Missouri Family E-News

March 15, 2017

Legislators Fight Law Promoting Abortion Industry 

A Missouri House Committee has endorsed legislation designed to counter a dangerous pro-abortion ordinance recently enacted by the City of St. Louis.

Pro-life opponents of that ordinance claim that it would make the City of St. Louis "an abortion sanctuary city."

Under that ordinance, it would be illegal to discriminate against a person based on their "reproductive health decisions."

Pro-life leaders claim the bill could result in fines being imposed against Christian schools, Christian charities, and pregnancy resource centers for not employing individuals who publicly promote legalized abortion.

They also argue that property owners could be charged with discrimination for failing to rent tenant space to abortion clinics or abortion doctors, and that religious institutions could face legal action for failing to include abortion coverage in their health insurance plans.

St. Louis Archbishop Robert Carlson has been a vocal critic of the ordinance, saying that Catholic entities "cannot and will not comply" with the new law.

The new ordinance was pushed by representatives from Planned Parenthood and the local chapter of NARAL.

"I am outraged that the City of St. Louis has now enshrined into law an ordinance which creates a 'sanctuary' for the despicable practice of abortion," Archbishop Carlson said in a statement.

"This is not what our city should stand for--rather, St. Louis should be a sanctuary for life and compassion, especially compassion for mothers and their developing children," Carlson added.

Newly inaugurated Governor Eric Greitens has also announced his strong opposition to elevating abortion to the same class as race, sex, and age in St. Louis City's anti-discrimination law.

"We need to send a clear message:  the people of Missouri do not support abortion sanctuary cities.  We will fight for the vulnerable to get the support they need in tough times--we will proudly stand up for life," the Governor said.

"We must protect people of faith and we must protect the unborn," Greitens added in his Facebook post.  "We must win this and I am proud to lead the fight on this issue."

The Missouri House Children and Families Committee has approved a bill sponsored by Representative Tila Hubrecht of Dexter which would have the legal effect of pre-empting the City of St. Louis ordinance.

House Bill 174 would prohibit local governments from enacting ordinances that would force individuals to directly or indirectly participate in abortion.

The legislation would also forbid cities from adopting laws which would compel pregnancy resource centers to refer women for abortions.  The State of Illinois recently passed a statute which does just that. 

You can let your state representative know how you feel about this issue by clicking this link:
Missouri House     

Listen to the Broadcast Version of the Jeff City Update online at 

Christian Community
Survives Attack on
Conscience Rights

The Missouri Senate has rejected legislation which would have made Christian ministries and Christian business owners who believe in traditional marriage the target of anti-discrimination lawsuits.   By a vote of 20-10, the Senate voted down an amendment to Missouri's human rights statutes which would have exposed supporters of Biblical marriage to hostile complaints of discrimination. 

Under current state statute, it is illegal to discriminate in employment, housing, or public accommodations based on race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, or age.  The amendment, offered by Senator Jill Schupp of Creve Couer, would have added so-called "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" as protected classes under the state's anti-discrimination statutes.

Under Missouri law, a "public accommodation" is not, as the words might suggest, a public facility or building owned by the government.  Rather, it applies to any private business enterprise that offers for sale "goods, services, privileges, facilities, advantages, or accommodations" for the benefit of the general public. 

Numerous states and municipalities across the nation have enacted similar amendments to "public accommodations" laws under pressure from the "gay rights" movement.  Passage of these laws has resulted in government prosecution or private lawsuits against Christian business proprietors who declined to participate in same-sex union ceremonies.  The most prominent victims of these legal attacks have been wedding vendors such as bakers, florists, and photographers.

In the most egregious case, a couple from Gresham, Oregon, were charged with "sexual orientation" discrimination when they declined to bake a "wedding cake" for a same-sex union ceremony. Aaron and Melissa Klein were fined $135,000 by the Oregon Bureau of Labor Standards because they stood by their Christian convictions and chose not to support a celebration of behavior God calls an "abomination." 

