Missouri's Pro-life Schism: Part Two

 

King Solomon by Gustave Dore

MISSOURI’S PRO-LIFE SCHISM

Part Two: When Christians Bow Down to Idols

By Gretchen Garrity

“As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been. He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molek the detestable god of the Ammonites. So Solomon did evil in the eyes of the LORD." -- (I Kings, Chapter 11)

History is rife with the people of God going after false gods. The temptation ensnared priest, king and commoner alike. Solomon's kingdom was divided because of his idolatry. One of the hallmarks of idolatry to false gods was the sacrifice of children. It was a practice that was condemned by God from the start of human history.

Almighty God never once tolerated the sacrifice of children. The Sixth Commandment: “Thou shalt not murder,” (the literal translation of the Hebrew) makes no provision for the murder or sacrifice of children in any form or for any reason. The Sixth Commandment provides equal protection for all human beings.

As Archbishop Emeritus Joseph Naumann writes, "God sent his angel to stop Abraham from following the common cultural practice of child sacrifice to make clear that the one, true God does not desire human sacrifice, but abhors it. Part of the mission of the descendants of Abraham was to cleanse the land from the immorality and iniquity of the fertility cults."

What about the Christian era? Has God changed His mind?

One of the earliest admonitions from the Christian Church regarding abortion can be found in the Didache, a catechetical primer on the Christian faith. It says:

 “...You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child,” (Didache 2:1–2 [A.D. 70]).

  Minucius Felix, a Roman convert to Christianity had this to say about abortion in 226 AD:

 “There are some [pagan] women who, by drinking medical preparations, extinguish the source of the future man in their very bowels and thus commit a parricide before they bring forth. And these things assuredly come down from the teaching of your [false] gods. . .  To us [Christians] it is not lawful either to see or hear of homicide,” (Octavius 30 [A.D. 226]).

 The Apostolic Constitutions (the earliest surviving ecclesiastical law) stated:

 “Thou shall not slay thy child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten. . . . [I]f it be slain, [it] shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed,” (Apostolic Constitutions 7:3 [A.D. 400]).

DISHONORING GOD'S NAME

Abortion, the murder of an unborn baby, is not permissible for a Christian to commit, facilitate, or support. It is fundamentally unjust and Christendom has condemned it from the beginning. In an article titled “Ancient Child Sacrifice and Abortion,” Andrew White, MD, gives a historical overview to abortion. I recommend reading the article. After describing the parallels between abortion today and child sacrifice in ancient cultures, he turns to the modern Christian:

“… And the Christian who approves of or participates in the sin of abortion not only affects himself but he profanes God’s holy name. People intuitively know that a man’s attitude and behavior reflect his values. The Christian claims that God’s authoritative Word determines his values. If a Christian then speaks or acts in a way that is contrary to that Word, he brings dishonor to God’s name…And the Christian who approves of or participates in the practice of abortion is testifying to the world that his God condones the practice. He is in reality bearing false witness, for by his attitude and behavior he infers that the Creator consents to His creatures destroying innocent fellow creatures.”

 Any formal or official approval of abortion on the part of Christians (either individually or corporately) is a sin against God. And for Christians, who should love Truth above all, this is the foundational issue. Pastors compound their sin when they urge their flock to approve A3 in November. Part One of this series exposes the subtle pro-abortion slant to Amendment 3 (on the ballot this November) and the many loopholes that will allow abortion to continue to flourish in Missouri.

Christian groups and others who support abortion via Amendment 3 From: MRL PAC

Secular organizations like Missouri Right to Life are helping to fund a campaign urging pastors to get out the vote for A3. MRL is not Christian in their stance on abortion, and pastors should not be taking their arguments as gospel, nor agreeing with the faulty reasoning that permits ongoing murder of babies. Neither these groups, nor Christian pastors, have temporal or spiritual authority to set aside God's law and determine which babies shall live, which shall die, and under what circumstances.

"THE INCOMPLETE GOOD," AKA "THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS"

Saying Amendment 3 is an “incomplete good,” “the best we can do,” or “it’s the only choice on the ballot” or voting yes means saving as many babies as is "providentially possible," are not logical or reasonable excuses for voting for abortion. The lesser of two evils does not constitute a Biblical good. Instead, Christian pastors and politicians should be advocating for the abolishment of abortion through the personhood and equal protection bills that have been filed in the Missouri Legislature.

Bowing down to the pro-life priestly caste at MRL, the clergy have become modern-day devotees of a cult that elevates the sacrifice of pre-born children to a right. In a recent Zoom call organized by the Missouri Baptist Convention, pastors exhorted each other to engage their flocks on behalf of Amendment 3. They spoke about their 'Biblical' support for A3, but did not appear to defend it using God's Word to logically lay out their case in defense of an amendment that also enshrines abortion in the state constitution.

