It's NOT the Democrats that Kill Personhood Bills...

 ...It's the legendary Republican Super Majority in the Missouri Legislature, and Missouri Right to Life. 

If you want more reasons why you should vote NO on Amendment 3, read Sen. Moon's latest newsletter HERE. 

Missouri's Pro-life Schism: Part Three

 Part 3: How PACS and powerful politicians exert pressure on legislators and voters

By Gretchen Garrity

From: Bauman Rare Books

“Save us from weak resignation, To the evils we deplore…”

                                                                                  -- God of Grace and God of Glory

Once compromise and moral confusion enters an institution all kinds of mischief ensues. The Missouri Legislature, like other institutions, is composed of both good and bad individuals, and some who think they are doing good. And there are manifold pressures on legislators by lobbyists, PACs, and other organizations who seek to influence legislation and votes.

In her famous anti-slavery novel “Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” Harriet Beecher Stowe said, “There is one thing that every individual can do, – they can see to it that they feel right. An atmosphere of sympathetic influence encircles every human being; and the man or woman who feels strongly, healthily and justly, on the great interests of humanity, is a constant benefactor to the human race. See, then, to your sympathies in this matter! Are they in harmony with the sympathies of Christ? or are they swayed and perverted by the sophistries of worldly policy?”

The abortion amendment on the ballot in November--Amendment 3--is the result of the ‘sophistries of worldly policy.’ As noted in parts One and Two, A3 is not a pro-life amendment, but a cunningly devised piece of legislation that preserves a ‘right’ to abort children through regulation of the amendment’s provisions. For more information on the truth of A3 as opposed to what its proponents say, see the resources at the end of this article.

Missouri Right to Life PAC (MRL) and Her Health, Her Future (designed to be a fundraising arm in support of A3) are two Missouri PACs that seek to influence legislators and voters to support the cause of regulating abortion. Freedom Principle Missouri/Missouri First PAC is another ‘conservative’ organization that backs A3. In fact, MRL contributed $15,000 to President Byron Keelin’s Freedom Principle Missouri’s Missouri First PAC in an October 7 MEC filing.

Rudi Keller of The Missouri Independent explains how PACs also influence state legislative races HERE.

Her Health, Her Future has raised more than $3 million, much of it coming in the last few weeks with anonymous donations of $750,000, $1.25 million, and $900,000. These anonymous dark money donations coming in the last weeks of an election season show the determination of certain forces that want an abortion amendment that preserves abortion rights, but is acceptable and soothing to pro-life voters.

To do that, the proponents of Amendment 3 have used deceptive language and tactics and have launched an expensive campaign in churches around the state to get out the Christian vote. The GOP establishment on both the state and local levels have also heavily promoted A3.

Sen. Brattin's Chief of Staff, Tom Estes gets paid by HHHF PAC. From: X

A3 is a litmus test for pro-life legislators, and groups like MRL PAC have withheld endorsements based on SJR73(A3) votes. For instance, I asked Sen. Mike Moon (District 29) about the influence Missouri Right to Life has on candidates for legislative office. He said, “In the “eyes” of the general public, MRL is looked at as the “pro-Life” authority. Especially for new candidates running for office, the MRL endorsement is seen as a must-have. In reality, though, a candidate can win without the MRL endorsement.”

This is precisely what happened with Rep. Burt Whaley (138^th District), who was endorsed by MRL as was his primary opponent, Tom Franiak in 2024. However, as an incumbent, Whaley was snubbed in the 2026 cycle by the MRL PAC.

Why? Because he was an absent vote on HJR73 (which is now Amendment 3 on November's ballot). In fact, though Whaley has run on a pro-life platform and has sponsored identical personhood bills, HJR 109 and HB 3056, MRL endorsed his 2026 primary opponent Tom Franiak, who again opposed Whaley.

According to MRL PAC, their endorsement criteria is based upon:

“MRL PAC endorsements are non-partisan and are based on the following guidelines:

 • Pro-life Survey - A candidate must complete an MRL PAC or National Right to Life PAC survey verifying their pro-life position on abortion, euthanasia, human cloning, embryonic stem cell research, and other issues that fall under the purview of MRL.

 • Voting record - When a candidate has held office, whether running for the same seat or a different seat, MRL PAC considers up to a four-year voting record to determine a candidate’s eligibility for endorsement. The percentage of pro-life votes required for endorsement is determined by MRL PAC and takes into consideration not only the candidate’s votes, but also the degree of involvement in advancing pro-life legislation and the importance of specific votes.”

Later, MRL PAC gives itself broad parameters in its endorsement criteria, “MRL PAC also considers the political realities and circumstances of each race.” A polite way of saying they will endorse whomever they want and for whatever reasons.

I mentioned to Sen. Moon the situation with Rep. Whaley and asked him his thoughts. He replied, “In my opinion, MRL wants to be a 'king-maker' (they want to endorse the candidate most likely to win). MRL has endorsed congressional candidates simply because they had the most money (and, appeared most likely to win because of it).”

Whaley won both primaries in large landslides, which proved Sen. Moon’s assertion that a candidate does not need MRL’s endorsement to win. Sen. Moon has also won his races without the endorsement of MRL PAC. Candidates are waking up to the political limits of PAC endorsements, especially when those PACs and 501(c)3 organizations compromise on their own principles for political expediency.

