Missouri Ballot Measures Seek To Enshrine Murder Of Babies In The Womb As A Constitutional Right - There Is No Right To Murder!

Article posted with permission from the author, Suzanne Hamner

There are a lot of Americans who truly hate life. Yes, you read that correctly – hate life. It’s not just women; it’s men as well. If it weren’t true, men and women would not rally to promote the murder of innocent babies in the womb under the misnomer “reproductive health care”. How would you describe “reproductive health care”? Let’s look at the definition of each of the words, then put them together to compose a definition.

According to Taber’s Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary (1986, hard copy), health is “a condition in which all functions of the body and mind are normally active.” Additionally, “The World Health Organization (WHO) defines health as a state of complete physical, mental, or social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.” The same source defines reproductive as “concerning or employed in reproduction”. Looking at reproduction, Taber’s defines reproduction as “the process by which plants and animals give rise to offspring; the creation of a similar structure or situation; the act of duplication.”

Based on these separate definitions, one can combine them to reasonably discern what comprises “reproductive health”. Reproductive health can be defined as “the condition in which all functions of the body and mind are normally active during the process by which plants and animals give rise to offspring in the act of duplication.” Adding “care” as defined by Webster’s 1828 dictionary, one can gather a solid foundation in support of the true meaning of “reproductive health care”.

• Buy All-American!
• Bring health and vitality back to your body with these non-transdermal patches
• Get your Vitamin B17 & Get 10% Off With Promo Code TIM
• How To Protect Yourself From 5G, EMF & RF Radiation – Use promo code TIM to save $$$
• The Very Best All-American Made Supplements On The Maret
• Grab This Bucket Of Heirloom Seeds & Save with Promo Code TIM
• Here’s A Way You Can Stockpile Food For The Future
• Stockpile Your Ammo & Save $15 On Your First Order
• Preparing Also Means Detoxifying – Here’s One Simple Way To Detoxify
• The Very Best Chlorine Dioxide
• All-American, US Prime, High Choice Grass-Fed Beef with NO mRNA, hormones or antibiotics… ever!

Reproductive health care is “the condition in which all functions of the body and mind are normally active during the process by which plants and animals give rise to offspring in the act of duplication, with a view to safety or protection.”

The view held by Americans who hate life is “reproductive health care is a constitutional right.” First, the Constitution does not grant rights. Rights are given by God. Second, government is given no provision to interfere with rights given by God as indicated by the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights – the “shall nots” to government.

The view that “health care” is a right is wrong. To receive health care, you have to rely on another individual – their knowledge obtained through education that individual had to pay to receive. You cannot demand that an individual provide you a service under the claim of a “right”. To hold that view is to champion socialism aka “socialist medicine”. Viewing health care as a “right” leads to the wrongly held belief that you are entitled to what someone else has or possesses. This, again, is socialistic, communistic thinking.

With the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson’s Women’s Health Organization returning the issue of murdering babies in the womb to the States, some states are passing the issue on for the people to decide through ballot measures.

A deceptively worded ballot measure in Missouri could end up enshrining the right to late-term abortions in the state constitution. Amendment 3, on the November election ballot, proposes creating a constitutional right to so-called reproductive health care, which includes abortions. The measure comes as similar efforts have succeeded in other states, including Kansas, Kentucky, and Ohio, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

Critics contend that the ballot measure’s vague wording would lead to sweeping changes, potentially nullifying existing abortion restrictions and parental consent laws. Especially of concern is the amendment’s provision on “Fetal Viability,” a term without a fixed definition due to advancing medical technology.

The ambiguous language could leave the door open to courts deferring the legal line for viability to abortion providers—paving the way for legal late-term abortions. Additionally, opponents argue the amendment’s allowance for abortion restrictions after viability, except for the health of the mother, could be broadly interpreted.

Notably, the measure doesn’t actually use the term “abortion” but rather says it would “establish a right to make decisions about reproductive health care.”

Beyond legal challenges, the amendment has sparked debate over state funding. Opponents note a clause preventing discrimination in the allocation of state funds to providers of reproductive health care, raising concerns about taxpayer obligations to fund abortions.

So, Missouri is trying to follow in the infamous footsteps of Kansas, Kentucky, and Ohio by letting the people decide through a majority vote to create (invent) a constitutional right to commit murder where an unborn baby is concerned calling it “reproductive health care”. But, an unborn baby has two parents – a mother and a father. Unfortunately, fathers get no say because it would be oppressive to a woman to have to carry an unborn baby, not to mention inconvenient (sarcasm). The ignorant can’t even reason out the definition of “reproductive health care” so cannot possibly be expected to reason out the definition of “fetal viability”. Fortunately, Taber’s Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary has completed the work for all.

