Monday, March 23, 2026

It's Monday, March 23, 2026.

I'm Albert Moller, and this is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from

a Christian world view.

Just over the last several days, several big moral issues have arisen every one of them

invoking the Christian world view.

We really need to think as Christians about these things.

Let's go to a vote in the United States Senate on Saturday as the headline in the Washington

Post says, quote, Senate rejects measure to ban trans athletes and female sports.

Okay.

So this is a part of the Save America legislation pushed by President Trump in the White

House.

It's basically an election reform measure, but other things have been put into it.

And that's the case more often than not these days in legislation.

But on the issue of whether or not the federal government should say that only we're talking

about minors here, those under 18.

The legislation would have stated that on school sports teams and other such endeavors,

only biological males should play on boys teams and biological females should play on

female teams.

Now let's just state the obvious, the overwhelming majority of Americans are for this.

It is just common sense.

It's so common that it is more so, even then in times past, a clear issue among the American

people.

It's just to say the more the American people have thought about this, the less they believe

that it's possible that you could have someone declare himself to be a female and then

play on a girl's team.

That has become less possible, not more possible.

And that's another reminder of what we find in Romans chapter one where nature makes these

things very clear.

And yet in sinfulness, human beings can deny the obvious, but you know what?

The obvious still, it has the power of remaining obviously for a time.

We don't know as Christians that the fact that the vast majority of Americans are clear

on this issue.

We don't know that that's going to last.

We do know that it's important.

Well, informed Democrats in the United States Senate because the Democrats held together

against this legislation.

The Washington Post reported this way, quote, the Senate on Saturday rejected an amendment

to a far reaching voting bill that would abandon transgender females from playing in girls

and women's sports, a provision that President Donald Trump had demanded to be included in

the legislation.

Okay.

Again, legislation that includes many different things, the kind of omnibus legislation, the

kind of collective legislation, that's more than norm than the exception these days.

The Safe America Act would have included the measure that would have amended title nine.

That's the 1972 law that prohibits discrimination based on sex, where you could say gender in

this case, sex is the more precise word.

But the point is that you have the legislation back in 1972 prohibits discrimination on

the basis of sex and educational institutions that receive federal funding.

And so that means that you cannot discriminate against males and females, particularly in

things such as sports.

And so you must have women's sports if you have men's sports, et cetera.

You know, it's clear that in 1972, no one would have understood the necessity of going

further in elaborating who is a male and who is a female.

And by the way, that's basically true for all of human history going back to creation.

Let's just say it's been that clear ever since.

And one of the ways you know it's clear is that transgressions have stood out as just that

transgressions.

All right.

What we're looking at here, though, is the fact that the Republicans did hold together.

But the Democrats voted against it.

They didn't dare to speak against it.

That's to say, they did not have the courage of their convictions, but they are trapped

by the LGBTQ lobby and the force on the left there in the Democratic Party.

This is massively important.

Now, of course, the most important issue here is the reality that this is contrary to

nature.

It's contrary to God's plan.

It's contrary to reason.

And it's going to put young women and girls at risk, okay?

And it's not going to put them just at risk of losing, say, some trophies and some

contests.

It's going to put them at risk simply by having biological males in the spaces that should

be devoted to biological females, period.

But there is more to it, even than that, because the confusion itself is deadly.

The confusion set loose in our society is just absolutely irrational.

And that level of irrationality is indeed deadly, okay?

So if the Democrats were so solidly opposed to this, why didn't they say anything?

Was because they don't want to be on the record, but they do want their vote on the record

because they have to win in Democratic primaries.

And right now, the left, the far left is so much in control of the Democratic Party

that they can't transgress.

How do you like that word?

That's one of the words that on the left they love.

But you have here the clear unwillingness of even one Democrat in the Senate to transgress

that party policy and vote for a reasonable solution.

And that means no biological males in female spaces.

Okay.

It is also interesting, of course, that this is part of larger legislation that itself is

going to have a very hard time in the Senate.

And that's going to lead to a host of issues and an increased debate about the filibuster.

That's the rule that there must be a supermajority for most legislation.

And that means 60 votes.

