Don't Be Fooled By Emotional Arguments -- No on A3

Christians are being asked to vote for an unjust law

The Southern Baptists for Abolishing Abortion have it right. "We are not saying, 'If we can’t save 100%, save nobody.' Save 98, save ten, save one—every righteous restraint is worth pursuing. The objection is to protecting some by constitutionally establishing that others may legally be killed. There is a moral difference between an incomplete law and an unjust law. This is an unjust law. We cannot 'do evil that good may come,' (Rom. 3:8)."

The emotionally-charged argument that saving "even one baby is worth" creating a subclass of other babies it is permissible to murder, must be examined by Christians to see if it is Scripturally sound. The SBAA also writes, "God commands justice without partiality (Deut. 1:17; Prov. 24:23; James 2:1–9). The guilty should be punished, not their innocent children (Deut. 24:16)."

I have noted the Scriptures below:

Deut. 1:17 -- "You shall not be partial in judgment. You shall hear the small and the great alike. You shall not be intimidated by anyone, for the judgment is God’s. And the case that is too hard for you, you shall bring to me, and I will hear it.’"

Prov. 24:23 -- "These also are sayings of the wise. Partiality in judging is not good."

James 2:1-9 -- "My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, 'You sit here in a good place,' while you say to the poor man, 'You stand over there,' or, 'Sit down at my feet,' have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him? But you have dishonored the poor man. Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court? Are they not the ones who blaspheme the honorable name by which you were called? If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself,' you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors."

Deut. 24:16 -- "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin."

Voters are being told that there are no other options, that if we don't vote 'yes' on Amendment 3, there will not be a chance in the foreseeable future to save babies. This is an outright lie. Any time there is unthinking pressure and fear being instilled in voters, it is from below and not above. What Christian voters need most is clarity. What they are getting from their leaders and establishment pro-life organizations is a propaganda campaign that will regulate lawful abortion in Missouri. Most abortions will continue unabated, regardless of the amendment's wording. This has been covered extensively in previous articles on this site and others like Abolish Abortion Missouri.

Truly pro-life people and groups have been advocating for equal protection and personhood bills for several years. These bills will be re-introduced into the Missouri Legislature for 2027. There is always an answer that does not require voters to codify abortion in the state constitution. Equal protection and personhood is the answer. 

Distrusting God and His laws regarding justice for the weak and vulnerable and voting in a human doctrine that creates a subclass of humans opens the door to even more evil, such as euthanasia for the old and disabled. Christians must hold the line, even when their leaders and Christian legislators have listened to other gods. God bless the Southern Baptists who are awake to the Uniparty scam. Click HERE to access SBAA's whole post.

It's NOT the Democrats that Kill Personhood Bills...

 ...It's the legendary Republican Super Majority in the Missouri Legislature, and Missouri Right to Life. 

If you want more reasons why you should vote NO on Amendment 3, read Sen. Moon's latest newsletter HERE. 

The Outer Party is Obedient to the Grift

 

I have served in the pulpit and in the Senate. From both places I can tell you the silence of pastors has cost us dearly. The watchman who saw the sword coming and would not blow the trumpet was held responsible for the blood (Ezek 33:6). Pastors, open your mouths.

— Dusty Deevers (@DustyDeevers) October 23, 2026

Yes, pastors have allowed the culture of death to advance with very little opposition. But now that they are in the sleep-walking phase, what do they do in Missouri but back a pro-abortion bill dressed up in pro-life terms. 

In an opinion piece titled "The Orwellian Doublespeak of Big Abortion" from 2020, Dr. Poppy Daniels describes the process of groupthink, "Much of society, who have subsumed their own natural gut instinct to abhor the death of innocents and submitted their thinking to Hivemind propaganda, have become ambassadors of their own destruction."

They cannot be ignorant of the larger agenda that drives the money and policies. The middle management, the Outer Party, which is made up of legislators, pro-life and pro-abortion organizations, physicians and activists, and yes pastors, carry out the agenda of population control and euthanasia by giving in to godless arguments and clever propaganda.

Christian pastors, Christian legislators, and Christian voters are promoting Amendment 3 on November's ballot, something that would have been unthinkable a few years ago. Sen. Joe Nicola, a pastor and Missouri state senator, supports voting to allow abortion on certain unborn babies. 

