 |
| The Judgment of Solomon by Rafael |
MISSOURI’S PRO-LIFE
SCHISM
Part One: How Missouri Right to
Life Abandoned Unborn Babies
By Gretchen Garrity
Missouri voters will see a new abortion amendment (Amendment 3) on the Nov. 3, 2026 ballot. Previously known as HJR73, the new Amendment 3 purports to be a “pro-life” bill, when in fact it is a pro-abortion bill.
In 2024, the Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative (strangely also known as Amendment 3) was narrowly passed, enshrining abortion in the Missouri Constitution. Now, “pro-life” groups have countered with a new abortion amendment that voters will decide upon in November. While the new A3 has been sold as a “repeal and replace” amendment that would "ban" abortion, save babies, and begin anew the fight to end abortion, it is anything but that.
The current A3 is being heavily pushed by “pro-life” groups such as Missouri Right to Life (MRL) and Her Health, Her Future (HHHF). Most people assume that the apparently secular MRL is an anti-abortion 501(c)3 nonprofit dedicated to ending the murder of unborn infants. They call themselves “pro-life,” which has commonly been understood as a political stance dedicated to ending abortion. However, after 53 years as an organization, MRL’s own mission and vision statements show a diffused focus.
Their vision statement reads: “Transforming society to respect and protect all innocent human life.”
Their mission statement says: “Missouri Right to Life’s mission is to uphold and promote the sanctity of all innocent life from inception to natural death through education, legislation, and political action.”
Note that
nowhere in their vision or mission statements is an explicit call to end
abortion. Like so many nonprofits nowadays, MRL’s raison d’etre is
justified by high-sounding words like “transforming,” “upholding,” “promoting,”
and “educating” the public. In fact, abortion has become a
lucrative industry for all sides. MRL claims to oppose abortion, however, the
organization tolerates exceptions including rape and incest: “Each human
being, regardless of how he or she is conceived, deserves protection under the
law; however, MRL will sometimes be compelled to tolerate the addition of a
rape or incest exception to a measure in order to obtain more protection for
the unborn than now exists.”
What “protections for the unborn” are being obtained with A3? Note that MRL does not say each human being deserves equal protection under the law. That will become important later. One of the most common arguments from those in support of A3 is this: “If A3 saves even one baby I am all for it!” In fact, this argument is used extensively by both well-meaning and cynical proponents of A3.
How many unborn babies is it tolerable to murder in order to perhaps save some other babies? I say ‘perhaps’ because when you unpack Amendment 3, you will be able to reasonably assert there is no guarantee of saving “some babies” with this ballot amendment.
PLAYING GOD
What human has the authority to decide which babies shall die that others may live?
The convoluted explanation that MRL is at times “compelled to tolerate” rape and incest exceptions “in order to obtain more protection for the unborn than now exists” is inconsistent with a cohesive pro-life stance. Tolerating a little murder of infants (characterized as an “incomplete good” by A3 supporters) is not how one gets to a culture of life. However, the November 2026 Missouri ballot Amendment 3 heavily pushed by MRL includes much more than tolerating rape or incest exceptions.
MRL asserts that more education of citizens, lawmakers and judges will serve to eventually add more protections for unborn infants. Indeed, ultrasound pictures of unborn babies, developmental videos and advances in saving infants who are born early have not stopped the murder of millions of the unborn. Yet, groups like MRL continue to collect donations using the same old incrementalist playbook that has not worked to end abortion. There has already been over half a century of education regarding the pro-life stance and today abortion is available through chemical abortion drugs (Mifepristone, aka RU-486), which now constitute the majority of abortions in the United States.
The focus of advocating for pre-born babies is competing with an advocacy toward supporting and protecting women who seek abortions. It’s as if MRL put a finger to the wind and decided that compromise is a political position that brings the most benefit. To whom? Certainly not unborn babies. The public, in general, has not quite caught on to this shift.
Think about what MRL is advocating for--the necessity to kill unborn babies in order to save unborn babies. The Supreme Court of the United States spoke in the Dobbs decision, by sending abortion back to the states. Let’s pick apart the argument that "tolerat[ing] the addition of a rape or incest exception" is necessary.
NOT A REPEAL OF ABORTION, BUT A REGULATION OF ABORTION
Instead of repealing abortion, the new A3 regulates abortion. Some supporters of A3 believe the amendment will prevent up to 99% of abortions in Missouri. Could that possibly be true when A3 does not even address chemical abortions in Missouri? Would approving regulated abortion be worth legalizing the murder of other unborn babies?
Watch Dr. Wes Scroggins address that issue here:
Keep in mind there are proposed laws that would essentially end legal abortion in Missouri. They are called Equal Protection and Personhood bills. But MRL does not advocate for these bills, and even actively opposes them in the state legislature.