I asked Rep. Whaley about the situation with MRL PAC. He told me, "During the 2026 General Assembly session, I had the following conversation with [Executive Director and Chief Lobbyist] Susan Klein and another individual. I explained the reason for my absent vote. During our conversation, Susan stated three times that HJR 73 (A3) was a very important vote. She also expressed concerns about the personhood bills that Sen. Mike Moon and I are sponsoring, alleging that the bills criminalized women for having abortions."

Here you see the emphasis on women and not pre-born babies that has characterized MRL's focus for some time. Whaley went on to say, "I stated that we must move toward a culture of life rather than a culture of death. I further explained I would like to see mothers who have aborted their children participate in mandatory trauma-informed counseling, educational programming on the developmental stages of a baby from conception to birth, a postpartum recovery program, and a visit to a pregnancy resource center."

Rep. Whaley also said, "Based on the conversation, it seemed clear that I would not receive an endorsement from MRL for the 2026 election cycle. Ultimately, I was not endorsed by MRL during either the primary or the general election for the 2026 election cycle."

ENDORSEMENTS NOT WHAT THEY'RE CRACKED UP TO BE

I also asked Sen. Moon how candidates and legislators viewed MRL’s endorsement, or lack thereof. He replied, “It is my belief (due to having discussions with candidates and legislators about the MRL endorsement) that most candidates for elected office revere the endorsement and will do whatever is necessary to gain it.

Here’s a truth I discovered when I was first elected in 2013: I was encouraged to allow a campaign consultant to review the MRL survey before submitting my answers. I questioned the request and was told it was simply to ensure that I had provided the answers wanted by MRL. My rebuttal was: If I don’t know my position well enough to answer the survey, how will I be able to defend my position? (I didn’t offer the survey for review.)

Later, perhaps a year or so, I related my experience to a lobbyist. The lobbyist told me that he previously worked for HRCC (House Republican Campaign Committee) and part of his responsibilities was to complete surveys for candidates (once complete, the candidate would sign the survey and submit it to the MRL).

As a result of this new-found information, I contacted the MRL staff responsible for endorsements, Dave Plemmons [the chairman of MRL PAC], and related the story told by the former HRCC staffer. Mr. Plemmons told me that he didn’t care who completed the survey. He was only interested in the candidate’s signature.

I imagine that there may be a good number of elected officials who did not personally complete the MRL survey (and, as a result, do not truly know what they believe about the sanctity of life).

I have cast some fairly hard votes – often being the only Republican House or Senate member to vote against a bill sanctioned by MRL. Some have actually told me afterward they wished they had voted the same as I did (they feared reprisal in their next election).”

THE GOP SCHISM RUNS BOTH WAYS

Missouri’s First Lady Claudia Kehoe is the treasurer of Her Health, Her Future. The political cachet that brings is illustrative of how things work in Jefferson City. MRL declined to endorse Mike Kehoe in 2024 for the general election, and it is commonly believed because he was in favor of rape and incest exceptions for abortion legislation. The non-endorsement caused a rift noted HERE. MRL PAC endorsed Jay Ashcroft in July of 2023, more than a year before the primary.

Republican state Sen. Mike Cierpiot had this to say:

“Their leadership, Ms. (Susan) Klein, and Mr. (Dave) Plemmons and Mr. (Steve) Rupp have been much more interested in causing Republican brush fires over issues with much smaller or no impact on the huge effort for life.”

According to the Missouri Independent article, he accused MRL “of focusing more on enforcing purity of thought and maintaining its influence within the GOP than writing laws acceptable to most Missourians.”

The article went on:

“The problems with Missouri Right to Life was evident in the 2024 elections when it made single-candidate endorsements, freezing out candidates who had been ardent anti-abortion legislators. The organization endorsed then-Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft in the Republican primary for governor, then refused to endorse Republican nominee Mike Kehoe for the general election.

Other Republicans who won without the endorsement of Missouri Right to Life joined in the criticism. State Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, a Republican from Arnold, said the law triggered by the 2022 abortion decision was negotiated in spite of Missouri Right to Life, not with its help.

‘I don’t know that I really care, frankly, that they didn’t endorse me,’ Coleman said. ‘What I do care about is that they didn’t endorse Gov. Kehoe in the primary, and they didn’t endorse him in the general.’”

Setting aside MRL’s obvious change of heart over rape and incest exceptions after the 2024 election, it has to be noted that establishment Republicans like Cierpiot and Gov. Kehoe, are advocating for the regulation of abortion rather than its abolishment. And once a squishy 'pro-life' candidate assumed the governorship, the troops fell in line. 

From: X

Considering that Missouri is historically a fervent pro-life state, the pro-abortion narrative that was built after abortion was narrowly approved in 2024 is making it difficult for legislators and establishment pro-life groups to hold the line. One might say there is a powerful segment of the Republican Party in Missouri that has succumbed to compromise, as was indicated when then-candidate Lieut. Gov. Mike Kehoe noted his support of rape and incest exceptions during the 2024 campaign season, and won despite the lack of endorsement from MRL.

Kehoe had the backing and endorsement of large lobbying organizations and copious campaign funds and apparently was willing to risk the lack of an MRL endorsement. Perhaps it is time candidates for legislative office should vet the establishment pro-life organizations like MRL.

Since Kehoe's election, MRL has fallen in line with rape and incest exceptions, and Claudia Kehoe’s Her Health, Her Future PAC is easily commanding funding in support of A3. The strategy is to pull in political support from churches, which are often weak and disengaged during mid-terms. To that end, there has been a campaign with establishment PACs like MRL and HHHF, along with the Missouri GOP to get Christians out to vote in favor of allowing abortion.