In logic there is something called the law of non-contradiction. It states that something cannot both be true and untrue at the same time and in the same sense. Abortion cannot be both good and evil at the same time.  If abortion is an evil, then it can never be a good. Voting yes on Amendment 3 is voting FOR abortion, regardless of the regulation of its provision.

There was very little discussion of the actual amendment and its provisions on the Zoom call. One pastor said he "believed" A3 would save more lives if it was passed than not. He offered nothing to support that belief. The meeting revolved around a church media campaign, again, partly funded by MRL and supported by the Missouri GOP to get out the A3 vote and sign up new voters.

Some pastors are receiving money from these organizations. Tom Estes, a pastor at Calvary Baptist Church in Versailles, MO and current chief of staff for Sen. Rick Brattin, has received $35,000 in the latest MEC reports for “strategic planning” services at Her Health, Her Future. Pastor Alex Bryant, a Nixa School Board Member, and pastor at Thrive Church in Nixa, has received $10,000 from HHHF for “grassroots management,” also from HHHF. 

A Sept. 28, 2026 article in the Missouri Independent noted, "The first TV ad released by Her Health, Her Future, did not mention abortion at all, but rather focused on “trans extremists.” The main campaign signage reads: “Yes on 3: Ban Transgender Surgeries for Minors.” 

If you visit HHHF, you will see very little about abortion beyond Claudia Kehoe's featured statement, but much about the transgender agenda and women's sports, etc. However, their support for Amendment 3 means they believe abortion rights are permissible if regulated.

BREAKING THE MAGIC WORD SPELLS

The language surrounding this amendment has been carefully curated to lead citizens to believe it is repealing abortion. The language in the amendment has words like provision, which means 'the act of providing or supplying something.' Though it claims abortion is restricted to only (only!) the following: children conceived in rape or incest, fetal anomalies, and doctor-determined medical emergencies, A3 includes significant loopholes in several provisions that are noted HERE.

In short, abortion in Missouri is not being repealed. Missouri Right to Life and Christian pastors who have deviated from God’s commandment, are asking voters to approve abortion, and to regulate its provision. Dr. Wes Scoggins, a professor at Missouri State University and the president of Abolish Abortion Missouri, noted some of the leading lies about A3 that are consistently told by its advocates.

“The three main arguments in support of it are all lies. Number one is that it will prevent 98-99 percent of all abortions…and the truth of it is that it won’t. That’s a lie. It won’t prevent because it does nothing to criminalize the act itself…to hold anybody accountable for killing the child. So we shut down the clinics…which is what A3 will do, and we simply shift the abortion industry to online “tele-health” abortions.”

Dr. Scroggins said research on the issue shows that closing clinics does not prevent abortion. Chemical mail-order abortions are booming, he said, “…especially in states where you’ve got a lot of abortion regulation and restriction. You know “tele-health” [abortions have] just skyrocketed. It really doesn’t protect any child whose mother wants to kill it…she can simply drive a couple of minutes across the state line on both sides of the state and kill [her child] there.”

He noted another argument—that once the amendment is passed the legislature could go back and fix any bad parts to it. “You hear that a lot. The problem is, they can’t go back and fix anything. The exceptions are in the constitution. The legislature cannot change the constitution. It would take a vote of the people to do anything about those exceptions.  And also, subsection 3 of the amendment reads something along the lines that the legislature…may regulate the provision of abortion. That’s the key word, ‘provision’. It doesn’t really give them the authority to regulate abortion. It’s the provision of it. So my argument is they are not going to be able to restrict it in any way. The only thing that the amendment itself is allowing them to do is to regulate how these babies are killed. So you read further down in that section—really what that means—and it says such things as regulating clinics and making sure that doctors are licensed and all of that stuff that they can regulate to make sure it is safe for the woman. But none of that protects the baby, or does anything for the baby. And so they can’t go back and really do anything to fix the problems with A3.”

 Dr. Scroggins also noted that supporters of A3 say the amendment is the “best that we have.” He said, “Just because it’s the only option, or the ‘best’ option does not determine whether something is good or evil, right or wrong. God has determined that. He has told us what is good and what is evil, so just because this is the only choice that we have on the ballot doesn’t means it’s righteous.” 

By genuflecting to MRL, legislators are denying and delaying personhood and equal protection bills--legislation that would actually protect unborn babies. Rep. Darin Chappell, for instance, will refile a personhood bill in the upcoming legislative session. However, he is supporting Amendment 3 which, if passed, would likely undercut support for any future equal protection or personhood legislation.

TOLERATING THE INTOLERABLE

From: X

One of the most common arguments that Christian pastors give for approving Amendment 3 is that some children will be saved if abortion is regulated. In short, they are willing to sacrifice babies in the hope that regulated abortions will lessen overall rates of murder of the pre-born. Advocating for any legalized abortion dehumanizes certain classes of unborn children, a distinction not in Scripture or Christian tradition.

