The Pro‑Life Establishment Is Blocking Equal Protection in Missouri
Missourians have been told for decades to “take what we can get.” But the preborn are not a special‑interest group. They are human beings—created in the image of God—and they are owed equal protection under the law. This page documents a hard truth: many of the most powerful “pro‑life” organizations have repeatedly opposed the very kind of legislation that would actually abolish abortion.
What this Page Proves (With Receipts)
Bottom line: When “pro‑life” leaders insist that abortion is murder but simultaneously insist the mother must never be treated as a criminal, they recreate the same contradiction the Court exploited under Roe—and they keep stopping abolitionist bills that would remove that contradiction.
- The establishment position is explicit: “Turning women who have abortions into criminals is not the way.” (National coalition letter signed by top organizations and state affiliates.)
- Missouri Right to Life is in that coalition: the letter lists Susan Klein as Executive Director of Missouri Right to Life.
- Roe v. Wade highlighted the same posture: it noted that in many states the pregnant woman “could not be prosecuted” for abortion.
- Endorsement power shapes the legislature: endorsement politics can discourage bold, consistent legislation and reward “managed” incrementalism.
Featured: Freedom Pulse — When Pro‑Life Gatekeepers Opposed Personhood in Missouri
If you only watch one piece of evidence before reading the rest of this page, start here. In this episode, we discuss how establishment “pro‑life” organizations have used their influence to discourage equal‑protection bills— including testimony from Missouri Right to Life and Campaign Life Missouri opposing a personhood / equal‑protection effort.
Watch the episode (starts at the testimony)
Tip: If you’re sharing this, use the “Start at testimony” link so viewers hit the key evidence immediately.
Key moments (timestamps)
- 7:59 — Samuel Lee (Campaign Life Missouri) testifies in opposition to an equal‑protection / personhood bill.
- ~7:59 — Susan Klein (Missouri Right to Life) states for the record she is “going on record in opposition.”
- 12:49–14:19 — Susan Klein describes the 2024 campaign as driven by “lies,” then discusses political timing and polling strategy.
Quote highlight: “For the record, Susan Klein representing Missouri Right to Life… I’m going on record in opposition.”
Source: Freedom Pulse Episode 9 transcript.
Why this matters: If abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human being, then opposing equal‑protection bills isn’t “strategy”—it’s choosing political comfort over consistent justice. Now continue below for the primary-source receipts and the legal backdrop that explain why this contradiction matters.
1) The Evidence: What the Establishment Actually Said
The most powerful institutions in the “pro‑life movement” don’t merely prefer incrementalism. They enforce it. And when abolitionists pursue equal‑protection legislation, the establishment’s response is often predictable: protect the mother from prosecution—no matter what that implies about equal justice for the child.
Exhibit A: A Coalition Letter Rejecting Penalties for Women
“But turning women who have abortions into criminals is not the way.”
National coalition “Open Letter to State Lawmakers” (May 12, 2022). It also states it will oppose “initiatives that criminalize women who seek abortions.”
The same letter lists Susan Klein as Executive Director of Missouri Right to Life. That is not rumor. It is in the signatory list.
Exhibit B: Louisiana Right to Life Opposed an Abolition Bill for the Same Reason
NRLC published a statement noting Louisiana Right to Life opposed HB 813 (an abolition bill) because it did not exempt women from criminalization.
“…our longstanding policy is that abortion‑vulnerable women should not be treated as criminals…”
“Because HB 813 does not exempt women from criminalization… Louisiana Right to Life does not support HB 813.”
NRLC News Today (May 9, 2022).
Why this matters: If abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human being, then “never prosecute the mother” becomes more than a policy preference—it creates a two‑tier justice system where the victim is called a “person” in speeches, but treated as less‑than‑a‑person in law.
2) From Roe’s Own Logic: “The Woman Cannot be Prosecuted”
Abolitionists warn that the establishment repeats the same contradiction that helped fuel Roe. That warning isn’t speculation—Roe v. Wade noted that historically many states insulated the pregnant woman from prosecution.
“...the pregnant woman herself could not be prosecuted...”
In the Roe v. Wade majority opinion, Justice Harry A. Blackmun pointed to this as part of the legal “dilemma” Texas faced when it claimed the unborn is a Fourteenth Amendment “person.” He noted that Texas law treated the woman as neither a principal nor an accomplice to the abortion—and asked, “If the fetus is a person, why is the woman not a principal or an accomplice?” The Court then used these kinds of inconsistencies to support its conclusion that “person” in the Fourteenth Amendment “does not include the unborn.”
Justice Harry A. Blackmun acknowledged however, that if fetal personhood were established, “...the appellant’s case, of course, collapses...” because the child’s right to life would be protected by the Fourteenth Amendment—yet the Court concluded that “person” (in the Fourteenth Amendment) “...does not include the unborn,” leaving the unborn outside its Due Process and Equal Protection protections.
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) (Justia Supreme Court Center).
