The Briefing with Albert Mohler - Thursday, September 5, 2024

Episode Date: September 5, 2024

This is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.Part I (00:13 - 12:08)‘Amendment 4 Would Be the Death of the Pro-Life Movement in Florida’: Governor Ron DeSantis Makes Powerful Argument on Importance of State Abortion ReferendumDeSantis: Florida abortion Amendment 4 means ‘end of the pro-life movement’ by Tampa Bay Times (Kirby Wilson)Amendment 4: "Amendment to Limit Government Interference with Abortion" by Florida Division of ElectionsPart II (12:08 - 19:07)Life and Death on the Ballot in Missouri: The Vote in Missouri Is Not About Reproductive Freedom but Life and DeathNovember election could make — or break — reproductive freedom by The LA Times (The Editorial Board)Amendment 3: "The Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative." by Missouri Secretary of StateDobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization by Supreme Court of the United StatesPart III (19:07 - 27:09)The Trump Proposal on IVF: A Reminder of Human Dignity at Risk and Our Deeply Confused CultureTrump Proposal to Cover IVF Costs Faces Skepticism by The Wall Street Journal (Natalie Andrews and Amy Dockser Marcus)Winston Churchill, Hero or Villain? A Response to Controversy Over The Tucker Carlson Show by AlbertMohler.com (R. Albert Mohler, Jr.)"Never Give in" What in the world are they saying about Winston Churchill? by WORLD Opinions (R. Albert Mohler, Jr.)Sign up to receive The Briefing in your inbox every weekday morning.Follow Dr. Mohler:X | Instagram | Facebook | YouTubeFor more information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbts.edu.For more information on Boyce College, just go to BoyceCollege.com.To write Dr. Mohler or submit a question for The Mailbox, go here.

It's Thursday, September 5, 2024. I'm Albert Mowler, and this is the briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. Abortion is on the ballot in a general sense everywhere Americans are voting, most particularly in the presidential election. But today, I want to focus on the fact that in no less than 10 states, abortion is on the ballot as a direct ballot question. And this is in the aftermath of the Dobbs decision in 2022, reversing Roe v. Wade. And what we see here is a title surge of those who are trying to bring by voter action abortion rights into the law, sometimes into the constitutions of the respective states. And here's where the pro-life movement has to be very sober, very serious, and very honest. We've lost virtually every one of these statewide votes since the Dobbs decision in 2022. Even in places such as Kansas and Kentucky, which have been red states with a pro-life sentiment, it has turned.

out that the states weren't as pro-life as we thought when it actually came to a voter action. And that's why we should all be concerned about these 10 states, because this is a concerted effort. And even as this is a state-level effort in these 10 different states, there are 10 different documents, 10 different sets of legal language. Some of these are legislative, some of these are constitutional in terms of the state constitution. But the big point here is that the pro-abortion movement sees this as a massive opportunity. And in an even darker way, the Democratic presidential and vice presidential ticket sees this to their advantage. The Democratic Party sees this to their advantage, which is why you had efforts

to try to get these kinds of questions put before voters in states where the Democrats believe they have the opportunity for a pickup, particularly in the Senate, but also in some cases in the House. So we're looking at a very dark political calculus here. We're also looking at a very significant challenge, a challenge to the pro-life movement, a challenge that comes down to the fact that many of our neighbors are not nearly as pro-life as we thought they were. And when the question is put on the ballot, as is going to happen in these 10 states, we're about to find out what you can't say the people of those states actually believe. You have to say technically the voters of the state believe, and in this case, it's the voters who turn out to vote, which is another part of the moral

equation. What are the 10 states? Well, they are Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New York, South Dakota, and Nebraska. Now, not only are they not all the same thing in terms of the actual measure that will go before voters, what is in common here is that the voters in all 10 of those states are going to be voting one way or another up or down on abortion rights. That means up or down on restrictions on abortion in those states. That means up or down. That on the question of the sanctity of unborn human life. We have to make that very, very clear. But there are other ways in which these 10 states are both similar and dissimilar. For one thing, one of the states here is South Dakota far more pro-lifeless, just say, than the

state of New York. New York's measure is actually interesting in so many ways, but the bottom line is that New York is already a very blue and very pro-abortion state. The law there is already overwhelmingly in favor of abortion. In some ways, in New York, this is kind of a political statement being made by the pro-abortion movement and by the Democratic leadership there in the state. When it comes to South Dakota, it's different. I want to point to the fact that when you're looking at some of these states, the question is, have they shifted on the question of abortion? Or was it just fairly easy to answer in a pro-life way when asked by a pollster? It's very different when you're standing in the election booth.

