IHCM Update

Happy, Healthy Generations Expo

Join in the discussion on the latest natural health and wellness
strategies from experts in medicine and health choice advocacy.


IHCM Update

Missouri’s 2023 Session in Review

Health Freedom Successes and Challenges in the 2023 Legislative Session

Missouri’s beautiful Senate chamber where our state senators make decisions about how to spend our tax dollars and pass laws that should benefit Missouri citizens stands quiet after a very busy 2023 session.

Let’s look quickly at what happened in terms of bills that affect your health freedom.

Good Bills that Passed:

SB 39, the Save Women’s Sports Act

This bill was very popular among all Republican legislators. Though it bears Senator Holly Rehder’s name, the final version of this bill reflects the efforts of at least four other conservative senators who worked extremely hard these past few years to protect women’s sports in our state: Sen. Mike Moon, Sen. Denny Hoskins, Sen. Jill Carter, and Sen. Ben Brown. The resulting legislation, SB 39, prohibits a private school, public school district, public charter school, or public or private institution of post-secondary education from allowing any student to compete in an athletic competition that is designated for the biological sex opposite to the student’s biological sex as stated on the student’s official birth certificate or other government record.

Volations can result in forfeiture of aid or other revenues from the state.

SB 39 is awaiting the governor’s signature. Though the Senators who have worked the hardest did not get the credit they deserve, we are thankful this bill finally crossed the finish line.

SB 49 SAFE Act (Save Adolescents from Experimentation)

SB 49, sponsored by Senator Mike Moon, is another collaboration bill that was filed by several conservative legislators including Sen. Jill Carter, Sen. Denny Hoskins, Sen. Bill Eigel, Sen. Rick Brattin, and Rep. Brad Hudson.

SB 49 establishes the “Missouri Save Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE) Act”. Under this act, no health care provider will be allowed to perform gender transition surgeries on any minor.

A violation will be considered unprofessional conduct and shall result in the revocation of the health care provider’s professional license. Additionally, the prescription or administration of cross-sex hormones or puberty-blocking drugs to a minor for a gender transition shall be grounds for a cause of action against the health care provider.

SB 49 also affirmed that the MO HealthNet program is not authorized to cover gender transition surgeries, cross-sex hormones, or puberty-blocking drugs for the purpose of a gender transition and health care services provided in prisons, jails, and correctional centers shall not include gender transition surgeries.

SB 49 was a huge win for Senator Moon, who worked tirelessly this session and in the past to get legislation through to protect Missouri children and families.

Good Bills That Failed

SB 100 – Gold & Silver as Mediums of Exchange

SB 100 was perhaps the most fundamentally important bill filed this year in terms of freedom. This bill was unfortunately, used as a political football the last days of session. It was also horribly misunderstood in the debates in both the House and Senate.

Sponsored by Senator Bill Eigel, SB 100 would have protected Missourians’ right, enshrined in our Constitution, to use gold and silver as mediums of exchange for personal transactions and to pay taxes or any debts owed to the state.

SB 100 would have required the State Treasurer to keep in the custody of the state treasury a prescribed amount of gold and silver. It also would have required the state of Missouri to accept gold and silver as legal tender, at spot price plus market premium, for payment of any debt, tax, fee, or obligation owed. No person or entity would have been be required to use gold or silver issued by the federal government in the payment of any debt.

SB 100 also prohibited the state from requiring digital currency for payment of debt.

SB 100 was, unfortunately, used as a bargaining tool by House leadership to get other bills passed. Though wildly popular across the state, it was held up so other bills that furthered leadership’s agendas could be passed.

HB 1169 – Informed Consent Labeling

HB 1169, bravely sponsored by freshman Rep. Holly Jones, was one of the most controversial bills all session. It would have protected our children from products, especially vaccines, that were made using mRNA technology.

This bill specifies that any product that acts as, or exposed to
processes that could result in the product potentially acting as, a
gene therapy or that could possibly impact, alter, or introduce
genetic material or a genetic change into the user of the product
or certain other people must be conspicuously labeled with the
words “Potential Gene Therapy Product”, and reasonable steps must
be taken to ensure a potential purchaser or user is made aware of
the presence of this label. If a product is known to be a gene
therapy product, the product must be conspicuously labeled with the
words “Gene Therapy Product”.

HB 1169 was heavily opposed by lobbyists, some of whom did not even understand the bill or what mRNA is, let alone the dangers of this emerging technology. HB 1169 died in committee. We are thankful to Rep. Jones for filing this bill and working so hard to try to get it across the finish line.

HB 336 – Employer Liability

HB 336, sponsored again this year by Rep. Mitch Boggs, would have established the “Required Immunization Liability Act”. It simply affirms that an employer that requires its employees to
receive an immunization as a condition of employment shall be
liable for damages or injury resulting from the required
immunization solely due to the employer’s requirement.

This bill is basically an affirmation of common law which allows anyone harmed by the actions of another to sue for damages. This would just give plaintiffs and their families, those who were injured by a vaccination an employer required as a condition of employment, an easier path to recover damages they suffer including injury an even death from such a medical procedure.

We are thankful to Rep. Boggs and his staff for fighting so hard to get this bill through committee without significant changes.

Rep. Bill Hardwick’s Amendments

Representative Bill Hardwick hit it out of the park when he offered an amendment onto multiple bills that would have protected our children from school mandates involving Covid vaccines or doses of any mRNA products. Read our May 6th post to learn more about this amendment and see a video of the debate on the House floor.

This amendment would have changed the statute that requires children to be vaccinated for specific diseases as a condition of school attendance, adding this section:

RSMO 167.181.1 (2) Neither the department of health and senior services nor any public school districts shall require any student to receive a COVID-19 vaccination or receive a dose of messenger ribonucleic

This amendment at Holly Rehder’s SB 199 passed the House, but was removed when the bill went to conference committee back in the Senate.
We will be forever thankful to Rep. Hardwick and Rep. Richey (who helped with the debate) for standing up for our children, even under pressure from lobbyists and the powerful pharmaceutical corporate interests they represent. It is a pressure cooker in Jefferson City and we are thankful for the legislators who defy all of the odds to work for Missouri citizens instead of for those who can contribute to their campaigns.

Bad Bills Killed

SB 117 -Sovereign Immunity

We are thankful that several horrible bills never made it to the governor’s desk this year. One of the most crucial was SB 117, sponsored by Senator Tony Leutkemeyer.

The most dangerous part of this bill is that it would have allowed private contractors when acting within the scope of a government contract to have the same sovereign or governmental tort immunity as a public entity. This means that any private contractors, including those in healthcare or any industry that partners with the state in state business, would be free from liability for damages or injury resulting from the products or services offered in those contracts. Sovereign immunity is a privilege the citizens grant their state. The state of Missouri can only be sued if the state consents. This would have opened up that limited privilege to any and all public/private partnerships.

SB 117 would have also reduced the statute of limitations for personal injury. Currently, actions for personal injury shall be brought within five years from the time the injury occurred. This act stated that actions for personal injury would be brought within two years from the time the injury occurred. Additionally, current actions against an insurer relating to uninsured motorist coverage or under-insured motorist coverage, including any action to enforce such coverage, are to be brought within ten years. This act would have modified the statute of limitations for such actions to be brought within two years. All of these changes would have made it harder for an injured person to get justice.