The media is happy to collude with pro-life lobbyist groups and call November’s A3 an “abortion ban.”  A3 does not ban abortion. It regulates abortion, which stays legal in Missouri under the new amendment. 

This cannot be overemphasized. 

And, chemical abortions, which are the majority of abortions, are not addressed in A3. It also must be noted that when Missouri did have an abortion ban in place, women simply traveled to neighboring states to procure medical abortions. And mailbox abortions rose sharply. Why are Christian pastors not speaking out about the loophole provisions in Amendment 3? You can read an analysis of 2025 abortion data (HERE) that gives a very different perspective than what proponents of A3 are selling.

THE IDOLATRY OF PLAYING GOD

"See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ." (Col. 2:8)

When pastors and leaders like Tom Estes, former representative Doug Richey,  former speaker of the house Tim Jones, Rep. Darin Chapell, Pastor Chris Williams, Pastor Phil Hopper, Rep. Bill Irwin, Executive Director of the Missouri Baptist Convention Dr. Wes Fowler, Victor Nieves, Rep. Brian Seitz, Sen. Adam Schnelting, Sen. Brad Hudson, Rep. John Martin, and Catholics like Springfield’s Bishop Edward M. Rice advocate for allowing regulated abortion they are opposing the law of God and substituting the doctrines of men.

Voting to regulate abortion versus abolishing it, is a doctrine of men and not of God. If personhood bills and equal protection bills, which are introduced into the legislature every session, were as fervently supported and preached on, then the battle to make abortion illegal would be won in Missouri. But citizens are assured now is not the time for such bills, or that “polling” shows they would not pass, etc. 

MRL is focused more on the women who procure abortions than the babies who are murdered by them. While their website pays generous lip service to pro-life positions, these groups oppose providing equal protection and justice for unborn babies. They protect those who procure and facilitate the killing of infants in the womb, and they bank on Christian leaders agreeing. Here is Her Health, Her Future's stance on Amendment 3. Though there is very little about abortion on their website, nevertheless their ballot measure support is for allowing abortion.

The quiet part: "...to allow abortion..."

In an article in the Washington Examiner, abortion abolitionist Ben Zeisloft shows the moral weakness in the establishment pro-life movement. “But the claim that women are categorically second victims of abortion extends beyond mere rhetoric. This assumption guides pro-life policy and even leads many pro-life groups to oppose bills establishing equal protection for pre-born babies by criminalizing abortion as murder.

More than 70 leading pro-life establishment groups signed an open letter in 2022 discouraging state lawmakers from ever supporting such legislation. The document claims that “women are victims of abortion” and warns that pro-life groups “do not support any measure seeking to criminalize or punish women” for the willful murder of their own pre-born babies. 

When writing their own legislation, pro-life groups include carveouts exempting women from any civil or criminal liability for abortion, meaning that no woman can be held accountable for prenatal homicide — no matter how brazenly or publicly she kills her pre-born baby — even in conservative states where pro-life establishment groups have institutional political power.

In other words, abortions continue in conservative states, especially by means of abortion pills, because pro-life groups oppose deterring pregnant women from murdering their babies. While abortion clinics may have been closed in such states, abortions are continuing — and are more convenient than ever — under pro-life regulations with enormous maternal immunity loopholes.”

 MRL’s executive director Susan Klein signed that letter in 2022. Her husband is a Christian pastor. 

That letter reads in part, “Women are victims of abortion and require our compassion and support as well as ready access to counseling and social services in the days, weeks, months, and years following an abortion. As national and state pro-life organizations, representing tens of millions of pro-life men, women, and children across the country, let us be clear: We state unequivocally that we do not support any measure seeking to criminalize or punish women and we stand firmly opposed to include such penalties in legislation.”

Note that women who murder their children are “victims” who “require our compassion and support” not to mention “ready access to counseling and social services…[for] years following an abortion.” In essence, by signing that letter, Klein is saying that while abortion obviously produces dead babies and traumatized women, it is not permissible to criminalize the deed. Since dead babies are not available for compassion, support, access to counseling and social services, some other victim must be named. MRL’s position is in no way a Christian stance, but a mixture of secular worldly reasoning and the politicization of ethical standards.

 In Missouri, it is not leftist organizations who are the biggest problem. Dr. Scroggins said, “Organizations are our biggest opposition...the biggest opposition to equal protection are the pro-life groups that kill [personhood and equal protection] legislation every single session...They are the ones in the capitol killing it.” 

As long as Christian leaders unite with secular interests to justify supporting the murder of innocents and the lack of justice that entails, abortion will continue with few impediments.

