Missouri Amendment 3 Debate- Pro-Lifers Debate the Best Path Forward

That may be. But again, what are you doing in order to make that happen? The question here is amendment three. Does it violate the word of God? That's the question. So, >> if it does, we can't support it as Christian people. >> I understand what you're saying, brother. >> Yeah. >> But here's the thing. If we say we cannot vote for amendment three because of that one piece, what we're saying is we're voting for the status quo, which is wide openen abortion for everybody, which is the pill, which is no restrictions, all of these. I mean, would it be better to say no to 98% and yes to 2% or would it be better to say yes to 100% of babies being subject to murder in their mother's womb? Well, Amendment Three isn't going to save the 98%. Because it doesn't criminalize abortion and it does nothing to stop women from ordering the pill. And so they're going to do that. But even if it did, even if it did, to answer your question, it's still a no for me >> because less than 2% of pregnancies are the result of rape and incest. That's where I'm getting the 98%. >> I know. So, so you're saying that you can't vote for amendment three because

Of that 2%? >> No. >> But you would vote yes in favor of the status quo, which is a yes to all babies being subject to abortion. All babies are going to be subject to abortion anyway because abortion is not being criminalized by Amendment Three. There's no If amendment three passes, the next day abortion is still going to be completely legal in the state of Missouri. And any woman who wants a legal abortion in this state will be able to get one any day of the week that she wants because it does nothing to stop abortion. It does not criminalize But even if it did, right, that 2%, we can't ignore that 2%. That 2% are children created in the image of God. They're children who have God-given inalienable rights just like you and I. When Jesus told the story of the lost sheep, he did not talk about saving the 98 or the 99%. Remember the sheep went astray, the one, you know, the way that the pro-life movement folks look at that is, well, let's let the one go and save and keep the 99. That's not what the shepherd did. The shepherd. Matthew in chapter 18 says he left the 99 on the mountain side and the shepherd went to find the one. Why? Because the one here's the point of the story. The one is just as valuable as all the other 99. So the one had to be saved because they were all equal. That's the point here. See, that's what Amendment Three denies. Amendment three rejects that th those Biblical principles. So what you're saying, sir, is that the status quo is better because it treats all children the same. >> I'm not saying that the that what we have now is good. I'm not saying what we I didn't support it in 2024. I don't I'm not supporting it now. But

What I am saying is that the current amendment three that we're going to see on the ballot >> is a violation of the word of God. >> But it's no better. >> We only have two options, do we not? >> On November 3rd, when we go into the ballot box, amendment three is going to be >> That's right. You can vote yes or you can vote no. >> That is correct. >> So the position that I think you and I would both agree on is we all want to end every abortion. That is not on the ballot. Right. I agree. He's right. That's the only option you're going to have. But biblically that doesn't make that option righteous. Just because it's the only righteous I mean the only option we have. It's still evil in the sight of the Lord. That's the point. We can't vote for evil simply because it's the only option that we have. We were still forbidden to do what God says thou shalt not. That's the problem with A3. Dr. Faber. So earlier you asked, "Is it ever right to do wrong or something to that effect?" >> Yeah. I can't even remember now. >> Okay. >> Is it okay to do evil to stop evil? >> Is it okay to do that to stop evil? >> Okay. >> Yeah. There you go. So when shepherd boy David was being pursued by King Saul, >>. >> he went into the house of God in Shiloh and ate of the holy bread that only the priests were supposed to eat. The Pharisees later even questioned Jesus about that. >> And Jesus told him basically, "Get over it." >> Right. Later when Abselum was rebelling against King David,

Maybe not Abselum. At some point in David's life, he feigned madness like he was crazy and allowed the drool to drip from his mouth and such. So he was intentionally deceiving for a purpose, for a bigger purpose. >> Would you say David was wrong to eat of the bread from the temple or tabernacle? And was David wrong to deceive others by causing them to think that he was crazy? >> Well, I in that situation, I don't know. I mean, all I know is that when it comes to killing babies, we are Scriptures very clear, right? Scripture is very clear when it comes to murder and it comes to murdering children. And I actually think it's it's that those kinds of examples and I know that also the divorce which I think you've mentioned those those passages the blood avenger passages out of numbers right are often times used to justify right violating the word of God. I'm I'm not so sure that they do. And I'm not so sure or here's what I'm I'm pretty certain about is that they're not applicable to the murder of children. >> Okay. >> They're they're not. >> So again, when we go to the ballot box, >>. Our choice is, are we going to check the box that will allow for some babies to be murdered? Or will we check the box that will allow for all babies to be murdered? >> Well, I'm going to vote no. All right. Because >> you will be voting to allow abortion for all children. What I will be voting for is to not write into the state constitution specific groups of people that we will have the constitutional right to murder. That Dr. Faber is what I will not vote for.

