The Briefing with Albert Mohler - Wednesday, October 30, 2024

Episode Date: October 30, 2024

This is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.Part I (00:13 - 10:27)Abortion on the Ballot in Ten States: A Radical Constitutional Amendment Packaged as ‘Reproductive Health Care’ Faces Missouri Voters2024 Ballot Measures by Missouri Secretary of StateAmendment to Limit Government Interference with Abortion by Florida Division of ElectionsPart II (10:27 - 15:57)Where Did the Pro-Lifers Go? A Secular Age Clarifies Who is Convictionally and Genuinely Pro-LifePart III (15:57 - 20:10)We Are About to Learn How Effective a Pro-Abortion Platform Is: The Inconsistency of the American Voter and the Need to Continue to Fight for Unborn LifeAs Election Day Nears, Democrats Test Just How Powerful Abortion Really Is by The New York Times (Elizabeth Dias and Lisa Lerer)Part IV (20:10 - 25:46)There’s a New Key to Unlocking Who Might Win the Election? Why the Betting World Might Indicate Who Will Be the Next President of the United StatesThe Crypto Website Where the Election Odds Swing in Trump’s Favor by The New York Times (David Yaffe-Bellany and Erin Griffith)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 Wednesday, October 30, 2024. I'm Albert Mueller, and this is the briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. Abortions on the ballot in a big way in the 2024 election. And of course, it's on the ballot when it comes to the presidential election because even as neither of the candidates has a clear pro-life position, the fact is that the Democratic nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris, has an extremely radical pro-abortion position. She's gone so far as to say that she's not only for federal legislation that would legalize abortion in all 50 states, but that she would even argue for the Senate to suspend the filibuster in order to force that legislation through, and she also wants to force taxpayers to pay for abortions in all 50 states. Former President Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, has sent mixed signals on abortion disappointing many pro-life voters, but at the same time, he and his party had to be put in the context of a far more pro-life position than what you find on the Democratic side.

In particular, President Trump says that he would oppose any federal legislation on abortion, and that means shutting down what Kamala Harris would wish to make as a first priority, but it also comes down to the appointment of those who will serve in the government. It is the effective election of a government, and in that case, the most important thing is that it was Trump, who appointed three conservative justices to the United States Supreme Court, and without those three justices, we would not have had the reversal of the Roe v. Wade decision. That reversal came in the year 2022. So we as pro-life voters know we have a lot of work to do, and we are chastened by the fact that we've been recently reminded we have even more work to do than we knew. But it's not only at the

national level, it is also at the state level, and no less than 10 states. Voters in 10 states will be voting on some kind of measure that is intended to legalize or expand abortion rights. Those 10 states are Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, and South Dakota. But I'm speaking to you right now from the state of Missouri, and as I do so, I'm very much aware that what is coming up as what will be known as Amendment 3 on the ballot here in Missouri, it is a radical pro-abortion change to the Missouri Constitution. It, in effect, declares abortion to be a fundamental right. Now, we talked about this already this week. When you declare abortion to be a

fundamental right, and Kamala Harris makes that argument over and over again, you are arguing that it is a right that takes first priority. It is a right that the state must recognize, according to this logic, and any restriction whatsoever is suspect. And so that is a declaration that, of course, has no basis in our constitutional history until you get to the Roe v. Wade decision invented by the Supreme Court in the year 1973. The majority of the court absolutely determined to legalize abortion, which, of course, is not a constitutional right. Would have been absolute nonsense, actually far worse, to the American founders and the framers of the U.S. Constitution. But we'll have to leave that issue for a moment and go back to the states because as we're thinking about

this, the state of Missouri is in this effort poised to declare abortion to be a fundamental right. And that's what is also happening in several of the other states. There are various different pieces here that will be presented to voters, but the most important of them are constitutional amendments in the various states. We need to recognize that this is a legal strategy to get around the political reality that you have legislators that have adopted legislation restricting abortion in some way in many of these states, and you have those who are wanting to amend the Constitution of those states in order to prevent that kind of legislation. And so it's in many cases, all too many cases, it's actually a radical pro-abortion position that would be put not only into law, but into the

constitution of the respective state. I want to look particularly today at the proposed amendment to Missouri Constitution because I'm here in Missouri and I have the text in my hands. It would amend Section 36, Paragraph 1 of the Missouri State Constitution in a section that would be known as, quote, the Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative. The statement two in the initiative says this, quote, the government shall not deny or infringe upon a person's fundamental right to reproductive freedom, which is the right to make and carry out decisions about all matter. relating to reproductive health care, including that not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, abortion care, miscarriage care, and respectful birthing conditions.