Part of his justification? "...civil government must govern an imperfect society of different religions and beliefs where they all get to vote. Christians should live according to God's command and be the salt of the earth and the light of the world as we are called to be without expecting those who do not know the Lord to live that way...Even our Constitution speaks of 'forming a more perfect union', not a perfect union. Why should Christians reject protections that can save lives today while waiting for complete abolition?"

Where to begin with the theological errors and political compromises Sen. Nicola suggests? 

Sen. Joe Nicola

First, according to the Pew Research Center, 62% of Missourians say they are Christians. That is a large majority of voters who should be voting for laws and amendments that uphold Art. I, Sec. 2 of the state constitution, "Promotion of general welfare — natural rights of persons — equality under the law — purpose of government. — That all constitutional government is intended to promote the general welfare of the people; that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry; that all persons are created equal and are entitled to equal rights and opportunity under the law; that to give security to these things is the principal office of government, and that when government does not confer this security, it fails in its chief design."

Does it matter that we should not expect "those who do not know the Lord to live that way..." Oh really? Is Sen. Nicola actually suggesting that our representative republic should not pass laws that reflect the natural rights of persons (which includes pre-born persons) to life and liberty because some minority of citizens are not Christian? Is he really suggesting that Christians can vote for a constitutional amendment that allows abortion of a newly-designated subclass of humans because not everyone is Christian?

Next, Sen. Nicola suggests that because the state of our union is not perfect, therefore it is permissible, as a Christian, to vote FOR abortion "while waiting for complete abolition." Why wait? Sen. Nicola and all the other weak Christians in the legislature who support A3 are willing to violate God's law in order to appease Big Abortion--all the groups and individuals who benefit by abortion. And yes, groups like Missouri Right to Life and Her Health, Her Future benefit from legalized abortion. 

MRL opposes equal protection and personhood laws and heavily supports A3. Speaking about MRL, Sen. Mike Moon had this to say at a recent debate, "In 2024 the churches were absolutely silent. I mean, there were a few. Today they are all yes votes on Amendment 3. Part of that is driven by Missouri Right to Life. They made a statement publicly that they would rather wait until 2028 to work against Amendment 3 2024. You know what the reason was? Money. They'd have a better chance of fundraising. Now they're on board because they have to. Whenever they get caught with their pants down they jump in. And that's a sad statement."

Bravo, Sen. Moon!

It is scandalous that Christian pastors like Sen. Nicola either cannot see or are willfully blind to one of the main motives behind the abortion racket. If any of those pastors or legislators had one iota of Christian courage they would expose the billions of dollars that the abortion industry makes every year--from Big Pharma's abortion pill manufacture and sales, to abortion doctors, to Medicaid payments for abortion, to counseling and treatment, to sales of aborted baby parts, to "grassroots" efforts to "fight" abortion, and so on. It's a scam. A grift. And EVERYONE involved wants the grift to continue, from organizations like The Population Council (which sold the rights to the abortion pill to a US company) down to the Outer Party participants who get funding to either fight or support abortion.

Finally, Sen. Nicola asserts that the abortion regulations in A3 "...can save lives..." There is no guarantee of any babies being saved by A3. The amendment, if passed, will allow for abortion with no enforcement mechanism for lying about rape or incest. Indeed, the majority of abortions (Telehealth or "mailbox" abortions) are not addressed. And the majority of clinic abortions are done before 9 or 10 weeks gestation.

A3 is a sop--a bribe. It keeps the Molech flames burning. The "pro-life" side of the abortion industrial complex lives to "fight" another day. The pro-abortion side keeps abortion legal and its regulations largely unenforceable. It's a win/win. The money keeps flowing and the babies keep dying.

If only Christians would wake up and obey their God.

NOTE: Dr. Poppy Daniels, OBGYN appears on hour two of Missouri Liberty Radio on Sunday night. That would be the 7 p.m. hour. She discusses Amendment 3 with Sam Britton.

