 |
| 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.
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.”
 |
| 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.”
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.”
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.
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.
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.”
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.”
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)
