There’s a jingle circulating, designed to remind people how to vote on the mass of amendments when they get to the polls: “Yes on 6, the rest are tricks.” 

Because I don’t take a stance based on a jingle, I dug deeper.

I’ll admit, I was almost tricked by Amendment 8 — more specifically by the amendment’s sponsor, Senator Jill Carter (R-Granby) — who told me that there’s been a movement in some states to eliminate the office of sheriff and move to a statewide police system.

“Amendment 8 would constitutionalize the locally-elected sheriff’s role and prevent that from happening,” she said.

Statewide police, police-state. Shades of Hitler and his minions came to mind. We don’t want that. Amendment 8 must be a good thing, I thought.

She almost had me.

So, why the clause in Amendment 8, whereby only the state attorney general could remove a sheriff? I asked her.

She explained that the additional clause is “to remove [the sheriff] from the pressure of local political influence.”

Wait! Whoa! What political influences was she thinking of? I wondered. Did she know something that I didn’t?

Then it dawned on me: The hot-button topic affecting the country, these days, pertains to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activities. I asked Senator Carter if this was the political influence she was referring to.

Not at all, she replied. It’s usually only cities who contract with ICE, not county sheriffs.

At first, I accepted her assurances at face value. That was a week ago. However, before writing this column, I decided a little more research was in order. What I learned has shaken me.

In September, our very own Barry County Sheriff’s Department has entered into a 287(g) agreement with the federal government to assist with ICE operations, in exchange for federal goodies.

Yes, yes. I know. Everyone else is doing it. However, I somehow expected better of our sheriff. I’d like to hear his rationale for jumping in bed with federal law enforcement, but he told me that he’d be out of the office until after this column — and my story ahead of this election — goes to print.

According to my source (287g.recoveredfactory.net, a Muck Rack journalism project devoted to keeping track of law enforcement entities who have entered into agreements with ICE), all of our surrounding county sheriffs, other than Mac County’s, also have 287(g) agreements in place.

With this new information, Senator Carter’s rationale for promoting Amendment 8 becomes clearer.

Amendment 8, it seems, could protect the sheriff from the reach of the very citizens who vote him into office.

The attorney general, an elected member of a state super-majority, would become the only authority with the power to rein him in, if he needed reining.

A police-state? You decide.

I’m voting “No” on Amendment 8.

Less absolute for me, there’s no right choice on Amendment 3. A person will have to vote their conscience on this one, and I wouldn’t fault you for staying out of the fray, altogether.

I can’t, in good faith, vote for abortion.

I spontaneously aborted my first child. That’s called a “miscarriage” for those of you ready to judge. I began losing him or her some six or eight weeks after conception — before I had fully absorbed the idea of becoming a mother.

The impact was real. 

As anyone who has miscarried can tell you, no matter the gestational age, that loss represents a child — a little person who didn’t make it into the world.

An induced abortion represents nothing less.

However, I’m not in a position to cast stones. We women can find ourselves in all sorts of convoluted situations during our reproductive years, and, before pointing fingers at others, we’d do well to remember, “There, but for the grace of God, go I.”

Even so, it’s heartbreaking for me to see women clamor publicly for the “right to abortion,” as though it’s an acceptable form of birth control. When did that happen? When did abortion become a public, instead of a private matter: The object of public demand, rather than a decision made when a woman feels she has no other choice. I missed something, somewhere — like maybe Roe vs. Wade.

More than saddened, I’m angered that the topic of abortion is used shamelessly by candidates and legislators as a political club to garner votes. Those candidates and legislators are primarily Republican men, I’ve noticed.

The motives of some, I’m sure, are sincere. They love children and want to force reluctant mothers to love their children as well. 

I wish it were so simple.

On the other hand, we have charlatans — deep fakes — parasites who ride the coat-tails of an emotionally-weighted topic to leverage their way into office. Along the way, women are skewered and demonized in the public eye, as though every ill-conceived pregnancy is immaculate, and that no male lurks in the shadows. 

Let’s cut through the hypocrisy, shall we? I’d hedge a bet (if I could find any takers) that a sizable number of very human, shadow-lurking impregnators of scarlet women are Republicans: Men who publicly take up an anti-abortion stance to curry favor with their constituents, but are privately relieved when their female liaisons (who have so inconveniently conceived) opt for abortions.

Let’s take the topic of abortion out of the hands of such hypocrites. Hypocrites who decry abortion from the public stage, but who vote to cut funding for the food, healthcare and educational needs of children whose mothers choose to give them life. Hypocrites who are willing to deprive living children of basic needs, in favor of bribing the wealthy with tax credits and gratuities — paid for with our tax dollars. Hypocrites who shed crocodile tears over unborn children, but who happily lend their support to the killing of living children in foreign lands.

Spare me your crocodile tears! God’s banner isn’t hiding your sins.

The focus on condemning a woman’s personal decision — as heartbreaking as that decision may be to many of us — allows you to turn a blind eye to the pressing needs of a broader society. Real men and women, with real courage, will stand up for the oppressed who are already born and the mothers who have travailed to give them life. The crusade, of course, will be unwelcome to your Republican peers, so courage will be needed. Nevertheless, gird your loins! Go forth! There’s a ready-made battlefield waiting!

As hard as your lawmakers might try, personal morality can’t be legislated. It’s learned from a deeper place. Shackles can be applied, but hearts and minds can’t be changed by the strong arm of the law. Short of ridding humanity of the God-given drive to procreate, there will always be “A”-branded women and women unprepared to be mothers — often because fathers are unwilling to claim their children.

Women need love, not hate; grace, not condemnation. Thank God for one man, who so publicly chose not to condemn a woman, centuries ago.

I admire individuals and organizations who stand behind their anti-abortion stances by offering support to mothers who choose to give life to their children.

My question is, how do we keep the topic of abortion from being used for political gain?

I wish I had that answer.

Sheila Harris is a long-time Barry County resident and a sales executive and investigative reporter for the Cassville Democrat with a particular interest in environmental topics. She may be reached at [email protected].