Paragraph three states, the right to reproductive freedom shall not be denied, interfered with, delayed or otherwise restricted, unless the government demonstrates that such action is justified by a compelling governmental interest achieved in the least restrictive means. The statement goes on to explain that saying, quote, any denied. interference, delay, or restriction on the right to reproductive freedom shall be presumed invalid. Well, I'm going to stop there, even though the text goes on, because the most important thing is you'll notice just how radical that this proposal is. It declares abortion to be a fundamental right. Now, as I say, it is not rightly claimed that abortion is a fundamental right. It is not rightly

claimed with any kind of straight face that abortion was a fundamental right that would have been recognized as such by the framers of the Constitution that is a ludicrous argument. But you know what? If a sufficient number of the voters in Missouri vote for this amendment, the Constitution is going to be amended in just this way. But we need to face the facts here. We are looking at a truly radical proposal, but the likelihood is going to pass here in Missouri on November 5th. Why would that be the case? Well, it is the case simply because it looks like a majority of those who are going to vote Missouri are going to vote to establish or expand abortion rights in the state. Technically, this measure would provide for abortion as a fundamental right so long as the woman has not reached the 25th week

or so when the baby's reached viability. In that case, it is at least conceded that some kind of fundamental state interests could then interfere with an abortion. But that's no assurance that there will be any such restriction on abortion. And frankly, the viability issue, is often surpassed in terms of this kind of constitutional amendment and legal logic by the fact that there are, of course, exceptions that are declared. And those exceptions when they include the mental health of the woman, recall here it could just as well be stated in these confused days, pregnant person. The fact is that when the mental health of the woman is cited as the cause of an exemption that makes almost any mental state claimed by the woman to be presumably in the hands of some kind of

health professional, a rationale for approving the medical necessity of an abortion. That is to say, it throws the barn door wide open. Missouri Republican Senator Josh Hawley points out that this constitutional amendment might kick another door open, and there he's referencing the fact that when the amendment uses very vague language about an undefined women's right to reproductive health, and for that matter, a person's right to reproductive health, that underlines the fact that it could be used by those seeking to expand the transgender agenda to force, at least, the argument that this constitutional amendment affords an opening to anything that might be categorized as reproductive health care.

And as we know, the way these ideological movements push this kind of medical situation, you can well face a situation in which people are claiming that this particular constitutional amendment, which we are told is about abortion, but actually references reproductive health care, you have to wonder how many voters understand that they might be opening a door that they haven't been told would be opened. The advocates of the amendment, of course, say that Senator Hawley is simply trying to scare people, but the reality is there's good reason to be scared here. There's abundant reason to be scared here. There's plenty of precedent for how this kind of language, which is put forward in such very generalized terms, again, reproductive health, not defined, but just illustrated, that tells us that those behind this amendment want to kick the barn door open and they know exactly what they're doing.

The question is, will the voters of Missouri know what they're doing? But as I said, it's not just Missouri. It is also a state like Florida. Florida is facing a similar measure. and I want to state a personal word of appreciation for Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, also a Republican, who really has put himself on the line. He's been traveling around the state arguing against that constitutional amendment and putting his political life on the line. That's something I greatly respect when it comes to Governor DeSantis. But there's a difference in Florida. It's not so much a difference in the measure that is proposed, as Governor DeSantis says, the proposed amendment would be truly radical in its expansion of abortion.