>> Our constitution currently has written in it. >> Not specific groups of people. A specific group of people under the age of nine months from conception that we can legally murder. And this amendment three continues that very same thing. It continues that even more specifically than what our constitution has now. >> How so? >> Because our constitution right now does not contain those exceptions for rape and incest. >> No. Because are >> right >> can be legally >> so the distinctions will still be there right and it is still a violation of the word of God to single those groups out >> and it's not a violation of the word of God to >> support what we currently have in the constitution now >> it's already there right and I think what you're talking about here may be the difference between restraining evil and committing evil I'm all for restraining evil. I mean, we live in an evil world. There's evil all around us. Our job is to restrain it. But what we can't do is commit continue to commit evil in the process of restraining evil. >> All right, that's time. We will go into the last portion until we get to question and answer. And that will be 10 minutes each. And, Dr. Faber or Mr. Favor 10. We'll start with you and you have your 10 minutes. According to the Loer Institute, in 2028, excuse me, 2028, that's the last year before Missouri's ban on abortions went into effect, there was a total of 3,269 abortions in Missouri. Statistically, less than 2% of all abortions are due to rape, incest, and fatal fetal anomaly. That means that if we pass amendment three, we would be saving the lives of

Over 3,200 children every year. Under our current constitutional provisions, we lose 3,269. Yes, I grieve for those 69. That would be the subject that excuse me, I grieve for the 69 that would be subject to the possibility of abortion and pray that their moms would make the right choice and would be involved as I am involved in doing everything possible to change the hearts and minds of those mothers. Many of you may not know me. You may not know my wife. My wife is the director of the pregnancy health center here in Camden as well as in Vers Sales. Her and I do everything we can to save the lives of children, even those who are conceived in rape. My wife and I have four children, two sons and two daughters. Our youngest daughter when she was graduating from high school anticipating college. Dreams were shattered when she was raped and the police officers offered her a rape kit, a morning after type pill, whatever they call that thing, Plan B. And I was never more proud of my daughter when she said, "I did not want this to happen, but if God gives me a child, I'll raise that child." And my oldest granddaughter is now 14 years old. So you cannot tell me that I do not value the lives of those who are conceived in rape and incest. But I will tell you that if I can save over 3,000 children at the risk of losing 69, it's a whole world better than losing 3,269. Paul wrote once, "I have become all things to all men that by all means I might save some."

Even Paul with the truth of the Gospel, the Holy Spirit of God using him in ways that no man since has ever been used, recognized that he could not save all. He did not save. He did not say, "I will become all things to all men that by all means I will save all." Because that's just not possible in a fallen world. But he was willing to do all things to all men that by all means he might save some. Folks, when we go to the polls on November 3rd, the option of saving all is not on the ballot. What's on the ballot is are we going to save as many as we can or are we going to stick our head in the sand and let evil prevail and the status quo kill when people play football, the Chiefs. That's probably one thing we can all agree on tonight, right? If Patrick Mahomes didn't get a touchdown every play, does he say, "Well, I'm just going to go home." Does he say, "I'm not going to play anymore." He goes for a first down. If he only gets three yards, he still goes for the first down. If he gets the first down, he goes for another first down. He's going for the goal. And he doesn't say, "Well, that's not good enough." He says, "Let's take it and keep moving." I would implore you, dear folks. Let's stop as much of the killing as possible and work to stop the rest as soon as possible. Thank you. 10 minutes. Well, I agree that we need to stop as much of the killing of babies as possible, but I don't believe that we kill babies

In the process, intentionally kill babies, deliberately kill babies in the process of trying to eliminate that, right? I mean, again, we can't violate the word of God in our attempts to restrain evil. There's nothing in Scripture that gives us that sets the precedent for us to do that. Amendment three may be the best that we have on the ballot. Dr. Faber, you've talked about that quite a bit. It's it is the option. But again, that's not what determines right and wrong. It's not what determines truth, good and evil. Amendment three is very utilitarian in its in its worldview. It's very teological. And I think most of us have probably heard of utilitarianism. Basically, you know, it's it's this moral kind of ethical system that basically says that the value of something right and wrong is determined by the purpose. And that's the te the teological part of it. The purpose that something plays, the function that it that it plays or the outcomes that it produces. That's what the proponents of amendment three are arguing. That's the world view from which they're working. It's not a Biblical worldview. They're basically telling us that amendment three is good. We need to support it because it will lead to the repeal of article 1, section 36 of the state constitution. But again, the purpose that something plays, the results or the consequences that it produces, that's not what determines right and wrong. That's not what determines good and evil. God has determined what is good and

Evil. There are absolutes and there are absolutes that he has told us that we cannot violate. Amendment three ignores and rejects all of those principles, including the principle of God-given inaliable rights. Dr. Faber has mentioned again the 98%. Amendment three is not going to save 98% of babies. When the trigger law went into effect back in June of 2022, if you all remember the day that row was reversed in June of 2022, it was just a few hours I believe after that, if I remember correctly, that Governor Parson and I think then Attorney General Eric Schmidt signed into law the trigger law. What we know is the trigger law. It shut down all the abortion clinics in the state. But left abortion illegal. I mean abortion legal. The reason it left it legal is because if you read the last sentence of section two of the trigger law, it is Missouri revised statute. It's 188 section 17. And if you read the last sentence of section two, it states that the woman cannot be held accountable for her participation in the murder of the baby. So that is how during the years 2023 and 2024, abortion remained illegal. I mean, I say illeg remained legal, let me get it right, remained legal in the state of Missouri and we were still killing. My numbers show in 2023 as many as 14 15,000 Missouri babies were murdered under the trigger law in a year where we had no abortion clinics in the state of Missouri. None. And how that happens is that you simply incentivize women to murder their baby another way, a way that's legal. So, how is that done? You get online and you order pills and you have them shipped to your home and you kill the baby yourself. It's called a self-managed

