The Tyranny of the Miller Test: Cross Post from Hick Christian

By David Rice

UTurn in Education’s Logical Fallacies are legion as they attempt to explain why Sexually Explicit Materials belong in the Library. Their arguments support Government’s Control over Americans.

 

When debating library content policies, we often encounter several logical fallacies used to shut down community discussion. I have identified several fallacies in UTurn in Education’s Public Comments from Dr. Elizabeth Dudash-Buskirk. Understanding these fallacies can help us engage in public discourse and learn to ignore arguments that add little value to it.

Appeals to Authority Fallacies

The Supreme Court

• "The Supreme Court decided this with the Miller Test."

• "Legal experts have settled this matter."

• Assumes court decisions are infallible and eternal

• Ignores that courts regularly overturn precedents (like Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition modifying Miller)

• I argued this before, but I will share it one more time. The Miller Test has been modified by the 2002 Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition. It made it legal to publish child porn as long as the images were hand-drawn or virtual. This created a boom in “legal” child porn that we now find in our libraries, curated by our librarians. It doesn’t make it right. It only makes it legal—and disgusting.

   

  The Credentialed Expert

• Using academic credentials (like a PhD) to lend weight to legal arguments

• Implying expertise in one field transfers to expertise in constitutional law

Suggesting education trumps community standards is like stating the Director in Brave New World is always superior to John the Savage’s critiques. The irony of calling John a savage is that he’s not the savage. The director, with all their elitism and education, empowered by an oppressive world government, is the savage.

Appeals to Time and Tradition Fallacies

The Age

• "The obscenity law has been in place since before I was born."

• Suggesting longevity equals correctness

• Using personal lifespan as a measure of legal validity

• If this was a valid reason for a law, should we reinstitute Draconian Laws? Or what about the Rule of Thumb, where men could not beat their wives with a stick wider than their thumb (which was an improvement over beating them with a stick larger than their thumb at the time.) Old or new doesn’t guarantee the law is valid or good—you need more than tradition or novelty to determine the validity of a good law.

The Settled Law

• The audience is left to assume her age, but let’s assume we've been using this standard for 50 years.

• This implies older decisions are automatically better.

• However, this ignores technological and societal changes.

• Why should the Miller Test be valid considering the technological changes since it was first introduced in a Mail-Order world? The court which made this decision never imagined a world where porn could move around the world in seconds, much less days or weeks. The definition of community isn’t the tiny isolated hamlet it once was. Parents cannot fight against Sexually Explicit Materials that move faster than they can, and Publishers (which act as the gateway porn industry for young children) know that and count on it.

Circular Reasoning Fallacies

The Community Standards Loop

• "It's acceptable because it's in the library."

• "It's in the library because it's acceptable."

• "The community accepts it because the Miller Test says they should."

• The community isn’t allowed to decide whether they like it or not. The Library staff chose to buy the book without community input, and since the Publisher is permitted to publish, it is allowable for the Library staff to buy the book. The Community Standard of the Miller Test never even comes into play. There are no discussions about whether the Publisher should be allowed to publish it or not or if the government should change the law. Power is all there is, and the Marxists have it in abundance under this system.

The Legal Authority Loop

• "It's acceptable because the Miller Test says so."

• "The Miller Test says it's acceptable because communities accept it."

• "Communities must accept it because it's legally acceptable."

• Similar to the above loop. You cannot question this logic because we don’t want to admit its fragility. We don’t want you to realize that the communities might not accept it. We have determined that they do, despite all the people attending Library Board meetings nationwide fighting against these books. It’s not a problem; it’s a small group of radicals. Ignore the fact we are trying to use lawfare to sue into oblivion private citizens into silence. Ignore the fact we are using the power of the ALA and the ACLU to force our views onto the community and determine from the outside what the community’s standards should be.

False Equivalences Fallacy

The Legality Equals Morality

• Equating legal permissibility with moral rightness

• Treating court decisions as moral absolutes

• Assuming what's legal is automatically good for the community

• There is no obligation for someone to follow the law if it is morally reprehensible or if the law violates moral precepts. People must follow their conscience to do the higher good than the law allows. If one did not, one would never abolish slavery or fight against abortion. If we followed Dr. Dudash-Buskirk’s illogic, slavery would be forever institutionalized because the government was behind it. Women would never be allowed to vote under her logic. Nothing would change. It takes moral people to create change, and Dudash-Buskirk’s position is not ethical.

