Personhood
| Is ‘Personhood’ a Logical Alternative to Abortion in Missouri My writing (or, ranting) may not sway anyone’s opinion about how to vote on Amendment 3 (2026). Whether your decision to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ likely depends upon how much you trust in government. How often have you seen the government enact a law (or, the people amend the constitution) and return to make additional changes after the law was passed (or, amendment adopted)? I imagine the same action or inaction will occur with Amendment 3 (2026). In my short 13-year experience in the MO General Assembly, I have witnessed a strong reluctance to re-visit the ‘hard’ topics in back-to-back sessions. Although, we’ve been told that when Amendment 3 (2026) passes, “we’ll come back and make the necessary changes” (to remove the exceptions for rape, incest, and fetal anomalies). The reality (again, my opinion) is that many of the ‘promise makers’ will be long gone from the legislature after the 2026 session, so they will have no ‘dog in the hunt’. I recall during a regular session when I was in the MO House when votes were being cast on a bill containing a few ‘bad’ amendments. The chair of committee attempted to get me to change my ‘no’ vote to a ‘yes’ by promising the bill would be ‘fixed’ by the Senate. I maintained by ‘no’ vote because I did not trust the Senate would make the changes. The bill was passed by the Senate … UNCHANGED. Do you trust the MO General Assembly to keep a promise to re-visit Amendment 3 and remove the rape, incest, and fetal anomaly exceptions in the 2027 session? I don’t. Why, you might ask? First, it’s a ‘hard’ topic and not many legislators want to tackle the hard topics. Second, it’s impossible to make a future General Assembly do anything (except what is required by law – and, event then, it’s a difficult task). Why Personhood The U.S. Constitution, Article 14 states: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Did you catch that? Even the state of Missouri cannot make a law which deprives a person of life without due process or deny a person equal protection of the laws.” Even the current MO constitution, Article 1, section 36 is antagonistic to the U.S. Constitution. For some time, I’ve been looking for someone to challenge the MO Constitution in court. An attorney has been found, however, unfortunately, no case will be filed until after a vote on Amendment 3 is settled. Do you see (and, understand) my dilemma? How can I support an amendment to our state constitution which is contrary to the U.S. Constitution? What the MO Constitution Says About Personhood “In order to assert our rights, acknowledge our duties, and proclaim the principles on which our government is founded, we declare: That all constitutional government is intended to promote the general welfare of the people; that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry; that all persons are created equal and are entitled to equal rights and opportunity under the law; that to give security to these things is the principal office of government, and that when government does not confer this security, it fails in its chief design.” There it is again – this time, in our state constitution: “… all persons have a natural (that is, God given) right to life….” Who are we to take away a God given right? We did not do our best to provide the best alternative to Amendment 3 (2026)! There was, and is, a better alternative. Here’s Proof |
 Here’s the committee vote on HJR 8 (2025). Compare the number of witnesses, both in opposition and support to SJR 8 and HJR 73. The day these two resolutions were heard was a long one. SJR 33 (was replaced by SJR 73) was heard first – in the morning, yet the number of witnesses in support was much less that those in support of SJR 8 – the hearing carried over into the afternoon. Yet, as noted on the following page, SJR 8 was left to ‘die’ in committee.  As noted in the report’s text, the President Pro Tem did not request the resolution be reported out of the committee. The result: it died (even though, it was passed by the committee with plenty of time remaining in the session to be passed by both houses). So, why was SJR 8 not brought up for debate in the MO Senate? The image shows the date SJR 8 was voted ‘do pass’ in the Families, Seniors, and Health Committee (March 5, 2025). Yet, the resolution was left to ‘die’ without a vote by the full Senate. Currently, one senator – the President Pro Tem – has the authority to request bills or resolutions passed by committees to be placed on the Calendar for debate and eventual votes. If any other senator attempts to ‘report’ a bill has been voted ‘do pass’ and ready for debate, the senator will be scolded and the bill in question will likely not be passed. This MUST be changed. In the meanwhile, the President Pro Tem, currently Cindy O’Laughlin, is to blame for single-handedly keeping the Personhood Amendment from being voted on by the MO Senate. If passed, it would be eligible for placement on the ballot for a vote by all Missourians. It’s NOT Too Late The same Personhood resolution from last year has been filed. It appears that, in an effort to thwart the effort to receive a passing vote from a committee, the resolution was referred to a different committee this session. (Again, the President Pro Tem is the only senator authorized to refer bills to committees.) It appears the reason the resolution was referred to a different committee is to ‘kill’ (stop) it from advancing. Senator Mike Moon |