Do-it-yourself abortion. Perfectly legal under the trigger law and completely legal under amendment three if it passes. I've got statistics from last year, 2025. Now remember last year in 2025 abortion clinics were open in the state of Missouri. We passed amendment three and 24. So the abortion clinics were open. Statistics that I show that I have got that come from the Society for Family Planning show that just within the state of Missouri, now this is not counting for the women or the babies that were taken out of state and murdered out of state. It's just what the Society for Family Planning in their research can account for as far as those murders that took place right here within the borders of Missouri. 3,800. All right. Last year in 2025, but here's what is startling. 96% they report 96% of those murders were teleaalth done within the formal system meaning what they were basically pills that were ordered from shield states and that were mailed in from shield states like New York Massachusetts California and the baby was murdered here. There was only 150. It's a bug up here. There was only 150 of those abortions that were done in abortion clinics here in the state of Missouri. The point that I'm making is Amendment Three passes. It shuts down the clinics. It's not going to have any effect upon lowering the number of babies that are murdered. 96% are already tellalth. The other 4% their mothers will just decide to take them across the state line and murder them there. And that's why when we

Passed the trigger law in 2022 and we shut down the clinics, the number of babies that died didn't go down. The statistics that we have actually show that in 2023 and 2024, the numbers stayed the same or went up a little bit. And it's because we never we never criminalized the act itself. All that we did was shut down the clinics, that has no effect. The argument that we can go back and fix it, we can't go back and fix it. Section three of amendment three, as Dr. Faber read earlier, states that the legislature may regulate the provision of abortion. The word provision, you all know what it means. It means to provide for, to supply. It doesn't include restrict. The legislature is not going to be able to go back and restrict abortion in any way. All they're going to do is be able to make provision as to how these babies are murdered. And of course you all know that the exceptions will be written into the constitution and the legislature cannot change the constitution. The constitution can only be changed by a vote of the people. So those exceptions will be off limits to the legislature. Amendment three is not the answer. It's not the answer. But in closing, let me say that granting personhood and equal protection, equal justice under the law to the pre-born is the answer. And that is the only thing, folks, that will bring an end to the murder of these babies. Thank you. >> All right. Very well. Thank you both. At this time, we were going to take a quick 10-minute break. When we come back from that we will open the floor to question and answer. We have 10 minutes. Time starts now. >> There's some refreshments over here and

Restaurants and stuff like that. I need something to drink. Going well. Was it >> too short? Oh my And then by And then I went over You're missing a picture. Children. >> But my existence What was it like? Are you guys military? There you go. >> She's doing No response. Oh okay. We love >> sat over here. Well, first we're going to do that. Oh yeah. Yeah. It's not really afraid. You might turn stage. You know what? Always All right, folks. If we could make our way back to our chairs, >> we got less than a minute. >> Go get him, Nick. >> I'm going home. >> Oh, you're going home. Good for you. >> We got it. We got less than a minute folks. >> We're sticking to our timet. >> Yes, it is. Hi there, buddy. How come you How come you don't have a cookie? >> How come you don't have a cookie? >> I did. >> You had a cookie. Is that a yummy cookie? You had a cookie.

>> Good for you. >> They're not nearly as good as what these things are. >> I think these are homemade, too. All right, we pretty much got everybody back here. We've lost a couple, but we're about ready to go. So, in question and answer, we are going to take questions from the floor. I will admonish you though, this is not a time for statements. It is a time for a question. So please posit yourself to a question and if you direct it to either one of the individuals they will get two minutes to answer the other individual will get a minute to respond. If it is just for both of them then I will give them both two minutes. Okay. So at this time is there anyone at the floor on the floor that would like to ask one or both of these gentlemen a question? Thank you. All right. So, Dr. Faber, we got to have a conversation of last year, I think it was down at Branson and you said that this amendment will eliminate 98% of all abortions. You also gave a great call at the end about the football illustration and going for the first down. My question is this. If abortion providers, fathers who pressure mothers into abortions, parents who force their teenage daughters to get abortions, women that choose abortion all go uncriminalized, then what is the touchdown that you're actually working toward? And is it realistic? If I if I understand your question correctly, you're asking if there's no criminalization, then how have we actually accomplished anything? What's the goal? What's the goal? Okay. So the criminalization lies in when amendment 3 is passed and the restrictions come back into place. For instance, even with the myopressone and the other one mess up all or whatever. Amendment three would allow the legislature to put into place that they have to be, seen by a physical doctor and he has to make sure the gestation period is right and all this kind of stuff. If that is violated, then the doctor could lose his license. So, there's going to be abortion clinics and physicians. I hate to use that term because physicians are generally good folks, but they're going to stop doing that because it's the law and they don't want to lose their license. And abortion clinics where they're doing the surgical abortions will be shut down again as well because they won't be allowed. When we had the restrictions in place before the surgical abortion facilities had already left the state. Colombia had been shut down because they didn't want to follow medical standards. They have said we cannot conduct our business under the restrictions that were in place. So, your goal, the state goal is, not to criminalize, but to make Missouri an environment where abortion >> I cannot speak for what the state's goal is. >> I'm asking your goal. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Well, again, the problem is that most of the pills are going to come from out of state, right? They're they're not going to come from they're not going to be prescribed by doctors in the state of Missouri. They're going to come from shield states. So shield states are states that pass laws that protect organizations from prosecution that ship pills into states that have very restrictive abortion laws. So for example, if we if we pass amendment three, all these regulations come back. You know doctors won't be able to prescribe pills but women can still get them online from organizations in shield