It was later revealed that the Chairman of the Oregon Labor Standards Board is a homosexual rights activist who collaborated with "gay rights" leaders in the case against the Kleins.  Aaron and Melissa were forced to shut down their shop, Sweet Cakes by Melissa, following organized boycotts of their business and their suppliers, and ongoing malicious harassment.  They are appealing the harshly punitive fine to the Oregon Court of Appeals.

In yet another case, a 72-year-old florist from Richland, Washington, was charged by the state Attorney General with "sexual orientation" discrimination for declining to provide floral arrangements for a same-sex union ceremony.  The Washington Supreme Court found Baronelle Stutzman guilty of the charge, declaring that her actions constituted an "independent social evil." Stutzman is also the defendant in a private lawsuit filed by the same-sex "couple", through which she may be assessed damages that could result in the loss of both her business and her home.       
A New Mexico photographer was found guilty of "sexual orientation" discrimination because she declined to photograph a same-sex union ceremony and produce a "wedding" album for the lesbian "couple."  Elaine Huguenin was required to pay over $6000 in attorney's fees to the women, and ordered to accept such requests at her business, Elane's Photography, in the future.

Huguenin appealed her case to the Washington Supreme Court, arguing that her First Amendment right to the freedom of religion protected her from being forced to violate her religious convictions.  The Washington High Court ruled that Huguenin forfeited her First Amendment free exercise rights when she chose to enter the marketplace of public commerce.  Elaine is now appealing that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The use of SOGI (sexual orientation/gender identity) laws to attack the Christian community has not been limited to Christians in the business arena.  A New York couple, Cynthia and Robert Gifford, were fined $13,000 by the state Division of Human Rights because they refused to allow the home on their farm property to be used for a same-sex ceremony.  A New York state court ruled that their residence, a renovated barn, was a public accommodation, because the first floor of the barn was made available for community events.

Even the religious community has not been immune from the malicious mischief of SOGI statutes.  A Methodist Church in New Jersey was found guilty of "sexual orientation" discrimination because they declined to allow use of their oceanfront property for a same-sex union ceremony.  Ocean Grove Methodist Church was stripped of their state tax exemption because they chose to defend their religious doctrines on their own premises.

A pastor and his wife were threatened with legal action by the City of Couer d'Alene, Idaho, for declining to marry same-sex couples at their wedding chapel, the Hitching Post.  City officials maintained that the chapel was operating as a business, and thus was subject to the city's "public accommodations" law.  City attorneys chose not to take formal action against the minister and his wife after a public outcry in the community.

Senator Schupp's effort would have also amended the state's employment discrimination law to prohibit bias in hiring and employment based on "sexual orientation" and "gender identity."  While Missouri's human rights statutes provide an exemption for organizations owned and operated by religious or sectarian groups, there are many Christian ministries and independent schools that are not owned or operated by churches or religious denominations.

We commend those state senators who acted to preserve the conscience rights of Missourians who believe in traditional marriage, and voted against this anti-Christian amendment.  They were Senators Brown, Cunningham, Dixon, Eigel, Emery, Hegeman, Hoskins, Kehoe, Koenig, Kraus, Libla, Munzlinger, Onder, Richard, Riddle, Romine, Sater, Wallingford, Wasson, and Wieland.

We are highly displeased and discouraged by the actions of those state senators who ignored constitutional principles of religious liberty, and voted for this anti-Christian amendment.  They were Senators Curls, Holsman, Hummel, Nasheed, Rizzo, Rowden, Schupp, Sifton, Silvey, and Walsh. 

You can express your gratitude or disappointment to your state senator by using this link:
Missouri Senate

Joe's Signature


Missouri Family Policy Council, 1430 Triad Center Dr., Ste. B, St. Peters, MO 63376
Sent by info-plus@missourifamily.org in collaboration with
Constant Contact