INSTITUTIONAL OPPOSITION TO EQUAL PROTECTION LAWS

Susan Klein, the executive director of MRL spoke to the Missouri Senate, urging them not to pass SB356 EP, an equal protection bill. Video HERE.

 This is done under the guise of protecting women. What it protects them from is "equal and impartial justice under the law." Advocates of Amendment 3 are setting women apart as an elevated class of individuals who are allowed to murder their babies and then receive support for it. In blind obedience to this perspective, Christian clergy are bowing down to institutions whose agenda is to allow abortion and protect all involved except the babies themselves.

 At its foundation, elevating women to a special class is a form of idolatry, “Gross, or overt, idolatry consists of explicit acts of reverence addressed to a person or an object...” Women are not beings who are set above God’s law. The murder of a human being is a crime, and abortion is murder.

If Klein was truly concerned about women being coerced into committing murder via abortion, she would vehemently support equal protection and personhood bills. That she does not, and that she explicitly lobbies for protecting women who murder their unborn children, shows the ultimate focus of MRL.

In an important article at The Federalist, written in the wake of the Lindsay Clancy case, Dusty Deevers gets to the bottom of the issue: the second victim narrative. He writes, “Big Pro-Life cannot wash its hands of this spectacle. For decades, it has preached the same moral grammar now displayed outside that courtroom: When a mother murders her child, center her suffering, relocate agency onto doctors, drugs, systems, or circumstances, and treat accountability as another act of cruelty against her.”

 Further on, he says, “The problem runs deeper than political strategy. Big Pro-Life’s governing commitments are fundamentally secular and feminist, not biblical or according to nature.

 Scripture and nature present women as image-bearers endowed with moral agency, mothers bound to protect their children, and persons answerable under the same law as men. Big Pro-Life instead begins with feminist anthropology: The woman is the presumptive victim, guilt is translated into trauma, sin into circumstance, repentance into healing, and accountability into oppression.

 It borrows the Christian language of compassion while abandoning the biblical categories that give compassion moral order: sin, guilt, repentance, mercy, justice, punishment, and impartial judgment.”

Deevers then moves to abortion via the mailbox by describing exactly what we are seeing in Missouri, and what Dr. Scroggins noted. Deevers writes, “In a clinic abortion, Big Pro-Life can rhetorically displace the mother’s culpability onto the doctor, clinic, or procedure. But when a woman knowingly procures the drugs, possesses them, and administers them for the purpose of murdering her child, there is no external abortionist onto whom Big Pro-Life can transfer her guilt.

 She is literally the abortionist. The victim, intent, and result have not changed...

…By treating abortion as a product to regulate rather than a homicide to judge, Big Pro-Life is condemned to play whack-a-mole with methods. Close the abortion mills and abortion moves to mailboxes. Restrict one drug and another method takes its place. The instruments change because the underlying injustice remains unjudged and the murderer remains protected.”

 Amendment 3 does exactly what Deevers presented: the regulation of the circumstances under which abortion is administered. The organizational priestly class of pro-life advocates are denying pre-born humans "equal and impartial justice under the law." 

LOSING ONE'S RELIGION IN PRO-LIFE RHETORIC

All of this seems to pass over the heads of many Missouri pastors and Christian legislators. They are stuck in an occultic egregore (group think) that blindly parrots the unproved assertion some babies may be saved, therefore it is permissible to abort other babies.

Christians are divided on abortion. In the end, it comes down to trusting in and obeying the Lord, or trusting in human means and methods. Meanwhile, the establishment pro-life movement is working overtime to keep Christians within their circle of influence. It is high time for Christian pastors, legislators, and voters to awaken to the true agenda of the lobbying organizations they currently support and obey.

Part 3 will examine the political power MRL and other pro-life groups wield over legislators.

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)

The Right to Life

 When establishment pro-life groups tolerate murdering babies because of the circumstances of their conception, they have abandoned their moral foundation to a pagan position of child sacrifice. Charlie Kirk is unyielding in his understanding of the God-given right to life. Until pro-life groups understand this basic concept they will flounder and eventually concede the pro-pagan murder of unborn babies in all aspects. Their organizations will pay mere lip service to ending abortion. It is already happening. Citizens should beware of wolves in sheep's clothing.

Charlie Kirk is one of the best pro-life debaters ever. pic.twitter.com/O1dAht1WcP

— LifeNews.com (@LifeNewsHQ) September 10, 2026

God bless, Charlie Kirk. May he rest in peace. 

"An Open Dialogue"...Finally

 

An important conversation, please pass this along. pic.twitter.com/zfsOSmah14

— Abolish Abortion Missouri (@AAMissouri) August 15, 2026

Hear this...

