Missouri Amendment 3: Why Pro-Life Voters Must Vote YES

In this focused conversation on The Right Side, Doug Billings is joined by Ramiz “Miz” Hakim for a clear and direct discussion on Missouri Amendment 3.

They break down what a YES vote actually accomplishes versus what a NO vote leaves in place, expose the serious problems with the “Vote No from the right” campaign, and explain why allowing the perfect to become the enemy of the good would result in fewer unborn children being protected this November.

This episode covers:
• The official ballot language and what it really means
• Why a NO vote does not advance personhood
• Constitutional vs. statutory protection
• Authentic pro-life strategy and incremental progress
• Why certain voices pushing a NO vote do not belong in the pro-life or conservative movement

If you care about protecting life in Missouri, this conversation brings the clarity the moment requires.

Please donate to the show at: www.DougBillings.us

Like, share, and subscribe.
Prayerfully consider supporting The Right Side at DougBillings.us.

We’re in this together. Believe it.
For the Republic!

Cheers

#MissouriAmendment3 #VoteYes #ProLife #DougBillings #TheRightSide #RamizHakim #MizMatters #MissouriPolitics #ProtectLife

Transcript

SPEAKER_01 0:03

The right side with Doug Billings.

SPEAKER_00 0:06

We are not liberal snowflakes who melt away in the face of tragedy, adversity, and challenge. We are a covenant nation under God. His divine providence is not dead and it's not gone. It is living within each and every one of you. And you will bring it to life in such a way that the world has never seen before. We never back down. We never give up. We march forward.

SPEAKER_01 0:38

Hi, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the set of my show, The Right Side. I'm Doug Billings. Folks, what you're about to see and hear is my full conversation with my colleague, Ramiz Hakeem Ms. He's my colleague at Real Talk Radio Network. And we're talking about Missouri's amendment number three. All right? A yes vote repeals the 2024 constitutional abortion right and puts real protections back in place. And a no vote leaves that 2024 regime standing. All right. Those are the only two options on the ballot. All right. Everything else is noise right now. As far as I'm concerned. Now, to all of the so-called Republicans and self-described pro-life voices that are telling you to vote no because Amendment 3 isn't perfect, you need to be exited from the tent of life and conservatism. As you'll hear Ms. say in this interview, this is a form of infiltration. And he says it plainly, and I agree with him because what the no vote people are actually saying is that, well, we're not going to save any babies until we can save all the babies. The no votes on this are putting forth the abject height of intellectual immaturity and outright evil. These are the people who would rather protect their purity tests than protect actual unborn human beings this coming November. They measure success by whether this bill matches their ideal instead of whether more lives are saved. And ladies and gentlemen, that's not pro-life. It's not even logic. It's not conservatism. It has no place in our ranks. We don't surrender the lives that we can protect today because we haven't yet won every fight for tomorrow. That's not principle. That's sabotage dressed up as principle. Here's my interview with Ms. Hakeem on the topic of Missouri's Amendment 3, ladies and gentlemen. The right side with Doug Billings. Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen, the right side with Doug Billings, the place where you become members of the most intellectually mature audience in all of Radio Land. Thank you for being here. And ladies and gentlemen, we're going to turn now to a fight that's already heating up in my home state, Missouri. Okay. And it goes right to the heart of how conservatives actually get results on the life issue. Okay. So I want to bring in my colleague at the Real Talk Radio Network, Ms. Ramiz Hakim. Ms. Ms. Ms. Matters, how are you, my friend?

SPEAKER_02 3:24

I am good, Doug. Thanks for having me, man. It's good to see you.

SPEAKER_01 3:27

This is great. I've been wanting to have you on the show for a long time. And I'm, you know, I've when we did election night coverage a week or so ago, and I said it then, but I just want to say it to the broader audience. You have been such a great addition to the to the cast of characters at the Real Talk Radio Network. I really mean that. It's been a great time listening to you.

SPEAKER_02 3:45

Well, thank you. You guys have set the bar very high, and I'm learning a lot from everybody, especially you. So appreciate it. I really do appreciate that.

