Missouri’s Amendment 3—the latest brainchild of the so-called “champions of freedom,” who seem to have mistaken a graveyard for the land of the free and the home of the brave. Here we go again, with the same old song and dance, where “reproductive rights” apparently means the right to extinguish innocent lives.

This measure will be on the ballot in November.

According to the Missouri Secretary of State, John Ashcroft’s website:

A “yes” vote will enshrine the right to abortion at any time of a pregnancy in the Missouri Constitution. Additionally, it will prohibit any regulation of abortion, including regulations designed to protect women undergoing abortions and prohibit any civil or criminal recourse against anyone who performs an abortion and hurts or kills the pregnant women.

A “no” vote will continue the statutory prohibition of abortion in Missouri.

Now, of course, it’s the folks who scream the loudest about “saving lives” from the climate, COVID, or whatever the latest crisis du jour is, are the very ones pushing to ensure that the most vulnerable among us—the unborn—never get the chance to take their first breath.

Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, the group behind this amendment, is raising millions from the usual suspects—Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and the rest of the death industry’s cheerleaders. They’d have us believe that this amendment is about “freedom” and “rights.” But this is about as much freedom as a fox in a henhouse offers, and the only “right” being upheld is the so-called “right” to kill, and everyone knows it.

Per the usual word games, it’s draped in the language of “reproductive health” and “freedom,” but it’s designed to undo every shred of progress Missouri has made in protecting unborn children. They want you to believe it’s just about a woman’s choice, but why stop there? The language is so broad and vague that it will undoubtedly open the floodgates to abortion on demand, for any reason, at any stage. How convenient that “viability” is left up to the “good faith” judgment of the very doctors who profit from these procedures. Who would’ve thought?

According to the amendment’s backers, “viability” is when “there is a significant likelihood of the fetus’ sustained survival outside the uterus.” So basically, they’re saying, “We’ll kill the baby as long as we’re not quite sure it could make it on its own.” How humane of them. And how precisely will this be determined?

Well, that’s up to the doctors who are, of course, entirely unbiased, right?

This is the same crowd that insists we “follow the science” when it suits their narrative—like when they want to shut down businesses or force masks on children. But when it comes to the unborn, suddenly, science is subjective, and a beating heart or detectable brain activity is just a “clump of cells.”

This is all about control. Control over life, control over truth, and ultimately, control over the narrative. The “freedom” they’re selling is nothing more than a license to kill, wrapped up in a shiny package of legal jargon and sanctimonious rhetoric. But scratch the surface, and you’ll find the same old culture of death, now with a fresh coat of paint.

So, Missourians, are you going to let them pull the wool over your eyes yet again? Or will you see through the deception and stand up for the real rights—the rights of the unborn, the rights of parents, and the right to a society that values life over convenience?