The ability to take a complaint to court not just for oneself, but to benefit anyone who might have a similar issue afterward, is a fundamental right of Missouri citizens. We thank EVERYONE who helped us fight to stop this bill.

SB 7 Chief Data Officer and HB 1165

SB 7 and HB 1165 were two terrible bills that failed to pass. We are so thankful to the Lord that they didn’t, even as amendments. A big part of the reason was the enormous outpouring of opposition from Missouri citizens and the courage of Senators and House members to stand up against them. See this video to learn why these two bills were so dangerous. We need to be vigilant next year to make sure these don’t make it across the finish line.

HB 249 – Dentists Administering Vaccines

HB 249, sponsored by Rep. Danny Busick, would have authorized dentists to administer vaccines. This bill was similar to the pharmacy bill, which would have done the same for pharmacists and, by default, their staff, by allowing these health professionals, not formally trained in vaccine administration through their original schooling and licensing, to adminster them to adults and children — and with no access to health history to check for counter indications. However, this bill was particularly problematic in that it left the decision about the minimum age of the child receiving the vaccines to the CDC instead of to the state, as the law currently stands.

This bill was offered as an amendment to SB 45 by Rep Busick. That amendment was adopted, however, was stripped from the bill during the conference committee when the bill went back to the Senate. We are thankful that it’s gone, but it’s troubling that a majority of House members voted for it.

HJR 43 – Concurrent Majority Ratification

HJR 43, sponsored by Rep. Henderson, was one of several IP reform bills filed this year. The best of these was SJR 28 by Senator Jill Carter. The bill was improved over the course of session, but ended up being worse than it started. IHC’s position quickly changed from supporting this bill to calling for Missourians to ask their legislators to kill it and start over with a good bill, like Senator Carter’s, next year.

Watch this video for more details on HJR 43:

SB 540 – Sports Betting

SB 540 sponsored by Rep. Dan Houx, would have amended the definition of “games of skill” to include sports wagering in Section 313.800, RSMo.

This bill would have allowed certificate holders, such as professional sports teams like the St. Louis Cardinals, to offer sports wagering at licensed facilities that are excursion gambling boats and over the
Internet through interactive sports wagering platforms to persons
physically located within the state.

This bill failed to pass again this year, thanks in part to the efforts by several conservative senators.

Bad Bills that Passed

We have been saving the ugly part of this year’s session for last. These are bill that, despite huge efforts by the grassroots to stop them, passed. Most had the financial backing (meaning companies paid both lobbyists and legislators through campaign contributions) to get their agenda accomplished and discredit Missourians who opposed.

The Missouri Budget

This multi-bill monster ended up costing taxpayers 49 billion dollars. Many of the provisions were debated and perfected in the middle of the night with amendments being offered at such a dizzying pace, no one could keep up. In the end, even with a Republic majority, Missourians ended up with the biggest budget in the state’s history. Here is the breakdown of how your money is spent.

Notice that 48% of Missouri’s budget comes from federal funds. This is slowly making Missouri beholden to our US government, instead of keeping that power within our state. Our state is sovereign, but taking federal funds dilutes that power that is protected by our US Constitution.

Compare this to 2019, just four years ago, when 33% of our budget came from federal funds. Yes, the pandemic contributed to this increase, but it’s unlikely things will go back to the way they were.

SB 41 – Pharmacists Administer Vaccines/Medications

SB 41, sponsored by Senator Holly Rehder, never made it to the governor’s desk as a stand-alone bill, but it was added to at three other bills that passed this year. It was one of our top priorities and Senators and House members saw the dangers it posed to the health of individuals, especially children, as well as its expansion of federal power during public health emergencies.

This bill was added as an amendment to these bills that passed the House and Senate: SB 157, HB 447, and SBs 45 & 90.

Watch this video below to learn how this pharmacy bill, SB 41, and the dental bill that failed, HB 249, would have worked together with SB 7 and HB 1165 to rob Missourians of their privacy, safety, and financial autonomy.

Other bad bills that passed

SB 45 & 90 – Health

What started out as a bill to allow funds for pregnant and postpartum women ended up as a huge omnibus bill onto which SB 41 and a host of other terrible legislation was attached. This is how it ended up in the last few days of session:

This bill passed both houses and is waiting to be signed by the governor.

It an example, however, of a bigger problem with titling and amending bills. Unless this abuse of the system is addressed, our legislators are merely tools of a corrupt system where they go through the motions of representing and listening to constituents, but are actually doing the bidding of big business, bought by the highest bidder.

HB 447 – Adults High Schools

HB 447, sponsored by Rep. Bishop Davidson, started out with the title above, “Adult High Schools”. Those concerned about indoctrination of children looked the other way, since this related only to adults.

In the last days of session, however, the title changed to “Modifies provisions relating to duties of the department of elementary and secondary education” and multiple bills relating to elementary and secondary education were added to this bill.

Missourians would have no way of knowing that this bill was actually funding classes on family values and sex education not just for adults but also for children and would be implemented in their public schools soon. Planned Parenthood is poised to be the entity that would be conducting these classes for children.

Read this Substack article by Missouri author, Local Control, to learn more about HB 447.

SB 157 – Health Licensing

SB 157, sponsored by Senator Rusty Black, was another huge omnibus bill onto which every health legislation imaginable was added, including SB 41, the pharmacy bill

This was a fairly innocuous bill, like so many others, until in the last days and hours of session, legislation we had fought all year to stop was added and adopted.

SB 24 – First Responders

This bill, sponsored by Sen. Lincoln Hough, began as legislation to provide mental health support for first responders. This bill deals with healthcare and was fairly innocuous in the first 3 variations — Introduced, Perfected, and House Committee Substitute until the language from Sen. Gannon’s SB 46, from RSMo 190.091 was added. This language amends this section that is already problematic in that it affirms an existing statute that authorizes, during a bioterrorism event, an employer to mandate a vaccine for its employees. The bill simply adds “Missouri state highway patrol telecommunicators” to the definition of first responders who could be required by their employers to be vaccinated for any disease the CDC recommends. This language, which was added as an amendment offered to Rep. Adam Schwadron on the House floor, only shows up on the truly agreed and passed version of the bill.

As with other bills onto which amendments were added with only seconds for legislators to read and comprehend them, there was little chance for legislators to realize that this added a class of first responders who don’t even make contact with the public and could now be required to take a vaccine as a condition of employment with no religious exemption available exempt medical. Legislators should have had the chance to consider whether imposing such a requirement on this kind of first responder was logical.

SB 186 – Public Safety

This was another bill onto which Senator Elaine Gannon’s SB 46 was added, this time in a conference committee. The language from SB 46 was not in any of the previous versions. The underlying bill, which ended up being 193 pages, was sponsored by Sen. Lincoln Hough, became a vehicle for health and public safety legislation that could not be passed as stand-alone bills.

HB 115 – Physical Therapists

HB 115, sponsored by Rep. Brenda Shields, started out as a bill that would allow patients to access physical therapists without a prescription. This is another simple bill that went all session with few changes until the last few days of the year when provisions regarding nurse practitioners, physicians assistants, and pharmacists (including SB 41) were added. This is another exampled of the abuses to our Constitutional rights with regard to how bills should be titled and limited in subject matter.

Closing Comments

We are thankful, again, to everyone who helped us stop the worst of the bills filed this session, the Chief Data Officer (SB 7), CBDC Control (HB 1165), Dentists and Vaccines (HB 249), and Sovereign Immunity (SB 117). These bills would further eroded fundamental rights and would have made life even more difficult for Missourians.