Gov. Kehoe is willing to expend political capital on supporting Amendment 3, when his support for both amendments 4 and 5 handed him embarrassing losses in the August primary. It may turn out that MRL’s lack of an endorsement for him contained a kernel of wisdom.

Former state representative and former pastor Doug Richey, is one of many influencers who opposed rape and incest exceptions in 2022. "Fundamentally tied to the pro-life position is the idea that the baby in the womb is a human being. And that human being, being innocent of any crime, innocent of any wrongdoing in what took place to bring about that child's existence--that child's life should be protected," Richey said at the time. Richey is one of many who have fallen in line with MRL, HHHF and Gov. Kehoe by also advocating for Amendment 3.

According to reports, the 2024 abortion amendment that enshrined abortion up to fetal viability into the state constitution awoke the GOP to a realization that abortion exceptions would be needed in order to repeal the current amendment (or so that is the narrative). As a result, there has been an incrementalist retrenchment in how Republican legislators and establishment pro-life groups view the abortion battle.

Exceptions are now acceptable in the long march against abortion. Apparently one has to vote FOR abortion before one can vote AGAINST it. The retreat into abortion exceptions has greatly hindered the pro-life movement’s integrity. Cracks are showing. Both MRL and legislators have shown they will compromise when it is politically expedient.

From: X

According to MRL’s latest federal tax form 990, their mission briefly stated is, “To educate the public about abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia, and to support positive alternatives to abortion."

Their 990 is more in line with how MRL behaves politically than the rhetoric on their website. Like many NGOs, MRL seems to be heavy on “education” and short on actual solutions and outcomes, to the point that they are endorsing a pro-abortion amendment they have helped to cloak in pro-life language.

The abortion abolitionist movement has pointed out the spectacular failure of an incremental strategy of ending abortion. That pro-life organizations and Christian legislators have elected to use the same failed strategy may be indicative of a slow giving in to abortion by incremental degrees, rather than a renewed intention to end it.

A politically connected friend quipped, "They will run to break God's law before they will ever break with the GOP establishment." 

I asked Sen. Moon what responsibility pastors and Christians in general had when pondering how to vote on A3. He said, "According to the Scripture, people in general are commanded to not murder because we are made in the image of God (Genesis). Since followers of Christ claim to believe that God is sovereign, we must, if we truly believe what we say we believe, we cannot justify with Scripture the unequal justice in A3.

The Bible is replete with examples demonstrating how God worked through the lives of people who followed Him and did not 'bow' to the demands of the world around them.

Pastors must teach Biblical truth to the church (and, even if, truth is not taught, Christians must seek what the Bible says, compare this truth against A3) and vote accordingly."

I also asked Sen. Moon about incrementalism and he responded, "Incremental approaches have been tried for over 50 years. Although, some will argue that progress has been made to reduce the number of abortions in MO and across the nation, the (seemingly short) gains have been overtaken by those who support the murder of pre-born children – as was the case following the Dobbs decision. Today, it seems we are much farther away from ending (or seeing reductions in) abortion, than we were 50 years ago.

As a result of incrementalism, abortion is rampant in MO. If A3 passes, abortion will remain legal in MO and, according to statistics, abortion will continue to abound among MO women (due to the inability to prevent out-of-state travel to procure abortion and/or acquiring abortion drugs via mail order)."

GOPe RESISTS EQUAL PROTECTION AND PERSONHOOD BILLS

This is the hard truth that legislators and establishment pro-life groups are ignoring or purposely obscuring in their scramble to garner a political "win." I asked the senator about personhood and equal protection bills.

"Currently, even though, personhood and equal protection bills have been filed, heard in committee, and voted “do pass” in at least two sessions, there is no strong desire to see the measures placed on the ballot for votes state wide.

In my opinion, MO can pass bills to regulate abortion, but until pre-born babies are recognized as persons and offered equal protection and due process of law (holding those who murder [accountable]) abortion will abound in our state."  I noted in a previous article MRL's opposition to equal protection and personhood bills because they criminalize the act of abortion for the mothers. 

From: X

I further asked about how exceptions dehumanize babies conceived in rape or incest, and those who have fetal anomalies. Sen. Moon responded, "The exceptions create an unprotected class of humans. It has been argued that the exceptions are only a small percentage of the murders by abortion. Since A3 requires no accountability for the claims of rape or incest, the number of babies killed as a result cannot be estimated. In addition, in cases of medical emergency and fetal anomaly, no time limit is established to prevent the murder.

It should also be mentioned that in cases of medical emergency, currently there are not restrictions on procedures to intervene (and, in all cases, the mother’s life can be saved by performing an emergency C-section, if necessary). There are not laws preventing such procedures.

I have discovered, even though, few are willing to admit, that even with ectopic pregnancies, there have been successful removal and implantation of the embryo resulting in live births (and, sparing the life of the mother).

This attitude also opens the door for allowing the murder of the elderly (since some only take up resources and are no longer able to contribute to society)." 

Sen. Adam Schnelting, who sponsored Amendment 3 and has reportedly admitted to authoring some of it, was against exceptions in 2019 when he added a trigger law amendment to HB 126. According to a May 18, 2019 article in St. Louis Today, Schnelting said at the time, "If we are in fact pro-life, what kind of hypocrite would I be to not have a bill that is 100 percent pro-life?"

