 |
| 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:
- 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…
— Act for Missouri (@ActforMissouri) February 20, 2026
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 |
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:
No comments:
Post a Comment