But as we think about this, I just want us to keep things clear.

The Senate is the upper chamber.

Its constitutional responsibility is to act as an upper chamber.

And as an upper chamber, it is to slow down the passions of the House.

In fact, that's a part of the language that was used in the founding era when the framing

of the Constitution took place.

When they said it needs to be a cooling saucer, the Senate needs to be a cooling saucer

for the passions of the House.

Even Trump has called outright for eliminating the filibuster rule.

And for Republicans now that they have a very small majority, but still a majority, just

getting rid of it so that he can push and Republicans can push their agenda through

without any democratic votes.

The problem with that is not that the filibuster itself was found in the Constitution, though

the logic is deeply within the Senate's traditions.

The problem is that if you just add up the pragmatic numbers here, the math, there

been more years in which you've had a democratic president and a democratic majority in the Senate

than you have had Republican president and Republican majority in the Senate, which

is to say this would be something of a suicide pill for Republicans.

And you do have President Trump who frankly isn't worried about the situation 20 years

so now, or even 10 years so now.

He has, you know, just the remaining time on his term, there are things he wants to

get done.

I understand his impatience.

But when we look at our own constitutional system, you know, it's often the case, by

the way, that the necessity of the filibuster has revealed not only the fact that it requires

some bipartisan support, not always, depending on the composition of the Senate.

But it generally also reveals the fact that even inside the parties, the unity is often

not what it appears to be.

And that's what makes, by the way, the fact that all the Democrats voted this provision

down, that's just another indication of the fact that the LGBTQ movement really does

have a stranglehold on that party.

It's also interesting that the Washington Post and the report states right up front, quote,

69% of Americans, including 41% of Democrats say transgender athletes should be allowed

to play only on sports teams that match their birth gender, citing here a Gallup poll

from last year.

Okay.

So here's something to watch.

This is going to be really interesting.

And this can happen in both parties, it can happen at both ends of the political spectrum.

You can get in a situation in which in order to gain the nomination of your party, you

have to take a position that means you will lose in the general election.

And that can happen on the right or the left.

It can happen to a Democrat or a Republican.

But it is interesting right now that on the Democratic side to get the Democratic nomination,

increasingly, you've got to run to the left, the far left, even further left on LGBTQ issues,

absolute down the line.

But if 61% of the American people think that it doesn't make sense to have a biological

male and a female team and you voted against that or you have to take a public stand against

limiting that and returning to sanity.

I'll just say that's going to be a very interesting general election challenge.

All right.

A couple of other giant moral issues that have appeared in local stories, but in both cases,

the local stories have ramifications far beyond where the story took place.

When was in Brunswick, Georgia?

And at a hospital there known as Southeast Georgia Health System, Camden campus, that's

there on the Southwest coast in Georgia, and at least near Brunswick.

A woman showed up with a 20 to 24 week old fetus, and the fetus had cardiac activity,

but the fetus was dying.

The newborn, a girl died within an hour.

So she had taken the woman, it turns out, had taken abortion pills at home.

And remember, we're talking about a 22 to 24 week old baby, a fetus to use the scientific

term in the womb.

And so you're talking about the second half of pregnancy, you're talking about a very

developed baby, an undeniable human being.

And for Christians, it's undeniable from the point of fertilization.

But in this case, we are looking at a conflict with Georgia law, and it's going to be open

for debates, going to be very contested as to whether or not this woman who was charged

with murder after taking these abortion pills that led to the death of her baby at this

stage of development, it's going to be very interesting to see where this goes.

There have been previous court precedents that have stated that according to Georgia law,

a woman cannot be charged with a self-induced abortion.

But it is at least, I think, very important to know that a district attorney has filed

charges there in Georgia.

So again, this article is from the Washington Post, quote, a Georgia woman has been charged

with murder after going to the emergency room with severe pain she experienced after allegedly

taking abortion pills at home.

All right.

So this is the really troubling part of the response to this, the really troubling development

is the death of this baby.

And it is, it was a chosen death.

It was an intentional, premeditated death.

The mother in this case took the abortion pills in order to bring about the death of the

baby.

According to this article, the baby was nonetheless born alive, but died within an hour.