The Free Speech Absolutist Fallacy

• Equating any content restriction with censorship

• Ignoring community standards and local control

• Treating all speech as equally protected

• Free Speech, like all freedoms, has limits. It always has. There are limits to all of our rights when they begin to harm others—especially the innocent. Freedom of Religion has upper limits. I cannot sacrifice virgins to Apollo. I cannot use guns to murder. I cannot use speech to libel or slander. I cannot use my Free Speech rights to harm children with Sexually Explicit Material. All the research shows it harms children. There isn’t a single research article that shows something different.

False Dichotomies Fallacy

The Binary Choice

• "Either accept Miller Test standards or oppose free speech."

• "You're either for censorship or against it."

• Ignoring nuanced positions between extremes

• Only tyrants deal with absolutes. Only people who uphold systems of power want no compromises. Only when you refuse to see your position as fallible, do you think you can crush everyone else beneath you. Choosing Binary choices (ironic, ain’t it) shows a lack of really understanding the complexities of the situation and a desire to force your own beliefs on others.

The Expert

• "Either you're a legal expert, or you can't understand this."

• "Either accept professional librarians' decisions or be anti-library."

• The lack of humility in this position is frustrating—more than frustrating. It demonstrates a desire to control and intimidate through ego. This fallacy states, “I know more than you do—more than you can hope to learn. You’re hopelessly out of your league, and you’ll never discover what I know. I’m far more brilliant than you.”

Creating false choices between extremes

Moving the Goalposts Fallacy

The Shifting Standards

• Changing what constitutes "community standards" when challenged.

• Adjusting the definition of "artistic value" to fit the desired outcome.

• Redefining "prurient interest" based on convenience.

• Because UTurn in Education refuses to have a standard, they can constantly move the goalpost about what is acceptable and what isn’t. They should be forced to admit what is too offensive and too obscene for children, and if they cannot answer, then they should not be considered serious public commenters. If they cannot determine if there is something that would be offensive to every family, then they have no standard at all, which means they don’t have any artistic value either.

The Evolving Definitions

• Changing the meaning of "obscene" to protect certain content.

• Shifting what counts as "educational material."

• Altering interpretations of "age-appropriate"

• As mentioned above, it is hard to understand what they mean. UTurn and its surrogates constantly change their definitions. They don’t say what they mean. They mean what they don’t say. Their words have no value. They want to use vague words they refuse to define to give the guise of import while communicating almost nothing.

Red Herrings Fallacy

The Constitutional Distraction

• Shifting the discussion to broad free speech principles.

• Avoiding specific community concerns.

• Distracting from content issues with procedural arguments.

• In her three-minute speech, she discussed concerns about attacks on her and UTurn. Dudash-Buskirk has, in the past, addressed concerns about Free Speech. She has tried to tie the hands of the board with procedural arguments. She refuses to deal with the concerns of the community.

The Censorship Panic

• Raising specters of book burning

• Comparing content concerns to historical censorship

• Derailing discussion with extreme scenarios

• Instead of accepting a reasonable approach, UTurn, on its website and in public discourse, speaks about the specter of Book Banning. They see any restriction on sharing Sexually Explicit Material with children as censorship equivalent to book banning or book burning. If you hold a Library Board Trustee responsible, you’re harassing them. Essentially, you’re not allowed to have a dissenting opinion. If you do, you’re the villain, and you must be described in the worst possible terms. These are ad hominem attacks, another fallacy. Look at my above article. I never call her names, insult her, or make ad hominem attacks against her character or her organization. I methodically examine her arguments and try to dismantle them one by one. Yet, there is no grace on their part to do the same.