SPEAKER_01 3:51

So you're the host of Ms. Matters every weekday morning, ladies and gentlemen. 9 to 11, right here. Set your call, your calendar, your bells, your whistles. Make sure that you catch Ms. Matters uh every every weekday here. Now, okay, Ms. Missouri voters, they're gonna, I mean, but there's a clear choice coming up in November with Amendment three. And this is what I want to talk about a little bit with you. The official ballot language from the Secretary of State, it's not ambiguous when you read it. So just very briefly, a yes vote repeals the 2024 constitutional amendment that currently protects abortion through fetal viability. And then it sharply restricts abortion to medical emergencies, like fatal fetal anomalies or rape, incest through up to and through 12 weeks. And then it restores the legislature's power to regulate, and it requires consent uh protections and places a constitutional ban on gender transition procedures for minors. A no vote leaves the 2024 amendment exactly where it sits today. So that's the real choice on the ballot, not the choice that some people wish were there, the one that really will actually be there. Now, there are flyers that are circulating on the internet now, uh, on the right, on our side, using pro-life voters or urging them to vote no on this thing because it's not pure enough in some form or fashion. It's not pure enough for their wishes, and it still contains, you know, they they will say that it, well, there's too many exceptions, or it's not a full personhood amendment, or you know, you've made the argument that it's if you know Republicans are saying, and you've said this, Ms. If if if it's like if we can't save any babies, we're not gonna save all babies. So I mean it's crazy. What's your take on this? Because I've seen these flyers, and I just scratch my head at why people can't realize that we have to approach life as anything in steps. And it's gonna take a minute to get, we can't just begin with our ultimate fantasy wish list of an amendment. We have to take steps to get there. Well, I mean, that's my thought. What are yours?

SPEAKER_02 6:02

Yeah, I you know, and and I agree with you wholeheartedly. It's extremely disappointing, to put it frankly with you. And it and I hate to feel this way, but it almost feels like there's an infiltration taking place of people that maybe wave the Republican flag and say that they attest to the conservative cause. But this is something that should be uniting us, something that should be bringing us together, casting aside our own feelings on things and really rallying around the cause of life. And for someone to even murmur or whisper any opposition to amendment three, I can't help but challenge their integrity and challenge their pure motives here. It is beyond reprehensible for you to come under our tent, intertwine with those that are passionate about the cause of conservatism, and then to slide in this warped ideology that if we don't get it our way exactly, it's not good enough. I can understand, Doug, like amendment four and five, which failed miserably here in Missouri. I can understand the concept of, hey, this went too far, and we don't want to have to rein it back in later. I can get behind that. And frankly, I was a no on four and five. I understand that concept. This is not that. This is, it doesn't go far enough. So let's move the football down the field and then work towards a touchdown later. This is the way that legislation has to work sometimes. And if we're not willing to just move down the field together, I don't know what other conclusion we can come to than these are uh ideologues in our tent that simply don't belong here.

SPEAKER_01 7:50

Right. Spot on. Well met. So, I mean, let me let me, this is probably the biggest logical problem that's out there with these people. If if voters follow this vote no from the right advice, you know, does that put a you know, uh, a personhood amendment on the ballot, or does it simply leave the broader 2024 abortion right that we have in the Missouri Constitution? Because, you know, the we all, I would like to think, and I can extend them grace to the point where I think we all want the same end goal, you know, the full protection for every innocent human life from conception to birth. But this this concept where we just have to have it absolutely right the first time, or we're just gonna say no. In the meantime, we're gonna lose thousands and thousands of more babies while we debate that issue. We we it's it's a step forward process.

SPEAKER_02 8:42

Uh you know, you're being a lot more gracious than me, Doug. I tend to believe that these are people that just thrive off of conflict. They don't care about negotiations, and frankly, I'm not sure they even care about the life of unborn children. To me, these are people that are just trying to cause issues within the party, within the movement, and they do not want a solution to a problem. This is the analogy that makes the most sense to me. You can imagine the Allied forces approaching Auschwitz or Dachau and saying, okay, we're gonna go in there and we're gonna save the life of Jews, but not yet. Not until we have surrounded all of the concentration camps. And so we're gonna allow the Nazis to continue to massacre people, even though we can fix some of it right now. We're gonna allow for that to happen. And then when we're all ready to pounce on them at the exact same time, then and only then are we going to stop this uh proliferation of Nazism. That's the warped vision that these people in this movement have. And I don't have any other way but to come to that conclusion, to be honest with you.