That's a huge moral question. It's going to be a wake-up call for us all when we see how these states vote. I want to look to two states in particular, though, because I think it might be most interesting to look at the states of Florida and Missouri. And as we're looking at those two states, they had both been Democratic states, and then they became, for some period, swing states, and then at least in some form of predictability, they've become red states. But as we know, those things can change pretty quickly.

and I certainly hope not when it comes to Florida and Missouri, but both of those states not only have big elections coming up, especially when it comes, for instance, to the presidential election and to Senate seats in both of those states, but we also have abortion initiatives. And I want to turn to Florida first, because a very interesting argument is being made in Florida by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis in light of what is known there as Amendment 4. And so you had the Tampa Bay Times, one of the most influential media sources in the state, run this very interesting, headline, DeSantis. Florida abortion Amendment 4 means into the pro-life movement. Now, the article by Kirby Wilson tells us this, quote, the opposition to Amendment 4 is getting

organized and Governor Ron DeSantis is leading the resistance. Now, Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida has been very consistent in helping the pro-life movement and in pushing pro-life initiatives into law and to policy in the state of Florida. And he bears a lot of responsibility and credit for that matter for Florida's current restriction on abortion after six weeks of pregnancy. Now, this is the very policy that former President Trump has derided as being too restrictive, the limitation too early, but Governor Ron DeSantis has stood by it. Not only that is standing by the cause of the defense of unborn life. Kirby Wilson there in Tampa tells us, quote,

at an event at Jesuit high school on Thursday, DeSantis, that's Governor Ron DeSantis, quote, galvanized opposition to the amendment, which would end, most abortion restrictions in Florida. In front of a packed auditorium crowd of a few hundred, Florida's Republican governor laid out what he said are the stakes in November. Now, this becomes really, really important because I think in this case, what you have from Governor Ron DeSantis is amazing candor. It's candor about what's at stake in the vote over amendment for in Florida. The governor said, quote, if you care about building a culture of life in this state or this country, then winning in Florida, I think really represents the end of the pro-life movement.

end quote. What is he saying? He is saying that if Amendment 4, that is the pro-abortion amendment that would basically make it very difficult to restrict abortion at any point, to be honest, and certainly later in pregnancy, it would certainly eliminate the possibility of the six-week ban currently in place and also the 15-week ban that had been in place. But as you're looking at this, you recognize, you know, I think Governor DeSantis is absolutely right. If this amendment passes, you really are kind of looking at the end of the pro-life movement in Florida. But it's a bigger question than Florida. I think this may have nationwide repercussions.

You look at this kind of amendment in a state like Florida, and if it passes, especially given the supermajority that is necessary there in Florida, you know, that's going to indicate not only that we have been losing ground, it might indicate we're losing the argument when it comes to American culture. And so the governor here is trying to say, these are the stakes. And I just want to say, not as a politician, but as an observer trying to think about all this through the Christian worldview, that I think Governor DeSantis is right. Now, I'm not saying that we would throw in the towel at that point. Profoundedly, we would not. But I do think

it represents such a turning point in America's heart and mind and soul on the question of abortion, that it's hard to know how we regain ground, particularly because it's very difficult to imagine and all of these passing or passing by a supermajority in Florida without also probably looking at a Harris-Walls administration in office. You look at the combination of these things and you understand we really are looking at a moral hinge time in the United States. And I wanted to talk about this particular argument, the statement by this governor, because I not only think it's right, at least in terms of the political impact, I think

it's also just a sobering realism that sometimes is missing from when pro-life and conservative Christians get together and talk about things like the election. We have been used to gaining ground year by year and decade by decade on the question of abortion. You go back to 1973, you fast forward to say the beginning of this decade, it looked like the pro-life movement was gaining ground. Now it looks like we've been losing ground. And the sobering thing is that it looks like we were losing ground even when we thought we were still gaining ground. About the pro-abortion measure, the Tampa Bay Times tells us, quote, Amendment 4 would bar lawmakers from banning abortion before a fetus is viable, undoing the current six-week ban on the books. The amendment would also allow for

abortions in cases when the mother's health is threatened, quote, as determined by the patient's health care provider, end quote. Now, Governor DeSantis points to the very slippery language here, and this is where pro-life Americans, this is where Christians need to think very hard, because when we go back to the Roe v. Wade decision and the Doe v. Bolton decision that went with it back in 1973, we just kind of summarize it all by calling it Roe v. Wade. The reality is that the exemption in terms of even a ban on late-term abortions for the health of the mother was very quickly expanded from physical health to mental health. And thus, you had the argument there that was just tailor-made for people come along and say, here's a diagnosis of a danger to mental health. And just imagine how expansive that could be. And thus, abortion would be allowable under that circumstance. That was the argument.