Conclusion

Knowingly or unknowingly, when Dudash-Buskirk and UTurn in Education employ these fallacies, it does several harmful things to public discourse:

1. Shut down legitimate community discussion.

2. Prevent meaningful debate about content standards.

3. Protect institutional decisions from community oversight.

4. Maintain the status quo without proper scrutiny.

5. Replace community self-governance with institutional control.

6. Create systems resistant to democratic change.

7. Establish unaccountable "expert" authority.

8. Turn libraries from community institutions into ideological enforcers.

9. Reinforce tyrannical systems of oppression.

10. Attempts to scare people who don’t know how to argue against their fallacies from participating.

Understanding these fallacies helps communities:

1. Recognize invalid arguments

2. Respond effectively to dismissive tactics

3. Maintain focus on legitimate concerns

4. Engage in meaningful dialogue about community standards

The key is recognizing that community standards reflect actual community values, not institutional interpretations of decades-old legal tests. The Miller Test is invalid, immoral, and illogical.

UTurn’s insistence on staying married to it demonstrates that they have no arguments to make against these books because of logical fallacies. All they can say is, Government is good. Government approves Child Porn. Therefore Child Porn must be Good. If that argument works for you, then God help you.

If you prefer to hear logic, it would be best to ignore UTurn’s Public Comments until they learn to speak in the Public Interest.

Thank you, Dr. Dudash-Buskirk, for continuing to speak out and demonstrate your Free Speech rights. However, it is time to refine your public comments to actually add to the public discourse rather than to distract.

You can find Hick Christian HERE.

David Rice Hits a Home Run

 David Rice has revealed much more about how the local press seeks to influence rather than simply report on local news stories such as the Christian County Library's Board of Trustees changes and the reasons why.

Perhaps both nationally and locally, the press is hitting the bottom of the barrel. How to recover and reform an institution that has sunk so low is a hard question. It would take reporters and editors and publishers with moral fortitude and respect for traditional journalistic principles to turn the ship around and get it to shore.

If they are not willing or able to do it, others will take their place. That is the way of things.

In the meantime, Rice's article is riveting.

Xenophobia and Racism is Alive and Well in Baldknobber Country by David Rice

Liberals continue to espouse a spirit of hatred and intolerance in our community. Are we ready to don hoods and burn crosses because we our ideas are being challenged by outsiders?

Read on Substack

CROSS POST: The Library Battle is Not a Local Fight

 By David Rice

UTurn's recent article attacking Echo Schneider's fitness to serve as library board president represents a departure from balanced journalism in favor of guilt by association tactics. While attempting to raise concerns about library governance, the article relies heavily on personal attacks and tenuous connections rather than examining Schneider's actual performance or qualifications.

The current controversy extends far beyond local issues though . As reported by Them: "Republican officials in at least eight states are pushing to completely withdraw from the American Library Association (ALA)... Montana State Library Commission withdrew all state libraries from ALA membership" (Riedel, 2023)

• Arizona

• Idaho

• Illinois

• Georgia

• Louisiana

• South Carolina

• Wyoming

• Montana (already withdrawn)

Montana State Library Commission's specific reasoning for leaving the ALA is because the supposedly storied organization "undermines the shared goals of Montana libraries.”

Further, U.S. Senators Marco Rubio, Kevin Cramer, and Mike Braun demanded suspension of federal funding.

American Library Association Controversy

The UTurn article ignores the significant context that eight states are currently considering withdrawing from the ALA, with Montana having already done so. This exodus follows the ALA president's self-identification as a "Marxist lesbian" and concerns about the organization's ideological shift. Many library professionals seek alternatives for professional development and policy guidance while maintaining core library principles.

ALA President Emily Drabinski's tweet: "I just cannot believe that a Marxist lesbian who believes that collective power is possible to build and can be wielded for a better world is the president-elect of [the ALA]. I am so excited for what we will do together. Solidarity!"

Historical Context of Marxism in Practice

To understand the justifiable concerns about institutional Marxism, it's important to note documented historical impacts:

The Black Book of Communism (Harvard University Press, 1997) compiled death tolls under Marxist regimes [I requested Christian County Library add this book to their collection but was denied.]:

• USSR: 20 million deaths

• China: 65 million deaths

• Vietnam: 1 million deaths

• North Korea: 2 million deaths

• Cambodia: 2 million deaths

• Eastern Europe: 1 million deaths

• Latin America: 150,000 deaths

• Africa: 1.7 million deaths

• Afghanistan: 1.5 million deaths

These numbers provide context for why many Americans are concerned about institutional embrace of Marxist ideology.