rights, but in the state of Florida, an amendment to the Constitution has to pass by a 60% margin. That's very different than in other states where 50% plus one might be enough to amend the state's constitution. Now, pollsters are saying that it will be close, although even the advocates of the measure, the pro-abortion measure in Florida, seem to indicate that they don't expect to get to 60%. But you need to understand they're not going to go away. They will be back. And they will be back in a way that they believe will give them an even greater opportunity to amend the Florida Constitution. But voters need to remember that what you're voting on on November the 5th is the ballot presented to you on November the 5th. Even if voting the right way on that ballot doesn't solve issues projected into the future,

you have to vote for the present. And you'll have to be ready to vote faithfully again in the future. Those who are pushing the pro-abortion cause, if they fail this time, they will be back. But this is where the pro-life voters also need to be very clear. We're not giving up here. It is a very sobering reality to recognize that we are way behind where we thought we were in terms of the fight for unborn life, for the dignity and sanctity and preservation of unborn life. This gets to a couple of issues I think we might helpfully discuss today on the briefing. How is it that the pro-life movement has found itself in such an unexpected position? I'm going to argue that it shouldn't have been entirely unexpected. One of the things we need to recognize is a category we just need to know is the

cost of conviction. It's a calculus of the cost of conviction. Let me just put the issue plainly. So long as Roe v. Wade was the law of the land as declared by the Supreme Court, it was fairly easy for people, and this includes some politicians, let's just say. It was very easy for people to say, I'm pro-life. I want to see legislation that will be pro-life and substance. I want to protect the unborn. I want to see even the reversal of Roe v. Wade. The social cost of making that statement went up enormously when Roe was actually reversed. And all of a sudden, people said, wait just a minute. This is a disaster. And some of the very same people who said they wanted to see Roe reversed, once Roe was reversed, and the cost of that convictional stance grew, they all of a sudden

started to back up. When many neighbors and friends or classmates at school started to say, well, this is an atrocity, the Dobbs decision reversing row. This is an absolute infringement of a woman's reproductive freedom. Well, there were those who win the cost of conviction on the issue of the pro-life cause. When that cost was low, their support was high, but when that cost goes higher, their support goes lower. This is something we just need to recognize. There's a second pattern, and this has to do with generational change. If you look at the pro-life movement and the fact that it really began to congeal to come together after the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, it took almost 50 years. Practically, it took 50 years to reverse Roe v. Wade. It took 50 years of work, 50 years of argument,

50 years of activism. And this is where we need to understand that that 50 years of activism and that 50 years of argument evidently wasn't enough. Now, the pro-life cause, those involved in the pro-life cause, can just step back and say, never mind, or we can understand we just have to press a head in this challenge. And the challenge, remember that 50-year figure? That challenge is generational in a way we need to recognize. Most voters voting in the 2024 election will not have been alive when the Roe v. Wade decision was handed down by the Supreme Court in 1973. They have not been deeply involved in debates over the issue of abortion, and quite frankly, many of them, even when they should know better, evidently don't know better. And that gets to a third issue. I just want to put on the table,

and I hope this will be helpful to you. And it's the category of social capital. Now, you know what the capital markets are? They're the money markets. When you talk about capital in this sense, that's C-A-P-I-T-A-L, we're talking about money. We're talking about finance. But we're also talking about, say, money in the bank. Well, let's stop talking about money as capital, and let's talk about social standing as capital. Let's say that you have something like a bank account with money in it? Well, then you know how much money's in it? What if you have a social account and you either add social capital to your account or you withdraw social capital from your account? Let's just say if you're a student on a college campus, this is easy to figure out. If you hold the popular

position, you add to your social capital. If you hold to an unpopular position, you lose social capital. This is a real challenge when it comes to Christians, say Christian young people on campus. You believe in a sexual ethic that is grounded in scripture? Guess what? You're going lose social capital. You encourage all your classmates just to give in to whatever sexual impulse or identity they want to claim. You gain social capital. If you are in a secularized age, a secular person, you gain social capital in your secularization. If you are a convictional confessing Christian in the midst of a secularizing culture, that costs you social capital. Now, here's the thing. If you are a person who deeply cares about social capital,

then you're going to figure out how much a certain conviction will cost you. And you're going to decide whether or not you will hold to that conviction, or at least you're going to decide whether you will admit to that conviction. You're going to measure the cost in social capital. That's exactly what's going on among many who had claimed they were pro-life just a matter of, say, 10 years ago. The social capital cost just got too high. They were losing too much social capital. They became unpopular with their friends.