Missouri's Pro-life Schism: Part Three

 Part 3: How PACS and powerful politicians exert pressure on legislators and voters

By Gretchen Garrity

From: Bauman Rare Books

“Save us from weak resignation, To the evils we deplore…”

                                                                                  -- God of Grace and God of Glory

Once compromise and moral confusion enters an institution all kinds of mischief ensues. The Missouri Legislature, like other institutions, is composed of both good and bad individuals, and some who think they are doing good. And there are manifold pressures on legislators by lobbyists, PACs, and other organizations who seek to influence legislation and votes.

In her famous anti-slavery novel “Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” Harriet Beecher Stowe said, “There is one thing that every individual can do, – they can see to it that they feel right. An atmosphere of sympathetic influence encircles every human being; and the man or woman who feels strongly, healthily and justly, on the great interests of humanity, is a constant benefactor to the human race. See, then, to your sympathies in this matter! Are they in harmony with the sympathies of Christ? or are they swayed and perverted by the sophistries of worldly policy?”

The abortion amendment on the ballot in November--Amendment 3--is the result of the ‘sophistries of worldly policy.’ As noted in parts One and Two, A3 is not a pro-life amendment, but a cunningly devised piece of legislation that preserves a ‘right’ to abort children through regulation of the amendment’s provisions. For more information on the truth of A3 as opposed to what its proponents say, see the resources at the end of this article.

Missouri Right to Life PAC (MRL) and Her Health, Her Future (designed to be a fundraising arm in support of A3) are two Missouri PACs that seek to influence legislators and voters to support the cause of regulating abortion. Freedom Principle Missouri/Missouri First PAC is another ‘conservative’ organization that backs A3. In fact, MRL contributed $15,000 to President Byron Keelin’s Freedom Principle Missouri’s Missouri First PAC in an October 7 MEC filing.

Rudi Keller of The Missouri Independent explains how PACs also influence state legislative races HERE.

Her Health, Her Future has raised more than $3 million, much of it coming in the last few weeks with anonymous donations of $750,000, $1.25 million, and $900,000. These anonymous dark money donations coming in the last weeks of an election season show the determination of certain forces that want an abortion amendment that preserves abortion rights, but is acceptable and soothing to pro-life voters.

To do that, the proponents of Amendment 3 have used deceptive language and tactics and have launched an expensive campaign in churches around the state to get out the Christian vote. The GOP establishment on both the state and local levels have also heavily promoted A3.

Sen. Brattin's Chief of Staff, Tom Estes gets paid by HHHF PAC. From: X

A3 is a litmus test for pro-life legislators, and groups like MRL PAC have withheld endorsements based on SJR73(A3) votes. For instance, I asked Sen. Mike Moon (District 29) about the influence Missouri Right to Life has on candidates for legislative office. He said, “In the “eyes” of the general public, MRL is looked at as the “pro-Life” authority. Especially for new candidates running for office, the MRL endorsement is seen as a must-have. In reality, though, a candidate can win without the MRL endorsement.”

This is precisely what happened with Rep. Burt Whaley (138^th District), who was endorsed by MRL as was his primary opponent, Tom Franiak in 2024. However, as an incumbent, Whaley was snubbed in the 2026 cycle by the MRL PAC.

Why? Because he was an absent vote on HJR73 (which is now Amendment 3 on November's ballot). In fact, though Whaley has run on a pro-life platform and has sponsored identical personhood bills, HJR 109 and HB 3056, MRL endorsed his 2026 primary opponent Tom Franiak, who again opposed Whaley.

According to MRL PAC, their endorsement criteria is based upon:

“MRL PAC endorsements are non-partisan and are based on the following guidelines:

 • Pro-life Survey - A candidate must complete an MRL PAC or National Right to Life PAC survey verifying their pro-life position on abortion, euthanasia, human cloning, embryonic stem cell research, and other issues that fall under the purview of MRL.

 • Voting record - When a candidate has held office, whether running for the same seat or a different seat, MRL PAC considers up to a four-year voting record to determine a candidate’s eligibility for endorsement. The percentage of pro-life votes required for endorsement is determined by MRL PAC and takes into consideration not only the candidate’s votes, but also the degree of involvement in advancing pro-life legislation and the importance of specific votes.”

Later, MRL PAC gives itself broad parameters in its endorsement criteria, “MRL PAC also considers the political realities and circumstances of each race.” A polite way of saying they will endorse whomever they want and for whatever reasons.