Please be part of our team as we educate and empower Missourians about this session and look forward to our work next session. Informed Health Choice Missouri is committed to protecting parents’ and individuals’ rights to make decisions that are best for themselves and their families.

IHC Legislative Team
Updated May 29, 2023

IHCM Update

IHC Legislative Update

May 10, 2023

Missouri State Capitol

There are only 2 days left in Missouri’s legislative session. By law, the session must end on Friday. Leadership in the House and Senate are scrambling to get bills across the finish line.

Our list of priority bills has not changed, but some of the bills we have been following have been added to other bills as amendments.

HJR 43

One of our priorities was HJR 43. The letter below explains the latest on this bill. HJR 43 was not our first choice for IP reform. It was actually a compromise that has turned into a horrible solution that will tie the hands of those trying to make the ratification process better.

The co-signers of this letter are urging Reps and Senators to KILL HJR 43 on the House and Senate floor.


SB 7, HB 1165, & SB 100

Please call Rep. Jon Patterson, Floor Leader and ask him to bring SB 100 to the floor for a vote. Call him at 573-751-0907 and/or email him at

Please watch the video below for the latest on these bills:

ACTION ALERT – Tue May 9, 2023
Please CALL your Missouri Rep and Senator.
Urge them to OPPOSE any amendments
related to these bills..

SB 7 – Chief Data Officer
HB 1165 – CBDC Control

Ask them to SUPPORT SB 100

Find your legislators here:

SB 41 & HB 249

These bills were added as amendments to other bills. The language for HB 249 (the dentist bill) was stripped out but SB 41 (pharmacy bill) was kept.

Please check back for an action alert on these bills and the underlying bills to which they were added as amendments.

Thank you for all your hard work this year. Please stay tuned this week for frequent updates.

IHCM Update

Rep. Hardwick Stands Up for Missouri Kids

May 6, 2023

Friday, May 5 was deadline for the Missouri legislature to pass the state budget. What is traditionally a session about spending ended up with many bill hurriedly debated and passed in both houses, some of which included amendments with language we have fought all session to block.

There was a bright spot, however! Amidst the bad amendments, Rep Bill Hardwick (R -District 121, Pulaski county) stood up to defend the people — not lobbyists and their big-money interests — but Missouri kids. He took the incredibly courageous action of adding this language that prohibits mandating Covid vaccines or any mRNA product in the childhood vaccine requirements in Section 167.181.

This is a video of Missouri House Rep. Hardwick presenting an amendment to SB 199.

Click the pic below to watch.

“I get a lot of eye-rolls, a lot of jeers for this being so important to me, but it is important….My constituents brought their concerns to me and I told them I’d address them. I told them I’d fight for them and that’s why I’m persistent about it.”

Representative Hardwick did what few legislators do. He represented the people, not the lobbyists. He represented all Missourians, both in his district and outside. He represented parents’ rights to refuse risky medical treatment for their children instead of bullying them into mandates. He and those who supported him by voting “yes” defended the Constitution.

Here is a screenshot of the actual amendment. Most of what you see is the existing statute. Rep. Hardwick’s amendment is underlined.

Here is the result of the roll call vote:

This move by this hardworking Missouri Rep was definitely a highlight of the session. This is a BIG deal and Rep. Hardwick deserves kudos! Thank you Rep. Hardwick for standing strong and courageously for our children! Also, kudos to Rep. Doug Richey (R – District 39, Clay county) for helping the dialog.

We would appreciate your prayers that this amendment stays on the bill as it goes back to the Senate.

IHCM Update

Informed Health Choice Legislative Update

Wed. May 3, 2023

IHC’s legislative team has worked hard all session to block bills that threaten health freedom. However, this week, those bills are being added to other bills being heard on the House and Senate floor.

The video below explains these bills and consequences should they pass either as amendments or stand-alone bills. Stand by for action alerts coming to soon for instructions on how you can help us continue to fight this legislation.

Surveillance State – Updated May 3, 2023

Missouri Bills That Contribute to Global Data Collection and Control

SB 41Pharmacists Administer Vaccines

STATUS: On Monday, May 1st, this bill was added as an amendment to another bill, SB 45. That bill will soon go to conference.

ACTION NEEDED: Please contact your Senator and tell them to vote NO on SB 45 if the pharmacy (Cook’s) and dentist (Busick’s) amendments are not removed in conference.

Find your Senator here:

SB 41 Endangers Children

SB 41 doubles the vaccines pharmacists and staff can administer to individuals as young as 7. During a public health emergency, the list expands to include ANY FDA recommended vaccines with no age minimum.

Pharmacists and their staff make serious mistakes in dosing while administering vaccines. In Missouri, pharmacy interns and techs, who can be as young as 18, are authorized to administer vaccines by this statute and regulation. According to VAERS, 25% of the “inappropriate age” mistakes for all providers was made in pharmacies. One teen in WV was given 5 times the recommended dosage by a student working at that pharmacy. Another 2 children in TX were given a Covid vaccine instead of a flu vaccine.

Most of these improper dosing cases mentioned came to light because the pharmacy contacted parents to let them know of the error. Missouri does not require pharmacies to notify the vaccine recipient, their parents, or any regulatory body. Missouri doesn’t monitor dosing errors for pharmacist administered vaccines. The Show Me Vax system, RSMo 338.01, and SB41 treat pharmacy administered shots as being administered by the health department.

SB 41 Violates the Constitution

This bill also violates Constitutional rights by ceding power to the FDA during a public health emergency. In this case, the recommended vaccines would include ALL vaccines the FDA recommends, even for babies. The Missouri State Medical Association testified against this bill in the Senate, expressing safety concerns. A House Rep who is also a doctor voted NO on this bill in both committee and on the floor.

Detailed Bill Summary

SB 41 Current statute, section 338.010 limits a pharmacist’s authority to administer vaccines to just seven: flu, pneumonia, shingles, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, DTaP, and meningitis for persons at least seven years old.

SB 41 (Section 338.010 1. (4)) expands the number of vaccines a pharmacy may administer to those “approved or authorized” by the FDA. This broad definition would include vaccines given emergency use authorization (EUA).

Unless authorized by a state of emergency, SB 41 (4) does not allow pharmacies to administer the following vaccines: cholera, monkeypox, Japanese encephalitis, tick borne encephalitis, typhoid, rabies, yellow fever, anthrax, TB, dengue, Hib (flu), polio, rotavirus, smallpox, and any vaccine approved after January 1, 2023.

Assuming no state of emergency is declared, SB 41 would allow pharmacists to administer the seven vaccines currently allowed, plus the following: Pfizer’s Comirnaty for COVID (approved 8/23/21), Moderna’s Spikevax for COVID (approved 1/31/22), the Pfizer, Moderna and Janssen COVID shots currently given under EUA, Mumps, Measles, Rubella, HPV (one of the most toxic vaccines), and chicken pox.

The FDA does not require approval for new flu shots but instead considers them reformulations of a previously approved vaccine. It is widely anticipated the FDA will do the same with existing, traditional vaccines that are “reformulated” to use mRNA. If the legislature intent is to protect the public and particularly children, from mRNA technology, SB 41’s exclusion of vaccines approved after January 1, 2023 will not be effective.