SPEAKER_01 9:48

Yeah, and the some of the specific claims that these flyers, and you know the flyers that I'm talking about. We we we saw them the other day, and they they make some claims. One of the claims says that the the transgender provisions are redundant because Missouri already has the SAFE Act, okay? Well, the that's all fine and good, but what the flyers conveniently don't say is that the surgery ban on transgender minors is statutory, you know, and but and but the prohibition on puberty blockers and cross-sex hormone therapy and all of that expires in August of 2027. So amendment three would put the ban on surgery blockers hormones into the Constitution with no sunset. So the the people don't tell these these people don't tell you the full truth. They're just reacting because it's not the perfect dream, uh, the the wish list item that they want.

SPEAKER_02 10:43

Yeah, and and there is uh it's it's a fair debate to even go one step further and say, you know, this doesn't really fit the one title position that's required to be in the amendment, the one subject clause. And so there's people saying you should vote no because it's just gonna get challenged in court and get overturned anyways. And I think that's a fair comment to say. I I I agree with the verbiage on the transgender issue in this amendment, but I think it's a distraction. I think, but even with that, you have to be a yes on this. I mean, I just can't put myself, I try to be empathetic and put myself in someone else's seat and try to see their perspective. I cannot, for the life of me, um whittle myself down to that low of thinking to say continue with the termination of a generation so that later on we can get the most perfect amendment. I just I can't get myself to be that small of a thinker and really quite frankly, that selfish of a person.

SPEAKER_01 11:41

Well, I mean, that's right. And I, you know, the the the the amendment would constitutionally, because these, you know, the people go nuts that that write these flyers and that come out and it doesn't go far enough because it permits abortion in medical emergencies or for you know fatal fetal anomalies and so forth. So, you know, rape, incest, and all that. So let me let me spend just a 30 seconds on that. Rape and incest occupy 0.02% of any abortion, you know, numbers that you want to look at in the country. Very, very rare that we deal with abortion and rape and incest at the same time. Okay, very, very rare. I have a 24-year-old son who has Down syndrome. It's not it's not a fatal fetal anomaly. He's a high functioning young man, he's got a job, got a girlfriend, went to college at the junior college level. And there are people out there, admittedly, who when they're given the pre-diagnosis, prenatal diagnosis of a Down syndrome baby, they immediately go abort, because that's just gonna be an inconvenience. I'm completely, obviously, against that mindset. But to not take this step to save as many babies as possible, because the flyer language sometimes treats, you know, the the fetal anomaly provision as an open-ended loophole. They want you to think that, oh, that's just gonna open the doors, you're gonna have more death, more. But the actual text defines it as an abnormality that would make life outside of the womb impossible. So at some point, we have to trust the language and the ability to enforce the language and not panic about not having a perfect amendment. So, how important is that precise definition when people are deciding how to vote?

SPEAKER_02 13:21

I think from where we are today to however we want to interpret what the definition of any of these terms are, quite frankly, is irrelevant. It gets us further down the road, and that is a win. And uh I and I agree with your synopsis, uh, Doug. There's interpretation that could not save all of these children. Uh no one's arguing that, but to say, since it doesn't save all of them, we're just going to get rid of all of them is such a warped perspective that I just I just I get so passionate about it. Much like you, this hits home. For me, I got three adopted sons. I mean, I know that the alternative to abortion is making the choice of life and having someone else raise your children. I mean, this is near and dear and passionate to me. And so to have someone who says, now, if they're a liberal, if they're a Democrat and they feel that way, I I wouldn't be dispassionate about it. I mean, it's just it's par for the course for that. But to say that you're a Republican, to say that you're conservative, and then to have the audacity to even whisper something like that is highly offensive and counter to the conservative movement. And that's where I get offended. It's just, it doesn't fit in line with common sense for our cause.

SPEAKER_01 14:36

Yeah, common sense. They, you know, they they're even they're moaning about, well, if we if we if we vote for this thing, it doesn't prevent Missourians from going to other states or do I and I go, wait a minute, hang on just a second. We're talking about amendments for the state of Missouri. And and to say that, you know, we got what do you it's as if they're saying, well, we should be able to prevent people from traveling to Kansas where they can get abortion on demand. We we it's nuts. It's it's Cookville nonsense on some level, but there's a devious undertone, and I think probably uh a purposeful devious undertone to what these people are saying, and it leads me to this, and what you started off by saying is that you think there's some sort of an infiltration and people that thrive off of this, and I think you're on to it because as I read the online posts that are saying, you know, advocating a no vote, uh, it's like you're watching a clickbait contest and they just want to stir up the pot.