And so we are looking at the death of a human being made in the image of God, the death

of a baby who had been in the womb safely and was killed by the application of these abortion

pills.

The mother was arrested for murder.

But there are those who claim that according to the Georgia Constitution, she can't be charged

with a crime for inducing the abortion herself, going to be a very interesting thing while

you're just going to have to debate this.

I'm very glad this case has come to our attention.

But I want to bring something to your attention beyond this case.

I want to read to you from the Washington Post now.

This is not new as in we've never heard this before, but in this context, this is really

important.

Listen to this quote, Americans largely do not support criminally charging women who have

abortions in a 2022 economist, you go poll 19% of adult respondents had a woman who has

had an abortion that violates state law should be charged with murder, 54% said she should

not be charged and 26% said they were unsure, end quote.

So only 19% in this poll of adults said that they thought a woman who had undertaken

an abortion in violation of state law should be charged for that abortion, much less charged

with murder.

This reveals a basic moral incoherence.

We need to call it out, a moral incoherence.

The incoherence is this.

It makes no sense whatsoever for Americans to say, I believe in the sanctity of human

life.

I believe life begins at the moment of fertilization.

I believe the unborn child should be protected.

But when it comes to a woman, even at this stage of pregnancy, bringing about an abortion,

the vast majority of the same people, at least according to the polls, say the woman should

not be charged with a crime.

Now, there's a long history to this and this long history has to do with the fact that

Americans going back to the 19th century when the abortion movement really began to gain

a lot of attention, particularly in northeastern cities and urban areas where abortionists were

even advertising their business.

When that came to America's conscience, particularly in those urban areas, the decision was to legally

charge the abortionists with crime, but not the women seeking an abortion.

And you know, there is a sense in which there is a different moral culpability in some cases.

And I think we as Christians recognize that.

There are some girls and young women.

There's some women put into very difficult situations.

Anyone who's ever worked in a pro-life ministry, in particular a crisis pregnancy center,

or someone who's been ministering outside an abortion clinic knows exactly what they're

seeing when a man drives a woman up and delivers her to have an abortion.

And so in many cases, it's quite believable that the woman is being forced to do this.

Now, it's not to say she has no responsibility.

It is to say you can end up with a complicated situation here where the Christian worldview

would say you've got to carefully assign blame and responsibility.

But that same Christian worldview says that if a person has moral agency, moral responsibility,

then there is no moral innocence.

And so one of the things I have called for is simply the law to apply when it comes to

the murder of the unborn, the killing of the unborn in a way that assigns proportional

responsibility, which is exactly what we do with the murder of a person outside the womb.

There are different degrees of murder.

There are different circumstances.

There are different charges.

There are different kinds of understood and explicit responsibility.

Man slaughter is a very different crime than first degree murder.

And you could go with all kinds of different gradations and qualifications and even in

the instructions that a judge may give to a jury in some of these cases, the law can

become even more detailed, even more qualifications.

The point is the law can handle all these different understandings of relative responsibility

when it comes to the murder of a person outside the womb.

It ought to be able to do the same when it comes to the murder of the unborn.

And I just want to speak to Christians.

I want to underline a basic inconsistency.

If you believe, you say you believe that killing the unborn is a form of murder and it is.

And many of you say you know it is.

And then you say there is no circumstance whatsoever in which any woman could ever be charged

with that crime.

Well, this case in Georgia really does help to prove the point.

This is a woman who intentionally willfully took the abortion pills in order to end

the pregnancy long after it was legal in the state of Georgia and I'm not, I'm not

even saying that I'm willing just to take the legal issue as what's most important morally.

The point is she broke the law.

So my plea here is for Christians at the very least to think of some moral consistency

here.

And that moral consistency, of course, it is merged with compassion, but that moral

consistency has to be, oh, I don't know, consistent.

But okay, speaking of justice and the difficulty of justice in a fallen world, a very interesting

case that comes to us from San Francisco and the California media have given us a lot

of attention.

So have the national media and one of the major reports with analysis of this case in San

Francisco is coming the New York Times.

Here's the headline and this is unusual.