From: Abolish Abortion Missouri

 

Dystopian Truth

From: Hollywood Reporter

 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 baby is then in the waste water, which is processed at water… https://t.co/6I55WjazCU

— Andrew Zywiec, M.D. (@AndrewZywiecMD) February 28, 2026

SJR72 (Senate Joint Resolution) will be heard in our legislature on Monday at 1p.m., Senate Hearing Room 1.  Witness forms can be filled out and submitted here:

https://www.libertytools.org/LibertyTools/witness/witness2.php?template=139

SJR 72 is a constitutional amendment that should be on our ballot in November. There is no reason why it cannot go forth with the execrable Amendment 3 so voters can vote on both. SJR72 states in part:

"That the term "person" under this constitution includes every human being with a unique DNA code regardless of age, including every in utero human child at every stage of biological development from the moment of conception until birth."

Incrementalists are Inconsistent

 

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

— Gary Humble (@garyhumble) February 27, 2026

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.

Sen. Moon's Personhood Bill to be Heard...

 

📷 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…

— Act for Missouri (@ActforMissouri) February 27, 2026

The People of Omelas

From: Mr. Biggs

By Gretchen Garrity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2) "Government" -

a. the state of Missouri or

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

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

"PERSON" NOT LEGALLY DEFINED

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

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

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

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

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

Interesting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PARENTAL CONSENT CHALLENGED

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

The article further states, "[Judge] Castle didn’t draw any conclusions in her Tuesday decision about whether the reproductive rights amendment approved by voters last year renders either law unconstitutional. Missouri’s parental consent law requires a minor attempting to access abortion receive at least one parent’s consent. The other parent must also be notified. If that’s not possible, they can also ask a judge to bypass the requirement. 'Today’s victory ensures that Missouri’s parental consent laws will continue to safeguard young girls, hold abortion providers accountable and uphold the values of Missouri families for generations to come,' Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway said in a statement Wednesday."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PERSONHOOD AND EQUAL PROTECTION

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

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

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

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

FIFTY YEARS.

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

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

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

Missouri...

 Pro-life is not what it used to be:

The two greatest enemies of abolishing abortion at the state level since 2016 have been the following:

1. The Republican party. Most of the states where an abolitionist bill has been released are Republican super majority states like Indiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas and these… https://t.co/ITmKR8Gt6w

— J.C. Ryle (@JCRyle) February 12, 2026

Sifting the Christians

From: Broken Believers

 "The characteristic of the modern State is that those who appear to govern do not in fact govern. They are constrained by forces which they do not name, which they rarely understand, and which they cannot openly oppose. The result is that public men become timid. They avoid plain speech. They fear exposure more than injustice, and loss of position more than loss of honor. In such a condition courage disappears first, and freedom follows it." -- Hilaire Belloc

 By Gretchen Garrity

Pro-life Christians and Christian politicians, still reeling from the 2024 vote to enshrine abortion in the Missouri Constitution, are now being confronted with the issue of how to undo it. 

How did it come about that Roe v. Wade was overturned on June 24, 2022 but abortion in Missouri was voted in on Nov. 5, 2024? In 2022, Missouri had immediately acted on the overturning of Roe v. Wade by means of a trigger ban, which effectively outlawed abortion except to save the life of the mother.

Less than 24 months later, a well-organized and well-funded campaign to allow for the legal murder of pre-born persons was conducted and passed in Amendment 3. The pro-life response was to provide a new and improved Amendment 3 added to the November 2026 ballot. The ballot language is as follows:

“Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:

• Repeal the 2024 voter-approved Amendment providing reproductive healthcare rights, including abortion through fetal viability;

• Allow abortions for rape and incest (under twelve-weeks’ gestation), emergencies, and fetal anomalies;

• Allow legislation regulating abortion;

• Ensure parental consent for minors’ abortions;

• Prohibit gender transition procedures for minors?

State governmental entities estimate no costs or savings. Greene County estimates it may experience an unknown increase in tax revenue. Other local governmental entities estimate no costs or savings."

The ballot language purports to make clear exactly what your Yes or No vote would mean. Let's examine it more closely.

The language is couched in such terms that a Yes vote seems to bring more restrictions on abortion. But does it accomplish the end of abortion? Does it really restrict abortion?

Issue No. 1: Does the new and improved Amendment 3 curtail or restrict in any way chemically-induced abortions, which comprise about 63% of abortions nationally?

The simple answer is NO, chemical abortions wherein the mother takes an abortion pill and aborts her baby at home, is not addressed in the new Amendment 3. At this time there is no legislation in Missouri that regulates this type of abortion, and under reporting of these abortions is common.

Issue No. 2: How is rape of minors construed for the purposes of abortion in the new Amendment 3? 

Because a minor (anyone under 18) cannot legally consent to sexual relations, all babies conceived by minors can be considered the result of rape and thereby aborted.