Is the regulation of abortion the true goal? MRL’s Policy Statement has not been updated in six years. If you look at MRL’s online website, you will mostly see pictures of happy pregnant women with phrases such as “Protect women, children and families.”
Protect women? By doing exactly what? Making abortion legal? Regulating it? Protecting women who murder their pre-born babies?
What about the babies?
MRL’s home page shows nothing of the actual physical and emotional consequences of abortion on babies and their mothers and fathers. Yes. Fathers suffer, too. One father’s anonymous lament is heartbreaking.
The 'unpleasantness' of the murder of babies has been replaced with a public relations veneer of supporting mothers who kill their unborn children, generally ignoring fathers, and featuring already-born children.
MRL’s WORD CHANGE TO INCEPTION VERSUS CONCEPTION
As I looked at MRL’s website, I noticed their mission statement used the word ‘inception’ instead of ‘conception’. Conception has to do with the moment of fertilization when a new human being is formed. Inception has to do with the beginning of something. So when MRL states, “Every human being has been endowed with an unalienable right to life from inception to natural death,” it would be good to know the reasoning behind how and why that change in wording occurred.
I emailed MRL on August 24, 2026 and asked them why they were using “inception” instead of “conception” in their mission statement. I have received no reply as of the date of this article. So I went digging on their website and the internet. I found this footnote explanation on MRL’s website regarding their policies: “For humans produced by cloning, the better word is “inception,” because they are not conceived in the usual sense.” Additionally, MRL has stated its opposition to cloning.
Reproductive cloning of human beings is illegal in Missouri, although “therapeutic” cloning is allowed, but regulated. Missouri is considered a “clone and kill” state, in that it currently allows creating cloned human embryos via SCNT that are used for deriving stem cells for treating other humans or for research, provided the embryos are not used to begin a pregnancy. Other limits are also imposed.
MRL is morally correct to oppose therapeutic cloning. It is odd that MRL would not also include “conception” in its mission statement. It would not be inconsistent to include both conception and inception, so for MRL to not include conception in their mission statement raises a flag.
Why is it not tolerable to produce cloned embryos and murder them, but it is tolerable to abort babies conceived in rape or incest, or for “fetal anomalies” or other reasons provided for in the new A3?
This is how MRL described human cloning for therapeutic reasons:
- An abuse of human rights
- No intent to allow the cloned human to live
- Exploitation of another human being
- Medical cannibalism
- They also are human beings with human rights
- They also have a right to be allowed to live
- No one has the right to exploit these children (many aborted baby parts are sold)
- Medical cannibalism happens (born alive baby’s organs harvested )
The inconsistency in MRL’s stance on cloning versus aborting babies conceived in rape or incest, is problematic. They suggest that a partial or 'incomplete good' (a little abortion constitutionally codified) is consistent with a pro-life stance.
The unfortunate truth is that politically-oriented organizations like MRL tend to compromise because they lack a firm and consistent moral base founded on Biblical principles. Mixed with political relationships and power-broking, it is a given that groups like MRL will not stand strong. A consistent stance on abortion would be that abortion should be illegal, regardless of the circumstances of conception (and inception), and that destroying pre-born children is a crime.
While MRL’s literature generally acknowledges life begins at conception, political considerations have allowed them to compromise when it comes to some babies. A careful reading of the actual HJR73 (A3) language will show that the devil is in the details. This inconsistency allows for speculation regarding the possible future understanding of how groups like MRL determine the beginning of life. While MRL’s mission statement covers inception but not conception, is it possible that the word ‘inception’ can be used in other ways to slowly evolve the idea that life’s beginning can change depending on certain circumstances?
Since therapeutic cloning is now enshrined in the Missouri Constitution, it does not seem to be an active issue for MRL. I asked Sen. Mike Moon about MRL’s activity on the therapeutic cloning issue, specifically if he knew of any activity against cloning since it was enshrined in the state constitution in 2006. He said, “I am not aware of MRL speaking to the legislature as a whole or in respective caucuses. However, MRL does, from time to time, visit with individual legislators. Most often, these visits occur during the annual March for Life events at the Capitol.”
Will MRL pay mere lip service to ending abortion if the proposed A3 is also added to the state constitution? Will they continue to oppose personhood and equal protection laws if they are victorious in getting A3 passed? Is regulation of abortion an acceptable toleration for pro-life organizations like MRL, as the regulation of therapeutic cloning seems to be?
SOME BABIES ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHER BABIES
Criminalizing abortion would end most abortions. Unfortunately, like other so-called pro-life organizations, MRL is opposed to criminalizing the murder of children in the womb.