Just listen to how the New York Times puts this headline quote, she killed a family with

her speeding car, is probation enough?

Okay, you don't see many headlines that end in a question mark.

So this tells you that this particular analysis is raising the issue as to whether or not

a probation is an adequate sentence when a woman kills an entire family, mother and father

and two very young children with a speeding car.

Now you know, in order for this to reach the attention of the New York Times all the

way from San Francisco, that tells you something is going on here.

What are the particulars?

Heather Knight reports from San Francisco quote, it was a sunny Saturday in the West portal

neighborhood of San Francisco.

The public library was bustling and so were the cafes and ice cream shops just outside

the library.

A mother, a father and their two little boys waited for a bus ride to the San Francisco

zoo.

A perfect way, the couple figured to celebrate their fourth wedding anniversary.

So mother, father, husband, wife with two little boys, very little preschoolers, they're

taking their boys on this beautiful day on a trip to the zoo.

When a Mercedes SUV traveling at highway speeds, clocked at about 75 miles an hour, jumped

the sidewalk, sheared a street pole, smashed a bolted down garbage can and obliterated

the bus stop.

Starting to the Times code, it finally came to a halt when it crashed into a fire hydrant.

The father was flung into the air and landed more than 100 feet away.

Now just think about that.

He was hit with such force as body flew through the air 100 feet, third of the football field.

The mother was trapped in the wreckage fading in and out of consciousness.

A baby, one of the two nearby cried.

This is just one of the most horrific things you could imagine.

Mercedes SUV traveling in the streets of San Francisco in this crowded neighborhood, achieving

speeds of something like 75 miles an hour, jumped the curb, hit stuff, and then hit this

precious family and killed them all within hours, all four of them were dead.

So mother and father, three year old little boy, 20 month year old little boy, all killed

in this tragedy.

But the New York Times is asking the question, as many people in San Francisco and elsewhere

asking the question, is this justice, is this fair that the woman who did this and 80 year

old woman would be given only probation, basically, as a sentence?

The newspaper says, quote, she was driving as fast as 75 miles an hour, three times the

speed limit before she killed four people.

Okay, the police report that she was not texting or talking on her phone before the crash.

Quote, her car did not malfunction.

She was not under the influence of alcohol or drugs and there was no obvious medical incident.

It appears that she became confused and at least according to her own account, hit the

accelerator rather than the break.

Now the twists and turns in the story, I'm going to have to make here in in brief form,

but the bottom line is that this woman's being allowed to issue a no contest plea and it's

not going to require any jail time.

She was in jail for four days.

That's a sentence of four days, but that's already time served four days.

And then she's going to be on probation for two years.

Her driver's license is not even suspended for life.

And there are many people asking the question as to whether or not this serves the cause

of justice.

There are other people who are saying, look, this was an accident.

Yes, it was an accident.

But there's culpability when you're behind the wheel of an automobile.

We are talking about four people being dead.

New York Times says that the judge had indicated he intended to accept this woman's plea of

no contest to the manslaughter accounts, quote, in exchange, he would send an answer to

two to three years of probation.

And he said that further prison time would be in his words, quote, mere vengeance, home

detention and community service would not serve any purpose.

OK, let's just say that in a fallen world, in a central world, there's some things

that are very difficult to take apart.

But it doesn't seem right.

I think it's very interesting that even the secular conscience, even the progressive

liberal conscience says, there's just something here that isn't right.

It just doesn't seem right that this woman's going to be able to just plea no contest,

not even plea guilty.

And a part of the complication here is the judge appears not to want to complicate lawsuits

against her as if that should be the concern.

And so instead, at the end of the day, we found out that the judge basically allowed this

to go forward as planned.

Brooke Jenkins, the district attorney there in San Francisco, I think, made some very good

points when she said, this just doesn't serve the cause of justice.

This is not proportionate to the crime.

This just doesn't fit.

She said it wasn't adequate accountability.

And it didn't send the right message to other drivers above the gravity of such a crime.

And indeed, it is a crime.

She's pleading no contest to a crime, but the crime is manslaughter.

And she's not even going to serve any significant time in jail.