SPEAKER_02 15:32

Spot on. Spot on. The same people that are saying that it doesn't go far enough would be the same ones that would have said it got it went too far. There's no there's no rhyme or reason to this kind of conclusion. And they're just here, they're just under the tent to confuse us. And we need to. Our tent is not a big tent. I and my in my show earlier, I said this is a revival tent. No, everyone's invited, but if you're disruptive, we got to kick you out.

SPEAKER_01 15:58

Are you able to stay, Ms? Are you able to stay till the end of the hour? For you, I'll do anything, Doug. All right, brother. We'll be right back after the break, ladies and gentlemen. Come on back. We'll be here when you get here. Cheers. Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen, the right side with Doug Bellings, where we pursue the conservative values and give them to you freely. Wonder, joy, meaning in life, the pursuit of conservatism, all at the same time, while we take a great amount of joy pointing out the abject intellectual immaturity of liberals along the way, which is true, by the way, but statistically very, very true. Ms. Ms. Matters with me, our uh a colleague of the Real Talk Radio Network, we're talking about in uh in the state of Missouri, amendment number three. Ms. Red, I had compared the people out there that are arguing for a no vote on this as if they're engaged in purposeful outrage, which is really a technique that the radical left uses quite a bit. Purposeful outrage. Let's outrage people enough about a topic so it earns us things like clicks and attention on the internet and it drives the whole dialogue away. And it takes, unfortunately, it takes some of our side off of the battlefield because they convince them that things aren't as they should be and that we should just disengage. If we don't get what we want right away, we're just gonna take our ball and go home.

SPEAKER_02 17:15

And and we're and we're seeing that happen. There's no doubt about that. It feels like the infiltration within the party. This topic, this this this subject on abortion is one that has been a we were, I mean, I I grew up in the church in the 80s and 90s. I mean, this was the things that we prayed over, the things that we held rallies about, the things that we would, you know, hold hands and just be in deep prayer and mourning for a general generation upon generation being lost. And here we are with an opportunity to do something about it. And then there are some who say they are a part of the team that are trying to disrupt that. And quite frankly, I just there's there should be zero tolerance from the conservative movement with anyone that wants to play that game here.

SPEAKER_01 17:59

Yeah, and I like what you said before break about the tent. You know, we don't have a big tent over here. You know, our tent has you've got to you've got to show an ID to get into our tent, and you've got to live up to the expectations of the of the membership within the tent. And, you know, some people out there saying, well, this is a biblical compromise, this amendment three. You know, it's it's partial obedience, it's disobedience and all of this nonsense. Now, from my Christian perspective, and for the you know, everybody that listens to this, I'm a Catholic guy, the United States bishops, they always they cite people like St. John Paul II and in their writing, support measures that limit the harm and increase the protection. That's a legitimate step towards full justice. And notice what I said we support measures that limit the harm and increase protection. We don't have to accept just an outright uh anti-abortion, we don't have to save all babies to begin to save some babies, in other words, to piggyback off of what you said the other day. So, you know, Proverbs 24 tells us to rescue those that are being led away to death. How should pro-life Christians think about the difference between accepting an imperfect law and accepting the evil that remains under another law? I mean, we we we we don't live in the Garden of Eden. There is going to be evil. We have a responsibility, in my view, to do what we can to limit the evil in every opportunity that we have. What what say you?

SPEAKER_02 19:24

I think we can use Christ's words verbatim to unpack the situation that we found ourselves in. Jesus uses the analogy of our body, and that if our hand causes us to stumble, or if our eye causes us to stumble, that we should, it is better to live without those things than to continue to sin with those things. I look at our Republican Party in the same way. We are a body, and we are all heading in the conservative direction. And if there is something that is causing us to stumble, we should literally take the words of Christ, cut that part of the body off, cast it away, because we are not going to stumble or sin. And in my opinion, this is a sinful perspective where we're not willing to just continue down this road of ultimately banning abortion. There's just no way that you can uh argue that this is just someone that's causing distractions and and and poisoning the entire body. And so I take Christ's word directly and literally in this situation. It's better to gouge your own eye out, it's better to cut your own hand than to continue to stumble. That's how I expect uh us to uh react to those that are in the party that are wanting us to look their way instead of the right way.

