Thursday, September 19, 2024

Part I

---

A Senator Accidentally Affirms the Real Issue is Human Personhood—The Big Story Behind the Senate IVF Vote

Well, sometimes the big news is in the headlines you expect, and we expected the Democrats to try to push through legislation to their political advantage on IVF. But nonetheless, even as this was something of a political stunt, at the same time in worldview terms, it’s immensely important. So we’re going to pay some attention to this. We’re going to look at what happened and why. First of all, the what happened, you could also explain as what didn’t happen, the Senate didn’t pass legislation that would’ve affirmed “IVF rights” as defined by the sponsoring Democrats in all 50 states. The bill lost by a vote of 51 to 44 with five senators absent from the vote. It would’ve required 60 votes in order to pass the Senate given the filibuster rule.

And so as you’re looking at this, you recognize this was something that was done with Democrats knowing it was going to fail and they wanted to send a signal. They wanted to turn this to their political advantage in light of the November election. And most importantly by the way, this is not so much about the presidential election as it is about statewide elections for the Senate and elections of course for the House of Representatives as well. This is primarily though about the Senate. And Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, was open in the fact that it was a blatantly political move. Speaking Tuesday on the Senate floor, Majority Leader Schumer said, “There is perhaps no more personal a decision one can make than the decision of whether or not to start a family.”

Well, that’s a true statement in one sense, but it doesn’t imply why the United States Senate would be voting on such a measure because after all, the decision as to whether or not to have a child is not a matter for deliberation at the United States Senate. Except in this case it is being used to the political advantage it is believed, of the Democrats, to force Republicans to vote against this bill and thus to appear to be against in vitro fertilization. Now, we’ve talked about this repeatedly. I will have to articulate grave moral and theological concerns about IVF, in vitro fertilization. As a matter of fact, grave moral and theological concerns about the entirety of the reproductive revolution when it comes to modern reproductive technologies.

But nonetheless, this is a political act and it was undertaken frustratingly enough when you have the Republican candidate, Donald Trump, the former President of the United States, who basically without conditions has spoken of his support for IVF. This is a part of his turn from where he was when he ran in 2016, and again where he was on this issue when he ran in 2020. But on the other side of all the public controversy and the shifts in the culture after the Dobbs decision reversing Roe v. Wade in 2022, Donald Trump has been absolutely up front about the fact that he doesn’t think he can win on the same anti-abortion, pro-life platform that he had in his two previous runs. The mainstream media are reporting that the former president has said in certain settings that he blames the pro-life movement for his loss in 2020, saying that the issue of abortion was already so volatile and it cost him crucial votes.

But as you’re looking this, you recognize that there is no threat to IVF. And I say that as one who has led the effort to try to develop a Christian concern about IVF and understand these issues from a consistently pro-life direction. And so I’m not pleased with this, but the bottom line is that President Trump has been unreservedly supportive of in vitro fertilization. And yet you have the Democrats who are trying to gain political advantage by forcing Republicans to vote against this bill. And you say, well, if the majority of Republicans, including the current Republican nominee are pro-IVF, why didn’t they vote for the bill? Well, it is because as is always the case in this kind of political context, the Democrats wrote the legislation in such a way that Republicans can’t vote for it because it includes all kinds of funding mechanism. It includes all kinds of federal expansions of power. It includes all kinds of definitional issues that the Republicans rightly voted against, even Republicans who are in support of IVF access.

Now, there’s another big issue in the background to this, and that is that IVF is in danger of being restricted in access virtually nowhere in the United States. This is a made-up issue. Now, it’s not made up that the issue was addressed, and I think quite honestly addressed by the Supreme Court in the state of Alabama. But the Alabama state legislature turned around and offered almost immediate legislation that made very clear that IVF would be available in that state. And so again, the bottom line fact here is that IVF is under threat virtually nowhere. But this is where you see the Democrats furthering the sexual revolution. So you see the logic of a sexual and moral revolution here being pressed, because this legislation not only calls for basically unrestricted access to in vitro fertilization and modern reproductive technologies, it also is a great shift towards requiring the funding of it as well.

So once again, to get to the bottom line, you had the Democrats doing this as a political act. But I want to state grave worldview concerns about the issue of IVF and repeat those and make clear, I’m not particularly happy with where the majority of Republicans are on this issue. But nonetheless, we are looking at how this kind of election cycle could be used far beyond the results of the election itself to become an engine for further unraveling of the dignity and sanctity of human life. And that’s just how assaults on human dignity and the sanctity of human life have continued. Just to make that clear, I want us to make specific reference to this proposed law, the bill that did not successfully pass the Senate because it didn’t have 60 votes. It did have a majority of votes, but it didn’t have 60 votes.