Issue No. 3: "Ensures parental consent for minors' abortions" is an addition designed to fool voters. According to an article in the Missouri Independent, "Missouri’s parental consent law requires a minor attempting to access abortion receive at least one parent’s consent. The other parent must also be notified. If that’s not possible, they can also ask a judge to bypass the requirement." Read the article to see how deeply invested some groups are in ensuring your teen can get an abortion without your consent. 

That clause is added to convince voters that the "improved" Amendment 3 is adding something new. It is not. Amendment 3 ensures nothing for parental consent that was not already in Missouri law.

Issue No. 4: What is meant by "emergencies" in the ballot language?

According to the actual proposed language of Art. 1, Section 36(a), which will replace Section 36.1 of the Missouri Constitution should Amendment 3 be approved, a medical emergency is "a condition that, based on reasonable medical judgment, so complicates the medical condition of a pregnant woman as to necessitate the immediate termination of her pregnancy to avert the death of the pregnant woman or for which a delay will create a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman. A medical emergency shall include, but not be limited to, an ectopic pregnancy at any point following the diagnosis of such and treatment for a miscarriage;"  

First, ectopic pregnancies do not end in abortion because such pregnancies are not viable.  According to The Heritage Foundation, "Treating an ectopic pregnancy is different from having an abortion. Abortion is an intentional, unnatural procedure that kills the baby in the womb. An ectopic procedure, in contrast, attempts to save the life of both mother and unborn child. A number of  treatment options are available, but each seeks to separate the embryo from the fallopian tubes."   

The treatment is not considered an abortion, so why was this included in the language of Amendment 3? If you want to get down to brass tacks, this kind of language is a form of witchcraft, because it seeks to manipulate the citizen to believe and vote a certain way.

Would a medical emergency be considered a woman who is depressed or suicidal? Would a gallbladder attack be considered a major bodily function that was impaired? One can see there will be no end to the medical emergencies upon which an abortion doctor can have "reasonable medical judgment."

Additionally, the term "under twelve weeks' gestation" is included only for instances of rape and incest. Abortion for "emergencies" and "fetal anomalies" is not restricted to a gestational range. It is stated in the fair ballot language but that has no binding legal effect. So again, witchcraft is employed with misleading information in the fair ballot language that is not in the actual wording of the ballot or the amendment. 

There's more. Is an examination legally required to determine the age of the pre-born baby? According to Missouri law, Missouri Revised Statutes § 188.030.2(1), yes "Except in the case of a medical emergency." There's that term again. Medical emergency. One can imagine the abortion industry will find many such emergencies if Amendment 3 is passed.

Issue No. 5: Are there guardrails in the new Amendment 3 for determining a rape occurred? No. There are no provisions in the proposed Amendment 3 or any current Missouri statutes. There is NO requirement to provide proof of rape. There does not need to be a police report, a physical examination or any other threshold in order to procure an abortion. A woman can simply assert that a rape happened and procure an abortion.

Are you beginning to see how voters are manipulated?

 Issue No. 6: Abortions will be publicly funded. Though not noted in the ballot wording, when looking at the actual amendment language you will find: "No public funds shall be expended for the purpose of performing, inducing, or otherwise assisting any abortion, except in cases of medical emergency, rape, or incest, as otherwise authorized by law." So, yes pro-life taxpayer, you will be paying for abortions if Amendment 3 passes. Medical emergencies, rapes, incest and 'otherwise authorized by law' will "necessarily skyrocket" (to quote a former President) when the abortion industry is involved.

Issue No. 7: Amendment 3 tacked on the following clause, "Prohibit gender transition procedures for minors." Currently, Missouri has banned "gender transition surgeries, cross-sex hormones and other gender-affirming care for minors." The ban is due to expire in 2027. A good question to ask legislators who allow for temporary laws, is WHY? What political advantage is there by voting for temporary laws regarding children's health and welfare? And WHY tack on vague, lawyerly wording onto Amendment 3? Again, it's there to fool voters and lull them into a sense that some good is being done when it is not.

Are you feeling the chaos and confusion yet?

Sen. Mike Moon aptly describes the dilemma. He says, "Whether your decision to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ likely depends upon how much you trust in government.  How often have you seen the government enact a law (or, the people amend the constitution) and return to make additional changes after the law was passed (or, amendment adopted)?

I imagine the same action or inaction will occur with Amendment 3 (2026).  In my short 13-year experience in the MO General Assembly, I have witnessed a strong reluctance to re-visit the ‘hard’ topics in back-to-back sessions.  Although, we’ve been told that when Amendment 3 (2026) passes, “we’ll come back and make the necessary changes” (to remove the exceptions for rape, incest, and fetal anomalies).

The reality (again, my opinion) is that many of the ‘promise makers’ will be long gone from the legislature after the 2026 session, so they will have no ‘dog in the hunt’." 