Underscoring the schism in Missouri politics over the abortion issue, Christian pastors have entered the fray and are lining up on both sides of Amendment 3. In 2025, public testimony about A3 showed the split between Christian voters and legislators. According to an article at KSDK at the time, "Schnelting during Wednesday’s hearing said his amendment serves to clarify the state’s abortion laws, pointing to the millions of dollars in ads paid for by the Amendment 3 campaign, which he said misled voters."

Oh, the irony of that statement in light of the current campaign for A3 (2026), which has run the gamut from falsely claiming 99% of abortions will be stopped, to saying parental rights will be protected (they are already codified in state law), to ignoring the vast majority of abortions by chemical means via Telehealth.

In what is arguably the clearest statement on the moral implications of A3, the article quoted a pastor: "The Rev. Brian Davis, a Missouri pastor who came to Jefferson City on Wednesday to oppose Schnelting’s bill, called the rape and incest exceptions 'a failed attempt to manage evil.'"

Dr. Abby Johnson has spoken eloquently on the subject of abortion and equal protection for pre-born babies.

"Our ministry, And Then There Were None, serves women who have had abortions. Not women who were thinking about having an abortion. Not women who were “abortion determined.” Women who actually had the abortion...We know the pressures these women faced. We know the lies they were told. We know the pain many of them carry. And after years of listening, our ministry made a decision.

We publicly embraced equal protection for the unborn. Not because it was popular. Not because it was politically expedient. Not because it would help fundraising. If anything, it made life harder. We did it because we became convinced it was right.

That should mean something. The testimony of former abortion workers should matter. The voices of women who have actually had abortions should matter. The experience of those who spent years inside the industry should matter..."

'FIGHTING' ABORTION IS EXPENSIVE

If it passes, A3 will make no significant dent in abortion statistics in Missouri. But many establishment pro-life groups and people may sit back and relax, content to know they won...something. The push for equal protection for pre-born babies will most likely continue to be opposed by establishment types. Instead, the abortion industrial complex, both pro- and anti-abortion will continue to cheerlead and raise funds. The show must go on.

Pastors and Christians like Tom Estes and Alex Bryant, and state employees like Sherry Kutenkuller Arthaud will continue to take payments from PACS like Her Health, Her Future for strategic planning, grassroots management, grassroots coordinating, etc.

According to HHHF's MEC filing reports, Estes, who earns about $91,000 a year as Sen. Rick Brattin's chief of staff, has received ten $5,000 payments since the end of December 2025 until the end of September 2026 for "strategic planning" services. Pastor Alex Bryant, who is listed on the MEC report as providing "grassroots management" has received five payments of $5,000 each between May and September. Sherry Kutenkuller Arthaud, chief of staff for Sen. Adam Schnelting, has received payments and reimbursements of over $14,000 since June for "grassroots coordinating." She earns $100,000 per year as Schnelting's chief of staff.

In a very important Oct. 19 debate hosted by Mizzou Law's Society for Biblical Jurisprudence, Sen. Mike Moon discusses Missouri Right to Life's politicking. His comments start around the 59:00:00 mark. You have to go to YouTube to access the video. Link HERE.

In all the vile rush to "win" back some semblance of a "pro-life" victory since 2024's Amendment 3 ballot approval, the most vulnerable among humanity--pre-born babies--have become a political football. While Republicans schism over what it means to be pro-life, the pro-abortion industry is pushing for over-the-counter abortion pills. 

Pro-life candidates should not fear organizations like Missouri Right to Life or Her Health, Her Future or a lack of endorsement. Their moral influence is weak. The evidence these groups are more interested in political power than saving babies is clear.

It is time to pass equal protection and personhood bills. Establishment pro-life politicians who are content to be Incrementalists will never end abortion. And you might want to ask yourself if that has become the goal--always fighting, always regulating, never ending abortion.

Listen to Dr. Abby:

"The reality is that every successful human rights movement has eventually arrived at the same conclusion: Human beings are entitled to equal protection under the law."

Additional Resources:

• Jennifer Barker with (Informed Health Choice Missouri) ICHM gives a line-by-line analysis in this video.  (There are also many helpful links below the video)
• Pro-life Laws are Keeping Abortion Legal 
• Act for Missouri article on A3
• Abolish Abortion Missouri
• Foundation to Abolish Abortion
• Will A3 save 98-99% of babies?
• Updated analysis of 2025 abortions with provider bans (Foundation to Abolish Abortion)
• I had two abortions. Here's why the law would have stopped mine

The Doctor Poppy Show: Amendment 3

If you want to know more about November's Amendment 3 and the "pro-life" groups pushing it, watch Dr. Poppy Daniels, Jennifer Barker of ICHM, and myself discuss the issues. 

From Dr. Poppy's channel:

"Pro-life Missourians are being told to vote YES on Amendment 3. Pro-choice Missourians are being told to vote NO. That should make every voter stop and read the fine print. 