Or they just had to make arguments they didn't want to make. they just had to become that person who doesn't go along with the herd. And this is where Christians are going to have to ask a big question. Are we willing to lose social capital for the truth? I think that's exactly what the New Testament teaches us. The issue is that we will either hold our faithfulness to Christ as more precious to us, or the gaining of social capital is more precious to us. And every Christian in this age is going to come to the point where we're going to have to cash in one or the other. I think it's good for Christians to say this out loud and just to remind, ourselves that we cannot just sell out our convictions for social capital. Or, to put it another way,

what would a man gain if he gained social capital at the cost of his soul? Well, all right, let's shift to another issue that's just hot and urgent in the 2024 campaign as related to the question of abortion. Front page article in the New York Times, Sunday's edition, ballot power of abortion will be tested. Now, a duo of reporters in this case has looked at at an interesting question, and that is, is abortion turning out to be the winning issue that Democrats thought it was? Now, here's where things get really interesting. And if you're a veteran political observer, this makes sense to you, but in any event, it's just good to think about it for a moment. So let's do just that. Let's consider that Democratic presidential nominee,

Vice President Kamala Harris, has decided to make abortion the first order issue in terms of her argument for why she should be elected president of the United States. She uses the same argument in reverse as to why Donald Trump should not be elected to another term as president of the United States. She says abortion should be central. Remember, she's making the argument that it's a fundamental right and thus no concessions. But here's where we need to notice something, and that is that the New York Times is asking, is that really working? Now, here's where things get interesting. Yes, it appears to work in the sense of mobilizing democratic voters. But you know what? It doesn't seem, at least at this point, it doesn't seem to predict a democratic victory in many races simply because

abortion is the issue in the presidential race. It turns out that, in least, according to the analysis of the New York Times, citing many sources, it does appear that people may split their ticket when it comes to the question of abortion. So again, I'm right here in Missouri, and here are two things which seem counterintuitive. It seems right now all the polling indicates that the abortion amendment is going to pass. It also, appears that pro-life Republican Senator Josh Hawley is favored for re-election. How can that be so? It is because it looks like voters are making two different decisions, and the issue of abortion is not the only issue that they are considering. Now, this raises another question, and that is,

the Democrats were counting on the abortion issue to lead to, say, political conversions on the part of many voters. And so Kamala Harris has rather famously been reaching out even to some Republicans, saying don't vote for Donald Trump, vote for me. And abortion rights has been at least a part of the argument. But it turns out that that's not working, especially when you look throughout the political system, the way that the Democrats have hoped. And so state by state, for example, and even throwing in the presidency, there are people who may well vote for Kamala Harris or against her, and then at the state level vote in a different way. And then in a particular election, they may vote for candidate A or candidate B without regard to abortion. They may even say in this race, abortion's most central to me,

but in that race, even though it could be, it's not. Now, that just points to the fact that most American voters are incredibly inconsistent. They're inconsistent, and many of them will admit that they're not even sure exactly why they make the decisions they make. But I'm simply going to turn that around and say it is the responsibility of Christians to try to vote in the way that will, to the greatest degree possible, add strength to the pro-life cause and not detract from that cause. I'm not saying that's always easy, but I am saying usually it's pretty clear. It's pretty clear which candidate is at least more, in this case, far more pro-abortion than the other. And we obviously have a lot of work to do, particularly in the Republican Party in order to regain

a consistently pro-life position. No doubt about that challenge. But the reality is we're going have to deal with this election on November the 5th, and then starting right away on November the 6th, we're going to have to address that challenge and build a greater consensus and a greater well of conviction in this country in terms of the dignity and the sanctity of unborn life. Otherwise, the cause of abortion is simply lost. But this is where Christians have to understand. All of these issues are related. In worldview analysis, they are all related. And so if we give upon the cause of abortion, dear friends, we're giving up eventually on just about everything that is important to us. Don't misunderstand that, November 5th or any other day.

