Perfected HB3005 is another Legislative Missouri Mess

David Rice has exposed how HB3005, a bill pertaining to public libraries is rife with errors. The bill was pushed through quickly and quietly and is awaiting a vote before the end of this year's legislative session. Here's a portion. Go read the whole thing HERE.

The Unconstitutional Library

A new library bill threatens parent and patron rights, supplanting the freedom to think by codifying ALA theories into Missouri law.

HickChristian News

Apr 6

From: Soviet Artefacts

We have expectations that the materials our sons and daughters read at the library, school or public, will be safe. Though many of us are waking up to the fact that these materials aren’t safe anymore. Books like the newly published Sibylline include a threesome with two young men and a woman [Right to Win Ozarks link], and one of the men (eighteen) was just killed. It’s necrophilia and the magic of sex and love bring the dead man back to life in the middle of raping his corpse.

Parents have demanded a rating system for movies, for music, are succeeding with an age-verification for porn sites across the US in many states (not Missouri though, thanks to our supermajority progressive Republicans). Yet, we can’t have a rating system for books? Except for Vendors and Publishers to recommend 12-17 year olds read a book about a corpse being raped?

This book is in our Christian County Library. It’s one of nearly 50 new books in the last six months that your child may be reading that is rated by the vendor for tweens and teens and the Library will allow anyone of any age to check out. In total, I have documented around four hundred books in our collection like this. If you have a precocious eight year old that can read above their grade level, the library won’t stop them from checking out books like this.

What is your duty as a parent? In this situation, you can go to the Library Board meetings, but that won’t help. You can write letters to your State Representatives. That won’t help either.

Our government in Missouri has decided they have an answer to our problems. Representative Doyle Justus (District 41) and Bill Lucas (District 115) have sponsored a bill, HB 3005.

The bill is only three pages long, but it has been perfected. In Missouri, that means it has cleared committee hearings, received public testimony, been amended and revised—in this case losing at least one significant protection along the way—passed out of committee as a substitute bill, gone to the full House floor for debate and second reading, and survived all of that. It now sits on the Informal Third Reading Calendar, which means it is one step from a final House vote.

All it takes is for Rep. Jon Patterson, the radical progressive Republican House Speaker from Lee’s Summit to bring it to a vote. He was so popular with the House Democrats, their radical progressive stepped aside for him like a coronation. He’ll bring HB 3005 to a vote with all the other bills at the end of the session when no one sees it coming.

HB 3005

HB 3005’s three pages reach for simplicity, but hide a complexity that will have to be unpacked. First, let’s analyze what sponsors will claim it does. Justus and Lucas will claim Libraries must now have a written policy detailing to patrons how to challenge books like Sibylline or Gender Queer. Libraries must post that policy in a public space. If a patron files a challenge, the material stays on the shelf during the review process. The challenger can only file a reconsideration if they have read the entire book or consumed the entire media (film or audiobook). If the challenger disagrees with the Libraries decision, they can appeal. The same material cannot be challenged again for two years. Library employees cannot be fired for refusing to remove a book before the process completes.

If you are a sharp reader, you’ll have already seen several issues with what it proposes. One of the individuals who testified, provided a blistering legal takedown of it. The sponsors were warned it was unconstitutional and they moved forward anyway. I emailed Representatives Bob Titus and Burt Whaley, notifying both of her testimony to ask them if they plan to vote on this bill. I also emailed Rep. Justus and Lucas asking if they will withdraw this bill.

Further, I emailed all five board members of Christian County Library so you can see what they think about losing their statutory authority over their executive director and their ability to affect change in their community.

So far, out of the nine people I emailed, the only Rep to respond was Lucas. I promise I was polite.

I should have signed with x’s and o’s. Dang it.

Lucas’s response deflected blame like a little brother caught with a baseball bat in front of a broken window. Justus pitched. Lucas swung and Justus ran.