Pharmacist Administered Vaccines During Public Health Emergency

SB 41(Section 338.010 18) adds entirely new language to the statute allowing pharmacies to administer FDA “approved or authorized”, vaccines (which again, would include emergency use authorized) to “address a public health need,

Certified pharmacy techs and interns in Missouri are authorized by regulation (below) to give any vaccine pharmacists can give. Pharmacy techs in Missouri can be as young as 18.

Here is the regulation authorizing administration by techs and interns in the Missouri Code of State Regulations — go to pg. 5 and scroll down to 20 CSR 2150-5.025 “Administration of Vaccines Per Protocol”

We have to remember that this bill expands what pharmacists AND their staff can do. If SB 41 passes, someone as young as 18, a pharmacy tech, could be giving your 7 year old any of the vaccines listed in this bill. During a state or federally declared state of emergency, that list could and expand to include any vaccine approved by the CDC at whatever minimum age they recommend.

Perspectives Re: SB4

by RNonymous

Dynamic Relationships

There is a dynamic relationship between the Physician, Pharmacist, nurse and patient which allows for the convergence of different roles and professions. Each role has an obligation to represent the training of their profession in an ethical way and also to advocate for the patient. When the patient encounters a caregiving environment where these three professional roles converge, there is a system of checks and balances that ensures the safety of the patient and optimizes the outcome for the patient’s health. The physician’s approach to the patient brings with it years of scientific study, medical training and professional expertise to make recommendations and direct the care of patients. Physician orders are based on assessment of patient history, physical observation, analysis of data from lab work as well as imaging techniques. The pharmacist has special in-depth knowledge of drugs including vaccines with respect to their mechanism of action and specific effects on particular organ systems as well as the rate at which a pharmaceutical is cleared from the patients’ system. The nurse often has a more personal relationship with the patient that ensures advocacy for the patient on a more intimate and personal level and often in conjunction with the family provides a voice for the patients’ needs and desires. This system of medical practice has allowed the United States to achieve a level of effective healthcare delivery that is the envy of many other nations and in many respects has pioneered the way for modern medicine.

The Healthcare System

The achievements of the United States healthcare system were made possible via three mechanisms. Innovation of ideas in pharmaceutical science, application of those ideas through healthcare delivery in clinics and hospitals, and funding. The healthcare system was originally comprised of family caregivers and later extended to caregiving from charitable and religious organizations who had altruistic motivations to delivering care for the benefit of the patient. The healthcare system originated out of love. But delivering care became increasingly problematic as health innovations became more advanced and complex, and therefore more expensive. The expense of healthcare became an increasingly notable problem. Initially, insurance companies stepped in and provided a service whereby their members paid premiums and effectively pooled their resources by paying a nominal fee. The insurance company paid out on the relatively rare occasion that one of its members needed care, and pocketed the remainder as profit. However as time marched on, insurance companies, in an effort to maximize their profit, began to exert more influence over the decisions of the physician and eventually resulted in Health Management Organizations or HMO’s. Now to some degree, if a physician wanted to prescribe a treatment it was subject to the influence of the insurance company’s approval. Later movement toward governmental programs like Medicare and Medicaid became an additional source of funding eventually culminating in the Affordable Care Act. After government funding became broadly available and represented a seemingly inexhaustible financial resource, the patient whose interests were once the main purpose of the healthcare system now became the door through which economic resources flowed from the government to the pharmaceutical and hospital systems. The pharmaceutical industry and hospital systems have attempted to maintain the image that their services are rooted in altruism and love. But the billions and billions of dollars that flow into these organizations and the jaw dropping financial benefits seen by these entities has called into question whether it is the still the patients’ best interest that is being served or, instead that the patient is now a piece of chattel or commodity whereby the pharmaceutical industry acquires its wealth.

SB 41 is a bill being proposed in the State of Missouri in 2023 which changes the fundamental role of the pharmacist by allowing the pharmacist to be not only the formulator and dispenser of vaccines, but also the ordering medical professional (via physician-guided protocol) thereby circumventing the role previously restricted to physicians.

Conflict of Interest

If pharmacists are able to order vaccines under protocol, and receive financial benefit for the vaccines they are dispensing, they will have a financial incentive to order vaccines without consideration of the individual patient and will be left to provide them to the patient in good faith and “on their honor” that they are acting in the best interest of the patient. There is a conflict of interest. The pharmacist only gets paid if he or she dispenses the vaccines. Whereas a physician is paid for his or her right discernment for the health of the individual patient independent of whether or not a drug or vaccine is prescribed. The obvious benefit to the patient under the care of a physician is that the physician is free to make decisions about the patients care without the incentive of financial gain and therefore remains free of the conflict of interest.

Vaccines are prophylactic medical care, and every patient has the right to receive medical care and counsel from a medical doctor who is paid for providing medical expertise and judgement for the individual whether or not a medication is recommended.

SB41 would allow for greater efficiency for the distribution of vaccines during a disease outbreak. However, in doing so the bill also treats the people of Missouri as though they are member of a herd instead of individual persons. It strips us our humanity. The people of Missouri are not animals.

MO 191.1146 stipulates that a physician-patient relationship must be established in order for the physician to prescribe medications and deliver care through the practice of Tele-medicine and that, “A questionnaire completed by the patient, whether via the internet or telephone, does not constitute an acceptable medical interview and examination for the provision of treatment by telehealth.” This statute indicates that filling out a questionnaire DOES NOT provide the physician with enough information to provide adequate care. The statute requires that the physician, (in order to provide adequate care) must have PERSONAL AND PARTICULAR knowledge of the individual patient beyond that which could be acquired by a questionnaire. The purpose of the statute is to ensure that every patient is treated as an individual and that the practice of medicine NOT per performed via the meeting of generic exclusion or inclusion criteria. This ensures that Missourians receive the individual care they deserve.

SB 41 flies in the face of this previously established personalized approach (MO 191.1146) to the practice of medicine and supposes that personal and particular knowledge of an individual patient is NOT necessary and instead that the practice of medicine with respect to vaccines can be done per protocol and without the evaluation of the patient by a physician. If a questionnaire (as in Telemedicine) cannot establish enough information to treat a patient, then why would administering a vaccine or medication per protocol be acceptable? The practice of medicine is more complex than simply meeting inclusion or exclusion criteria because every individual patient has past medical histories that are completely different and there may be underlying conditions that are affected differently by different vaccines and/or medications. Furthermore, because the pharmaceutical industry is responsible for the data that come from individual vaccine trials, then the pharmaceutical industry also MUST play a key role in the recommendations and protocols set forth by whatever physician is responsible for the protocol used to guide the pharmacist to administer vaccines and medications. This represents yet another conflict of interest because the pharmaceutical industry only stand to gain if their vaccine is dispensed by the pharmacist and has nothing to lose if the vaccine administered results in a vaccine injury because under federal law pharmaceutical companies have no liability for vaccine injuries. Instead the U.S taxpayers bare the burden of liability via vaccine courts/VAERS.

SB41 allows the government of the State of Missouri to treat its citizens not as though they are individuals with inherent dignity endowed by their Creator, but as though they are members of a herd. This is reminiscent of the way African-Americans were treated in the slave trade over 100 years ago. It is an abomination.


The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act is a piece of legislation signed into law by Barack Obama in 2012. The Act amends the U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 which prevented the use of propaganda against citizens in the United States. It authorized the Secretary of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors to provide for the preparation and dissemination of information intended for foreign audiences abroad about the United States. The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act also amends the Foreign Relations Authorization Act (fiscal years 1986/1987) to prohibit funds for the Department of State or the Board from being used to influence public opinion of propagandizing in the United States. In short this Act makes it legal for the government or its agencies to lie to the American people.

