Patterson's Troubling Stance on Amendment 3: A Betrayal of Conservative Values

Missouri conservatives believe in the sanctity of life, the power of family, and the right to make decisions without government overreach. We believe in standing firm on conservative principles and fighting to defend them.

Yet, Representative Jon Patterson's stance on Amendment 3 starkly contrasts these values. It jeopardizes the progress made in Missouri to protect the unborn and uphold conservative ideals.

Representative Jon Patterson, a Republican set to become the next Speaker of the Missouri House of Representatives, claims he seeks "compromise" on Amendment 3—a ballot initiative that would allow abortion up to birth and strip parents of their rights by permitting gender conversion procedures without parental consent.

However, despite his claims for a balanced approach, Patterson has stated he will not allow his Republican caucus to propose alternatives if Amendment 3 passes, a ballot measure that is far from balanced.

Patterson's unwillingness to let his caucus propose changes if Amendment 3 passes is an insult to Missouri voters and the conservative movement. Approval of a resolution to change Amendment 3 would not finalize its adoption but only send it back to the people for a vote.

Instead of respecting the democratic process and supporting Missourians' right to voice their opposition, Patterson has chosen to stifle any possibility of meaningful revisions that could preserve conservative values.

In a state where citizens overwhelmingly support life and parental rights, his refusal to pursue these alternatives is effectively a vote against his base.

Patterson's stance on Amendment 3 reveals a glaring hypocrisy. Consider his previous votes: when Missouri voters approved Medicaid expansion, he voted against funding it, citing fiscal responsibility.

When Clean Missouri sought to change the redistricting process in a way that could harm Missouri, he voted for the Cleaner Missouri initiative to undo those changes.

These actions demonstrate a willingness to use his legislative power to challenge policies opposed by conservatives. Yet, when it comes to Amendment 3, Patterson suddenly shies away, citing a need for "compromise" while obstructing any opportunity for alternative measures that might be actual compromises.

Moreover, Patterson's frequently diverges from the values held by Missouri's conservatives.

He voted against prohibiting radical gender surgeries for minors, an issue directly connected to parental rights and the well-being of children.

He opposed the Parents' Bill of Rights, which would have given parents a stronger voice in their children's education.

Patterson supported Missouri's largest tax increase in recent years by voting for the gas tax hike, directly impacting hard-working Missourians at the pump.

Missouri conservatives have fought tirelessly against the leftist agenda, and we have made real progress. Amendment 3 threatens to undo this progress, and the left has already raised $30 million from D.C. and New York to flood our state with misleading advertisements that distort the truth about this amendment.

Missouri needs leaders who will defend conservative values, not alienate them. Patterson's position does not reflect leadership; it reflects surrender. By blocking attempts to address Amendment 3 and its dangerous provisions, Patterson is, in effect, silencing the voices he will be elected to represent as Speaker.

Thankfully, Representative Justin Sparks offers a contrasting example of courage and integrity. Sparks has publicly opposed Amendment 3, understanding the severe threat it poses to Missouri's families, values, and unborn lives.

Sparks' stance exemplifies true conservative principles, and his dedication to protecting Missouri's future is a model that Patterson should follow

The fight to defeat Amendment 3 is about more than a single ballot initiative—it's about defining the kind of leadership we want for Missouri's future.

Do we want leaders who stand firm on conservative values or compromise and cave when the stakes are highest?

Patterson may be positioning himself to win his legislative race. Still, if his current stance on Amendment 3 is any indication, his leadership could steer Missouri's conservative movement in a troubling direction.

Missouri deserves leaders who respect the people's will and are willing to fight for what's right.

In a time when the conservative movement is under relentless assault, we cannot afford leaders who refuse to take a stand. Missouri's future is worth fighting for, and conservatives must remain vigilant and vocal in opposing Amendment 3.

Patterson should remember that he was elected to serve the people, not the out-of-state special interests pouring millions of dollars into a deceptive campaign.

It may be time for conservatives to consider their involvement in leadership races to ensure Missouri's progress toward freedom.

STL Today Article