Lucas responded to my email with one sentence: "The author and sponsor of HB3005 is Representative Justus." When I pointed out I have evidence he’s the co-sponsor (recorded on the Missouri House website), he did not respond further...

___________________________________________________________________________________

There is so much more about HB3005 over at Hick Christian News. Again, read the whole thing HERE.

It's not about the freedom to read--it's about forced indoctrination

BREAKING: The Rutherford County Library in Tennessee voted 8-3 in favor of FIRING library director Luanne James after she refused to move over 100 books, including LGBTQ and DEI books, from the children's section to the adult section.

Unhinged supporters of James screamed and… pic.twitter.com/bDIvzkB6LH

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 31, 2026

 It's worthwhile watching the video with the sound off at first. The reactions of those who are advocating for sexually explicit and age-inappropriate books are angry, loud and well-organized in their purple shirts.

This is not about the First Amendment or the so-called "freedom to read" or the fake "Library Bill of Rights," or censorship or banning books.

It's about indoctrinating children. Note that the books are still available in the adult section for those parents who are desirous of exposing their children to certain books. The opposition does not care that the books are still available in the library. They WANT ALL CHILDREN TO BE EXPOSED TO THOSE BOOKS. They want to force your children and grandchildren to be exposed to them, regardless of content, age appropriateness, and social indoctrination.

If this was not a very important battle, the Marxists and social justice warriors would not fight so hard.

From the Pit of Hell

 

IT'S ALL CONNECTED...

This might be the most disturbing paper I have ever read, perhaps even edging out a recent paper about "Queering Babies" that explicitly sexualized infants. These people are sick.

Read my write-up below. https://t.co/1Xwm1lpGhh

— Colin Wright (@SwipeWright) September 24, 2025

In another tweet on the same subject, Wright said, "The central theme of the paper is "pleasure." This aligns with trends in international sex education policy, particularly the International Planned Parenthood Federation's Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) program, which explicitly shifted away from sex education centered around reproduction and toward what it calls 'sexual expression, sexual fulfillment, and pleasure.' Pleasure is one of seven core elements of CSE. Its Youth Policy, applying to 'all young people irrespective of their age,' [bolded] declares a 'right to pleasure' and 'the right of all young people to enjoy sex and express their sexuality in the way that they choose.'"

And, for all those who were at the Christian County Library Board Meeting last night, and might not have a full picture of what the American Library Association is promoting for children in their "Library Bill of Rights" (LBOR):

"Access to Library Resources and Services for Minors: Library policies and procedures that effectively deny minors equal and equitable access to all library resources available to other users violate the Library Bill of Rights. The American Library Association opposes all attempts to restrict access to library services, materials, and facilities based on the age of library users. [Bolded] Amended 2025" (Interpretations of the Library Bill of Rights)

And further:

"All people, of all ages, should have equal and equitable access to all library resources and services. The American Library Association (ALA) opposes any efforts to restrict access based on age. Policies and procedures that prevent minors¹ from accessing the same resources and services as adults violate the ALA’s Library Bill of Rights. [Bolded] Libraries and their governing bodies should not use age as a reason to avoid potential objections. Not acquiring materials because minors might access them reduces the credibility of the library and limits access for everyone.

Article V of the Library Bill of Rights states, “A person’s right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, [Bolded] background, or views.” The right to use a library means that people should have free access to all services, materials, and facilities and unrestricted use of everything the library offers. Any restriction based solely on the following criteria violates Article V:

• age;
• apparent maturity;
• educational level;
• literacy skills; or
• legal status.

Further violations of Article V include setting limits on:

• how old someone must be to get a library card;
• demonstrated skills or abilities required to get a library card (like signing their name);
• requiring parental/guardian permission to get a card for anyone old enough to be in the library without parental/guardian supervision;
• how many or what kinds of items minors can check out compared to adults, or;
• creating trial periods for library use based on age.