Recall for a moment the number of times you heard the term “safe and effective” in reference to the recent broadly distributed COVID-19 gene therapy marketed as a “vaccine”. The term “vaccine” is somewhat of a misnomer because the mechanism of action of the mRNA “vaccine” is significantly divergent from traditional vaccines. Since it is now LEGAL for the government to distribute propaganda and lie to the American people, it is reasonable to question to veracity of the “safe and effective” claims made by the CDC, NIH, and the parroting mainstream media outlets. They have absolutely zero liability if their claims are false.

Profit Margins Keeping Secrets and Selling Drugs

According to CNN, Pfizer expected $81-82 billion in revenue from the COVID-19 vaccine in 2021. This is a significant increase from the $1.7 billion it received in a previous year from vaccine sales.

In 2022 a federal judge denied a request from the FDA that it be given 75 years to comply with a Freedom of Information Act request submitted by a coalition of doctors and scientists with the nonprofit Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency which sought material about the vaccine creation process during the COVID-19 pandemic. The apparent desire for secrecy from the FDA certainly does nothing to inspire confidence for the American consumer. In addition the endless number of video clips following TV programs like the superbowl or various news casts saying “brought to you by Pfizer” call into question just how much influence the pharmaceutical industry has over main stream media. Interestingly, the United States and New Zealand are the only countries in the world that allow pharmaceutical companies to directly market their products to consumers.

Please contact your Missouri House member and urge them to vote NO on SB 41 if it gets to the House floor for debate.

SB 7 – Chief Data Officer —

Creates a Chief Data Officer Position – Centralizing Data and CONTROL

STATUS: This bill has been sitting on the Senate’s formal calendar. However, during the budget debate Tuesday evening, April 25th, Senator Hough added it as a 40+ page AMENDMENT to SB 4, an appropriation bill. Leadership is determined to pass this bill. We have to educate our legislators.

Bill Summary

Data is the new gold. SB7 lists the word DATA 145 times.

It’s interesting that in the now added pages that they didn’t take the time to define the exact meaning of Data, Personal Data, etc. Our personal data belongs to each person, not the government.

SB7, starting on page 2, allows the Data to go to the Federal level. This is unacceptable. The PDMP has our data in Warsaw, Poland and Canada, etc. There was NO consent, NO disclosure, and NO notice given to patients.

SB7, even with all the twisted terminology and attempt of defining Data, without truly listing the definition, prepares for a problem. The bill creates a “Consumer Privacy Fund” where “actual damages” could be fined up to $7500 per violation. However, this goes into a fund to determine if someone may or may not be worthy of compensation, due to damages they never agreed to or consented for their data to be used in this manner.

For the past decade, the federal government has pushed toward making more data publicly available. As Bill Eggers, one of the co-authors of A CDO Playbook, A Guide for Chief Data Officers, said in the recent interview,

“…[Collecting data] goes beyond just economic benefits to literally saving lives, in many respects. If you look at the health care sector alone, it collects an immense amount of data. You’ve got genomic data, electronic health records, clinical trial data, not to mention all of the patient-generated data from all the technologies like smart watches and mobile apps. So, the health care world is truly a data-rich landscape. But right now, the data exists in silos due to privacy concerns, competitive concerns, and barriers to interoperability and so forth. You could literally save millions of lives if we can figure out how to bring all that data together, and government plays a big role in this because government has a lot of the data. Increasingly, government can be the platform for bringing together a lot of the public and private data.

This is why they need government.

Other state Governments have implemented a CDO, and are giving direction to other states on how to establish one. Federal agencies are implementing CDOs.

As this Beeck Center publication from 2020 explains,

“Open data extends beyond transparency by providing easy, open, and self-service access to datasets for which there are no legal restrictions to data sharing.”The Evolving Role of the State Chief Data Officer, A Framework for Today (Tyler Kleykamp, State CDO Network, The Beeck Center)

The more the government collects, the more they can control us.

As James Holderman with Stand for Health Freedom explains,

“States all across the country are creating data repositories in order to make citizens’ personal/private information available through citizens’ DIGITAL IDENTITY profiles, which are also being simultaneously created.

Private companies, which do not have to respect a citizen’s constitutionally-protected rights, are going to require and/or coerce citizens to divulge more and more of this personal/private information, which will include not only government-held information, but, location tracking, biometrics, past transactions, etc. And, that is just on the identity front.

These digital identities profiles will then also be used to discriminate against citizens based on the agenda du jour of the powers that be.

As you can see in this tweet thread, Bill Gates and Microsoft are behind this initiative is a BIG WAY, working with both the World Bank and Mastercard.

And, as most everyone knows, Bill Gates is leading the advancement of the global vaccine agenda. So, don’t be surprised when vaccination status is used to discriminate against citizens (in many cases, in violation of their religious freedom) by the private sector, which itself will be coerced to do so.

“Technology is not inherently bad, but we need to make sure that the system(s) being created have our input, are not able to become centralized or monopolized and that human rights and patient privacy comes first. ”

– Breeauna Sagdal, Policy Journalist and Editor

As Policy Journalist and Editor-at-Large for the Dakota Leader, Breeauna Sagdal, one of the first journalists to break the story about South Dakota’s Uniform Commercial Code bill, writes,

“There IS synergy between the policies we’re seeing at the state and federal level.


– We’re seeing a push to criminalize DeFi (Decentralized Finance), and the decentralized network,

– We’re watching the real-time creation of the SMART Grid, IoT and “15 minute cities”

– We’re watching the real-time roll out of CBDC and the federal reserve’s instant settlement system known as FedNow.

What I believe is happening;

– The parallel economy is being criminalized in order to centralize control.

– Simultaneously we’re watching the creation of these smart cities as more land is contaminated and water rights are being taken by the federal WOTUS (Waters of the United States) regulations.

A Florida-based doctor is currently using remote tracking technology (The Internet of Bodies as coined by the WEF) to check real-time updates on geriatric patients. These are remote sensors via pill, that track patients internally and uploads data to the cloud.

I strongly believe that in order to maintain our bodily autonomy and sovereignty, we must protect the decentralized parallel economy.”

Technology is not inherently bad, but we need to make sure that the system(s) being created have our input, are not able to become centralized or monopolized and that human rights and patient privacy comes first.

These things are coming quickly, regardless of our personal wishes. But perhaps we can help to steer them in an ethical direction.

SB7 creates a CDO, a Chief Data Officer, to create an Open Data system. Did you know Federal Agencies are also doing the same? Did you know states were instructed to get this in place? Did you know federal will have access to our personal data?

SB 7 is a data grab with one official in charge of it all.

Are you willing to stop this bill to keep our Data and our kids data from landing in the hands of the Feds?

Help us STOP this bill!

Please call your Senators and tell them to vote NO if SB 7 comes up for a vote, either as a stand-alone bill or as an amendment! Find your MO Senator here:

HB 249 – Rep. Busick — Dentist Administer Vaccines

Dentists authorized to administer vaccines

STATUS: On May 1, this bill was added as an amendment to Sen. Gannon’s SB 45 along with SB 41, the bills that allows pharmacists to administer vaccines. Please stand by an action alert on this legislation.