Next, I want to turn to a very different issue also related to the upcoming election, and that is what system of prediction is likely to turn out to be most effective. Now, in coming days, we're going to be talking about what's going on with the polls and pollsters, but right now I'm not talking about polls and pollsters. I am talking about the betting markets. Okay, this is something fairly new in American politics. Now you have markets, that is to say, you have publicly accessible data telling us how people are actually betting on the 2024 election coming up on November the 5th, and particularly in the presidential election.

So the New York Times, business page, big front page story, betting on the election and on the economy. So in other words, it's all related. But the point is, let's just ask the question, how would a betting market actually give us more information than, say, an academic survey or some kind of commercial poll. Why would betting perhaps be a more important indicator? Well, let's just think about it for a moment. What makes betting different? Well, let's just cut to the obvious bottom line. What makes betting different than answering a poll question is money. And that is to say that the Christian worldview, which is against gambling, nonetheless does understand that there is information encoded in gambling. It's one thing to say,

I'm going to vote for, say, Donald Trump or Kamala Harris, is another thing to actually put money down on the likelihood that either of these candidates is going to win. Now, in various elections, the gambling or the betting markets have actually been pretty highly predictive of the outcome of elections. I'm not saying that that's a good thing or a bad thing. I'm just saying it's a thing. And there is increased attention to the fact that these betting markets are becoming more and more involved in even news coverage and citing the horse. race as to who's ahead or who's perceived to be behind. And so, again, if you're putting money in the equation, it's not saying you want this candidate to win, as much as it says, I think that candidate is going to win. I think the odds, that's the gambling term, are in that candidate's favor. Now, the betting markets have actually been pretty clearly in favor of the expectation that Donald

Trump will win the presidential election. That's been a trend over recent weeks. It's grown to be even more accentuated. Now, that could be wrong or it could be right, but nonetheless, it does tell you how many people who know how to at least, or think they know how to figure out the odds. That's how they figure the odds are going. At one point, it was almost 70-30 in terms of how the odds were at least established by some of the betting markets. Now, the interesting question is, will that last? And this is where you simply have to watch it day by day, if not hour by hour. And that just points to the fact that everyone right now is trying to figure out who's going to win this election. And there are those who are trying to figure out just who's going to win the election.

And then there are people who are trying to figure out, is my candidate going to win the election? My preferred candidate. We need to recognize those are two different questions. And that also leads to another issue in terms of, say, the effects of sin. What if people wanted to make a candidate look as if that candidate is winning in order to add momentum to that campaign? That's also something that has erupted in the news with the word that one single better have put down an incredible number of millions of dollars in favor of Donald Trump winning. Does that mean he wants him to win?

Well, you know, at least in terms of just the bet, all it says is that he thinks Donald Trump is going to win. But what if he's actually playing a game trying to juice the market, so to speak, in such a way that more people will think, okay, Donald Trump's going to win, I want to be on the winning side. All of that's to say, I don't know the answer to any of these questions. But someone is really investing a lot of money in believing that there's something significant here in terms of predictive value for the 2024 presidential election. The New York Times coverage also went on to question whether or not the cryptocurrency markets or the crypto markets, as they are known, serve a predictive factor when it comes to the presidential election. Now, I just want to step back a moment and say, I want to ask what does all of this mean?

And I think what it means is there's an inordinate interest in the presidential election. Okay, grant that for a minute, but then let's step back or press back even further and ask, why are people so interested in this election? It is because they believe that so much is at stake in the question. Is that right or wrong? Well, at least at that point, the assumption is profoundly right. There is so much at stake in this election, and you don't have to be a gambling expert to figure that out. Will this election matter in terms of the future of American politics?

Will this election matter in terms of the contours of her culture? Will this election matter in terms of the future of the America? Our children and grandchildren will inhabit? Well, regardless of the gambling markets, I can assure you this. Of that, well, you can bet on it. Thanks for listening to the briefing. For more information to go to my website at Albertmohler.com. You can follow me on Twitter or X by going to Twitter.com forward slash Albert Moller.

For information on the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to SPTS.edu. For information on Boyce College, just go to Boisecollege.com. I'm speaking to you from Kansas City, Missouri, and I'll meet you again tomorrow for the briefing.