On this episode of The Dr. Poppy Show, Dr. Poppy, a pro-life OB-GYN for 23 years, sits down with Jennifer Ann Barker of Informed Health Choice Missouri and Gretchen Garrity, journalist and writer of the Right to Win Ozarks blog. Here’s what we covered: 

-What Amendment 3 (HJR 73) actually allows, including exceptions for rape and incest up to 12 weeks 

-Why the fetal anomaly and medical emergency exceptions have NO gestational limit 

-The transgender surgery ban that’s already in Missouri law (and why it’s on the ballot anyway) 

-Why the amendment does nothing about mail-order abortion pills, which make up close to 70% of abortions 

-What a real medical emergency looks like, from an OB who has practiced for 23 years -Why a personhood bill never got a full Senate vote 

-Who is funding the push for Amendment 3 This isn’t a conversation backed by a PAC or a politician.

 It’s three women who have done the reading, explaining what’s in the five pages most voters will never see on their ballot. Read the legislation yourself before November. Search “HJR 73 Missouri 2025” or visit sos.mo.gov."

Christless Conservatives

When Christians pray they are going to get a "partial good" from voting FOR abortion, they are in the same company as those who sacrificed babies in ancient times. Seth Gruber of The White Rose Resistance ties it all together in this interview with Lara Logan.

By partnering with groups who masquerade as pro-life, Christian pastors and their flocks who vote yes on Amendment 3 (to regulate abortion and classify certain unborn babies for sacrifice) they will bring woe and judgment upon themselves. One does not commit evil in order to bring good. 

Part 3 of Missouri's Pro-life Schism will be published soon. 

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)

Missouri's Pro-life Schism: Part One

 

The Judgment of Solomon by Rafael

MISSOURI’S PRO-LIFE SCHISM

Part One: How Missouri Right to Life Abandoned Unborn Babies

By Gretchen Garrity

“We are saying there is a special class that we can murder, and a 

special class who can kill them.” -- Dr. Wes Scroggins

Missouri voters will see a new abortion amendment (Amendment 3) on the Nov. 3, 2026 ballot. Previously known as HJR73, the new Amendment 3 purports to be a “pro-life” bill, when in fact it is a pro-abortion bill.

In 2024, the Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative (strangely also known as Amendment 3) was narrowly passed, enshrining abortion in the Missouri Constitution. Now, “pro-life” groups have countered with a new abortion amendment that voters will decide upon in November. While the new A3 has been sold as a “repeal and replace” amendment that would "ban" abortion, save babies, and begin anew the fight to end abortion, it is anything but that.

The current A3 is being heavily pushed by “pro-life” groups such as Missouri Right to Life (MRL) and Her Health, Her Future (HHHF). Most people assume that the apparently secular MRL is an anti-abortion 501(c)3 nonprofit dedicated to ending the murder of unborn infants. They call themselves “pro-life,” which has commonly been understood as a political stance dedicated to ending abortion. However, after 53 years as an organization, MRL’s own mission and vision statements show a diffused focus.

Their vision statement reads: “Transforming society to respect and protect all innocent human life.”

Their mission statement says: “Missouri Right to Life’s mission is to uphold and promote the sanctity of all innocent life from inception to natural death through education, legislation, and political action.”

Note that nowhere in their vision or mission statements is an explicit call to end abortion. Like so many nonprofits nowadays, MRL’s raison d’etre is justified by high-sounding words like “transforming,” “upholding,” “promoting,” and “educating” the public. In fact, abortion has become a lucrative industry for all sides. MRL claims to oppose abortion, however, the organization tolerates exceptions including rape and incest: “Each human being, regardless of how he or she is conceived, deserves protection under the law; however, MRL will sometimes be compelled to tolerate the addition of a rape or incest exception to a measure in order to obtain more protection for the unborn than now exists.”

What “protections for the unborn” are being obtained with A3? Note that MRL does not say each human being deserves equal protection under the law. That will become important later. One of the most common arguments from those in support of A3 is this: “If A3 saves even one baby I am all for it!” In fact, this argument is used extensively by both well-meaning and cynical proponents of A3.

How many unborn babies is it tolerable to murder in order to perhaps save some other babies? I say ‘perhaps’ because when you unpack Amendment 3, you will be able to reasonably assert there is no guarantee of saving “some babies” with this ballot amendment.

PLAYING GOD

What human has the authority to decide which babies shall die that others may live?

The convoluted explanation that MRL is at times “compelled to tolerate” rape and incest exceptions “in order to obtain more protection for the unborn than now exists” is inconsistent with a cohesive pro-life stance. Tolerating a little murder of infants (characterized as an “incomplete good” by A3 supporters) is not how one gets to a culture of life. However, the November 2026 Missouri ballot Amendment 3 heavily pushed by MRL includes much more than tolerating rape or incest exceptions.

MRL asserts that more education of citizens, lawmakers and judges will serve to eventually add more protections for unborn infants. Indeed, ultrasound pictures of unborn babies, developmental videos and advances in saving infants who are born early have not stopped the murder of millions of the unborn. Yet, groups like MRL continue to collect donations using the same old incrementalist playbook that has not worked to end abortion. There has already been over half a century of education regarding the pro-life stance and today abortion is available through chemical abortion drugs (Mifepristone, aka RU-486), which now constitute the majority of abortions in the United States.

The focus of advocating for pre-born babies is competing with an advocacy toward supporting and protecting women who seek abortions. It’s as if MRL put a finger to the wind and decided that compromise is a political position that brings the most benefit. To whom? Certainly not unborn babies. The public, in general, has not quite caught on to this shift.

Think about what MRL is advocating for--the necessity to kill unborn babies in order to save unborn babies. The Supreme Court of the United States spoke in the Dobbs decision, by sending abortion back to the states. Let’s pick apart the argument that "tolerat[ing] the addition of a rape or incest exception" is necessary.