I mentioned to Sen. Moon the situation with Rep. Whaley and asked him his thoughts. He replied, “In my opinion, MRL wants to be a 'king-maker' (they want to endorse the candidate most likely to win). MRL has endorsed congressional candidates simply because they had the most money (and, appeared most likely to win because of it).”

Whaley won both primaries in large landslides, which proved Sen. Moon’s assertion that a candidate does not need MRL’s endorsement to win. Sen. Moon has also won his races without the endorsement of MRL PAC. Candidates are waking up to the political limits of PAC endorsements, especially when those PACs and 501(c)3 organizations compromise on their own principles for political expediency.

I asked Rep. Whaley about the situation with MRL PAC. He told me, "During the 2026 General Assembly session, I had the following conversation with [Executive Director and Chief Lobbyist] Susan Klein and another individual. I explained the reason for my absent vote. During our conversation, Susan stated three times that HJR 73 (A3) was a very important vote. She also expressed concerns about the personhood bills that Sen. Mike Moon and I are sponsoring, alleging that the bills criminalized women for having abortions."

Here you see the emphasis on women and not pre-born babies that has characterized MRL's focus for some time. Whaley went on to say, "I stated that we must move toward a culture of life rather than a culture of death. I further explained I would like to see mothers who have aborted their children participate in mandatory trauma-informed counseling, educational programming on the developmental stages of a baby from conception to birth, a postpartum recovery program, and a visit to a pregnancy resource center."

Rep. Whaley also said, "Based on the conversation, it seemed clear that I would not receive an endorsement from MRL for the 2026 election cycle. Ultimately, I was not endorsed by MRL during either the primary or the general election for the 2026 election cycle."

ENDORSEMENTS NOT WHAT THEY'RE CRACKED UP TO BE

I also asked Sen. Moon how candidates and legislators viewed MRL’s endorsement, or lack thereof. He replied, “It is my belief (due to having discussions with candidates and legislators about the MRL endorsement) that most candidates for elected office revere the endorsement and will do whatever is necessary to gain it.

Here’s a truth I discovered when I was first elected in 2013: I was encouraged to allow a campaign consultant to review the MRL survey before submitting my answers. I questioned the request and was told it was simply to ensure that I had provided the answers wanted by MRL. My rebuttal was: If I don’t know my position well enough to answer the survey, how will I be able to defend my position? (I didn’t offer the survey for review.)

Later, perhaps a year or so, I related my experience to a lobbyist. The lobbyist told me that he previously worked for HRCC (House Republican Campaign Committee) and part of his responsibilities was to complete surveys for candidates (once complete, the candidate would sign the survey and submit it to the MRL).

As a result of this new-found information, I contacted the MRL staff responsible for endorsements, Dave Plemmons [the chairman of MRL PAC], and related the story told by the former HRCC staffer. Mr. Plemmons told me that he didn’t care who completed the survey. He was only interested in the candidate’s signature.

I imagine that there may be a good number of elected officials who did not personally complete the MRL survey (and, as a result, do not truly know what they believe about the sanctity of life).

I have cast some fairly hard votes – often being the only Republican House or Senate member to vote against a bill sanctioned by MRL. Some have actually told me afterward they wished they had voted the same as I did (they feared reprisal in their next election).”

THE GOP SCHISM RUNS BOTH WAYS

Missouri’s First Lady Claudia Kehoe is the treasurer of Her Health, Her Future. The political cachet that brings is illustrative of how things work in Jefferson City. MRL declined to endorse Mike Kehoe in 2024 for the general election, and it is commonly believed because he was in favor of rape and incest exceptions for abortion legislation. The non-endorsement caused a rift noted HERE. MRL PAC endorsed Jay Ashcroft in July of 2023, more than a year before the primary.

Republican state Sen. Mike Cierpiot had this to say:

“Their leadership, Ms. (Susan) Klein, and Mr. (Dave) Plemmons and Mr. (Steve) Rupp have been much more interested in causing Republican brush fires over issues with much smaller or no impact on the huge effort for life.”

According to the Missouri Independent article, he accused MRL “of focusing more on enforcing purity of thought and maintaining its influence within the GOP than writing laws acceptable to most Missourians.”