World Library Association

Rather than evaluate the WLA's stated goals or achievements, UTurn attempts to discredit it through selective portrayal of certain members. The organization appears focused on providing alternative resources for libraries seeking local control over policies - a legitimate aim in library governance.

• The WLA's stated mission focuses on:

• Local control over library policies

• Professional development alternatives

• Community standards in collection development

• Transparent governance processes

From their website: "Our mission is simple, Your Library, Your Way™. We make best practice suggestions, you decide whether to use them."

Echo Schneider's Record

Notably absent from UTurn's coverage is any substantive criticism of Schneider's actual work as board president. Instead, the article relies on attacking others associated with WLA and implying guilt through these connections. This approach sidesteps fundamental questions about her competence and performance.

Notable absences from UTurn's coverage include:

- Any specific criticisms of her board decisions

- Evidence of policy violations

- Complaints about her leadership

- Problems with her qualifications

Instead, UTurn relies on guilt by association through:

- Links to unrelated individuals

- Speculation about motives

- Attacks on WLA members

- Mischaracterization of professional affiliations

Assassination Tactics

The article employs several concerning techniques:

• Uses the tragic suicide of Shawn McBreairty to attack others

  • UTurn wants to tell us about the high rate of suicide among Trans teens. What about the high rate of suicide among men?

• Presents one-sided allegations against Vicki Baggett without evidence or response

  • They never quote Vicki or give evidence of racism from anything she actually says.

  • The articles that malign her use the same tactics as UTurn.

• Characterizes Dan Kleinman's criticism of public figures as harassment

  The lawsuit against Dan Kleinman for exposing the work of Amanda Jones, a public figure who entered the fight on behalf of the ALA demonstrates that the ALA will use Lawfare to defend themselves rather than Free Speech and Public Discourse.

  
  
  

  • Portrays Bruce Friedman's legal challenges as inherently illegitimate

    • Alternately, if Friedman was a leftist, they might have said, using the system to fight the system is brilliant.

    • It’s how you defeat an unjust system. You can’t win against a bureaucracy more interested in reelections than in children by fighting it fairly.

 

A More Balanced View:

A fair examination would:

• Focus on Schneider's actual decisions and leadership

• Consider legitimate debates about ALA's current direction

• Acknowledge that professional associations can have diverse membership

• Evaluate library policies based on their merits rather than personal attacks

The article ultimately fails to make a case against Schneider's fitness to serve, instead relying on character assassination by proxy. In doing so, it undermines rather than advances important discussions about library governance and community standards.

Analysis of UTurn's Coverage: Logical Fallacies and Source Review

Guilt by Association Fallacies

UTurn attempts to discredit Echo Schneider through WLA membership without addressing her performance:

"Echo Schneider (fka Alexzander), is a 'Team Member' of the 'World Library Association'. This new group's apparent goal is to damage the oldest, largest, and most respected library association in the world" (UTurn article)

This ignores that, as reported in the Gillette News Record:

"What I would like to see for it is that it be a resource for librarians, as well as those who want to make their libraries more conservative" (Bear, quoted in Gallardo, 2023)

Using McBreairty's death to taint Echo & WLA:

In 2024, Shawn McBrearity passed away. He took his own life. In the UTurn article, they state, “He’s also famous for baiting and suing multiple school districts in Maine. McBrearity died by self inflicted gunshot in June 2024.” Without taking a break, UTurn ties his suicide directly to his activism against radical school districts.

 

In another article, Uturn links to, it makes accusations against McBreairty that can’t be established. "It's not known whether Shawn McBreairty saw MFM's 'Attack' video during that time, but it seems likely he would have at least heard about it" (Busby, 2018)

This last quotation from Busby represents pure speculation presented as fact and neither Busby nor UTurn wants want you to dig deeper.