According to Taber’s Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary (1986), viable means “capable of living, as a newborn, or a fetus that has reached a stage, usually 28 weeks or older, that will permit it to live outside the uterus”. This writer has issues with the word “fetus”, but that is what Taber’s uses. With medical advancement, babies born at just 20 weeks gestation (approximately 5 months) have lived outside the uterus. Premature infants are born when something triggers the mother to enter labor early. In some cases, premature labor can be arrested; in others, the baby is born before it is full term. But, we are not talking about this specific scenario. The issue is being able to murder a healthy, innocent baby in the womb regardless of the stage of development, which is why no one wants to address “viability”. However, the medical term of viability is not meant to be used nefariously, but as a determinant of additional medical care to sustain life. Life begins at conception because it is part of the reproductive process. And, life is to be protected by the government because government is to protect rights, and the right to life is given by God.

Another reason these individuals cannot reason out a definition of viability is the advancement of surgery in utero. Does anyone remember Samuel Armas? Samuel was the baby in the “Hand of Hope” 1999 picture taken by Michael Clancy. Samuel, while in utero at 21 weeks gestation, underwent surgery to repair a spinal lesion due to spina bifida. No part of Samuel’s body was to breach the incision and be exposed to the outside. But, Samuel’s hand did exit through the incision and grasped the surgeon’s finger.

Successful surgeries have also been conducted on pregnant women to save the life of the mother as well as the baby. All of this negates the narrative of “saving the woman’s life” and murdering a baby due to some perceived “defect”. And, when dealing with pregnant women, the ultimate goal is to save both lives, not sacrifice one for the other.

Another complication is the ongoing experimentation with “artificial uteruses”. Animal studies using artificial uteruses are still ongoing. It is hoped this could offer premature babies further chances to survive. Without getting into the ethical and informed consent concerns, this can further complicate the definition of viability for legislators and the Americans who hate life.

The Missouri initiative tries to hide behind flowery words such as “the right to make decisions about reproductive health care” while ignoring the definition of reproductive health care. That right already exists. What doesn’t exist is the right to murder an innocent baby in the womb. No amount of legislation or majority vote will change that.

Here is the issue – people cannot vote to grant rights. Only God endows rights. Governments cannot grant rights because they have no authority to do so by God. Rights cannot be created by a court decision, an executive action, or a vote of the people. On the flip side, rights cannot be denied by court decision, executive action, legislation, or a vote of the people.

To attempt to save face, legislators are passing the buck off to the people, instead of taking a stand for life and the right to life. In other words, legislators are letting the majority decide who gets to live and who gets to die. Today, it’s innocent babies in the womb. Tomorrow, it could be the elderly where a family member decides grandma needs to die because it’s just inconvenient to care for her, even in a nursing home, or it’s too expensive. Or, it could be a terminally ill person the State determines could and should die to harvest their organs. It doesn’t matter the scenario. The legislator politicians will get to say, “We didn’t legislate anything. It was the people who put it in place through voting.” In other words, the mob rule of democracy wins over a republican form of government.

This same process can be used to remove the right to free speech, right to practice religion, right to keep and bear arms, right to an impartial trial, right to be secure in your person, right to own property, right to privacy, right to assembly, right to due process, right to protection from double jeopardy, right to make any healthcare decision for yourself or your children, and any host of other innumerable God-given rights. All these sleazy, corrupt, criminal politicians have to do is push it to the people. And, the ignorant will vote for slavery instead of freedom.

Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, Yuval Noah Harari, George Soros, and a host of others couldn’t be more pleased that women want to murder their babies in the womb, ignorant people will vote to allow it, and States will persecute those trying to save these innocent lives. They are certainly ecstatic that men have relinquished their role as protectors of their children. It won’t be long before the people will clamor to allow women to murder their infants and children up to a certain age, under some twisted, misguided euphemism. Don’t say it can’t or won’t happen. It is the progression in the eugenics steps. The eugenicists listed above consider everyone outside their class “useless eaters”. And, they have bought and paid for the world’s governments.

Forced Sterilization laws are still on the books in many States. With many people so enthralled with murdering innocent babies in the womb, how long before States regulate having babies through “designer baby” programs? If you aren’t considered “appropriate” to have a baby, you will be shuffled through the sterilization chute. It happened in Nazi Germany. China controlled birth rates in violation of human rights, through murdering babies in the womb, sterilization, and other methods. As John F. Kennedy so wisely said, “The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.” In the case of the murder of innocent babies in the womb, the right of every individual is diminished when the right to life is denied to the most innocent.

Article posted with permission from Sons of Liberty Media