Note MRL’s statement over the language in the previous pro-abortion initiative petitions:
How ironic that MRL would focus on those 2024 abortion provisions when the 2026 A3 also includes provisions that enshrine abortion of some babies as a right, allows for abortion in certain circumstances up to birth and includes taxpayer funding for some abortions. How different (in actual fact) is the new A3 from current constitutional law? Both provide for abortion. The old Amendment 3 would be repealed, but abortion would remain legal, although the circumstances of regulation vary between the two amendments. [NOTE: The above statement on MRL's PAC website has been recently removed. I imagine it was inconvenient at this time.]
From: Missouri Life PAC
When did MRL decide that tolerating and simply regulating abortion was acceptable? When did supporting women who abort their children become more a focus than saving babies?
The language of the upcoming ballot Amendment 3 essentially allows for similar stipulations as in the old A3; only the provisions for regulating abortion have changed. Voters are assured that only some babies will be killed due to the circumstances of their conception. Clinics may close, but there are currently only a handful of abortion clinics open at this time (around five statewide). Chemical abortions have superseded them.
I asked Sen. Mike Moon about how A3 dehumanizes babies conceived in rape or incest and how supporters claim it is worthwhile to sacrifice them in order to save other babies. He replied, “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).”
When looked at in a thorough and logical manner there is no assurance that more babies will be saved than with the current law. In fact, many supporters (including Christian politicians) have outright lied to the public about how many babies will be saved.
THE A3 LOOPHOLES
The 2026 Amendment 3 endorses the codifying of abortion in our state constitution. Abortion will remain legal. The regulating of it changes, but the loopholes are enormous:
- Abortion available for rape/incest up to 12 weeks. Note that no police report, no affidavit, no self-attestation, no hospital documentation, and no provider certification is required. The patient states the exception and the provider performs the procedure within the 12-week window. A reporting requirement in earlier drafts was excluded because opponents asserted it would traumatize rape victims and that a majority of sexual assaults are unreported. Can you see how this loophole alone will allow women who are determined to kill their children be able to do so with no enforcement mechanism for the provision of rape and incest exceptions?
- The 2026 Amendment 3 contains no specific provisions targeting chemical/medication abortions. There is no in-person dispensing requirement, no telehealth ban, no physician-supervised ingestion rule. Critics like IHCM note it leaves "chemical abortions (abortion pills) largely unregulated…” Abortions procured in clinics are becoming obsolete, since up to 70% of abortions are now effected through chemical drugs in a woman’s own home. The legal, moral, and medical issues that abortion-by-mail entails is only now beginning to be exposed.
- Taxpayer funding of abortion continues, though it may be regulated.
- Abortions up to birth for fetal anomalies or medical emergencies. The medical emergency text of A3 places the determination on the treating physician's "reasonable medical judgment.” No second-opinion is required, and there is no independent review board included in the amendment.
- Parental consent for abortions already codified in Missouri Statute, although the new A3 provides a loophole for minors obtaining a court order, thus abrogating parental consent in some instances.
- The Missouri SAFE Act (Senate Bill 49), signed into law already bans puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and gender-transition surgeries for minors. Nov. 25, 2024, a Cole County circuit court upheld the ban after trial. Jan. 13, 2026, the Missouri Supreme Court unanimously affirmed. The opinion upheld precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court's Skrmetti decision for Tennessee's ban. Note: The SAFE Act should be made permanent by the Missouri Legislature in 2027, when it is due to “sunset” (a tactic often used as a compromise in legislating). Also, the addition of this second and separate subject to A3 makes the amendment unconstitutional.
DON’T FALL FOR THE WORD SPELLS
The Sophie's Choice option that MRL presents in the tweet below, is part and parcel of the compromised stance it holds regarding abortion. To aver that some abortion is tolerable in order to ensure "our actions align with our belief" is purely illogical if one truly believes in the inherent value of every person. Codifying a sub-class of human beings who it is acceptable to sacrifice is deeply and inherently evil. There is no guarantee that an "acceptable" amount of babies will be saved by legalizing the murder of other unborn babies.
Look past the smooth rhetoric and reason it out. A3 allows for abortion. The loopholes are legion. There can be zero affirmation that aborted babies will have dignity, high-quality care, or love. Who, in this equation is going to have those things? Not the unborn. It is the women who murder their babies who will have them.
Just ponder that for a moment.
 |
| From: X |
AMENDMENT 3 IS PRO-ABORTION
Tragically, one can make a reasonable argument that MRL is endorsing a pro-abortion amendment. Cloaked as a pro-life amendment, what A3 really does is allow the whole abortion machine to continue on unabated. There is much money to be made by both “pro-life” and pro-abortion groups. The pro-life and pro-abortion groups seem to be different wings of the same bird. It is a matter of a continuum. The medical/industrial complex, lawyers, Big Pharma and other organizations benefit from the abortion industry both in dollars and political clout.