The article went on:

“The problems with Missouri Right to Life was evident in the 2024 elections when it made single-candidate endorsements, freezing out candidates who had been ardent anti-abortion legislators. The organization endorsed then-Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft in the Republican primary for governor, then refused to endorse Republican nominee Mike Kehoe for the general election.

Other Republicans who won without the endorsement of Missouri Right to Life joined in the criticism. State Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, a Republican from Arnold, said the law triggered by the 2022 abortion decision was negotiated in spite of Missouri Right to Life, not with its help.

‘I don’t know that I really care, frankly, that they didn’t endorse me,’ Coleman said. ‘What I do care about is that they didn’t endorse Gov. Kehoe in the primary, and they didn’t endorse him in the general.’”

Setting aside MRL’s obvious change of heart over rape and incest exceptions after the 2024 election, it has to be noted that establishment Republicans like Cierpiot and Gov. Kehoe, are advocating for the regulation of abortion rather than its abolishment. And once a squishy 'pro-life' candidate assumed the governorship, the troops fell in line. 

From: X

Considering that Missouri is historically a fervent pro-life state, the pro-abortion narrative that was built after abortion was narrowly approved in 2024 is making it difficult for legislators and establishment pro-life groups to hold the line. One might say there is a powerful segment of the Republican Party in Missouri that has succumbed to compromise, as was indicated when then-candidate Lieut. Gov. Mike Kehoe noted his support of rape and incest exceptions during the 2024 campaign season, and won despite the lack of endorsement from MRL.

Kehoe had the backing and endorsement of large lobbying organizations and copious campaign funds and apparently was willing to risk the lack of an MRL endorsement. Perhaps it is time candidates for legislative office should vet the establishment pro-life organizations like MRL.

Since Kehoe's election, MRL has fallen in line with rape and incest exceptions, and Claudia Kehoe’s Her Health, Her Future PAC is easily commanding funding in support of A3. The strategy is to pull in political support from churches, which are often weak and disengaged during mid-terms. To that end, there has been a campaign with establishment PACs like MRL and HHHF, along with the Missouri GOP to get Christians out to vote in favor of allowing abortion.

Gov. Kehoe is willing to expend political capital on supporting Amendment 3, when his support for both amendments 4 and 5 handed him embarrassing losses in the August primary. It may turn out that MRL’s lack of an endorsement for him contained a kernel of wisdom.

Former state representative and former pastor Doug Richey, is one of many influencers who opposed rape and incest exceptions in 2022. "Fundamentally tied to the pro-life position is the idea that the baby in the womb is a human being. And that human being, being innocent of any crime, innocent of any wrongdoing in what took place to bring about that child's existence--that child's life should be protected," Richey said at the time. Richey is one of many who have fallen in line with MRL, HHHF and Gov. Kehoe by also advocating for Amendment 3.

According to reports, the 2024 abortion amendment that enshrined abortion up to fetal viability into the state constitution awoke the GOP to a realization that abortion exceptions would be needed in order to repeal the current amendment (or so that is the narrative). As a result, there has been an incrementalist retrenchment in how Republican legislators and establishment pro-life groups view the abortion battle.

Exceptions are now acceptable in the long march against abortion. Apparently one has to vote FOR abortion before one can vote AGAINST it. The retreat into abortion exceptions has greatly hindered the pro-life movement’s integrity. Cracks are showing. Both MRL and legislators have shown they will compromise when it is politically expedient.

From: X

According to MRL’s latest federal tax form 990, their mission briefly stated is, “To educate the public about abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia, and to support positive alternatives to abortion."

Their 990 is more in line with how MRL behaves politically than the rhetoric on their website. Like many NGOs, MRL seems to be heavy on “education” and short on actual solutions and outcomes, to the point that they are endorsing a pro-abortion amendment they have helped to cloak in pro-life language.

The abortion abolitionist movement has pointed out the spectacular failure of an incremental strategy of ending abortion. That pro-life organizations and Christian legislators have elected to use the same failed strategy may be indicative of a slow giving in to abortion by incremental degrees, rather than a renewed intention to end it.

A politically connected friend quipped, "They will run to break God's law before they will ever break with the GOP establishment." 