States and those organizations in those states are protected by the law in those states from prosecution. So actually sir it doesn't prevent any woman from obtaining pills if she really wants to obtain them. >> Anyone else have a question? Senator, >> my question was partially answered by Dr. Scrogggins, so this would be for both of you, I guess. With interstate commerce laws, as they are today, what can Missouri do to make illegal a woman going out of state for the purpose of murdering her child or for ordering online pills that would do the same thing? And how can they hold a physician accountable outside Missouri or hold the woman accountable for initiating the murder either by teleaalth or traveling out of state? >> I'll have Dr. Stra go first. You have two minutes and then Fab, Mr. Favor, you'll have two minutes as well. >> Well, we're we're not going to be able to hold doctor from out of state accountable if they're in a shield state, right? They're going to be shielded from prosecution by the laws of that other state. In terms of Senator Moon, was your question out of state and there was something else there that you mentioned? How >> purchasing pills >> the pills? All right. Yeah, that there it is. And so, first of all, the out of state, right? I believe that we can prevent most all women from traveling across state to murder baby. And here's here's how it's done. Granted, the murder will take place in the other state, but we have conspiracy laws on the books in statute. Most every state does. Probably all of them do. The plan to kill that child was made here in Missouri. So my argument here is that they can be charged with conspiracy to commit murder if they cross the state line to murder with the intent of murdering the baby. That is a felony crime in Missouri. In terms

Of stopping the pills, I think that's the wrong battle to fight. Okay. I let women purchase all the pills that they want. The issue is they just cannot use the pills to murder somebody. It's like buying a gun. Let people buy guns. But when you use a gun to murder somebody, that's when you've got a problem. Let's treat the pills the same way. So, let's don't even get into all the interstate commerce stuff you know of trying to stop pills coming in from all these other states. It's the wrong battle, folks. Let's criminalize the act of murdering the child itself. That's the real battle that we need to be fighting. >> Time. Dr. Faber, >> I can't say that I disagree with anything Dr. Scrogggins has said. I would remind us that there are already on the federal books what are known as the commtock laws. Again under Biden and previous administrations, those have been ignored and we have Senator Josh Holly and some others who are trying to revive the enforcement of the comtock laws. And that would alleviate or end the interstate transportation of both the pills as well as the in equipment used in surgical abortions. The idea of saying you can buy the pill, you just can't use it to kill a person. I don't know how that would be enforceable. It doesn't sound like a bad idea, but I don't know how that would at all be enforceable. But we already have the comtock laws and we just need to in encourage or make our US senators and US representatives begin enforcing that. >> Next question. >> Dr. Scrabins, you touched on this about taxpayer funding in section five and on there it says that as otherwise authorized by law. What do you think that would that will be? It's it's stating here that it would fund for cases of medical emergency

Rape or incest as otherwise authorized by law. Well, I'm afraid that means that it can be anything that the legislature chooses for it to be in the future. What I'm saying is that section that you've just referenced, it already it allows for taxpayer funding of abortions in the case of rape and incest. It allows for taxpayer funding of abortions in the case of medical emergency. And then it says or any other >> as >> as otherwise authorized by law. >> So what that does is it leaves the door open in my opinion. It leaves the door open to the legislature coming back and then writing in the statute other exceptions, other abortions, maybe all abortion will be taxpayer funded. That's that I think is the real threat there with that with that phrase. >> Dr. Favor, do you? >> Yeah. >> Okay. I am not an attorney. However, I know that the Constitution trumps statute. So even if the legislature were to provide some kind of funding for abortion other than for rape, incest, medical emergency, it would be seen as a violation of the constitution and would be struck down. Furthermore, in the process of passing such legislation, there would be a huge outcry that the legislature would be funding something that is illegal because the constitution would say that all abortions are forbidden except for rape, incest, and medical emergency or fatal fetal anomaly. >> Can I can I >> You'll have a minute or two minutes of another question to answer however you wish. All right. Any other questions? >> So my question is mostly for you Dr. Faber, but I'm curious when you talked about we pass this now and then we work towards the end goal, which I know that