The abolitionist point is straightforward: if the law treats the mother as a perpetual “victim” who can never be guilty—regardless of facts—then the legal system quietly confesses the child is not really equal. You cannot build equal protection on blanket immunity.
Important Clarification
Equal protection does not mean “round up and jail women.” It means the law must recognize the unborn as persons and apply justice without partiality. Facts matter in every case: coercion, trafficking, duress, intimidation, threats, and due process. But a blanket policy that women must never be accountable is not justice—it’s partiality.
3) The Gatekeepers: Endorsements and Leverage in Missouri
This isn’t just theology—it’s power. In Missouri politics, endorsements function like a lever: candidates want them, consultants chase them, and legislators fear losing them. Missouri Right to Life’s PAC network operates as a statewide gatekeeper—especially in Republican primaries—shaping what bills are “safe” to support and which proposals never get oxygen.
By the Numbers: How Wide Their Endorsement Net Reaches
In one Missouri primary cycle, MRL PAC said it endorsed candidates across federal, statewide, state Senate, and state House races— covering a huge share of the ballot where most conservative legislators are made or broken.
Why this Matters: A gatekeeper Doesn’t Need to Endorse Everyone. They only need enough reach that lawmakers know “crossing the gate” can cost them their next primary.
Their Own Words: “Oldest and Largest… Guidance… Single Endorsement”
MRL PAC Describes Itself As the “oldest and largest grassroots, single-issue pro-life organization” in Missouri and says its endorsements provide “the most comprehensive guidance” to pro-life voters.
Then comes the gatekeeping mechanism: their criteria states they will often issue a single endorsement in primaries specifically “in hopes of avoiding a split in the pro-life vote.”
Source: Missouri Right to Life PAC Endorsement Criteria (PDF).
Put plainly: when one organization positions itself as the voter guide, the scorecard, and the “single endorsement” decider, legislators learn to treat that organization—not Scripture, not equal justice, not even the text of the bill—as the political firewall.
How that Leverage is Used: “Safe” Incrementalism vs. Equal Protection
Candidates don’t treat these endorsements as casual—they advertise them. For example, a local Missouri race profile quotes a candidate stating he was “proud to have the endorsement of Missouri Right to Life PAC.” That’s how you know the endorsement is a political asset.
The “Incremental” Bargain: Exceptions and Mixed Messages
When leaders accept rape/incest exceptions or “health” carve-outs, they don’t just concede a policy point. They teach the public a moral lesson: some children are worth protecting, others are negotiable.
And once the state is on record deciding which children may be killed, the pressure to finish the job fades—while abortion continues through pills, travel, and the courts.
On the Record: Senators Mike Cierpiot and Mary Elizabeth Coleman Describe the Endorsement “Gatekeeper” Problem
This isn’t speculation from activists. During Senate floor debate, multiple Republican senators (Mike Cierpiot, Mike Bernskoetter, and Mary Elizabeth Coleman) described how Missouri Right to Life’s endorsement decisions shape careers, reputations, and what legislation is considered “safe.” Most Missourians never hear this part.
Clip 1: Endorsements used as leverage (Senators Mike Cierpiot and Mike Bernskoetter)
~3 min- The Senators discuss being strongly pro-life, yet not endorsed—and how that gets used back home.
- Shows how a “single endorsement” can steer behavior without ever casting a public “no” vote.
Clip 2: Senator Mary Elizabeth Coleman on “The only endorsement that really matters…”
~2.5 min- Mary Elizabeth Coleman explains why legislators feel compelled to “work around” gatekeepers to get pro-life work done.
- Highlights how home audiences often don’t know what leadership is doing in Jefferson City.
Source: Missouri Senate Audio Archive (May 14, 2025).
Why this matters: A gatekeeper doesn’t need to defeat equal-protection bills on the floor. They can stop them upstream—by controlling what lawmakers believe they’re “allowed” to support if they want to survive the next primary.
Reality Check: This kind of endorsement power doesn’t have to show up as a public “no” vote to kill a bill. In Jefferson City, a bill can be quietly neutralized long before it ever reaches the floor—by never being scheduled for a hearing, being sent to a hostile committee, being “held for further study,” or being pressured into amendments that add exceptions and remove equal-protection language. When lawmakers believe a single gatekeeper can make—or break—their next primary, many will choose the politically “safe” path even if it means justice is delayed again.
4) “Killing Bills”: How Abolition Legislation Gets Stopped
A common tactic in statehouses is to push “pro-life” measures that look bold but are engineered to: (a) concede personhood, (b) codify exceptions, (c) bury enforcement in bureaucracy, or (d) preempt and neutralize equal-protection efforts. Abolitionists call these killing bills because they kill momentum, kill clarity, and keep abortion alive under a new label.
Video: Abortion-Free — “Killing Bills” (Episode 4)
If you only watch one explainer on how the pro-life establishment keeps the fight safely managed, start here. Prefer the Missouri-specific portion? Use “Jump to Missouri segment” (starts at 22:53).