NOT A REPEAL OF ABORTION, BUT A REGULATION OF ABORTION

Instead of repealing abortion, the new A3 regulates abortion. Some supporters of A3 believe the amendment will prevent up to 99% of abortions in Missouri. Could that possibly be true when A3 does not even address chemical abortions in Missouri? Would approving regulated abortion be worth legalizing the murder of other unborn babies?

Watch Dr. Wes Scroggins address that issue here:

Keep in mind there are proposed laws that would essentially end legal abortion in Missouri. They are called Equal Protection and Personhood bills. But MRL does not advocate for these bills, and even actively opposes them in the state legislature.

Is the regulation of abortion the true goal? MRL’s Policy Statement has not been updated in six years. If you look at MRL’s online website, you will mostly see pictures of happy pregnant women with phrases such as “Protect women, children and families.”

Protect women? By doing exactly what? Making abortion legal? Regulating it? Protecting women who murder their pre-born babies?

What about the babies?

MRL’s home page shows nothing of the actual physical and emotional consequences of abortion on babies and their mothers and fathers. Yes. Fathers suffer, too. One father’s anonymous lament is heartbreaking.

The 'unpleasantness' of the murder of babies has been replaced with a public relations veneer of supporting mothers who kill their unborn children, generally ignoring fathers, and featuring already-born children.

MRL’s WORD CHANGE TO INCEPTION VERSUS CONCEPTION

As I looked at MRL’s website, I noticed their mission statement used the word ‘inception’ instead of ‘conception’. Conception has to do with the moment of fertilization when a new human being is formed. Inception has to do with the beginning of something. So when MRL states, “Every human being has been endowed with an unalienable right to life from inception to natural death,” it would be good to know the reasoning behind how and why that change in wording occurred.

I emailed MRL on August 24, 2026 and asked them why they were using “inception” instead of “conception” in their mission statement. I have received no reply as of the date of this article. So I went digging on their website and the internet. I found this footnote explanation on MRL’s website regarding their policies: “For humans produced by cloning, the better word is “inception,” because they are not conceived in the usual sense.” Additionally, MRL has stated its opposition to cloning.

Reproductive cloning of human beings is illegal in Missouri, although “therapeutic” cloning is allowed, but regulated. Missouri is considered a “clone and kill” state, in that it currently allows creating cloned human embryos via SCNT that are used for deriving stem cells for treating other humans or for research, provided the embryos are not used to begin a pregnancy. Other limits are also imposed.

MRL is morally correct to oppose therapeutic cloning. It is odd that MRL would not also include “conception” in its mission statement. It would not be inconsistent to include both conception and inception, so for MRL to not include conception in their mission statement raises a flag.

Why is it not tolerable to produce cloned embryos and murder them, but it is tolerable to abort babies conceived in rape or incest, or for “fetal anomalies” or other reasons provided for in the new A3? 

This is how MRL described human cloning for therapeutic reasons:

• An abuse of human rights
• No intent to allow the cloned human to live
• Exploitation of another human being
• Medical cannibalism

 Why, according to MRL, do some babies conceived in the womb NOT receive the same consideration as cloned embryos, since:

• They also are human beings with human rights
• They also have a right to be allowed to live
• No one has the right to exploit these children (many aborted baby parts are sold)
• Medical cannibalism happens (born alive baby’s organs harvested ) 

The inconsistency in MRL’s stance on cloning versus aborting babies conceived in rape or incest, is problematic. They suggest that a partial or 'incomplete good' (a little abortion constitutionally codified) is consistent with a pro-life stance. 

The unfortunate truth is that politically-oriented organizations like MRL tend to compromise because they lack a firm and consistent moral base founded on Biblical principles. Mixed with political relationships and power-broking, it is a given that groups like MRL will not stand strong. A consistent stance on abortion would be that abortion should be illegal, regardless of the circumstances of conception (and inception), and that destroying pre-born children is a crime.

While MRL’s literature generally acknowledges life begins at conception, political considerations have allowed them to compromise when it comes to some babies. A careful reading of the actual HJR73 (A3) language will show that the devil is in the details. This inconsistency allows for speculation regarding the possible future understanding of how groups like MRL determine the beginning of life. While MRL’s mission statement covers inception but not conception, is it possible that the word ‘inception’ can be used in other ways to slowly evolve the idea that life’s beginning can change depending on certain circumstances?

Since therapeutic cloning is now enshrined in the Missouri Constitution, it does not seem to be an active issue for MRL. I asked Sen. Mike Moon about MRL’s activity on the therapeutic cloning issue, specifically if he knew of any activity against cloning since it was enshrined in the state constitution in 2006. He said, “I am not aware of MRL speaking to the legislature as a whole or in respective caucuses. However, MRL does, from time to time, visit with individual legislators. Most often, these visits occur during the annual March for Life events at the Capitol.”

Will MRL pay mere lip service to ending abortion if the proposed A3 is also added to the state constitution? Will they continue to oppose personhood and equal protection laws if they are victorious in getting A3 passed? Is regulation of abortion an acceptable toleration for pro-life organizations like MRL, as the regulation of therapeutic cloning seems to be?

SOME BABIES ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHER BABIES

Criminalizing abortion would end most abortions. Unfortunately, like other so-called pro-life organizations, MRL is opposed to criminalizing the murder of children in the womb.