You believe that is ending all abortion in our state and worldwide. But my question to you is we currently have a supermajority Republican legislature. Correct? So if that if amendment three is what our supermajority Republican legislature has given us, why do you believe that they would go back later and do anything different if this is the best that they've given us now? Terminist >> because being a Republican does not mean that you're pro-life and I know there are Democrats in Jefferson City who are pro-life. We have Republicans who do not have a spine. We have Republicans who have offered legislation on personhood and I've been in those hearings to support them and they don't make it through because the other Republicans in Jefferson City want to coddle to the consensus. We wouldn't have even had amendment three in our constitution in 2024 if it were not for a certain Republican senator who stood in the way of passing IP reform. So, don't get hung up on a person's party affiliation. We need to know who the individuals are, what they believe on this and other issues, and vote accordingly. So, could you tell me who the senator is that brought forth the Senate version of HDR73? >> Well, it was Senator Schnelting. >> Okay. >> So, what you know of him, does he claim to be pro-life? >> Yes. >> So, why would he put forward this amendment if he is truly pro-life? And why do you think then that he would ever or someone like him who does claim to be pro-life with an R next to their name? Why do you think that they would then go back later if this is the best that they've given us now? >> Because he knew that a personhood

Amendment would not pass. This barely passed through the legislature and got on the ballot. So a personhood amendment, which I would like to see, you would like to see, Wes would like to see, would not have passed the legislature. And if he had not put this forth, we wouldn't be having anything to vote on. We'd still be stuck with our current situation for at least another two years. >> So, would it be safe to say, >> can I ask another question? >> He gets a minute to respond and then you can get back in line. >> Fine. >> Well, go ahead. Well, I don't know that our Republican supermajority legislature, you know, legisl Republican legislature is going to have motivation to go back and do anything, right? I think that this is their fix. Then this is my opinion and that if it passes, their attitude is going to be that we've done our part. They're going to wash their hands of it and they're going to be done with it. I don't think they're going to go back and have the motivation to fix anything. Even if they do, as I stated earlier, I think what they're going to be able to do is going to be very, very limited by the amendment itself. They can't do anything about the exceptions because it's in the constitution. And they can only enact laws that make that regulate the provision of abortion. So what they're going to be able to do is going to be very limited by the amendment. >> Any other questions? >> It I just got a question when you're talking talking about the supermajority not having motivation to go back. If we don't pass Amendment Three, wouldn't it signal to the legislators that abortion

Is a non-issue? Let's just can this. Let's focus on, you know, America first, Israel, that kind of stuff. Like, are we actually like I to his point, if we say I would love a comment section on voting box. Why did you vote this way? Right? That'd be great. Then the legislators could know why I vote no. But if I if I if we all vote no, we're voting with the loud leftists and we are actually altogether saying abortion doesn't really matter in Missouri. Let's keep it. So the incremental approach seems to have a good argument to say let's take that step and now we're all Christians. You guys I know you guys are. Let's God let's get God's given us time to go back and work on it some more. Like cuz the work is actually hold on I'm not supposed to make statements. Isn't the work actually to go out and make disciples and change lives with the Gospel? And if we do that then people won't they'll just know the Holy Spirit will give them a conscience to say ah you know what murdering is wrong. I'm going to I'm going to appeal to my representative because we currently don't have a culture that seems to really care about this issue. >> Is that is that a question? >> That's for both of them. >> Okay, very good. >> Yeah. Does large question. Wouldn't it signal to the legislators that there actually is no motivation to do anything with abortion? But >> Dr. Faber, we'll let you go first. Two minutes. I believe it absolutely would signal to the legislature that Missouri is tired of the abortion fight and to leave it alone. I think that if we can pass amendment three, the legislature will realize that innocent human life is still a core value of Missurans. And as we visit with and correspond

With our representatives and senators and keep the pressure on, they will do more. But if we vote no, and as you said, getting in bed with the leftists who are also going to be voting no because they want to protect the right to abortion, then it's going to send a signal to the legislature to leave it alone for a while, for probably a long while. Well, f first of all, I mean, voting no doesn't mean that you're voting with Planned Parenthood. I'm voting no, but I'm do doing it for an entirely different reason than is Planned Parenthood. >> Right? An entirely different different reason. The incrementalist approach doesn't work, right? We see that I mean incrementalism we've been trying we've been practicing that now for over 50 years and folks row is history. Row faded into history. Can you believe it? Close to four and a half years ago now. And you know what the statistics show? Ever since 2023, 24, 25, we've killed babies in this nation in record numbers. Isn't that something? Last year, nationwide, 1,126,000 and some babies. You have to go clear back to somewhere around 2012 in order to find a year where we murdered more babies than that. We're murdering babies in record numbers in 13 well 13, you know, 12 13 year record highs. Row faded into history. Incrementalism doesn't work. It's got a track record and that track record is failure. Doesn't work. We've got to go forward with the truth. And that's what incrementalism fails to do. It goes forward with a lie that it's okay to compromise and in some situations

Some of the time kill babies. >> All right. >> We've got to go forward with a different with a different message. The true message, the Gospel of Christ. >> Next question. Thank you gentlemen. I hope you guys are a little bit of a historian. So I'm going to ask you kind of a both of you a historical question. Our government was founded upon liberty for all but tension early on in our history arose from the nation's actions specifically during the slave trade. Many founding fathers opposed slavery but did not pass laws and did not outlaw slavery because of the political climate. Question to both of you two parts. Did they honor God with their actions? And then the second part is what can we learn from them about this progressive abolition? >> Dr. First this time. >> Well, did they your question did they honor God or did they sin against God? That's hard for me to answer because I wasn't there. I don't exactly know what all that happened. I don't know, you know, what kind of opportunities or options that they had to restrain evil or why they failed to do it. That's hard. But you know the fact of the matter is you know in this country we had slavery right which is an evil. Look where it got us right look where it ended up folks. Civil war. I mean one of the most I mean it is like the civil war the most bloodiest war in our nation's history. That's where that disobedience to the law of God got us. We paid a terrible, horrible price for the evil of slavery. And folks, we're going to pay an a horrible price for the evil of murdering children if we don't repent and put an end to this. And again, incrementalism is not the way to do it because incrementalism is absent of the truth.