Bill Summary:

Representative Busick’s HB 249 changes the definition of dentistry to authorize dentists to do something beyond the scope of their practice — to administer an open-ended list of vaccines to individuals, including children as young as seven, with minimal training and no knowledge their medical history.

This bill authorizes dentists to administer vaccines to anyone of any age during a state of emergency with complete protection from liability.

This bill also does not require necessary safety measures such as an observation period after vaccination administration or a safety and emergency protocol in place in the case of anaphylaxis or other adverse reactions and no provision for a safety or emergency protocol in the case of anaphylaxis or other adverse reactions. The prescribing dentist will neither have access to a patient’s doctor nor his/her medical history.

Vaccines are not like vitamins. They can pose serious even deadly risk to individuals that not all medical doctors and nurses are prepared to address, let alone dentists and their staff.

Please contact your Missouri House member and tell them you are OPPOSED to HB 249. Stand by for additional action alerts once this bill has been assigned to a rules committee.

HB 1165 -Rep. Hicks 

Digital Currency Control Bill

This bill could be added as an amendment to SB 100 (a good bill that we have been suporting), which unfortunately opens it up to more amendments on the House floor that could include CBDCs. Please stand by for action alerts should this language get to the floor.

Bill Summary:

HCS HB 1165, which is intended to appear like a routine update to Missouri’s Universal Commercial Code (UCC) law, actually lays the groundwork for a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC).

HCS HB 1165 would fundamentally change key financial definitions in Missouri’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) statutes. The UCC is a comprehensive set of laws that governs ALL commercial transactions in the United States. This bill sets up a framework for contract payments using digital currency — but ONLY that which the government authorizes. It redefines “money”, “person”, and over a dozen financial terms that businesses use in interstate commerce and authorizes biometrics and UNKOWN emerging technologies for transactions. Read more about this bill here.

A centralized, federal digital currency means the government could have complete control over ALL transactions — think vaccine passports.

Though this bill is not explicitly promoting a Central Bank Digital Currency, it is saying that ONLY digital currency the UCC laws will legally recognize as “controllable electronic record” must be “issued by the government”. It’s like building a highway, even though you might not have the cars to run on it. Scroll down an analysis of the bills with notes about IHC’s concerns.

1) HCS HB 1165 repeals 84 sections of current Uniform Commercial Code law and adds 107 new sections related to the Uniform Commercial Code.

2) Line 90 – Definition of “Money” adding “and is not in an electronic form.” 

In response to concern from the public and legislators about this bill, the sponsor presented a committee substitute and claimed to have taken out all references to the two words, “electronic money”. However, the substitute simply massaged the definitions of “money” and “controllable electronic record” so that nothing was actually changed with regard to which digital currencies will be accepted or not accepted after Article 12 is enacted.

The committee substitute moved page 4 line 93 to page 93 line 7 to the definition of controllable electronic record.

Also, page 5 definition of “person”, the term includes a protected series. This looks to possibly be setting up Limited Liability series with more information on page 28.

3) Line 1 – Definition of “Security procedure”, adding “impose an obligation on the receiving bank or the customer and …. symbols, sounds, biometrics,”. We don’t see a definition in this bill for biometrics and wonder what that would be.

4) Line 49 – line 62 – talks about “powers of the person” and remember the definition of “person” included “individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision, agency, or instrumentality, or any other legal or commercial entity. 

Line 57 – is very concerning! “A person that has control under this section is not required to acknowledge that it has control on behalf of another person.” and read through to line 62.

5) Line 39 – “A person that has control under the section is not required to acknowledge that it has control on behalf of a purchaser.”

6) Line 2 – definition of controllable electronic record, line 7 is where they added the phrase that used to be under the definition of money. “400.12-102. (a) In this article: (1) “Controllable electronic record” means a record stored in an electronic medium that can be subjected to control under section 400.12-105. The term does not include a controllable account, a controllable payment intangible, a deposit account, an electronic copy of a record evidencing chattel paper, an electronic document of title, investment property, transferable record, or an electronic record that is currently authorized or adopted by a domestic or foreign government and is not a medium of exchange that was recorded and transferable in a system that existed and operated for the medium of exchange before the medium of exchange was authorized or adopted by a government.

Isn’t this definition of Controllable electronic record making any existing medium of exchange UNAUTHORIZED? Think about that.

7) Line 1, 400.12–105 a person has control of an electronic record if…

This section was referred to on page 93 under the definition of control of electronic record.

8) Lines 29 through 35 The default jurisdiction is the District of Columbia. 

Umm, no thank you!!

Please sign up for our email list to learn how you can protect health freedom in Missouri!

If you care about health freedom, please join our email list. If you are interested in traveling to the capitol for our Worker Bee Wednesday meetings with legislators, please let us know. We can make a difference if we all work together!

IHCM Update

The End of Money…and Freedom?

HB 1165 Would Change Everything We Know About Money, Privacy, and Health Freedom

UPDATED: April 4, 2023

At the last minute on Monday, April 3rd, the vote in Legislative Oversight committee for HCS HB 1165 was postponed by the committee chair, Rep. Knight. We hope this bill will not be taken up again in the rules committee again, but if so, we will keep you updated.

Our sincere thanks to EVERYONE who called and emailed the reps on this committee and respectfully voiced their concerns in calm, logical detail about this bill. We are so thankful for you!

March 31, 2023
Missouri HCS HB 1165, sponsored by Rep. Justin Hicks, adds a new article to and amends the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) in ways that could be harmful to personal liberty and privacy rights.

This bill was voted out of the General Laws committee and will be heard in Rules/Legislative Oversight Monday, April 3rd at 2:15 pm. We appreciate the courageous reps who voted “No” in General Laws: Rep. Brad Hudson, Rep. Ben Baker, Rep. Ron Copeland, and Rep. Aaron Crossley.

HCS HB 1165, written by a third party, would fundamentally change the financial definitions in Missouri’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) statutes, the comprehensive set of laws that governs ALL commercial transactions in the United States. This bill sets up a framework for contract payments using digital currency — but ONLY that which the government authorizes. It redefines “money”, “person”, and over a dozen key financial terms and authorizes biometrics and UNKOWN, emerging technologies.

This new definition of digital currency in the UCC would streamline the process of the adoption of CBDCs in all states.

A centralized, federal digital currency means the government could have complete control over ALL transactions — think vaccine passports.

Though this bill is not explicitly promoting a Central Bank Digital Currency, it is saying that the ONLY digital currency the UCC laws will legally recognize as “electronic payment” must be “issued by the government”.

HCS HB 1165 lays the groundwork for CBDC. It’s like building a highway, even though you might not have the cars to run on it.

In response to concern from the public and legislators about this bill, the sponsor presented a committee substitute and claimed to have taken out all references to the two words, “electronic money”. However, the substitute simply massaged the definitions of “money” and “controllable electronic record” so that nothing was actually changed with regard to which digital currencies will be accepted or not accepted after Article 12 is enacted.

Proponents claim that HCS HB 1165 update brings the UCC into the modern, digital world and if we don’t pass it Missouri will be left behind. This is to induce an element of urgency when we have actually been using digital currency for years. It’s just that private digital currencies are a threat to central banks because they can’t control them, just like they can’t control – or capture – gold, silver, and cash. So the purpose of this bill is to gain control. In fact, control is mentioned 303 times in HCS HB 1165.