Note MRL’s statement over the language in the previous pro-abortion initiative petitions:

“These pro-abortion IPs would enshrine abortion as a “right” in our Missouri Constitution, nullify Missouri’s longstanding pro-life laws, allow abortion all 9 months from conception to live birth, and potentially include tax-payer funding of abortion. Missouri Right to Life is at the forefront of the battle to Keep Missouri Pro-Life.”

How ironic that MRL would focus on those 2024 abortion provisions when the 2026 A3 also includes provisions that enshrine abortion of some babies as a right, allows for abortion in certain circumstances up to birth and includes taxpayer funding for some abortions. How different (in actual fact) is the new A3 from current constitutional law? Both provide for abortion. The old Amendment 3 would be repealed, but abortion would remain legal, although the circumstances of regulation vary between the two amendments.  [NOTE: The above statement on MRL's PAC website has been recently removed. I imagine it was inconvenient at this time.]

From: Missouri Life PAC

When did MRL decide that tolerating and simply regulating abortion was acceptable? When did supporting women who abort their children become more a focus than saving babies?

The language of the upcoming ballot Amendment 3 essentially allows for similar stipulations as in the old A3; only the provisions for regulating abortion have changed. Voters are assured that only some babies will be killed due to the circumstances of their conception. Clinics may close, but there are currently only a handful of abortion clinics open at this time (around five statewide). Chemical abortions have superseded them.

I asked Sen. Mike Moon about how A3 dehumanizes babies conceived in rape or incest and how supporters claim it is worthwhile to sacrifice them in order to save other babies. He replied, “The exceptions create an unprotected class of humans. It has been argued that the exceptions are only a small percentage of the murders by abortion. Since A3 requires no accountability for the claims of rape or incest, the number of babies killed as a result cannot be estimated.

In addition, in cases of medical emergency and fetal anomaly, no time limit is established to prevent the murder. It should also be mentioned that in cases of medical emergency, currently there are not restrictions on procedures to intervene (and, in all cases, the mother’s life can be saved by performing an emergency C-section, if necessary). There are not laws preventing such procedures.

I have discovered, even though few are willing to admit, that even with ectopic pregnancies, there have been successful removal and implantation of the embryo resulting in live births (and, sparing the life of the mother).”

When looked at in a thorough and logical manner there is no assurance that more babies will be saved than with the current law. In fact, many supporters (including Christian politicians) have outright lied to the public about how many babies will be saved.

THE A3 LOOPHOLES

The 2026 Amendment 3 endorses the codifying of abortion in our state constitution. Abortion will remain legal. The regulating of it changes, but the loopholes are enormous:

• Abortion available for rape/incest up to 12 weeks. Note that no police report, no affidavit, no self-attestation, no hospital documentation, and no provider certification is required. The patient states the exception and the provider performs the procedure within the 12-week window. A reporting requirement in earlier drafts was excluded because opponents asserted it would traumatize rape victims and that a majority of sexual assaults are unreported. Can you see how this loophole alone will allow women who are determined to kill their children be able to do so with no enforcement mechanism for the provision of rape and incest exceptions?
• The 2026 Amendment 3 contains no specific provisions targeting chemical/medication abortions. There is no in-person dispensing requirement, no telehealth ban, no physician-supervised ingestion rule.  Critics like IHCM note it leaves "chemical abortions (abortion pills) largely unregulated…” Abortions procured in clinics are becoming obsolete, since up to 70% of abortions are now effected through chemical drugs in a woman’s own home. The legal, moral, and medical issues that abortion-by-mail entails is only now beginning to be exposed. 
• Taxpayer funding of abortion continues, though it may be regulated. 
• Abortions up to birth for fetal anomalies or medical emergencies. The medical emergency text of A3 places the determination on the treating physician's "reasonable medical judgment.” No second-opinion is required, and there is no independent review board included in the amendment. 
• Parental consent for abortions already codified in Missouri Statute, although the new A3 provides a loophole for minors obtaining a court order, thus abrogating parental consent in some instances.
• The Missouri SAFE Act (Senate Bill 49), signed into law already bans puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and gender-transition surgeries for minors. Nov. 25, 2024, a Cole County circuit court upheld the ban after trial. Jan. 13, 2026, the Missouri Supreme Court unanimously affirmed. The opinion upheld precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court's Skrmetti decision for Tennessee's ban. Note: The SAFE Act should be made permanent by the Missouri Legislature in 2027, when it is due to “sunset” (a tactic often used as a compromise in legislating). Also, the addition of this second and separate subject to A3 makes the amendment unconstitutional.

DON’T FALL FOR THE WORD SPELLS

The Sophie's Choice option that MRL presents in the tweet below, is part and parcel of the compromised stance it holds regarding abortion. To aver that some abortion is tolerable in order to ensure "our actions align with our belief" is purely illogical if one truly believes in the inherent value of every person. Codifying a sub-class of human beings who it is acceptable to sacrifice is deeply and inherently evil. There is no guarantee that an "acceptable" amount of babies will be saved by legalizing the murder of other unborn babies.

Look past the smooth rhetoric and reason it out. A3 allows for abortion. The loopholes are legion. There can be zero affirmation that aborted babies will have dignity, high-quality care, or love. Who, in this equation is going to have those things? Not the unborn. It is the women who murder their babies who will have them.

Just ponder that for a moment.