It's it's in it's it's it's fundamentally flawed at its very core because it always compromises the word of God and it basically teaches that again we're not all equal. They're not all you know there's there's really no absolutes. We can make those exceptions and that's just not true. So we've got to go forward with the truth and that is personhood, equal protection, equal justice under the law for the pre-born that will stop the murder of these children. >> All right. Very good. Dr. Faber, you have two minutes. >> First of all, to get back to what Dr. Scrogggin said a moment ago, you can vote no and your liberal friends will vote no. And you may know why you're voting no, but the legislature won't. And if the state as a whole says no to amendment three, the legislature will be afraid to touch it for at least a decade, probably longer. To your question brother the founding fathers of our nation, yes, had slaves. It was a culture they lived in. Not that makes it acceptable. I know Thomas Jefferson for one allowed his slaves to purchase their own freedom. And he abhored slavery, but the economy was built on it. They did not know of a way that they could end slavery without devastating the economy and thereby devastating the young nation. In fact, they put all men are created equal in the Constitution because they recognized that all men indeed are created equal. But they put off the question of slavery for a time because they had to have a united front against the mightiest empire on earth because the sun never set on the British Empire. Nobody had beaten the British Empire in decades. And so in order for this naent nation to even have a chance, they had to unite around the principles outlined in the

Declaration of Independence and put off other issues until a time when attitudes had begun to change. They did stop the importation of slaves from Africa. They did stop certain other things. And in doing so, the public culture began to change. So that >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Next. >> This question's for either one of anybody because I've heard it. >> Well, how about both? >> Both of them. >> Both. All of you. Anybody? Because the last two men that were up here, too. >> Both or one of you guys both stated that the legislature will back off from this for at least a decade, if not passed this time, but it's not even been two years since the last time it was passed. So, what makes you so confident that they won't come back in 28 29 or whatever and bring this up once again if this doesn't pass? >> I'll f you can go first this time. Two minutes. >> Well, I can go first, but Dr. Or Senator Moon's in the room. We could ask him after a while, but I do know that the 2024 amendment 3 was put on the ballot not by the legislature, >> but by the people and not even by the people of Missouri, >> if you didn't know that there was I met personally people from Pennsylvania and Wisconsin who were being paid to gather signatures to put it on the ballot. That wasn't even a Missouri thing, but it was put on our ballot and we voted on it. It passed by 95,000 votes or thereabouts statewide. Wouldn't have even been on the ballot if it had been totally left up to Missurrians. We didn't even fund it. It was out of state money that funded it. And there's tons of out of state money coming in of fighting amendment three this time. But when the initiative petition process put that on the ballot

And it passed, our legislature was like, "We don't think this is what the people of Missouri want. This isn't this." No. So, we're going to give the people another opportunity. And it's coming from the legislature this time rather than out of state interests. But because amendment three passed two years ago allowing for abortion, if the people of Missouri this time say, "You know what? It's okay. We passed it. We're all right with abortion. Folks, there are some men and women in Jeff City, Senator Moon, Brian Sites, Jamie Greg, Terry Violet. I mean, I could just go on and on. There are some good, godly men and women in Jeff City who will fight to the death for Christian values. But there's also some wimps. I mean, there are some wimps who will stick their finger in the wind to see which way it's blowing and they'll be half drunk when they do it. I won't tell you who, but there's a representative from a district not far from here me whiskey from his office one time. >> So, I don't even drink. >> Dr. Frogggins, you have two minutes. >> Well, I agree with you. There's others in the room that could answer this question much better, right, than what you and I can do. And you know, Dr. Faber is correct in that the 2024 amendment came from an initiative petition of people. My thoughts are and I want to set up here and I want to say that I could be wrong. But my thoughts are is that this amendment three is the attempt of the legislature to in for lack of a better word fix what happened in 2024. All right. And as Dr. Faber I think said earlier it was it was a difficult thing to do you know to get it to the ballot. It wasn't like there was a whole lot of, you know, I mean, overwhelming, I guess, support or that it was easy. You

Know, I mean, I mean, most of the Republicans voted for it, don't get me wrong. They did. But I mean, it was a long road to get it there to get it to the ballot. I'm just not so sure that if it fails that they're going to have the motivation to do it again, right? I think their attitude is going to be we've tried this was our fix this was our attempt didn't work and I just don't know that the motivation is going to be there to go on that's my thought Dr. Faber I could be wrong if I can get it's not even on the schedule we're going to do a closing statement so do we have any other questions we're at 8:45 so Let's just take a couple more maybe and then we'll go into a closing statement. >> So, I'm just going to beg forgiveness and say to both of you and anyone else in here, be a defender of the faith. If you believe in what you believe, don't say that. I'm not going to name names. The time has come to name names. We need to know who these people are. Help us advocate in this fight. My question is for both of you. Do you believe that women who have abortion should be criminally prosecuted and why or why not? >> Dr. I think I did. >> Yeah, you did. So, you can answer this question. Two minutes. >> Well, I believe that anybody that participates in the murder of a child should be held accountable and should be prosecuted. All right. Not just women, anyone who is who is a part of that because I believe in equal justice under the law. That's that's the point. If they are human beings and again that pesky little gnat or whatever is back up here, but he won't leave me alone. But if you believe that they're human beings and you believe that in the

Principle of equal justice, equal protection, then the logical conclusion is that you kill them. Killing them has to be treated just like killing a born person. There can be no difference. That is equal justice, equal protection under the law. So we have to treat their their murder. We have to treat it as murder. We have to treat is the same. All right, that's exactly where I stand on that. And again, it's anybody who participates in the murder of that child should be held accountable. >> All right, Dr. Fra, this is a difficult question and my wife and I have discussed it numerous times. I believe this is what I believe that there should be criminal charges of some sort for every case of abortion. But how is that applied and what are those charges? For instance, there's a case currently, I believe it's out of Kentucky, where a man using his significant other's identity, ordered online, the pills, ground them up, put her on the floor, put them down her throat. As soon as she got free, she tried to split them out. It was too late. She lost her child anyway. Technically, yes, she took the pill, but it was forced upon her. Currently, in no state in the union can a man be held responsible for causing a woman to have an abortion. Nor does a man have a right to say he wants to keep the child, even though it's his child, too. His DNA is in that child. The clients that my wife works with, most of them who are inclined towards abortion are that way because either economics or pressure from their husband, spouse, boyfriend, whatever, or sometimes even their parents when the girls are young. So, can there be like a lesser charge for under duress? Can we prosecute the dads who are

Forcing these girls to have an abortion? Can we prosecute the grandparents who are telling their daughter that, you know, you got to kill this baby? So yes, I think there ought to be some kind of criminal repercussion, but I think we need to be careful in not say charge the mom with first-degree murder. >> Time. >> You have a question? >>, the question is for both of you. You both mentioned multiple stat statistics tonight and I just wondered where you got your information from. Well, that depends on the statistic. Some of the statistics, the fact that rape and incest account for less than 2% of pregnancies and also far less than 2% of abortions is a pretty common statistic. You can find that, in a lot of different sources. The number of abortions that occurred in Missouri in 2018 I believe it was that I referenced earlier came from the Loer Institute. And you can go on the Loer Institute website and find those numbers. Are there other statistics that you're referring to specifically? >> you said some figure about 40%. >> I said something about what percent? >> 40% I can't remember the specific cont. Figure. >> Well, I don't remember the context either, so I don't know. >> So, I mean this is Go ahead. >> well, most of the statistics that I have come from the Gutmcker Institute. Gutmacher Institute has been tracking abortion statistics across the nation and by state for years. So you can go to their website, you can look up any state and see statistics specific for the states. Gutmcker doesn't do all the research themselves. The 96% teleaalth abortions in the state of Missouri last year. That was actually the research was done by the Society for Family Planning, but you can find that report on the Gutmcker Institute.

Other statistics that I have come from peer-reviewed publications such as the journal of the American Medical Association, JAMAMA. And so those those are some examples places where where we find these statistics. >> Dr. Faber, have you maybe found where you got? >> I don't remember the context either. I don't 40% of what I don't about. So >> Okay. All right. Any other questions? Nadine, it's the end of the line now. You want a question again? >> All right, last question. >> Okay, so I'm not sure if it was touched upon about police reporting. They left the police reporting out for rape incest exceptions or a second opinion or follow-up confirmation for fetal anomalies. Dr. Faber, were you in that committee that made these decisions? Do you know why that was left out? >> I'm sorry I didn't catch all of what you were saying. You're saying something about >> so for the rape and incest exceptions >> there was a police report I believe in the original legislation so I believe that SJR33 which was Adam Schnel things had a police report in there and then when it came to the house HJR73 there was no police report in that legislation >> yes I do remember that >> and then for fetal anomalies I don't recall that there was ever any type of that there needs to be a second opinion or any type of verification about that fetal anomaly. So I'm curious because there we were told there was a committee of people that came together to come up with this and we're not really sure who that was. >> Okay. So the police report was taken out in the House committee hearing. And the reason why and I was not in favor I'm I'm not on the committee. I'm not a legislator. But I was there to speak in favor of the bill. The

Reason given by members of that committee that evening is that most people who are victims of rape do not make a police report within 12 weeks. They endure such drama trauma and shock that they do not make that police report within 12 weeks. So to require a police report would be an undue burden and cause more trauma for those rape victims. Not saying I agree with it. I'm simply reporting what the conversation was in that committee hearing. >> Okay. >> and what was the other part of the question again? >> That fetal anomaly. >> Fetal anomalies. So there's a common misconception about saving the life of the mother. There are only two medical conditions that would be covered under fetal anomaly. One is Potter's syndrome where a child is born without kidneys and will not survive outside the womb. As a matter of fact, if you look at the definitions at the end of the proposed amendment three, it says that the child must be able to survive outside the womb. And the other one is an hang on. I'm hurrying. I'm hurrying. Okay. Anisephille or potter's syndrome would be the only two things that qualify because those are they are the only two medical conditions that meet the definition provided in amendment three. >> All right time Dr. Stroggers I'm going to give you a minute but this is probably really a procedural question about how something happens in the house and the senate. So when a bill starts in one chamber, goes through the committees, the public committees, public hearings and whatnot, and it gets voted on that body's floor, it gets sent to the other body. If that body wants to change the language in their committees, and it's not, it's

Just a standard standing committee that they have for anything. If they want to change the language, they can change the language. Then it goes to their chambers's floor to get voted on. If they did change language, it has to go back to the other chamber to be approved there as well. If they change anything that you know so that is how that changed because it got changed in another chamber and had to come back. Am I wrong? That's correct. Okay. Does that answer your question? >> It does. >> I'm still give him a minute. But >> Sure. And I'm familiar with that. But I was just, you know, I feel that if we're I don't want exceptions at all. And I feel that the way that there's isn't any reporting or accountability that anyone will be able to claim if the if a woman really wants to kill her child, she will claim rape and fetal anomaly. My daughter had fetal anomalies. They weren't considered fatal at the time that they were found in the womb, but we went to church. The pastor anointed me, prayed over us, and those anomalies disappeared in the womb. And I believe that God can heal any fetal anomalies. So, I don't believe that there is any anomaly that's considered fatal because I know God can do that. But I'd love to hear, Wes, what you have to say. >> 100%. You got one minute. Sorry. Well, I was not there in those committee meetings, so I can't speak as to what happened or what the motives of committee members were for taking that out. >> But when it comes to the fetal anomalies, remember, even if a child is born with some kind of anomaly, they're not going to be able to survive long. Still doesn't give us the right to intentionally kill them. They're still created in the image of God. Life is still a God-given

Right to them. And we have to just let nature take its course, right? We do not have the right to take the life of those children even if they can't survive on their own. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you all for your questions. I have 856. I'm pretty sure we'd probably like to get out of here. So, I tell you what, this isn't really on the schedule, but I believe that you should have two minutes to kind of have a following statement. And I believe you won the toying coin toss on the opening. So, how about you start with the closing statement? Two minutes. >> Well, again, just let me close by saying that amendment three is bad for Missouri. All right. It's not the answer to ending the killing of children. We need to grant them personhood. We need to grant them equal protection under the law. Amendment three doesn't even pretend to do such a thing. It will not stop the killing of a of these babies. It can't stop the killing of these babies. There's nothing in the law that makes it illegal for women to murder babies on their own or for women to order those pills, do the self-managed abortion. There's nothing whatsoever that stops them from doing that holds them accountable for doing that or for simply crossing the state lines. So, abortion remains legal under Amendment Three. But I think what is even more important is the message that it sends. I believe amendment three will teach us the wrong thing as a people, as a culture, as a state. It does teach us that certain life is less valuable. Certain certain people are different, right? Certain people are expendable if

It's in our best interest to murder them. It does send the message that it's okay under certain conditions. Folks, all of those things are lies because the fact of the matter is God has declared that it's wrong. God has said, "Thou shalt not." And there's absolutely nothing that makes it right. Nothing makes it right that God has declared to be wrong. >> Thank you, Dr. You have two minutes. Murder is wrong and abortion is murder. And God says it's wrong. I think we all agree on that. But when Roie Wade was still in effect, we passed in Missouri laws that said you could not abort a child simply because they had Down syndrome. Now, did we pass a law at that time that said you can't abort any child? No. But you can't abort a child simply because they have a Down syndrome. And what that did, yes, if we're to take our brother's perspective, is it created a special class of people who were protected and we didn't protect anybody else. But what it also did was it got people to thinking, well, if we can't kill them when they have Down syndrome, why can we kill them if they're healthy? If they're if they don't have Down syndrome. And that led to other things and that began to change the culture. You know, I agree. Amendment three is not perfect. It's not something I would have written. It's it's got flaws in it, but it is better than what we have. It will save lives and it will keep the conversation and the push to do more moving forward. If we vote no on amendment three, we're saying it's okay. It's okay to kill a child whether

They're conceived in rape or not. Whether they're 12 weeks old or 38 weeks old, whether it's done in an abortion clinic with standard medical procedures or not, it's better than what we have. >> Thank you. That's all I believe we have for this debate discussion. Thank you all. Thank you for coming. This is a it's a this is a tough one. I mean, you know, it's just a tough thing. Abortion is in general, as I was mentioning to some folks, this question has been around for ever and was even struggled upon by our founding fathers in the colonies. So, hope that everybody gets home safe tonight and thank God for all that he gives us and praise him every day. That's all I have. >> Yep. Yes. Thanks for First Baptist. I also have some Noon A3 literature up here. If anybody would want some, just come up here at the table here a little bit. I can send some home with you.