I asked Sen. Moon what responsibility pastors and Christians in general had when pondering how to vote on A3. He said, "According to the Scripture, people in general are commanded to not murder because we are made in the image of God (Genesis). Since followers of Christ claim to believe that God is sovereign, we must, if we truly believe what we say we believe, we cannot justify with Scripture the unequal justice in A3.

The Bible is replete with examples demonstrating how God worked through the lives of people who followed Him and did not 'bow' to the demands of the world around them.

Pastors must teach Biblical truth to the church (and, even if, truth is not taught, Christians must seek what the Bible says, compare this truth against A3) and vote accordingly."

I also asked Sen. Moon about incrementalism and he responded, "Incremental approaches have been tried for over 50 years. Although, some will argue that progress has been made to reduce the number of abortions in MO and across the nation, the (seemingly short) gains have been overtaken by those who support the murder of pre-born children – as was the case following the Dobbs decision. Today, it seems we are much farther away from ending (or seeing reductions in) abortion, than we were 50 years ago.

As a result of incrementalism, abortion is rampant in MO. If A3 passes, abortion will remain legal in MO and, according to statistics, abortion will continue to abound among MO women (due to the inability to prevent out-of-state travel to procure abortion and/or acquiring abortion drugs via mail order)."

GOPe RESISTS EQUAL PROTECTION AND PERSONHOOD BILLS

This is the hard truth that legislators and establishment pro-life groups are ignoring or purposely obscuring in their scramble to garner a political "win." I asked the senator about personhood and equal protection bills.

"Currently, even though, personhood and equal protection bills have been filed, heard in committee, and voted “do pass” in at least two sessions, there is no strong desire to see the measures placed on the ballot for votes state wide.

In my opinion, MO can pass bills to regulate abortion, but until pre-born babies are recognized as persons and offered equal protection and due process of law (holding those who murder [accountable]) abortion will abound in our state."  I noted in a previous article MRL's opposition to equal protection and personhood bills because they criminalize the act of abortion for the mothers. 

From: X

I further asked about how exceptions dehumanize babies conceived in rape or incest, and those who have fetal anomalies. Sen. Moon responded, "The exceptions create an unprotected class of humans. It has been argued that the exceptions are only a small percentage of the murders by abortion. Since A3 requires no accountability for the claims of rape or incest, the number of babies killed as a result cannot be estimated. In addition, in cases of medical emergency and fetal anomaly, no time limit is established to prevent the murder.

It should also be mentioned that in cases of medical emergency, currently there are not restrictions on procedures to intervene (and, in all cases, the mother’s life can be saved by performing an emergency C-section, if necessary). There are not laws preventing such procedures.

I have discovered, even though, few are willing to admit, that even with ectopic pregnancies, there have been successful removal and implantation of the embryo resulting in live births (and, sparing the life of the mother).

This attitude also opens the door for allowing the murder of the elderly (since some only take up resources and are no longer able to contribute to society)." 

Sen. Adam Schnelting, who sponsored Amendment 3 and has reportedly admitted to authoring some of it, was against exceptions in 2019 when he added a trigger law amendment to HB 126. According to a May 18, 2019 article in St. Louis Today, Schnelting said at the time, "If we are in fact pro-life, what kind of hypocrite would I be to not have a bill that is 100 percent pro-life?"

Underscoring the schism in Missouri politics over the abortion issue, Christian pastors have entered the fray and are lining up on both sides of Amendment 3. In 2025, public testimony about A3 showed the split between Christian voters and legislators. According to an article at KSDK at the time, "Schnelting during Wednesday’s hearing said his amendment serves to clarify the state’s abortion laws, pointing to the millions of dollars in ads paid for by the Amendment 3 campaign, which he said misled voters."

Oh, the irony of that statement in light of the current campaign for A3 (2026), which has run the gamut from falsely claiming 99% of abortions will be stopped, to saying parental rights will be protected (they are already codified in state law), to ignoring the vast majority of abortions by chemical means via Telehealth.

In what is arguably the clearest statement on the moral implications of A3, the article quoted a pastor: "The Rev. Brian Davis, a Missouri pastor who came to Jefferson City on Wednesday to oppose Schnelting’s bill, called the rape and incest exceptions 'a failed attempt to manage evil.'"