Ad Hominem Attacks

Against Dan Kleinman:

The defamation and false light lawsuit appears aimed at silencing criticism of public officials. As reported in Library Journal:

"Jones is still awaiting judgment on the re-petition of her original case in Louisiana, spent a year considering taking action against Kleinman before finally deciding to sue him" (O'Brien & Weidmayer, 2024)

Against Vicki Baggett:

The allegations rely entirely on unverified student claims. From Popular Information:

"Popular Information previously reported that, in 2015, Baggett posted an image of the Confederate Flag to her Facebook page" (Legum & Crosby, 2022)

However, no direct evidence of classroom misconduct is provided beyond student allegations. No quotes are provided of racism. Getting all of the information second-hand is some evidence, but what they have as direct quotes is not racism. None of the students provided direct quotes or video evidence about her beliefs related to intermarriage between people with different skin color. For these types of accusations, we need an exceptionally high standard of evidence. We cannot accept the word of people anymore.

False Equivalence

Equating ALA membership with endorsement of all member views:

The Gillette News Record reports a more nuanced reality:

"Butler said it's meant to give people a choice, and he likened it to car companies... 'Some people like Fords, some people like Chevys, and right now the only dealership you've got in town is a Ford'" (Gallardo, 2023).

The ALA is an organization that represents some Librarians. It is not homogeneous, nor is it the only one. To say it is the only one is a misrepresentation of nearly nine other organizations out there, some of them just as radical as the ALA. Why would it be wrong for some Libraries to have a place to go that doesn’t have the radical or Marxist beliefs that the ALA espouses? Shouldn’t Librarians have more than one politburo to apply to? More than one Commissar?

Previously, Dan Kleinman was accused of calling for Censoring of books, but he challenged the ALA writer, Marta L. Magnuson, and she conceded the points. Maybe UTurn in Education will concede they were wrong for using these fallacies against Echo Schneider and apologize as Ms. Magnuson did?

 

Conclusion

UTurn's coverage fails basic journalistic standards by:

• Ignoring relevant context

• Using guilt by association

• Presenting selective evidence

• Engaging in character assassination

• Avoiding substantive policy discussion

The broader debate about library governance deserves better than partisan attacks masquerading as journalism. Whenever I write about UTurn, I diligently work to apply the highest level of journalistic standards. I try to use these guidelines more and more in my writing for journalism, notwithstanding when I do Satire which is a separate animal.

I do so because they claim that we have no journalistic ethics on our side. UTurn’s article on Echo was demonstrably a hit piece with no journalistic integrity or value. It lacked any truth. It doesn’t frame the issue for why Echo shouldn’t be a board member or the Board president in a substantive way.

They have no arguments for or against Echo in their article beyond she has associated herself with patriots who fight against the Sexually Exploitative Material in our Libraries. Good on Echo, then. Shame on UTurn for supporting the wrong side of this issue once again.

I’ll begin to close with a quotation from Heterodoxy in the Stacks:

"Yet, I can't help but think the sheer, litigious drama of the years-long battle was high in emotion and low on results" (Dudley, 2024)

If we would have a more productive dialogue about library governance rather than personal attacks, maybe there wouldn’t be the need for a WLA or for heroes like Echo Schneider. 

Because the ALA has made that impossible and will continue to support directly or indirectly lawfare against anyone that stands against them, we need heroes in the Library standing against these Character Assassinations by people who lost their love for humanity a long time ago.

There be dragons in the stacks…

 You can access Rice's article by clicking here:

Journalism or Character Assassination: A Response to UTurn's Library Board Coverage by David Rice

Reform Under Fire: How Institutions Fight Back Against Library Independence.

Read on Substack

Cross Post: MOGOP Junta Takeover of Grassroots Central Committees

Hick Christian interviewed Linda Rantz of Cause of America and Cyndia Haggard, Vernon County, Missouri central committee chair regarding the state GOP's continuing attempts to control the grassroots. Click HERE for resources and information mentioned in the interview.

 

All Politics is Local

By Gretchen Garrity

David Rice has written a scathing article on his Substack, Hick Christian. It was a long time coming. I can identify with David's anger because I've experienced similar situations as a local writer who reports on politics.

Politics is a very dirty business, even among virtuous people. Politically active constituents sometimes get tangled up in the drama. The best of motives can go bad very quickly. It is fraught with good and bad intentions, with desire for power, influence, money. The stakes are high, even in local races. It is easy for politicians to lose their way almost from the start.

Try being a conservative writer in this atmosphere. Reporting a truth that doesn't make a local politician shine can make a lot of people uneasy and angry because there is so much at stake. Elections, re-elections, personal relationships, favorite issues, pet political projects, lobbyists, PACs--the list is endless, and the easy solution is to write fluff, to not report controversy, to protect your party's darling. In short, the temptation is to...play politics.

Most people are aware that the local, state, and national press are all bought-off propaganda outlets. No one really reads them to get any news. At best, these organizations occasionally print enough truth that if you read three or four articles from different outlets you might have a good idea of what is going on with one issue or another.

On the other hand there are numerous local "chitchat" Facebook pages that allow some local news to be shared. However, most anything controversial is immediately censored. Right to Win Ozarks was quickly deemed "domestic terrorists" right out of the gate. Nowadays we've been downgraded to "Spam." Any account that tries to link to our blog is blocked from doing so. It's a shame.

The same thing is happening to David Rice. Local groups are not courageous enough to allow his article, "The Truth about Rep. Jamie Gragg" to be published. In Christian terms, they are pleasers of men. They have not the courage of their convictions. Are they not as committed to free speech as their forefathers?

We live in a world where British citizens are being jailed for social media posts that merely question the out-of-control immigration to their country. Do our local chitchat groups think this kind of Orwellian censorship and persecution is not headed here? Is it not already here, both with government and big tech censorship, and the craven self-censorship of local social media accounts?

After reading David's article, perhaps readers might reflect on what they look for in a politician. How should our elected officials behave when they get some bad press? What do you expect from them? How should they react when they are held to account for a bad vote or behavior? And who is to hold them to account, since the "press" is no longer functioning in its proper role?

Click through and read David's article. He's being censored. Share it around. And be damned glad there's a few voices out there willing to speak up.

The Truth about Rep. Jamie Gragg by David Rice

I was asked to assassinate the character of a fellow journalist who spoke out against a bill Gragg supported. I looked into the bill. It was unconstituional. When I said so, he turned on me.

Read on Substack

A Technocracy to Destroy Your Children

Cross posted from David Rice's Hick Christian. Click on the link for the podcast.

Amendment 3 will create a Constitutional Technocracy to Destroy Your Children by David Rice

If Amendment 3 passes, your unborn and born children will become grist for the technocratic cult of billionaires to enrich themselves as they work to castrate and cannibalize your children.

Read on Substack

"It’s hard to imagine that what we’re witnessing is an organized technological, religious cult with eugenicist underpinnings. The single most important contribution to Hilter being able to continue his holocaust against the Jews in Nazi Germany, is that people could not, would not, allow themselves to believe it was happening. It was too terrifying." from Jennifer Bilek.

If Amendment 3 passes on November 6th, it will essentially turn Christians, Parents, and other Faith Groups into outlaws in Missouri. If we, or you, oppose or stand in the way of a child’s “reproductive freedom” to transition to another sex or if we oppose a child being aborted at any stage of development, we will be criminalized for violating their constitutional right.

Amendment 3 is a Lie (Vote No)

Amendment 3 is a smokescreen for the implementation of the transgender agenda on Missouri’s children and could threaten parental rights. 

• Amendment 3 would repeal the SAFE ACT passed in 2023. According to the Liberty Counsel’s Statement of Leaders Opposing Missouri’s So-Called “Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative,” states “While the text cleverly focuses on pregnancy and abortion, the creation of a broad right to“reproductive health care” expanded with the “but not limited to” text enables an interpretation that“reproductive health care” includes the right of a person to modify, eliminate or change their reproductive system. Moreover, since the language does not specifically protect the parent-child relationship, the left will continue to argue that the state must counsel, enable, and facilitate children to surgically, hormonally, or otherwise irreversibly mutilate themselves, against parental consent, under the guise of reproductive health and so-called “gender-affirming care.”