Governor DeSantis is rightly pointing to the slippery language that is intentional in this proposed amendment. It says that the health threat would be determined by, quote, the patient's health care provider, end quote. As Governor DeSantis pointed out, the term health care provider is not even defined in the measure. So Florida voters are here being asked to approve a situation that would include a health of the mother provision as judged by a health care provider with frankly neither the woman's health nor the health care provider defined. Just understand how big this barn door is. A video played when the governor spoke said, quote, they didn't have to write amendment for this way, but they did, why? The answer on the video, rightly, quote, because they want to deceive you to make their extreme

amendment seem reasonable, end quote. It's also sobering to recognize that Florida's governor said, quote, if you look at the state of Florida, we do not have a pro-life majority. We've got a big chunk, but we don't have a majority. If only people that are pro-life oppose it meaning amendment for, it very well might pass, end quote. So the governor here is being candid, speaking to pro-life Floridians, that the effort to defeat this amendment needs to zero in on arguments that can win some who do not consider themselves pro-life. And I think it's very sobering to recognize, very challenging to recognize. He said that if Amendment 4 passes, you're going to have a shutdown of legislation. The pro-life movement, the pro-life momentum in Florida basically will be

shut down. Furthermore, another political reality we need to recognize is that the pro-abortion movement will seize upon any, not to mention all of these potential wins coming in November, as evidence of the fact that there needs to be federal legislation guaranteeing, as they would put at a woman's right to an abortion. And furthermore, just arguing that pro-life Americans are such a minority, we can be disregarded anyway. And I just want to say as a matter of political candor, just in terms of political realism, that there are an awful lot of people who hold office who are likely to turn out to be less pro-life than we thought once the tide changes, and they're thinking about their own future political prospects.

That's just a matter of political fact. Okay, the other state I wanted to mention in particular is Missouri. And in Missouri, you've got some big questions. For instance, Republican Senator Josh Hawley, who's very clearly and loudly pro-life is running for re-election to another term. And it is looking pretty good in terms of those prospects. The abortion question there in Missouri

is not at this point in terms of, of the polling looking so positive. And so looking at it, we recognize that once again we see a challenge in a state that we thought would have been far more pro-life and sentiment. Now, the fact is that the law there, the proposed law, is also so irresponsible and so deceptive that we can just hope there's time for the voters in Missouri to come to understand how deceptive and slippery the law is. And yet, you really can't count on the mainstream media to make that argument. And as evidence of that, I just want to say that as I was in St. Louis a few days ago, I picked up the St. Louis Post Dispatch, that's the most influential newspaper there in the eastern part of Missouri, and they

actually ran on the editorial page another view. That is to say they're running another paper's editorial. In the midst of the abortion question in Missouri, one of those influential papers in the state, if not the most influential paper in the state, runs a Los Angeles Times editorial, our bodies are on the ballot. The subhead November election could make or break reproductive freedom. Now, here you have an argument. We just need to recognize it is so undiluted in terms of its pro-abortion force that it basically says any restriction on abortion should be out of line.

Any restriction on abortion should be made illegal. If possible, it should be rendered unconstitutional. The editorial, and again from the Los Angeles Times, now published in Missouri in the St. Louis Post Dispatch says, quote, our bodies are on the ballot. Alexis McGill Johnson, the president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, got it right when she declared that during her speech at the Democratic National Convention last week. So that statement, our bodies are on the ballot, is coming from the head of Planned Parenthood, who, no coincidence, had a major speaking role at the Democratic National

Convention. But now the editors say, quote, there's no question that the right to control your own body should be on the minds of every voter in the November election. The editorial goes on. Quote, Kamala Harris has made the aggressive defense of reproductive rights a main goal of her vice presidency, and Donald Trump's three anti-abortion appointments to the Supreme Court helped overturn Roe v. Wade. But the editorial then shifts to say, quote, but abortion access has been making its way onto state election ballots ever since the Supreme Court took away the federal constitutional guarantee to that right in its 2022 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