5) The Solution: Follow Abolitionist Leadership in Missouri
Missouri does not need another cycle of compromise, carve‑outs, and consultant‑approved messaging. We need leadership that will say the quiet part out loud: equal protection means equal protection.
Recent Missouri Event: Senator Mike Moon & Dr. Wesley Scroggins
Senator Mike Moon (R‑Ashland) and Dr. Wesley Scroggins (Founder, Abolitionist Abortion Missouri) spoke at the Guardians of Liberty meeting in Southeast Missouri, December 2025.
Missouri path forward: Support equal‑protection legislation that recognizes preborn children as persons under the law—without exceptions and without games.
- SJR 72 (Moon) — Missouri Senate
- HJR 109 (Whaley) — Missouri House
- SB 951 (Moon) — Missouri Senate
- HB 1682 (Whaley) — Missouri House
Short clip: “Laws are written here” — Pastor Dusty Deevers
“Laws are written here.” A reminder that the Church cannot outsource justice to political machines.
Short clip: “The Fatal Flaw”
A companion piece explaining how “incremental wins” can function as controlled opposition to full justice.
Bonus video: “Pastor Jeff Durbin's Epic Speech at Capitol”
Pastor Jeff Durbin was invited to speak at a rally inside the Missouri State Capitol on February 21st. Jeff delivered a speech on Equal Protection and the rights of all human life. This is a must listen!
Bonus video: “Christian Ethics and the Abolition of Abortion”
"The Sin of Pro-Life Incrementalism" | T. Russell Hunter
This isn't just a Missouri Problem: “Are Pro-Life Organizations Secretly Protecting Abortion? | Allie Beth Stuckey and Guest: Abby Johnson ”
Listen: Abolish Abortion Missouri — “The Landscape for Abolition in Missouri”
AAMO episode featuring Wes Scroggins: open episode page.
NewsTalkSTL interview (SoundCloud)
“Wes Scroggins And MO State Senator Mike Moon – Mike Ferguson In The Morning – 01‑19‑22.”
6) Take action: Demand a real choice
Don’t just share outrage—build pressure. If the “pro-life establishment” insists their approach is the only realistic path, then call their bluff: put Equal Protection on the ballot alongside their “New Amendment 3 (2026)” and let Missouri voters choose justice.
Important: Voters can vote “yes” or “no” on each ballot measure independently. And if two measures are approved at the same election but conflict, Missouri law provides that the measure with the largest affirmative vote prevails. Source: Missouri Secretary of State (initiative petition guide).
A) Challenge the gatekeepers: Put Equal Protection on the ballot
Ask your legislators to refer a clean Equal Protection amendment (no exceptions, no carve-outs) to appear on the November 2026 ballot. If they truly want abortion ended—not managed—they should welcome the choice.
- Direct question: “Will you support a no-exceptions Equal Protection amendment on the ballot?”
- Second question: “Will you oppose any attempt to block it from hearings or committee action?”
- Expose the dodge: If they refuse, ask why they only want a “regulated abortion” option on the ballot.
We’re not asking for political theater. We’re asking for moral clarity: equal justice for every child.
B) If they won’t: at least repeal the 2024 amendment
If leadership refuses to allow voters a true Equal Protection option, press them to move a measure that removes the 2024 abortion-rights amendment language from the constitution. It’s not full justice—but it is a clearer step than “exceptions forever.”
Option to highlight: Senator Moon’s SJR 107. (Not Equal Protection, but a direct strike at the constitutional “right.”)
Then keep pushing: repeal is not the finish line. Equal protection is.
C) Stop funding the gatekeepers—support abolition work
Money is leverage. If organizations oppose Equal Protection or help steer legislators away from abolition, don’t bankroll that influence. Redirect support to groups that openly pursue abolition and moral consistency.
- Give: support abolition-focused work instead of “permanent incrementalism.”
- Share: amplify equal-protection messaging with clips, documents, and receipts.
- Volunteer: show up where bills live or die—committees and hearings.
Scripture is clear: God shows no partiality in justice (Deut. 10:17). And we cannot “do evil that good may come” (Rom. 3:8). Exceptions are partiality—written into law.
Do these 3 things this week
- Watch the featured videos on this page and share one 60–90 second clip with your own caption.
- Call your legislators and ask: “Will you support equal protection for preborn children—without exceptions?”
- Ask for the ballot test: “Will you support putting Equal Protection on the November 2026 ballot?”
Stay involved
If you want Missouri to end abortion for real, it will take more than elections. It will take citizens showing up—watching committees, tracking bills, and speaking truth consistently.
Sources referenced
- National coalition “Open Letter to State Lawmakers” (May 12, 2022), hosted by NRLC: PDF
- NRLC News Today post quoting Louisiana Right to Life opposition to HB 813 (May 9, 2022): post
- Roe v. Wade (Justia Supreme Court Center): case page
- MRtL endorsements (Ballotpedia): endorsements page
- MRtL endorsements coverage (Missouri Times): article
- SB 951 (MO Senate): bill page
- HB 1682 summary (MO House PDF): PDF