Dr. Abby Johnson has spoken eloquently on the subject of abortion and equal protection for pre-born babies.

"Our ministry, And Then There Were None, serves women who have had abortions. Not women who were thinking about having an abortion. Not women who were “abortion determined.” Women who actually had the abortion...We know the pressures these women faced. We know the lies they were told. We know the pain many of them carry. And after years of listening, our ministry made a decision.

We publicly embraced equal protection for the unborn. Not because it was popular. Not because it was politically expedient. Not because it would help fundraising. If anything, it made life harder. We did it because we became convinced it was right.

That should mean something. The testimony of former abortion workers should matter. The voices of women who have actually had abortions should matter. The experience of those who spent years inside the industry should matter..."

'FIGHTING' ABORTION IS EXPENSIVE

If it passes, A3 will make no significant dent in abortion statistics in Missouri. But many establishment pro-life groups and people may sit back and relax, content to know they won...something. The push for equal protection for pre-born babies will most likely continue to be opposed by establishment types. Instead, the abortion industrial complex, both pro- and anti-abortion will continue to cheerlead and raise funds. The show must go on.

Pastors and Christians like Tom Estes and Alex Bryant, and state employees like Sherry Kutenkuller Arthaud will continue to take payments from PACS like Her Health, Her Future for strategic planning, grassroots management, grassroots coordinating, etc.

According to HHHF's MEC filing reports, Estes, who earns about $91,000 a year as Sen. Rick Brattin's chief of staff, has received ten $5,000 payments since the end of December 2025 until the end of September 2026 for "strategic planning" services. Pastor Alex Bryant, who is listed on the MEC report as providing "grassroots management" has received five payments of $5,000 each between May and September. Sherry Kutenkuller Arthaud, chief of staff for Sen. Adam Schnelting, has received payments and reimbursements of over $14,000 since June for "grassroots coordinating." She earns $100,000 per year as Schnelting's chief of staff.

In a very important Oct. 19 debate hosted by Mizzou Law's Society for Biblical Jurisprudence, Sen. Mike Moon discusses Missouri Right to Life's politicking. His comments start around the 59:00:00 mark. You have to go to YouTube to access the video. Link HERE.

In all the vile rush to "win" back some semblance of a "pro-life" victory since 2024's Amendment 3 ballot approval, the most vulnerable among humanity--pre-born babies--have become a political football. While Republicans schism over what it means to be pro-life, the pro-abortion industry is pushing for over-the-counter abortion pills. 

Pro-life candidates should not fear organizations like Missouri Right to Life or Her Health, Her Future or a lack of endorsement. Their moral influence is weak. The evidence these groups are more interested in political power than saving babies is clear.

It is time to pass equal protection and personhood bills. Establishment pro-life politicians who are content to be Incrementalists will never end abortion. And you might want to ask yourself if that has become the goal--always fighting, always regulating, never ending abortion.

Listen to Dr. Abby:

"The reality is that every successful human rights movement has eventually arrived at the same conclusion: Human beings are entitled to equal protection under the law."

Additional Resources:

• Jennifer Barker with (Informed Health Choice Missouri) ICHM gives a line-by-line analysis in this video.  (There are also many helpful links below the video)
• Pro-life Laws are Keeping Abortion Legal 
• Act for Missouri article on A3
• Abolish Abortion Missouri
• Foundation to Abolish Abortion
• Will A3 save 98-99% of babies?
• Updated analysis of 2025 abortions with provider bans (Foundation to Abolish Abortion)
• I had two abortions. Here's why the law would have stopped mine

119 Reasons to oppose Amendment 3

God bless the Southern Baptists for Abolishing Abortion group. Here are some of their reasons. Click the link to read the rest. 

"38. Development cannot determine human worth. An eleven-week child is not less human than a thirteen-week child.
39. Size cannot determine human worth.
40. Dependency cannot determine human worth.

41. Disability cannot determine human worth.

42. Parentage cannot determine human worth.

43. The crime of a father cannot determine the rights of his child.

44. Political popularity cannot determine human worth.

45. The electorate does not create the right to life. Human rights come from God, not ballot boxes.

46. Popular sovereignty cannot transform injustice into justice. A majority has no rightful authority to authorize the intentional killing of innocent people.

47. Civil magistrates are ministers of justice under God (Rom. 13:1–4); they are not autonomous creators of morality.

48. God, not Missouri voters, determines whether murder is wrong.

49. Having only two choices on a ballot cannot make an unjust choice righteous.

50. Christians are not morally confined to whatever alternatives politicians place before them.

51. Christians can oppose Missouri’s current abortion-rights amendment and Amendment 3 simultaneously.

52. Voting against Amendment 3 does not mean approving the current constitutional regime.

53. A “no” vote on Amendment 3 does not mean the same thing as a “no” vote from Planned Parenthood.

54. Two parties can reject the same proposal for completely opposite reasons.

55. Planned Parenthood can oppose Amendment 3 because it protects too many children; abolitionists can oppose it because it protects too few.

56. Calling that “voting with the pro-aborts” obscures the actual disagreement.

57. Indeed, on Amendment 3’s exceptions, the yes position itself agrees with abortion advocates that some abortions should remain legal.

58. Both positions permit the killing of at least some children conceived in rape; they disagree about how many abortions should be legal, not whether that particular class receives equal protection.

59. Our position challenges the premise itself: no innocent child should be legally killable because of the circumstances of his conception.

60. Amendment 3 risks teaching Missourians that some innocent lives are less worthy of protection than others.

61. Law teaches. It communicates what conduct society considers wrongful and whose rights government considers worthy of protection.

62. A rape exception teaches that circumstances of conception can affect legal protection."

"Medication" abortions...

 Missouri's Amendment 3 does not address the out-of-state mailbox abortion pill trade. Abortion will continue to flourish in Missouri even if A3 is passed. The amount of babies saved, by all analytics, will be negligible. But Christians will be satisfied that they did something to stop abortions...by voting for abortions in cases of rape and incest. Make it make sense.

The Doctor Poppy Show: Amendment 3

If you want to know more about November's Amendment 3 and the "pro-life" groups pushing it, watch Dr. Poppy Daniels, Jennifer Barker of ICHM, and myself discuss the issues. 

From Dr. Poppy's channel:

"Pro-life Missourians are being told to vote YES on Amendment 3. Pro-choice Missourians are being told to vote NO. That should make every voter stop and read the fine print. 

On this episode of The Dr. Poppy Show, Dr. Poppy, a pro-life OB-GYN for 23 years, sits down with Jennifer Ann Barker of Informed Health Choice Missouri and Gretchen Garrity, journalist and writer of the Right to Win Ozarks blog. Here’s what we covered: 

-What Amendment 3 (HJR 73) actually allows, including exceptions for rape and incest up to 12 weeks 

-Why the fetal anomaly and medical emergency exceptions have NO gestational limit 

-The transgender surgery ban that’s already in Missouri law (and why it’s on the ballot anyway) 

-Why the amendment does nothing about mail-order abortion pills, which make up close to 70% of abortions 

-What a real medical emergency looks like, from an OB who has practiced for 23 years -Why a personhood bill never got a full Senate vote 

-Who is funding the push for Amendment 3 This isn’t a conversation backed by a PAC or a politician.

 It’s three women who have done the reading, explaining what’s in the five pages most voters will never see on their ballot. Read the legislation yourself before November. Search “HJR 73 Missouri 2025” or visit sos.mo.gov."

Christless Conservatives

When Christians pray they are going to get a "partial good" from voting FOR abortion, they are in the same company as those who sacrificed babies in ancient times. Seth Gruber of The White Rose Resistance ties it all together in this interview with Lara Logan.

By partnering with groups who masquerade as pro-life, Christian pastors and their flocks who vote yes on Amendment 3 (to regulate abortion and classify certain unborn babies for sacrifice) they will bring woe and judgment upon themselves. One does not commit evil in order to bring good. 

Part 3 of Missouri's Pro-life Schism will be published soon. 

Save the 1

If you are tempted to think you are being virtuous for voting to kill babies conceived in rape or incest so that some other babies might be saved please take a look at Savethe1...Vote NO on Amendment 3 and fight like heck to pass personhood and equal protection bills. Put the abortion racket out of business in Missouri. Savethe1.