The editors then say, quote, in every case, voters have supported ballot measures guaranteeing a right to abortion while defeating those that would have constitutionally outlawed, even in conservative-leaning states. Just listen to this. Quote, voters understand the danger of repressive state bans on abortion that intimidate health care providers into not performing emergency abortions until women are critically ill. That is such a distorted argument. And what you're really looking at here is that the pro-abortion movement has seized upon. this as an opportunity to say any limitation on abortion, any limitation upon abortion at any stage for any reason. It's illegitimate because it endangers a woman's health. Well, this takes us right back to Roe v. Wade in 1973, Doe v. Bolton. Takes us right back 50 years, more than a half-century indeed, going back to the argument because they want to scare voters into believing that it's going

to be a widespread problem that women's health will be endangered. Now, there are extremely rare situations in which a woman's health, a woman's life, physical life, is endangered at some point, and that includes a time when she is pregnant. And sometimes hard decisions have to be made. But the Christian worldview reminds us that the bringing about of the termination of a pregnancy can never be the goal of any appropriate and moral surgical or medical action. And in some very rare cases, we're talking about extremely rare cases. So rare, you wouldn't see reference to it in something like this editorial. it could be that the termination of a pregnancy is the unavoidable side effect, secondary effect,

of a surgical or medical effort for which the primary effect is to save the woman's life. That's technical language, but sometimes in Christian ethics you have to use technical language. It is to say that the death of the fetus can never, under any circumstance, be a primary intention of any medical act. if it is a secondary effect of some action seeking to save the life of the mother in extremely rare cases, and you can underline the word extremely rare cases, then that's something that Christian ethics can handle. But that's not what these abortion rights amendments and bills and measures and referenda are all about. This is about radical measures to make abortion absolutely normal. I just want to go to the very end of this editorial because it's so morally revealing,

quote, reproductive freedom is about having the power to make choices, and that is something that we must vigilantly work for and protect at all levels of government. End quote. Do you notice how all of a sudden the issue of personal autonomy and just even the mandate of choice, it now becomes the ultimate good? And I'll just say there's no moral order that can survive choice being elevated as the ultimate good. That is absolute moral insanity, but that's the absolute candor of the point made in this editorial.

One other thing, as you look earlier in this piece in a section I read, you'll notice the accusation that the Supreme Court in 2022, quote, took away the federal constitutional guarantee to that right, end quote. No, that is not what the court did. The court, by its majority judgment, in the Dobbs decision in 2002, said there never had been any supposed right to an abortion in terms of a constitutional right, not when you look at the text of the Constitution and America's constitutional history. That was absolutely invented to serve the abortion rights movement by revisionist justices back in 1973. The court didn't take away a constitutional right. It made very clear that abortion has never been and is not a constitutional right. Go back to the text and read it for yourself. Well, we're going to be watching those 10 states, especially closely, and following the abortion issue in the presidential election and, frankly, as it ricochets all throughout the political. process. And no apology for that. As Christians seeking to affirm, to live by, and to proclaim the truth of a biblical Christian worldview, we got no choice but to give very central attention

to the question of the sanctity and dignity of human life, with human life defined by the fact that every single human being is made in God's image. But we're also looking at other issues and related issues, frankly, when it comes to the dignity and sanctity of human life. And one of these is in vitro fertilization known as IVF. And of course, the headlines in this case were not made on the Democratic side. They were made particularly on the Republican side by the Republican presidential nominee, former President Donald Trump, who has been, as we've discussed, seeking to gain what he perceives as some middle ground in voters by coming out with statements that move away from a very clear position on abortion and also in terms of a concern about in vitro fertilization.

And you'll notice that Donald Trump apparently has no concern about in vitro fertilization. Not only that, but in the midst of other proposals he has made for increased federal spending in terms of medical coverage, he went on to say he thinks that government or through mandates insurance companies should be forced to pay for in vitro treatments, in vitro procedures. Now, the Wall Street Journal just responded to that by saying, you know, we could be looking at multiple billions of dollars a year being added. And by the way, both sides, the Republicans and the Democrats at the top of the ticket, they've been making all kinds of extravagant promises about increased federal spending. Now, I'm not even saying all of that is wrong in terms of priority in terms of, for instance, tax credits to parents who have babies. But I am saying the way that's defined in terms of the political reality now, it's likely to be something of a disaster, not only in fiscal terms, but in moral terms. I don't think we can count on the federal government defining that issue very consistently. But let's just say babies are a good thing. In terms of the biblical worldview, babies are a very good thing. A necessary sign of

the health of a civilization is its birth rate, and that's where we recognize we're in big trouble. We'll be talking more about that. But IVF was basically just kind of glossed over by the former president when he said he has no moral concerns about it whatsoever. I just want to come back to a basic issue. And we have just a few moments here to think about this. I just want to clarify this because I feel it to be an absolute moral mandate. If we say that life begins at conception, and thus we mean at fertilization, and at that point, God says let there be life. And every single human life represents a person made in God's image. And that that's to be reflected all the way in terms of public policy from the moment of conception until natural death. You can't all of a sudden

