It’s well known by now that Missourians will vote on Amendment 3 in November. It’s also well-known that the amendment would change our state’s constitution to allow abortion.
The Official Ballot Title asks, “Do you want to amend the Missouri Constitution to: establish a right to make decisions about reproductive health care, including abortion and contraceptives, with any governmental interference of that right presumed invalid…”
First, the answer is an easy “no.” As followers of Jesus, we do not support killing the unborn (I find it incredibly odd, as well as sad, for the necessity of such a statement). Second, let’s take a moment to consider the intentionally misleading language of Amendment 3.
As previously mentioned, the ballot title asks if Missourians want to “establish a right to make decisions about reproductive health care…” Initially, that doesn’t sound wrong at all! The term “reproductive” clearly insinuates the intent to reproduce. And the term “health care” is defined by Webster as “efforts made to maintain, restore, or promote someone’s physical, mental, or emotional well-being especially when performed by trained and licensed professionals.” So, the language of Amendment 3 seems to be asking whether Missourians want expectant mothers to have access to, and be able to make decisions regarding, health care. If that were the case, I’d be completely in favor! But the language is actually referring to abortion. Only in “opposite world” can “reproductive health care” result in the death of an unborn baby.
After mentioning reproductive health care, the ballot then ironically states, “including abortion and contraceptives.” The irony, of course, is that abortion is not health care. In fact, abortion is the intentional denial of health care! Furthermore, the language appears to place abortion and contraception in the same category. Theologically, there’s a healthy and necessary debate/discussion about the ethical nature of certain contraceptives. But there’s a significant difference between preventing pregnancy and intentionally ending an unborn baby’s life. Abortion and contraception are vastly different. They should never be categorized as equal.
Also stated in the Official Ballot Title, Amendment 3 would “allow abortion to be restricted or banned after Fetal Viability except to protect the life or health of the woman.” There are concerning aspects to this stipulation. First, “fetal viability” is defined as “in the good faith judgment of a treating health care professional and based on the particular facts of the case, there is a significant likelihood of the fetus’s sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures.”
If humans are only worthy of living if they can survive without “the application of extraordinary medical measures,” we’re in trouble! How many patients are in the hospital this very moment who need medical equipment to sustain life while recovering? Are they not worthy to live?
Also, the phrase “to protect the life or health of the women” could be problematic. Obviously, if the woman’s life is in jeopardy, the situation is tragically serious, and all parties involved deserve compassion. But what exactly is meant by “health” in this sentence? Are we talking about physical health, mental health, or possibly emotional health? After the point of fetal viability (i.e. – the baby can live on its own), could a physician deem an expectant mother emotionally unhealthy and then end the unborn baby’s life?
I may never change a single mind about the horrific nature of abortion. But I wholeheartedly believe that 100 years from now, as our present culture is studied and analyzed, abortion will be viewed as barbaric. Future generations will ask, “How could they be so blind?” “How could they intentionally kill so many babies?” “Why didn’t they value human life?”
I pray Amendment 3 fails, and I further pray you’ll join me in standing for life by voting “No.”