Violations to Article V also include restricting access for minors who don’t have a parent or guardian available to sign a library card application or permission slip, who can’t provide legal ID to verify their name or address, or who can’t visit a library in person." (Access to Library Resources and Services for Minors: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights)

Can you see how children are being made into objects of mere sex and pleasure? This goes against everything that is good and decent. It is designed to dehumanize and demoralize your children. And there were retired teachers, a therapist, and a university professor who opposed the vote last night to remove reference to the ALA's LBOR from the policy handbook. There are HUNDREDS of age-inappropriate and sexually explicit books in our libraries--all shelved in the children's and teens' sections. It isn't just a about a book with two male penguins who raise an egg. It is so much bigger and darker. The opposition seeks to hide the truth.

Please support the efforts of the community to make libraries safe for children. One thing you can do right now, is to send the new executive director an email in support of the Library's direction to make that happen: wblydenburgh@christiancountylibrary.org. The support from the community has been unfailing, and is much appreciated. More than anything, your prayers are needed and gratefully received.

Another Win for Common Sense

From: U-turn in Education

By Gretchen Garrity

A Louisiana lawsuit brought by a trio of axed library board members has been dismissed. The summary from Justia states:

"Following public outcry over "Pride Month" displays in St. Tammany Parish's public libraries, the Parish Council passed a resolution that vacated the terms of the Library Board of Control members, staggered those terms in accordance with Louisiana law, and appointed new Board members. Three ousted Board members—Anthony Parr, Rebecca Taylor, and William McHugh, III—sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting viewpoint-discrimination, free-speech, retaliation, and substantive-due-process claims against the Council and Councilman David Cougle. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the resolution from taking effect.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana ruled that the legislative privilege was inapplicable because the resolution was not "legislative" in nature. Defendants brought an interlocutory appeal challenging this ruling. Before addressing the legislative privilege issue, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit examined whether the plaintiffs had standing to bring their claims.

The Fifth Circuit concluded that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The court found that the plaintiffs' alleged speech-related injuries were not particularized, as they were tied to their positions as Board members and affected all members equally. Additionally, the court determined that the plaintiffs' alleged reputational injuries were neither fairly traceable to the defendants' conduct nor redressable by a favorable decision. Consequently, the court vacated the district court's order and remanded with instructions to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction." 

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals noted, "Plaintiffs lost their Board positions and thereby lost the power to wield the levers of influence over St. Tammany's libraries—and they want that control back.  But rather than pursue that aim through the political process, they have "dragged that fight into federal court by tricking it out in [constitutional] colors."

Dan Kleinman, of Safe Libraries and the founder of the World Library Association, had this to say about the case:

"Here's my take.  People who follow ALA advice and create a local group to say and do what ALA wants get burned in the end, so why expose yourselves to this?  ALA's biggest loss was United States v. American Library Association that allowed libraries to use Internet filtering software.  ALA sought to allow children unfettered access.  ALA lost $1.5M in that fruitless effort."

The court rightly found the plaintiffs had no legislative standing with regard to a violation of their rights of free speech. In fact, the court went so far as to say that the plaintiffs were attempting to regain power through legal means (I would suggest lawfare) rather than political means.

THE ALA STRIKES OUT AGAIN 

It is absurd for the American Library Association and their supporters to assert that minor children should be granted unfettered access by public libraries to either the internet or age-inappropriate and often sexually-explicit library books. Citizens are not going to stand for it.

From: Missouri Library Association

When groups like U-turn in Education, the Missouri Right to Read Coalition, the Missouri Library Association and others take their cues from the ALA's "Right to Read" and "Library Bill of Rights", they cease to have credibility with most communities. It is simply common sense to protect children from books and materials they are not emotionally ready to process.

Parents and guardians can access whatever materials they want for their children in any number of venues, but they do not have a right to legislate and effectively force access of age-inappropriate books to other people's minor children.

And again, the insistence that providing unsuitable materials to children is a right sounds ludicrous when seen under the light of the many laws restricting minor access to alcohol, pornography, cigarettes and so on.

Common sense is returning, and not a moment too soon.