say, well, except for IVF, especially when you come to know the truth of IVF. And yes, a Part of the truth is it allows many married couples who otherwise wouldn't be able to have children to have children. Okay, having children is a good thing. The Christian worldview is just absolutely clear about that. But the context, the conditions, the procedures, the moral involvements, they are a part also of our Christian responsibility. And when you look at IVF, first of all, abstracting the process of human reproduction from the conjugal relationship of marriage, you realize not only do you have married couples, that means a man and a woman, a husband and a wife, able to take and make use of that technology. You also have single persons. You have same-sex male couples. You have same-sex female couples. You have an entire market of surrogacy that comes out of that.

And this gets back to a Christian moral principle of abstraction. The more you abstract from the organic ontological unit, the more ethical danger you bring in. That was a lot of words, a lot of syllables. That means the further you abstract reproduction from marriage, the more moral risk you bring in. That's unavoidable. Forgive the syllables. You needed to hear them. I just need just to recognize that at this point,

and I'm not happy about this, but it's just a point of realism. So far as I know, in none of the 50 states, is there a current legislative, much less constitutional proposal that has anything to do with IVF? In terms of rebuilding our understanding and affirmation as Americans, for instance,

on the sanctity and dignity of human life, we've got a lot of ground to regain and right now, I'll just admit, we're in no position as a confused culture to regulate or even have a serious discussion at this point about IVF. That serious discussion is going to have to come. And sadly, that serious discussion is going to have to come among Christians where, honestly, there's been a lot of confusion and a lot of just avoidance of dealing with the question of the moral status of the human embryo and with the fact that current IVF protocols call for the production

or creation of embryos, which are never going to be transferred into the mother. And there are those who are Christian saying, look, what we need to move for is thus only producing enough embryos that those embryos will all be transferred. I will say, well, you're lowering a little bit the moral risk there, but you still have the abstraction, you still have the moral risk. And furthermore, you also have to recognize that in the current practice of IVF, this is no exaggeration. Through embryo sorting, there is a medical sorting of embryos that, you know,

looks better and more attractive in terms of the transfer prospect and those who are less likely, have less potential to be transferred. That's sorting human beings in terms of making decisions that no previous generation of human beings had the power to do or even the imagination to conceive of. So, yes, I'm concerned as the editors of the Wall Street Journal are concerned about the fiscal ramifications of this, it's very easy to say, let's just pay for that. But my concern is far deeper. And it's at the most basic moral level. I, again, want to see as many babies born as possible within the right moral context. And in terms of consistency with God's creation plan, which was revealed to us in Scripture,

I want to see more babies. I want to see the birth rate go up. I also want to see the marriage rate go up. And I want to see marriage as the union of a man and a woman for a lifetime covenant. I, as a Christian, have no choice but to contend for these things. and at times I have no choice but to remind Christians, these are theological ethical principles that we believe are rooted in and revealed in Scripture. We have no right to disturn our backs and ignore them as if these issues and Christian principles and truths don't exist.

Now there are a myriad of pastoral issues for us to consider here, counseling issues, encouragement to Christian couples, encouragement to Christian parents. There are some ethical issues to think through here that go far beyond what we can discuss today. But what is absolutely irresponsible is for Christians to say, especially if they claim to be at all committed to the sanctity of human life and to a biblical worldview, I believe in these things, except, you know, when it comes to IVF, I'm not going to apply what I just said about the sanctity and dignity of human life in that case. Just listen to that argument and understand what it really means. We'll continue to watch these issues and to seek with you to think them through from a

Christian biblical worldview. Hey, you may have seen the controversy that emerged, particularly on online over the historical verdict on Winston Churchill. As you might guess, I've got something to say about that. And so I want to direct you to a YouTube video. You'll see the link at the bottom of this article. And, well, I'll just say I take a pretty strong stand when it comes to thinking through some of the accusations made about Winston Churchill. I also have a piece today at World Opinions making a similar argument.

So you'll see the link to that article also with today's edition of the briefing. And I say this honestly, let me hear from you. I'd love to know what you think. Thanks for listening to The Briefing. For more information, go to my website at Albertmuller.com. You can find me on Twitter or X by going to Twitter.com forward slash Albert Moller. For information on the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbtsd.u. For information on Boyce College, just go to Boiscollege.com.

I'll meet you again tomorrow for the briefing.