I asked
Dr. Scroggins whether he knew if and when MRL had ever changed their stance on
abortion in cases of rape or incest, or whether it had always been a strategy
held by them. Dr. Scroggins did not know if there was a time when MRL did not
support abortion for rape and incest, but he said that stance has been held for
a long time in our culture. “That mindset tends to be really deeply
entrenched in our culture, and even in the church, that in cases of rape and
incest the best thing to do is just kill the baby. It seems to be so deeply
entrenched and we’ve accepted it. That support for [rape and incest exceptions]
has been around for a long time.”
I asked
about the political atmosphere in Jefferson City regarding abortion, and
whether it was more of an issue for Democrats or Republicans. “That’s a hard
question to answer. I tell you what, when it really comes down to it, I don’t
know that I can tell a difference between the two parties. I don’t see in our
Republican legislature, and even with the governor--you get into the executive
branch, even lieutenant governor--I don’t see that this issue is really
something that is important to them.
“I just
don’t. I don’t see it as something that they really have a passion to put into
it. The Republicans talk a good talk. And they talk it—you know, how pro-life
they are—and that’s a selling point at election time for their campaigns to be
pro-life, especially in a state like this where people tend to have more of a
pro-life mindset. But I don’t see it going much further than just a lot of
rhetoric.
“When
it comes right down to actually doing something about it, taking the steps that
it will take to actually end the killing of babies, in terms of passing
personhood and equal protection bills, I don’t see that they’re going to do it.
I hope I’m wrong. We’re going to continue fighting for it. We’re going to be
right back in there fighting for it come spring, in the next legislative
session, but it’s going to be a battle because most of them up there are not
real supportive of it. I’m saying the Republican legislature. Because they
don’t want to hold women accountable. There’s a real sticking issue right
there.”
That is a
key point.
HOLDING
WOMEN ACCOUNTABLE
 |
| From: X |
While MRL loudly preaches support for women who choose abortion, young women today are loudly and proudly taking abortion pills on camera to kill their children.
Fifty years of “pro-life” support for women who murder their children, doing everything but holding them accountable like any other murderer would be, has resulted in a culture of death that has not been seen in the United States before now.
Women who abort their children do suffer in a variety of ways and many have affirmed that if abortion were illegal they would not have killed their children. The New Testament has described the law as a tutor, a schoolmaster, and a guardian. Why do secular women’s organizations like MRL not fight to make abortion illegal? The logical conclusion is that they hold a woman’s right to kill her child through abortion as morally superior to saving unborn babies.
(Saul Loeb / AFP/Getty Images)
I asked
Sen. Moon his opinion, as a Christian, about MRL’s political stance of
protecting women who kill their children. He said, “I find it a bit odd
(that MRL) would not want to seek justice for the pre-born. As I understand
their position, the intent is to show compassion toward women, in hope they
(the women who murdered their child) will have a change of heart and not
continue to kill their offspring because of work MRL does.”
Likewise, Dr. Scroggins is clear that organizations like MRL are the biggest opposition to Christian groups like Abolish Abortion Missouri who seek to end abortion.
“It’s the pro-life movement---Missouri Right to Life, Campaign Life Missouri that’s our biggest opposition to equal protection…to passing it in the capitol. Planned Parenthood never even comes close. It’s these pro-life groups that kill [Sen. Moon’s] legislation every single session.”
He said that when SB356 EP (equal protection) got a hearing both MRL’s Susan Klein and lobbyist Sam Lee (a Catholic deacon) testified in the Senate committee, advising the committee to kill it. Watch Klein testify:
I asked Sen. Moon about equal protection and personhood bills in light of MRL’s opposition to them. He said, “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.”
He further stated, “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.”
The deception that is rampant in the rhetoric MRL and its supporters use to convince voters to approve A3 is indicative of moral confusion, compromised agendas, and spiritual blindness. Sadly, there is a large number of Christian pastors and Christian legislators (some are both) who unabashedly support A3 and have taken as gospel the talking points from Big Pro-Life. Part Two of this series addresses Christian support of A3 and how groups like MRL are funding a voter campaign in churches to pass the pro-abortion A3 in November.
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:
- Jennifer Barker with (Informed Health Choice Missouri) ICHM gives a line-by-line analysis: https://rumble.com/v7b2c64-what-is-in-the-5-pages-of-the-new-amendment-3-2026-this-will-be- on-the-miss.html (there are also many helpful links below the video)
- Act for Missouri article on A3
- Abolish Abortion Missouri
- Foundation to Abolish Abortion
- Will A3 save 98-99% of babies?
- Analysis of self-induced abortion numbers (Foundation to Abolish Abortion)
- Updated analysis of 2025 abortions with provider bans (Foundation to Abolish Abortion)
No comments:
Post a Comment