You know, the old words from the opera, the macado, the punishment must fit the crime,

the punishment must fit the crime.

That's actually deeply biblical.

I think it tells us something about the sense of justice.

God has put in us as human beings, made in his image that there is a sense of injustice

that cries out in a situation like this, even if people don't know where it comes from.

We do.

All right.

Finally, for today, we have to talk about something.

And that is the statement that was made by President Donald Trump in response to the

death of former FBI director Robert Mueller.

The president posted on true social, quote, Robert S. Mueller, the third just died.

Good.

I'm glad he's dead.

He can no longer hurt innocent people.

End quote.

All right.

It's even hard to read those words.

Let me just take the obvious.

This is an incredibly wrong way to respond even to the announcement of the death of one

of your political enemies.

We're talking about a human being.

Let me just repeat myself, made in the image of God.

And we do have in politics, friends and enemies, and there are political enemies.

And I think in terms of President Trump, he's not wrong to have seen Robert Mueller, the

former director of the FBI, who is special counsel in an investigation against him and his

administration.

I'm not even arguing he was wrong to see him as a political enemy.

But to celebrate the death of an enemy is something that Christians need to recognize

goes over a very important line.

Now, of course, this gets complicated by the fact that we can't read the president's

heart.

We can just read his words, but the words do reveal the heart.

And that's what's really scary here.

And you know, one of the things I think we should all think of, this is just a pragmatic

issue, just it's a matter of practicality.

I think when we ask ourselves, what will those words look like?

They say a generation from now.

Well, I think they're going to look like exactly the way they look now.

They're going to sound exactly as they sound now.

These are not words that anyone should say, and they're not words that anyone should

approve.

These are the kind of words that are shocking.

And of course, the words reveal the heart.

Let me just read to you from Scripture.

This is Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew.

As Jesus said in chapter 12, quote, for out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks,

the good person out of his good treasure brings forth good and the evil person out of his

evil treasure brings forth evil.

He went on in verses 36 and 37 to say, I tell you, on the day of judgment, people will

give account for every careless word they speak.

For by your words, you will be justified.

And by your words, you will be condemned.

I'm not going to contest the fact that President Trump may have had very legitimate grievances

against former FBI director Robert Mueller.

It's also true that Robert Mueller did serve a lengthy period of time as director of the

Federal Bureau of Investigation.

He also was a decorated US Marine veteran, and he was someone who had a long life in public

service.

And you know, when it comes to even the death of one's enemies, let me just point out that

many American presidents have gone out of their way to be gracious to their enemies in

death.

And let me just state the obvious, that's a good look, especially when we keep in mind,

we're talking about a human being who has a widow and children and grandchildren and

a grieving family, you know, this is the time in which a leader should simply rise to

the occasion and note the public service, even if you have to note disagreements and

just to say that your thoughts are with the family.

This is a very, very difficult situation.

And when you're talking about a president of the United States, you're talking about the

loudest microphone on planet Earth.

I'll just share with you that when I think of something like this, I must say, I think

very personally, and I think in a couple of ways, I don't want to say anything, anything

in any context, that my wife would think indecent and horrifying, or my children, or my

grandchildren.

And I guess I'll admit, I worry a little bit more about my grandchildren because it

could well be that they're looking at my words or hearing my words long after I'm dead.

And I don't want to leave something that will be hurtful or embarrassing to them.

But of course, ultimately, what Jesus talks about here is the day of judgment.

When we will not give an answer to the national media or to the political elites, or for

that matter, to public opinion, we'll give an answer to God himself.

I'll tell you, on the one hand, it would be kind of easy not to talk about this, but

I think it would be wrong.

And I think it's a good occasion for Christians just to remind ourselves, we have to guard

every word and take responsibility for every word.

We will give an account for every word.

And on that day of judgment, none of us, including the president of the United States,

will get a political pass.

Thanks for listening to the briefing.

For more information, go to my website at AlbertMolar.com.

You can follow me on extra Twitter by going to x.com forward slash AlbertMolar.

For information on the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to spts.edu.

For information on voice college, just go to voicecolds.com.

I'll meet you again tomorrow for the briefing.