From: X

AMENDMENT 3 IS PRO-ABORTION

Tragically, one can make a reasonable argument that MRL is endorsing a pro-abortion amendment. Cloaked as a pro-life amendment, what A3 really does is allow the whole abortion machine to continue on unabated. There is much money to be made by both “pro-life” and pro-abortion groups. The pro-life and pro-abortion groups seem to be different wings of the same bird. It is a matter of a continuum. The medical/industrial complex, lawyers, Big Pharma and other organizations benefit from the abortion industry both in dollars and political clout.

I asked Dr. Scroggins whether he knew if and when MRL had ever changed their stance on abortion in cases of rape or incest, or whether it had always been a strategy held by them. Dr. Scroggins did not know if there was a time when MRL did not support abortion for rape and incest, but he said that stance has been held for a long time in our culture. “That mindset tends to be really deeply entrenched in our culture, and even in the church, that in cases of rape and incest the best thing to do is just kill the baby. It seems to be so deeply entrenched and we’ve accepted it. That support for [rape and incest exceptions] has been around for a long time.”

I asked about the political atmosphere in Jefferson City regarding abortion, and whether it was more of an issue for Democrats or Republicans. “That’s a hard question to answer. I tell you what, when it really comes down to it, I don’t know that I can tell a difference between the two parties. I don’t see in our Republican legislature, and even with the governor--you get into the executive branch, even lieutenant governor--I don’t see that this issue is really something that is important to them.

“I just don’t. I don’t see it as something that they really have a passion to put into it. The Republicans talk a good talk. And they talk it—you know, how pro-life they are—and that’s a selling point at election time for their campaigns to be pro-life, especially in a state like this where people tend to have more of a pro-life mindset. But I don’t see it going much further than just a lot of rhetoric.

“When it comes right down to actually doing something about it, taking the steps that it will take to actually end the killing of babies, in terms of passing personhood and equal protection bills, I don’t see that they’re going to do it. I hope I’m wrong. We’re going to continue fighting for it. We’re going to be right back in there fighting for it come spring, in the next legislative session, but it’s going to be a battle because most of them up there are not real supportive of it. I’m saying the Republican legislature. Because they don’t want to hold women accountable. There’s a real sticking issue right there.”

That is a key point.

HOLDING WOMEN ACCOUNTABLE

From: X

While MRL loudly preaches support for women who choose abortion, young women today are loudly and proudly taking abortion pills on camera to kill their children.

Fifty years of “pro-life” support for women who murder their children, doing everything but holding them accountable like any other murderer would be, has resulted in a culture of death that has not been seen in the United States before now.

Women who abort their children do suffer in a variety of ways and many have affirmed that if abortion were illegal they would not have killed their children. The New Testament has described the law as a tutor, a schoolmaster, and a guardian. Why do secular women’s organizations like MRL not fight to make abortion illegal? The logical conclusion is that they hold a woman’s right to kill her child through abortion as morally superior to saving unborn babies.

(Saul Loeb / AFP/Getty Images)

I asked Sen. Moon his opinion, as a Christian, about MRL’s political stance of protecting women who kill their children. He said, “I find it a bit odd (that MRL) would not want to seek justice for the pre-born. As I understand their position, the intent is to show compassion toward women, in hope they (the women who murdered their child) will have a change of heart and not continue to kill their offspring because of work MRL does.”

Likewise, Dr. Scroggins is clear that organizations like MRL are the biggest opposition to Christian groups like Abolish Abortion Missouri who seek to end abortion.

“It’s the pro-life movement---Missouri Right to Life, Campaign Life Missouri that’s our biggest opposition to equal protection…to passing it in the capitol. Planned Parenthood never even comes close. It’s these pro-life groups that kill [Sen. Moon’s] legislation every single session.”

He said that when SB356 EP (equal protection) got a hearing both MRL’s Susan Klein and lobbyist Sam Lee (a Catholic deacon) testified in the Senate committee, advising the committee to kill it. Watch Klein testify:

 

I asked Sen. Moon about equal protection and personhood bills in light of MRL’s opposition to them. He said, “Currently, even though, personhood and equal protection bills have been filed, heard in committee, and voted “do pass” in at least two sessions, there is no strong desire to see the measures placed on the ballot for votes state wide.”

He further stated, “In my opinion, MO can pass bills to regulate abortion, but until pre-born babies are recognized as persons and offered equal protection and due process of law (holding those who murder [accountable]) abortion will abound in our state.”

The deception that is rampant in the rhetoric MRL and its supporters use to convince voters to approve A3 is indicative of moral confusion, compromised agendas, and spiritual blindness. Sadly, there is a large number of Christian pastors and Christian legislators (some are both) who unabashedly support A3 and have taken as gospel the talking points from Big Pro-Life. Part Two of this series addresses Christian support of A3 and how groups like MRL are funding a voter campaign in churches to pass the pro-abortion A3 in November.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

• Jennifer Barker with (Informed Health Choice Missouri) ICHM gives a line-by-line analysis: https://rumble.com/v7b2c64-what-is-in-the-5-pages-of-the-new-amendment-3-2026-this-will-be- on-the-miss.html (there are also many helpful links below the video)
• Act for Missouri article on A3
• Abolish Abortion Missouri
• Foundation to Abolish Abortion
• Will A3 save 98-99% of babies?
• Analysis of self-induced abortion numbers (Foundation to Abolish Abortion)
• Updated analysis of 2025 abortions with provider bans (Foundation to Abolish Abortion)