal definitions of the word defined for the specific purposes of various laws. For instance,  in Missouri's Revisor 1.020, "person" "may extend and be applied to bodies politic and corporate, and to partnerships and other unincorporated associations..."

And in Missouri's Revisor 527.130:  "Person" defined. — The word "person", wherever used in sections 527.010 to 527.130, shall be construed to mean any person, including a minor represented by next friend or guardian ad litem and any other person under disability lawfully represented, partnership, joint-stock company, corporation, unincorporated association or society or municipal or other corporation of any character whatsoever."

Go HERE and scroll down to the definitions of "person" in our state statutes. Click on any of them for the legal definitions used in each particular statute. The individuals who wrote and approved the wording of 2024's Amendment 3 did not define "person" for the purposes of the amendment.

Interesting.

Why then does Kate Sickles--who spoke at a meeting in Nixa last week--assume that parental consent rights have been abrogated and that minors under the age of 18 can obtain a legal abortion without them? And why did the authors of the new Amendment 3 add in additional wording "...ensure parental consent for minors' abortions...?" In my opinion, they were gilding the lily, so to speak, as a way to convince Christian voters to vote for abortion as delineated in the new amendment.

There is nothing in the 2024 constitutional amendment that explicitly abrogates parental consent rights over minors. It is a convenient excuse to exploit advocating for the new Amendment 3--which codifies the murder of certain preborn persons and is being sold to Christian voters as "good." The new amendment would constitutionally codify parental rights over abortion for minors, however, it does not ensure parental rights over minors for any other legal issue that may arise.

If equal protection rights and personhood bills were passed, none of this endless scrabbling for a bit of turf would be an issue.

Incrementalism, which is pushed by many in the GOP establishment and pro-life movement, has failed as a workable strategy. Incrementalism is a slippery slope, which over decades has lowered the ethical and moral standards of Christian voters. We are now to the point where our local political leaders and elected representatives feel it is moral to vote to kill some so that others may live. In essence, "Let us do evil that good may come."

But there are a few champions. Sen. Mike Moon delineates what would work in this press conference:

 The short testimony of Rebecca Kiessling who was conceived in rape, is particularly touching. That so-called Christian Republicans are asking voters to approve the murder of innocent children conceived by rape or incest, is sickeningly similar to the philosophy expressed in author Ursula K. LeGuin's short story "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas." 

From: Ursulakleguin.com
By attempting to vote in a constitutional amendment in Missouri that allows for some children to be aborted in order that others may live, we will be doomed to yet another generation of murdered babies. The citizens of Ursala K. LeGuin's short story justified committing evil "for the greater good." This is not a Christian precept.

We are assured incrementalism via Amendment 3 is the only way. But codifying the sacrifice of some babies so others may live is satanic. Sickles had to admit that chemical abortions will continue even if Amendment 3 passes. She also had to admit that taxpayers will continue to pay for abortions. And, she conceded there is no provision in the amendment to determine whether a woman was actually assaulted who claims rape in order to procure an abortion.

PARENTAL CONSENT CHALLENGED

In October 2025, a lawsuit that challenged Missouri's parental consent law for minor abortions was thrown out of court. The subhead of an article about it actually states, "The Jackson County judge didn’t draw any conclusions about whether the current parental consent law is unconstitutional under the reproductive rights amendment."  

The article further states, "[Judge] Castle didn’t draw any conclusions in her Tuesday decision about whether the reproductive rights amendment approved by voters last year renders either law unconstitutional. 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. 'Today’s victory ensures that Missouri’s parental consent laws will continue to safeguard young girls, hold abortion providers accountable and uphold the values of Missouri families for generations to come,' Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway said in a statement Wednesday."

It would take the courts striking down Missouri Revisor 188.028 thereby affirming parental consent laws have been struck down by the 2024 Amendment 3 in order for Sickles to be correct in her view. If Sickles was willing to deceive voters about this one aspect of Amendment 3, what else in her presentation was incorrect?

NOT ALL WHO CALL THEMSELVES PRO-LIFE ARE PRO-LIFE

Not all "pro-life" organizations are truly pro-life. Some have been infiltrated by political interests far different than those who focus on opposing abortion. While Christians focus their energy on ending abortion, their attention is diverted from other issues like taxes, schools, free elections and data centers. It is to the benefit of lobbyists to keep abortion as a perennial issue.

Certain interests at the top of the political food chain are united regardless of party, and the desire to control those on either side of the abortion issue is a powerful strategy that has worked for decades. 

Now, however, it is dividing those in the same party.

For evidence that citizens are being manipulated HERE is an article from a few days ago that revives the "fight the good fight" mantra against abortion yet one more time. Rep. Brian Seitz is quoted and it's really a perfect example of how the top-tier political interests have reset the issue back to square one:

“'This type of legislation keeps (abortion) on the front burner, that people are aware in Missouri that we, particularly in the Republican Party, are continuing to fight for life regardless of the outcome of the new Amendment 3,' said State Rep. Brian Seitz, a Branson Republican, referencing the November vote on abortion. 'We will continue to advance protections for the mother and for the infant in the womb. We’re not done. This is not the end.'”

And here is an article that details the issues that have been spawned by the 2024 amendment. One can imagine that the new Amendment 3 would also be a boon for lawyers and pro-life and pro-abortion organizations. From the article: "Dozens of restrictions — targeted regulation of abortion providers, or TRAP, laws — are being challenged as unconstitutional under Missouri’s voter-approved reproductive rights amendment. The outcome of this case will determine the future of abortion access in Missouri. In the months ahead, Jackson County Judge Jerri Zhang will decide which restrictions survive— and which vanish."

PERSONHOOD AND EQUAL PROTECTION

By passing personhood and equal protection laws most of these issues would end. Missouri's GOP super majority could have passed these bills easily the last few years. They could easily pass them this year. They will not. 

Why not? Because many of our Republican legislators are owned by those who know that abortion is a lucrative business for diverse interests. Business is good for abortion doctors, clinics, Big Pharma, lawyers, and activists when it remains legal, even if there are some restrictions.  Restrictions just give more business to the lawyers and activists.

And your Republican legislators will willfully believe what they are fed and then regurgitate it to you--that polls tell them a personhood bill will fail. Oh, they promise that in the future a personhood bill will pass (magically) but not now. Now, incrementalism is needed. The ritual sacrifice of babies must continue until the tea leaves forecast a fortuitous moment.

Trust us, they whisper. We know what we're doing. We've been doing it for 50 years now. 

FIFTY YEARS.

Time to break the spell. Walk away from Omelas and don't vote to murder some babies so others might be saved and one can feel justified. We must pass the personhood and equal protection bills in our legislature.

I hope Christians who are considering voting for Amendment 3 understand the moral stakes. If you voted NO on the 2024 Amendment 3 you are not culpable for the abortions that are currently being performed in Missouri. If you vote YES on the new Amendment 3, you have taken the side of legalizing abortion. You will, in essence, have voted YES to legally murder unborn persons.

A YES vote on A3 kicks the can down the road of incrementalism--a road the pro-life movement has been traveling for over fifty years now. In the following video you will hear why equal protection is important and why incremental regulation is a failed strategy:



at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Saturday, February 21, 2026

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. 


at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, February 16, 2026

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.

 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.

at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Missouri...

 Pro-life is not what it used to be:

at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, February 3, 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.

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.

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.

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.

at 6 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)