Missouri Rep. Introduces Bill to Criminalize Abortion as First-Degree Murder

Photo Credit: Bill Davenport

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — A Republican representative in the Missouri House has introduced a bill that would abolish abortion in the state and criminalize the act as first-degree murder.

Rep. Jeff Pogue, R–Salem, introduced H.B. 1117 on March 1, and is waiting for the measure to be assigned to committee.

“No person in this state shall perform, procure, or attempt to perform an abortion,” it reads in part. “Any individual who violates the provisions of this section shall be guilty of the offense of murder in the first degree and shall be punished in accordance with the penalties for that offense under the laws in effect on the effective date of this section.”

It eliminates language outlining that it is the intent of the state “to regulate abortion,” as well as allowances for abortion to save the life of the mother, while also retaining text noting that physicians may use the “usual and customary standards of medical practice” to save both the mother and child.

Pogue’s legislative assistant, Rush Loftis, told The Liberator that some lawmakers, while agreeing that abortion should be abolished, were afraid to present such a bill out of a belief that it would be struck down by the courts.

“I explained that when the courts are wrong, it’s the duty of the legislature to correct them and that if the legislature doesn’t do their duty, the courts can keep doing whatever they want,” he said. “When you bring up defying the courts, they want nothing to do with that. [Many of them] would probably agree with the Supreme Court’s website, which says they are the final arbiter of the law.”

Pogue has also presented a bill that would penalize those who use controlled substances while pregnant, and thus cause “a child to be born with a controlled substance.”

  • Connect with Christian News

As previously reported, Rep. Mike Moon, R-Ash Grove, introduced the “Right to Life Act” in the Missouri legislature in January, which recognizes the unborn as being persons from the point of conception and therefore entitled to the right to life.

“The life of each human being begins at conception and is hereby deemed a person,” it declares. “As with all persons, unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being. The natural parents of unborn children have protectable interests in the life, health, and well-being of their unborn child.”

The bill consequently mandates that “[l]aw enforcement officers, officers of the court, and any licensed or state regulated entities in the state shall affirmatively enforce article I, section 10 of the Constitution of Missouri, which specifies that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”

Moon’s bill was referred last month to the House Committee on Children and Families.

Abortion is Murder from I’ll Be Honest on Vimeo.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. Now, as the cold winds of winter blow in, we are seeking to also meet the physical needs of the people by providing fuel-operated heaters for the refugees and their children to stay warm. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work (James 2:16)? Please click here to send a heater to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly
  • Grace Kim Kwon

    Finally a voice of justice!! Christians won’t rest until abortion-murder gets abolished and every conceived child becomes protected. Unborn children are fully human from the start.

  • RWH

    In light of the Supreme Court Decision, if it passes, it will be struck down by the court. All of President Trump’s nominees have stated that Roe v. Wade and the 2015 gay marriage decision are the settled law.

    • InTheChurch

      I agree

    • Reason2012

      Just like the Supreme Court lied and claimed Obamacare was a tax after all the democrats said it was a fine, so they could then “approve” it. The Supreme Court is also going to be brought to task for their illegal deception to pass their agenda.

      • RWH

        And exactly who is going to bring the Supreme Court to task? You and what invading army?

        • Reason2012

          Good question. When the supreme court is caught lying, what should be done? Can they lie with impunity and force their will on a few hundred million Americans? Or should we have no recourse just because you like what it is they lie to force on everyone?

          • RWH

            I’m not sure what you mean by lying. The Supreme Court goes by case law. And I’m not sure how it forced its will on a few hundred million Americans. To force its will would mean that it would require everyone to have an abortion, or everyone to have a same-sex marriage. To allow a segment of the population the right to both of these things is not forcing anything on anyone. It’s giving people choices that they did not have previously. If you think that giving people choices is somehow violating your rights as an American, I’m not sure what logic or legal theory you are upholding.

          • Omnicopy

            Your argument doesn’t even make sense. We are suppose to allow a group of judges give permission to make evil choices?

          • RWH

            That’s how our government works. Congress and the state legislatures make laws, and courts determine the constitutionality of those laws. What may be an evil choice is not necessarily an evil choice for others, and the courts are here to protect the rights of the minority as well as the majority. Moreover, as time moves on, interpretations change just as interpretations modify with the changing times. However, I can’t figure out how giving people choices as to whom they will marry violates your civil rights. They may violate your comfort zone, but that will be your problem. If you don’t like the sight of men showing signs of affection, you certainly have the right to look in another direction. Their right to hold hands does not depend upon your approval but rather with our set of laws, especially those guaranteeing equal treatment under the law. As with abortion, the courts determined that a woman has total control over her body. Where courts come in is determining the lines of demarcation. When I went to college back in the late 1960s, demonstrations and flag burnings were common. The courts declared that both were protected by our freedom of speech. Lots of people were uncomfortable with flag burnings, but nonetheless, they were declared constitutional. I know lots of people, my one aunt among them, who were uncomfortable with blacks moving into the neighborhood and tried to get the town fathers to stop this. She had to be told that non-whites had the right to move wherever they wanted to, and the Methodist church down the street had the right to host a daycare program for Vietnamese children. However, the students demonstrating did not have the right to block me from attending classes, which was an important line of demarcation.

          • Omnicopy

            Like I said your argument makes no sense. I have an absolute right to be concerned if sinners are bringing God’s wrath against my country. I know that is a concept you don’t quite grasp. Not my problem!!!

          • RWH

            First of all, it’s not “your” country. It is “our” country. And you can be concerned all you want if sinners are bringing God’s wrath. I sincerely hope that you don’t think that the rest of us are going to lose any sleep over your paranoia. People have been preaching the wrath of God throughout the ages. The only thing that has changed are the parameters of what this ultimate sin is supposed to be. At the beginning of the 1900s, preachers thought that the women getting the right to vote was the ultimate end.

    • Omnicopy

      Wow to those who decree unrighteous decrees!! It’s going to catch up with the Supreme Court for making all these unrighteous decrees!

      • RWH

        To accomplish “righteousness,” you’re going to have to change the form of government to appoint someone to determine righteousness and to have the ability to enforce that righteousness. Israel had a monarchy. So, whom do you feel should be appointed to determine “righteousness?” The Pope? The head of the Southern Baptists? The Mormon Elder?

        • Omnicopy

          None of those you mentioned!!! They would be the worst to appoint!!! I don’t know who to appoint but I sure do know who I would not appoint. If I had my choice I would appoint God fearing people if there are any left???

          • RWH

            See, this is the problem for everyone who wants an absolute standard of righteousness. We live in a world full of cultural diversity. Absolute standards only work in a monarchy or an other type of absolute rule. Some up there has got to call the shots, and everyone else is got to obey, or else. . . .

  • Reason2012

    You’re willfully and with much premeditation_killing another human being. It’s a farce that it’s not on the books as_murder.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    Abortion is murder