Do read and subscribe to Sen. Moon's Report. He goes into detail about the sausage-making that happens in Jefferson City, and how a permanent solution to outlawing abortion in Missouri has been stopped by the likes of President Pro Tem Cindy O'Laughlin, who is aptly satirized HERE.

The Moral Implications for Christians

Legislators and presumed pro-life organizations who are pushing for a yes vote on Amendment 3 argue that some babies will be saved by the new A3. Is it true? Based on just the few arguments presented above, it is hard to imagine justifying the murder of many small persons in the hopes that a few may be saved.

There is not one single Bible verse that justifies killing babies in abortions.

— Stop Abortion Now (@LifeNewsToo) February 1, 2026

Is the language and intent of Amendment 3 justified in scripture? Paul addresses this issue in Romans.

"And why not say (as some people slander us by saying that we say), ‘Let us do evil so that good may come’?" (Rom. 3:8). 

The JB Phillips translation explains this concept more fully:

"It is like saying that if my lying throws into sharp relief the truth of God and, so to speak, enhances his reputation, then why should he repay me by judging me a sinner? Similarly, why not do evil that good may be, by contrast all the more conspicuous and valuable?...But, of course, such an argument is quite properly condemned."

The foundational Scripture that prohibits murder is Ex. 20:13, "Thou shalt not kill." There is no room for exceptions to murder. Jesus reiterated this commandment in the Gospel of Matthew, "...but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments...Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness..." (Matt. 19:17-19)

Nowhere in Scripture is it permissible to do evil that good may come. Nowhere is it suggested that Christians should compromise with or promote some murders so that other murders may possibly be averted. This type of mixture was condemned by Christ in Revelation when He confronted the compromising church at Pergamos. The Christians there had begun compromising with the pagan culture. They were apparently mixing Christian and pagan practices, and worse, some were teaching other Christians to do so also.

When pro-life groups run incremental legislation in red states, they delay the abolition of abortion.

There are more than a dozen states with Republican governing trifectas and legislative supermajorities. Planned Parenthood and the Democrats have no ability to stop these states…

— Ben Zeisloft (@BenZeisloft) February 2, 2026

Amendment 3 is a compromise with evil through the concept of Incrementalism. It is not a valid argument in terms of obedience to God's command to 'do no murder'. It can be implied in other things, such as implementing a plan to reduce taxes, or the phasing of a building plan. It is not valid to compromise on clear moral instruction from Scripture.

Satan greatly desires to "sift" Christians, to shake them loose from the foundation of Christ. A local pastor I know has said, "In matters of truth there is no compromise."

For a Christian to vote yes to murder certain unborn persons is a type of satanic compromise. It promises that by doing evil, good may come. Christians are accountable to God for their votes. Scripture is clear, murder is not permissible.

The Solution

The pro-life movement has been deeply subverted by those who compromise with the pagan concept of child murder. Organizations like Missouri Right to Life are content to allow the sacrifice of children while hiding under the cover of incrementalism. Instead of supporting personhood and equal protection bills that would effectively make abortion a crime, they now fight tooth and nail to prevent the criminalization of murder through abortion. Murder is a crime no matter who commits it or how small the victim.

You must understand that the leaders of the Pro-Life Movement are pro-choice liberals.

This is not distinguishable in any sense from how Planned Parenthood will oppose this bill. https://t.co/xiYeYTms2F

— James Silberman (@JSilbermanFTS) January 30, 2026

It is time for our legislators to SUPPORT, HEAR, and PASS a personhood or equal protection bill in Missouri. This would essentially stop abortion. Our leaders must be willing to lead and govern as they were elected to do.

That politicians like House Majority Leader Jon Patterson and President Pro Tem Cindy O'Laughlin continue to obstruct the bills put forth to abolish abortion is a disgusting stain on the now infamous GOP Super Majority in Missouri. Compromised GOP legislators continue to put forth and support amendments like A3, indicating a captured party that is at the mercy of "forces which they cannot openly oppose." They are willing victims of witchcraft--the manipulation of their minds and souls--in order to accomplish evil. 

Below are bills currently introduced in the Missouri Legislature, as well as the language of A3 that will be added to our state constitution should A3 pass. It must be noted that any of the bills below would have dramatic effect on ending abortion in Missouri.

Personhood resolutions ( From Abolish Abortion Missouri):

HJR 109 filed by Representative Burt Whaley

SJR 72 Filed by Senator Mike Moon

Equal Protection Bills:

HB 1682 Filed by Representative Burt Whaley

SB 951 Filed by Senator Mike Moon

 Additionally a repeal for Amendment 3 has been filed:

SJR 107 Filed by Senator Mike Moon

FULL TEXT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT

If Amendment 3 is passed, the following language will replace Section 36.1:

Section 36(a).