• Amendment 3 could repeal the Missouri Save Women’s Sports Act. According to Section 6, “The Government shall not discriminate against persons providing or obtaining reproductive health care or assisting another person in doing so.” According to the Liberty Counsel, “This so-called “anti-discrimination” provision could be applied to allow biological males “obtaining reproductive health care” a legal right to demand access to girls’ and women’s activities and spaces.”

• Amendment 3 could give the state the authority to remove children from parents who object to their children receiving “gender-affirming” surgeries and/or medical treatment. According to the Liberty Counsel, Section 6 could create “A state-sponsored “right” that can be used by bureaucrats to mislead and kidnap children to irreversibly mutilate and forcibly sterilize their reproductive systems against parental consent.”

Amendment 3 Attack on Unborn Children and Women’s Health

• Section 2 would repeal Missouri State Statute 188.026, Missouri Stands for the Unborn Act, “Missouri Heartbeat Law,” and allow full-term and partial-birth abortion up to the moment of birth. 

• Section 4 would allow abortions for physical or mental health reasons for all nine months. 

• Section 5 would eliminate abortions that are required to be conducted by licensed physicians. This would allow unlicensed “Medical” professionals to perform an abortion in an unlicensed medical facility. 

Amendment 3 Attack on Parental Rights and Taxpayers

• Section 3 would eliminate parental consent of minors from receiving an abortion. “Any denial, interference, delay, or restriction of the right to reproductive freedom shall be presumed invalid.”

• Section 3 would repeal HB 2634 and force taxpayers to fund abortions; HB 2634 was sponsored by Representative Cody Smith and passed in the 2024 legislative session. HB 2634 Section 188.207 states, “It shall be unlawful for any public funds to be expended to any abortion facility or any affiliate of such abortion facility.”  

Documents

“The Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative” Petition

“Certificate of Sufficiency” for the Ballot Initiative

“2024 Ballot Measures” from the Missouri SOS

References

Pietism Definition from Defy Tyrants website.

“Now Pietism – which teaches that Christianity should be a purely private matter and that God’s law has no place in the governance of nations – always tells us that we are wasting our time when it comes to being involved in seeing that good laws are established in our nation. They mock it as mere ‘moralizing.’ They say we should just be involved in trying to save men’s souls – we should just preach the gospel. But what Pietism fails to understand is that good law – that which mirrors the law and justice of God – helps men see where they are wrong, where they have sinned against God, where they do need to repent.”

Shield Maidens of MO

“Ask yourself this: Why did MRL endorse Jay Ashcroft for Governor approximately a year ago BEFORE the race for Governor even heated up when he has NEVER taken ANY vote for the LIFE issue? He does not have a proven record. He has nothing for voters to see. So, how does MRL know how Ashcroft will vote when pressed when he has never taken a vote unlike Senator Bill Eigel who has 8 full years of votes that are on record? Mike Kehoe has a full slate of documented votes from when he was a sitting senator for the life issue that are less than impressive. Kehoe’s position on abortion is weak, unlike Eigel’s based on live debates we have watched for 8 years and all of the votes he has taken.”

Watch the video here.

Abolish Abortion Missouri

My interviews with Dr. Wes Scroggins can be found here and here.

What are the Churches doing?

Sadly, in my research, not enough details were provided. The Missouri Baptist Convention and the Springfield-Cape Girardeau Catholic Diocese provided the most details. Yet, many churches are worried that they will lose members if they preach this from the pulpit or lectern.

Can they afford to lose members in a climate of scarce money? Many pastors, priests, elders, and deacons are asking the wrong question.

In a culture that is turning against children and moving openly and gleefully toward child sacrifice, can they stay silent and not fear the judgment of God?

Washington University Plans for Unborn Children

Your Local Podcasters and Authors’ Bios

Gretchen Garrity is a former journalist who has written boldly for years. She is a brave Christian conservative, but she’s most proud of being a grandmother.

David Rice writes about three issues in this order: Christ, the Constitution, and Conservative issues. He is a father and husband and has been redeemed at a cost he could not pay.