The central banks want to encapsulate all of our financial transactions. They don’t want us to be able to make transactions outside of their system.

Creating an infrastructure for CBDCs through the UCC, then claiming that it has nothing to do with a centralized digital currency, is a well played tactic. The idea is to make these changes toward centralization in stages — to standardize systems, then create &/or commandeer the NGOs that provide the expertise or service. That way very few people can influence entire systems.

Here are a few examples:

-Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC)…ERIC was started with George Soros grant money. ERIC conducted a mass data gathering operation and the irony is Missouri taxpayers paid them to do it under the guise of convenience and expertise.

-Municipal building codes are standardized through the International Code Council. Many municipalities frequently update codes not knowing the poison baked into the updates.

-Our STATE drivers license is now outsourced to an international Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) through a Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP). Do you have any idea what the NGO does with your high resolution DL photograph that’s formatted for facial recognition?

HB 1165 is a Trojan Horse. We urge legislators to understand why it lays the groundwork for the kind of top-down control no one wants for themselves or their children.

HCS HB 1165 will also…

– Create status, standing and jurisdiction for “choice of law,” in the District of Columbia.

– Create new language that will require comprehensive knowledge of coding, law, and international contract law that is neither plain, nor equal among the laymen.

– Create significant gaps in the current understanding of tangible collateral currently held by debtors.

– Create an infrastructure for Central Bank Digital Currency without regulatory framework in place.

Where Did These UCC Changes Come From?

The Uniform Law Commission, a Chicago-based non-profit, is responsible for writing and updating the UCC code. The new amendments were written the summer of 2022 and rolled out to all states over the months that followed. Legislators were even told to “not read the bills”, that it was just a routine update.

Bills amending the UCC code have been filed in over 20 states.

Fortunately, legislators are waking up to what these UCC code changes actually do. South Dakota’s Governor Kristi Noem vetoed their UCC bill, HB 1193 which was almost identical to Missouri’s 1165. It died two weeks later when the S.D. legislature failed to override her veto. Governor Noem said in the days following her veto,

“It is being sold as a UCC guidelines update, but it essentially says that the only authorized digital currency would be the federal government’s.” — S.D. Governor Kristi Noem, March 9, 2023

We currently have no idea which type of CBDC the Fed intends to release AND we currently have no regulatory framework around transactional data, retail CBDC or anything preventing programmable dollars or smart contracts.

What should Missouri legislators do?

We should not create a path forward on digital currency until we have:

  1. Regulatory framework in place, and
  2. A clear idea of what type of CBDC we’re looking to adopt as a country.

Louisiana has still never adopted Article 2 of the UCC. Governor Noem said about the history of amendments to this code, “The UCC’s first iteration took twenty years to be adopted by each state. There is no reason South Dakota must adopt the changes made by HB 1193 under this purported deadline”.

This bill is the biggest threat to health freedom we face in Missouri.

What can you do?

Please contact these Legislative Oversight committee members and let them know you OPPOSE HCS HB 1165.

Rep. Jeff Knight 573-751-1490

Rep. Brad Hudson 573-751-3851

Rep. LaKeySha Bosley 573-751-6800

Rep. Cyndi Buchheit-Courtway 573-751-7735

Rep. Jamie Burger 573-751-5471

Rep. Deb Lavender 573-751-4392

Rep. Mike McGirl 573-751-2398

Rep. Bill Owen 573-751-2948

Rep. Adam Schnelting 573-751-5365

Rep. Sarah Unsicker 573-751-2883

Please do this TODAY — and share this post. Thank you for your commitment to protecting our privacy, our health freedom, for ourselves and our families here in Missouri.

— The IHC Legislative Team

Join our Email List –

IHCM Update

IHC Legislation Update

March 9, 2023

Missouri’s legislative session has been in full swing since the first week of January. Since that time, dozens of bills that threaten health freedom have moved quickly through the legislative process.

Good bills, however, are also making their way through committee and onto the chamber floors. Here, at the beginning of Spring Break, we are happy to report that we have seen some significant wins for our side! Our teams testified in committee for both of these bills below. Though we have been disappointed to see some dangerous bills moving ahead, we are also seeing Representatives and Senators doing the right thing and voting bills out of committee where they can be debated on the House and Senate floors.

Win #1
HCS 336 – Rep. Mitch Boggs – Employer Liability Bill
Voted DO PASS out of the Emerging Issues(H) committee on 3/8, with minimal changes!

This bill is short, but POWERFUL. Of all the anti-mandate bills filed this session, this HCS 336 would pack the most punch in deterring businesses from mandating vaccines.

Contrary to what lobbyists says, the large employers, not the small ones, are responsible for most of the workplace vaccine mandates. Large employers with deep pockets are not deterred by the small fines they might pay through Worker’s Comp if an employee is injured.

Though any employee can sue their employer if they suffer an adverse event as a result of an employee mandate, HCS 336 would make that process easier. This bill simply affirms what is already in common law, which is the principle that if you harm someone, you are liable. If you coerce an employee into getting a vaccine that harms them, you may be liable for damages, including pain and suffering, which can be sizeable.

Because small employers were typically not the ones requiring their workers to be vaccinated, this bill will actually have little effect on those businesses. It could have a huge impact, however, on the bigger employers who account for most of the violations of individual rights.

Consequences are the best way to discourage bad behavior and this little bill does just that.

What can you do?

HCS 336 will go to one of the Senate rules committees next. Please check back for action alerts. We will post them once this bill has been referred!

Win #2
SB 204 – Sen. Mike Moon – Repeal Certificate of Need
3/8 Voted DO PASS out of Health & Welfare (S) committee!

SB 204 would repeal the statute that authorizes the Certificate of Need. The Certificate of Need committee, comprised of individuals appointed by the governor as well as legislators, determines which businesses in Missouri can build healthcare facilities or purchase equipment that totals over $1 million dollars. This governmental intrusion has proven to be ineffective at protecting the public and is overdue for repeal. We are thankful that Senator Moon has sponsored this bill that would not simply reduce the restrictions but repeal them completely.

What can you do?

Contact Senator Caleb Rowden, the President Pro Tem of the Senate. Tell him you want SB 204 to be “called out of committee” for debate and a vote on the Senate floor.

Sen. Caleb Rowden
Ph: 573-751-3931

Thank you for helping us protect health freedom for ourselves and our children here in Missouri! Please join our email list or join our social media pages for updates.

IHC Legislative Team Link:

IHCM Update

Missouri Elections Alert SJR 28: Concurrent Majority Ratification

Tues. Feb. 28, 2023

SJR 28 passed out of committee Monday afternoon! Thank you to everyone who reached out to Senators to make your voice heard!

Next step: We need to get SJR 28 to the Senate floor ASAP. New action alert coming soon.

Mon. Feb 27, 2023

URGENT!! IHC Action Alert

SJR 28 Carter — CMR

The Senate Local Government and Elections committee is scheduled to meet TODAY, February 27 at 2:00 pm. They will be considering whether to pass on two measures to the rest of the Senate, HJR 28 (Carter) and HJR 43 (Henderson).

Please contact the Senators in the committee (see action alert at the bottom of the email). Do this immediately. The executive session begins at 2:00.

We are all painfully aware that it’s too easy for special interests to change our Constitution.

One of the most troubling things is the fact that, as it is now, the large urban areas can generate enough votes to carry progressive ballot issues. That’s because it takes only a simple majority vote to adopt any amendment. 50% plus 1.