1. The state's duty to protect public health and welfare includes protecting the integrity and ethics of the medical profession. The state's interest in regulating the practice of medicine is even greater in areas of medical and scientific uncertainty or in areas that raise grave moral and ethical concerns, including abortion and gender transition procedures.

2. An abortion may be performed or induced upon a woman in cases of medical emergency, fetal anomaly, rape, or incest. In the case of abortions performed or induced in cases of rape or incest, the abortion may be performed or induced no later than twelve weeks gestational age of the unborn child.

3. The general assembly may enact laws that regulate the provision of abortions, abortion facilities, and abortion providers to ensure the health and safety of the pregnant mother. These laws shall include, but not be limited to, laws requiring physicians providing abortion care to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital; laws requiring facilities where abortions are performed or induced to be licensed and inspected for clean and safe conditions and adequate instruments to treat any emergencies arising from an abortion procedure; laws requiring physicians to perform a sufficient examination of the woman to determine the unborn child's gestational age and any preexisting medical conditions that may influence the procedure; and laws requiring ultrasounds to be performed only by physicians or licensed medical technicians.

4. No abortion shall be performed or induced upon a woman based on a prenatal diagnosis, test, or screening indicating a disability in an unborn child, except in cases of a fetal anomaly.

5. No public funds shall be expended for the purpose of performing, inducing, or otherwise assisting any abortion, except in cases of medical emergency, rape, or incest, as otherwise authorized by law.

6. Except in cases of a medical emergency in which consent cannot be obtained, no abortion shall be performed or induced upon a woman without her voluntary and informed consent, given freely and without coercion. In the case of a minor under the age of eighteen years who is not emancipated, no person shall knowingly perform or induce an abortion, except in cases of a medical emergency in which consent cannot be obtained, unless the attending physician has obtained:

(1) the written consent of the minor and a parent or legal guardian; and

(2) documentation of the consent is retained in the minor's medical record. Licensed medical physicians shall be required to provide women with medically accurate information. The general assembly may enact laws to provide for the right of a minor to consent to an abortion as granted by a court order.

7. Fetal organ harvesting after an abortion is not permitted under any circumstances.

8. A woman's ability to access health care in cases of miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies, and other medical emergencies shall not be infringed by the state.

9. No gender transition surgeries shall be knowingly performed on children under eighteen years of age, and no cross-sex hormones or puberty-blocking drugs shall be knowingly prescribed or administered for the purpose of gender transition to children under eighteen years of age. The provisions of this section shall not apply to the use of such surgeries, drugs, or hormones to treat children born with a medically verifiable disorder of sex development or to treat any infection, injury, disease, or disorder unrelated to the purpose of a gender transition.

10. Any action challenging the validity of any state law relating to reproductive health care shall be brought in the Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri. If a pleading, written motion, or other paper drawing into question the constitutionality of a state statute does not include the state, one of its agencies, or one of its officers or employees in an official capacity, the party bringing the action shall file a notice of constitutional question and serve it on the attorney general and the attorney general shall have the right to intervene in the litigation.

11. The general assembly shall have the authority to enact laws to carry out the provisions of this section.

12. As used in this section, the following terms mean:

(1) "Cross-sex hormones", testosterone, estrogen, or other androgens given to an individual in amounts that are greater or more potent than would normally occur naturally in a healthy individual of the same age and sex;

(2) "Fetal anomaly", a structural or functional abnormality in the unborn child's gestational development that would make life outside the womb impossible;

(3) "Fetal organ harvesting", collection of fetal tissue, organs, or fluids, including any biological material, for the purpose of selling or collecting for scientific purposes, but shall not include the utilization of fetal tissue, organs, or fluids to determine the cause or causes of any anomaly, illness, death, or genetic condition of the unborn child, the paternity of the unborn child, or for law enforcement purposes;

(4) "Gender transition surgery", a surgical procedure performed for the purpose of assisting an individual with identifying with and living as a gender different from his or her biological sex;

(5) "Medical emergency", a condition that, based on reasonable medical judgment, so complicates the medical condition of a pregnant woman as to necessitate the immediate termination of her pregnancy to avert the death of the pregnant woman or for which a delay will create a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman. A medical emergency shall include, but not be limited to, an ectopic pregnancy at any point following the diagnosis of such and treatment for a miscarriage;

(6) "Puberty-blocking drugs", gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues or other synthetic drugs used to stop luteinizing hormone secretion and follicle stimulating hormone secretion, synthetic antiandrogen drugs to block the androgen receptor, or any other drug used to delay or suppress pubertal development in children for the purpose of assisting an individual with a gender transition;

(7) "Reasonable medical judgment", a medical judgment that would be made by a reasonably prudent physician, knowledgeable about the case and the treatment possibilities with respect to the medical conditions involved.

13. All provisions of this section are severable. If any provision of this section is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or unconstitutionally enacted, the remaining provisions of this section shall be and remain valid.