SPEAKER_01 20:46

Yeah, um well met. The people that are a no on this, it's they are it's as if they are allowing you know the perfect to become the enemy of the good. You know what I mean by that? They want it to be perfect. In other words, so now perfection is all of a sudden our enemy for people that are pursuing the good. If we can't reach perfection right away, well then we give up, we don't, it's not good enough, we have to think of something better and we force perfection. Meanwhile, uh we we lose every opportunity to gain to me. It's just so much common sense that they're missing. And I can't draw any other conclusion but to agree with you that it is purposeful deception.

SPEAKER_02 21:24

Yes. Yes. They I and again, Doug, I don't I think if there was a total prohibition on abortion, I would still conclude that that same faction of our movement would just say the same exact thing except say it goes too far. They're not here to further the conservative cause, they're here to be a distraction, they've infiltrated our body and they are undercover liberals. I'll just say it. I'll call them maybe even trans conservatives. That's what they are. They've come in to destroy the party and have the other side. Win. That's the only thing I can conclude out of what I'm seeing from this group of people. And they're a minority, but the problem is that they will convince others along the way. And that's what worries me the most.

SPEAKER_01 22:10

And you know, there's also the fact that Missouri statute has declared since 1986 that the life of every human being begins at conception and that unborn children have protectable interests. But, you know, that's statutory language. And but statutory language can't override a contrary constitutional provision. And that's exactly why removing the 2024 constitutional right matters so much. So how does that long-standing statute illustrate how does it show anybody the difference between what the legislature can do on its own and what requires a constitutional change? Does that make sense?

SPEAKER_02 22:52

It does. It does. Well, I think that for long-standing history, we've taken that posture as a as a state. Obviously, during uh Roe versus Wade, the um we the state couldn't override what was already decided at the Supreme Court level, but we made a decision in the 80s how we were going to approach this life issue. If we even had a constitutional amendment, it wouldn't have made a difference, anyways. Now we have an opportunity to do that, and it's been the stance of us since that statutory requirement was put in place.

SPEAKER_01 23:25

Okay, we've got a couple of minutes left. I want to give you the last word. Um, strategy. Very rarely, as you know, do we get everything that we want in one piece of legislation on the life issue, taxes, education on the border, results almost always come in steps. The people arguing for a pure no vote are comparing amendment three to the ideal law that they wish was on the ballot. But the actual choice in front of voters is amendment three is keeping that versus the 2024 framework. Okay. Why is it so important that pro-life voters and Republican leaders keep their eyes on the real alternative instead of on this imaginary one?

SPEAKER_02 24:03

Yeah, we need to we need to plug our noses and we need to vote yes on this. That's the strategy. Go to the ballot box, plug your nose. There's things in here I don't like, plug your nose, vote yes, and allow for us to continue moving this football down the field. We'll get a touchdown, but it's a it's a game of inches, and we need to be patient and work towards that ultimate goal. The verbiage here allows for a large tent to encapsulate a lot of people to come on board with us because as we get more narrow with with our cause, we're gonna lose some people along the way. And it shouldn't be people that are inside the tent, it should be people that are looking from outside the tent.

unknown 24:42

Ms.

SPEAKER_01 24:42

Matters, Ms., hey, an honor. I'm glad we did this. It took us too long to get you on the program. Let's do it again.

SPEAKER_02 24:47

Thank you, sir.

SPEAKER_01 24:48

All right, ladies and gentlemen, stay with me. You're gonna head off into capitalism. I'll be right here when you get back. Cheers. Folks, that's my conversation with Ms. on Missouri Amendment three. Please prepare to vote yes on amendment three in November. The perfect must not become the enemy of the good. Think about that. The perfect must not become the enemy of the good. And those people who insist on making it so need to either find another movement or leave Cookville behind them and come back into the realm of reality with us. If this discussion has helped in any way to bring clarity for you, do me a favor. Like it and share it. And make sure you're subscribed to this channel so that you don't miss what's next. Follow Ms. and follow the Real Talk Radio Network. You'll be better for it. And if you're able, prayerfully consider supporting the work that we do here at the Right Side. You can do that at DougBillings.us. Ladies and gentlemen, we are in this thing together. Believe it, for the Republic. Cheers. The right side with Doug Billings.