Our conservative strongholds in rural areas don’t get much voice where constitutional amendments are concerned. Just look at this map of the vote on Amendment 3 (added 38 pages and corrupting monopolistic protections for some sellers, etc.), last fall:

There’s a remedy for this problem. Concurrent Majority Ratification (CMR) is based on the same principle as the Electoral College and is a way to ensure that the ENTIRE state has a say. Here’s how it works…

CMR uses one vote, but it counts the vote two ways, and making a change to the Constitution would require a majority vote both ways:

  1. It tallies the statewide popular vote, like we do now. A statewide simple majority vote would be required to ratify a proposed change to the Constitution.
  2. That same vote of the people would also be tallied in each state House district. A majority of those 163 House districts would have to, each on its own, have had a majority yes vote for ratification. (Note that 111 of those House districts are held by Republicans.)

So, to change the Constitution, CMR would require BOTH conditions be met.

The idea is to ensure that ALL Missouri citizens have a real voice in amending the Constitution.

Download this brochure for more details:


The good news is that Republicans in both the Missouri House and Senate are eager to do something – they just need some common sense guidance from the rest of us.

SJR 28 is the very best solution. It requires the concurrent majority described above. It uses House districts for the second prong and it applies whether amendments are proposed by the legislature, petition, OR a constitutional convention. We need to tell the committee to pass it as is.

HCS HJR43, as it came from the House, uses a totally different approach that doesn’t give as much voice to rural Missouri. It simply raises the vote requirement from a simple majority to 60%.

There are three MAJOR problems with that approach:

  1. The voters in every state that has tried that have turned it down in recent years. The odds of ratifying it are very slim, so we would be left with the simple majority process we have now when faced with the likely abortion vote in 2024.
  2. A 60% requirement won’t give much voice to rural Missouri, especially as urban areas grow.
  3. A 60% requirement will allow the progressive urban areas to kill conservative ballot measures with just a 40% no vote.


Senator Andrew Koenig has drafted a potential substitute for HJR 43 than makes some improvements, but still has three fatal flaws.

  1. His substitute wisely uses concurrent majority ratification, but it uses Congressional Districts instead of state House districts. That means the rural areas still will have MUCH less voice.
  2. What’s worse, Senator Koenig’s approach applies only to amendments proposed by petitions, NOT those proposed by the legislature or a whole new constitution proposed by a constitutional convention. That’s right, under his proposal, it would still require only a simple majority vote to change the entire constitution!
  3. That’s not even the worst problem, though, because voters will flat reject an idea that holds the legislature aloof from the people. The optics during the campaign against HJR 43 will be terrible for the Republican brand.

SJR 28 is the very best solution. It requires the concurrent majority described above. It uses House districts for the second prong and it applies whether amendments are proposed by the legislature, petition, OR a constitutional convention. We need to tell the committee to pass it as is.

What Can You Do?

Before NOON, call and email each of the Republican members of the Local Government and Elections committee, AND pro tem Caleb Rowden and floor leader Cindy O’Laughlin. Tell them that citizens back home want them to advance SJR 28 as is and also advance HJR 43 after changing its language to mirror SJR 28.

Tell them you want them to put rural Missouri on equal footing by using state House districts, NOT congressional districts, and that you want the concurrent majority ratification process to apply to ALL THREE ways the state Constitution can be amended, whether by a legislative proposal, petition or a constitutional convention.

Call now and leave a message on their voicemail. Send emails now to give them time to see the messages.

The Elections Committee:

Senator Elain Gannon (chairman)– 573-751-4008 –

Senator Sandy Crawford – 573-751-8793 –

Senator Jill Carter – 573-751-2173 –

Senator Mary Elizabeth Coleman – 573-751-1492 –

Senator Andrew Koenig – 573-751-5568 –


Pro tem Caleb Rowden – 573-751-3931 –

Floor Leader Cindy O’Laughlin – 573-751-7985 —

IHCM Update

SB 117 & the Danger of Sovereign Immunity

Feb 14, 2023

Missouri Senate bill 117 (or SB 117), sponsored by Sen. Tony Luetkemeyer (District 34) is waiting to be debated on the floor of the Missouri Senate.

This bill severely blocks the public’s access to the judicial system by protecting those who are guilty of negligence, especially those who partner with government.

Watch this video overview of SB 117:

This bill would do three things that severely limit your natural rights

  1. Reduce the statute of limitations for personal injury actions and actions against an insurer for uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage. Currently actions for personal injury must be brought within five years from the time the injury occurred. This bill reduces the statute of limitations for personal injury (injury to the person’s body or their rights) from five years to two. This reduction favors the defendant in a suit by making it harder for a plaintiff to attend to their injury, find a lawyer and get organized to sue quickly.
  2. Give private contractors the same immunity as public entities. This act provides that a private contractors, when acting within the scope of a government contract, shall have the same sovereign or governmental torte immunity as a public entity. This extends the state’s sovereign immunity to private entities. The state cannot be sued for negligence unless it consents. Damages are limited to actual damages, no punitive damages and there is a cap that’s adjusted annually.
  3. Expands the reach of public/private partnerships. Private companies, unlike governments, are in business to make a profit. They will cut corners and save costs if they have sovereign immunity. Without liability, negligence and harm to the public will increase. The financial burden will fall on the individual harmed and their family. It will also adversely affect competition and those private companies who aren’t
    in public/private partnerships will be incentivized to partner with government.

    Another related issue is transparency. Government is subject to FOIA and Sunshine laws. Private businesses are not. In the federal government where most government functions are run by private contractors, the workings of government and the finances are now hidden because private contractors don’t answer to the public.

    This bill is currently on the informal Senate calendar, but could be moved to the formal calendar at any time. Please help us stop SB 117.

    What YOU Can Do…

    Call your Missouri Senator (you can find yours here: Tell them to vote NO on SB 117 if it comes to the Senate floor.

    Call Senator Tony Luetkemeyer and tell him you strongly oppose his bill, SB 117.

    Senator Tony Luetkemeyer: 573-751-2183

IHCM Update

Witnesses Needed!


Missouri Senator Mike Moon, 29th District

Senate Bill 204, sponsored by Senator Mike Moon (R), will be heard in committee Wednesday, February 8th at 10:00 am.

This critical bill would repeal the Missouri Certificate of Need statute, open up competition, give health care employees and providers more freedom, and provide the public with more choices.

CON stifles competition contributing to the lack of choice and horrible healthcare ordered by CDC, NIAID. The decisions made by these corrupt entities have led to many unnecessary deaths caused by ventilators, Remdesivir, and the refusal of hospitals to deviate from the standard of care dictated by government agencies.

Do you have a story about how Missouri’s Certificate of Need law has negatively affected you?

  • Are you a physician wanting to expand your practice but unable to due to CON laws?
  • Are you a community leader wanting more healthcare choices for your community?
  • Do you work in a hospital or clinic that has been unable to purchase urgently-needed equipment due to the long wait for approval from the Certificate of Need committee?

Contact us at

Senator Mike Moon spent over 25 years in the healthcare industry working for a major hospital in SW Missouri. He understands the need to pass SB 204 to encourage competition and make healthcare equipment available to patients and their providers.

If you are able to to testify IN FAVOR OF this bill please contact us TODAY at Witness testimony is vital to getting this bill passed out of committee and to the Senate floor for debate.

To read Senator Moon’s bill: