When you are faced with the reality of what is happening in our state and nation, it is intolerable to be a pro-life incrementalist. Voting for the 2026 Amendment 3 is not the solution. Click through to read the whole tweet. Soylent Green level horror:
People aren't generally aware of this. Some 80 percent of abortions are done at home... with a pill. The unborn child is expelled into the toilet and flushed, as per healthcare professional recommendation.
"That the term "person" under this constitutionincludes every human being with a unique DNA code regardlessof age, including every in utero human child at every stageof biological development from the moment of conceptionuntil birth."
It’s time for those that consider themselves to be “pro-life” to more deeply consider the words that we use when describing our position. The words that we choose matter. Otherwise, we might find that our position is more arbitrary than principled.https://t.co/w3AnZft7a8
This is a highly worthwhile essay. Very short, but it addresses the inconsistencies that "pro-life" advocates have accepted into their value system over the decades. This is another argument against incrementalism. Incrementalists are consistently worn down over time and begin to compromise.
Republicans in both the Christian County Missouri Republican Assembly (MRA) and the Christian County Republican Central Committee (CCRCC), as well as organizations like Missouri Right to Life and Freedom Principle Missouri, have all compromised on a consistent value system that would uphold the equal protection bills in our legislature. They are lukewarm.
Our elected representatives have been influenced to do the same. No one has the right to murder a human being. No one. The pro-life movement is morally atomized. In order to succeed at saving babies, they must do the work of coming together with a morally cohesive platform and end the infighting.
The abolitionist movement is not going away. It is growing. It is morally consistent. It is hated because the world hates truth. Pro-life individuals and groups must learn to love the truth again. The lives of countless children are at stake.
Abortion is murder. Women who abort their children have committed murder. Doctors who perform abortions are murderers.
Our legislature must pass personhood and equal protection legislation.
📷 ACT4MO ACTION ALERT — SJR 72 Hearing Monday 📷 Sen. Mike Moon’s SJR 72 will be heard Monday, March 2 @ 1:00 PM in SCR 2 (1st floor). What is this SJR 72? A constitutional amendment to recognize personhood from conception and apply equal protection to unborn children—so…
Umberto Eco, who owned 50,000 books, had this to say about home libraries:
“It is foolish to think that you have to read all the books you buy, as it is foolish to criticize those who buy more books than they will ever be able to read. It would be like saying that you should use… pic.twitter.com/uU0M5gAaGu
JUST IN - Rapid declines in childhood literacy rates across the U.S. are prompting Nationwide Children’s Hospital to begin screening for literacy skills. Nationally, just over 30% of fourth graders are considered proficient in reading, meaning about 70% are incompetent — AP pic.twitter.com/f7cqdFcVJQ
How menopausal do you have to be to post something like this--over a discussion of taxpayer funding for services? A little background on the play referenced in the screenshot.
At one point, the Christian County Library had 45 mobile hot spots, but seem to have just under 40 devices now.
At the Feb. 24, 2026 meeting, mobile hot spots were discussed. A great deal of information was shared regarding the usage and cost of these hot spots, both pro and con. The video of the meeting, when it comes out, should be of interest to citizens. I will post it, along with other information. In the meantime, I am requesting more information, as noted below.
Custodian
of Records
Christian County Library
Via email:
sunshine@christiancountylibrary.org
February 25, 2026
This is a
request for records under the Missouri Sunshine Law, Chapter 610,
Revised Statutes of Missouri. I request that you make available to me
records pertaining to the following information regarding the
library's mobile hot spots and related services:
Without
exposing any personally identifiable information (PII), please
provide the number of unique users who have checked out mobile
hot spots in the last four months (from October 1, 2025, to February
1, 2026).
Of
the total number of Verizon billable line items, please provide the
breakdown of how many are cell phones and how many are mobile hot spots.
Please provide copies of the Nov. 2025, Dec. 2025, Jan. 2026, and Feb. 2026 Verizon invoices, restricted to "Overview of Lines" pages 1-5, that
detail this information.
Regarding
the status of the seven mobile hot spots mentioned at the Feb. 24, 2026 Board meeting, please provide an explanation for why the Library District pays for mobile hot spots that are not being utilized and have zero data usage.
Whether
any of the mobile hot spots are issued to staff members for
work-from-home: please provide any policies,
assignment records, or memos that address this.
Whether
the library changes passwords on mobile hot spots each time they are
checked out: please provide any policies that describe
the checkout process for these devices as related to passwords.
Whether
an internet filter is installed on the mobile hot spots: please
provide any policies related to content
filtering on these devices.
If
any portion of the requested records is closed under the Sunshine
Law, please provide the open portions and cite the specific statutory
exemption for any redactions or withholdings.
Please
provide these records in electronic format via email. I would like to
inspect the records if electronic copies are not feasible. Please
inform me in advance if the cost of fulfilling this request exceeds
$25. If the cost will be higher, please provide a detailed estimate
before proceeding.
If
you deny any part of this request, please provide a written
explanation for the denial, including a reference to the specific
statutory exemption(s) authorizing the withholding of the record and
a brief explanation of how the exemption applies to the record
withheld.
Thank
you for your assistance. I look forward to your response within three
business days, as required by law.
"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:
This Section shall be known as "The Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative."
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Government shall not discriminate against persons providing or
obtaining reproductive health care or assisting another person in doing
so.
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.
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:
Wednesday was Abolish Abortion Missouri Org Day at the State Capitol. Here is the press conference held that day. This is a must-watch video! Please take a few minutes to call Senator Justin Brown (573-751-5713) and ask him to finally give MO State Senator Mike Moon SJR 72 a…
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."
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.
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 188.028therebyaffirming 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:
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:
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