And one of the things you need to note is that the people who brought this will bring it back again and again and again, just breaking down defenses, raising the political cost of not supporting this kind of bill. But I also want to say that the Democrats have showed their colors on this, and I don’t want to make this just partisan. I’ll just say this, those avid supporters of IVF make their worldview understanding abundantly clear in this legislation and in their comments about this legislation. So I want to turn to one senator in particular, and this is Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of the state of Washington. After the vote on Tuesday, which again was a media event, Senator Murray said that Republicans were “Posturing as pro-family while voting down this bill to help families grow pretending to support IVF while championing fetal personhood.”

Okay, there was a bomb there. Did you see it? Did you feel it? Did you hear it? Did you see the last words there, while championing fetal personhood? In other words, her key accusation against the Republicans who voted against this bill is that they believe in fetal personhood. She says, the reason they didn’t vote for this is because they affirm fetal personhood. She goes full barrel against fetal personhood. Back in June of this year, she had rejected a Republican bill that would’ve supported IVF rights by saying, “This bill is silent on fetal personhood, which is the biggest threat to IVF.” Now, I just want to say I don’t expect to be in agreement with Senator Murray on just about anything, but I will tell her I’m in absolute agreement with her on the fact that fetal personhood is the greatest threat to this kind of IVF bill.

It is because if you believe that the fetus is a person, and pro-life Christians have said consistently that we believe this is a bedrock belief that the fetus is a person, then that fetus doesn’t cease to be a person when we might think we don’t want to treat the fetus as a person. But here you have a senator who is pro-choice, pro-abortion in the most ardent way who just dismisses the very idea of fetal personhood as the problem that must be overcome. She blames the Republicans for not supporting the bill because they hold to a belief, that is the bill this week, because Republicans hold to a belief in fetal personhood. I can just simply say, I could only hope that Republicans consistently held to such a belief. But what we are looking at right now is the fact that you have a Democratic senator who is pointing to fetal personhood as the problem.

Back in June, she said it’s the biggest threat to IVF. But she said more than that, she said about the Republican bill she voted against back in June, “It is silent on whether states can demand that an embryo be treated the same as a living, breathing person or whether parents should be allowed to have clinics dispose of unused embryos. Something that is a common necessary part of the IVF process.” She goes on, “Talk to the experts who provide this care, talk to the families who are seeking it, and that question looms large in their minds. What are we supposed to do,” The senator asked, “if our state says these embryos are living, breathing people. Do we have to do this process in another state? What is our legal risk here?” She went on later to say that she would ask her Republican colleagues once again, “As a matter of national policy, should parents be allowed to dispose of unused embryos.”

As if to make the point I’ve been trying to make that indeed the disposal of the embryos is a huge moral issue. From the complete opposite side Senator Murray asked the Republicans, “How can you look the American people in the eye and say you support IVF? That is if they don’t allow unrestricted destruction of human embryos.” The Senator said, “It doesn’t compute.” Well again, oddly enough on that I agree, it doesn’t compute. But this is where Christians have to recognize that we have been arguing consistently that life begins, that personhood begins at fertilization and we are right when we say that. There is a biblical logic sustained by the Christian moral tradition when we say that.

The devastating costs of not believing that are that it is not just a matter of fact that you end up in a pro-abortion position, you end up in a position in which you are declaring that human beings have the right to declare what is and is not human life on that continuum. And I’ll just state to you as plainly as I can, that is the culture of death in inevitable full victory. I think it’s also really important to recognize that Senator Murray, and again, we’re talking about someone I see as a grave threat to the dignity and sanctity of human life here, she understands that without the ability she would say to destroy human embryos, she goes on and says that IVF doesn’t compute. Her words are simple, “It doesn’t compute.” I simply at that point want to step back and say, well, those are her words that it doesn’t compute.

And what we’re looking at here is how moral battles are fought out, and the long list of confrontations and different fronts in our cultural conflict at the moment. And you see that has come back again and again and again and again. You rename the bill again and again and again. You bring it back for a vote. You make the political cost of not supporting this legislation as expensive as possible, especially with an election looming. And then you put together a bill as the Democrats did in this case, with some things loaded into it that Republicans can’t support. And then you say, “Well, now they’re voting against IVF.” Which quite frankly I might hope would’ve been true, but wasn’t true. They’re voting against this bill, or at least they’re not voting for this bill. So we’ll come back to look at this issue, but I think something else is just really big here before we leave it.

And that is that when you look at the Democratic support, I don’t think it’s primarily about IVF. I just don’t think the Democrats are that interested in IVF. And by that I don’t mean personally, I mean as a party objective. And I’ll just simply say they see an opportunity here. They see an opportunity even as President Trump has come out just enthusiastically for IVF, they see an opportunity to try to at least win some voters on this issue and scare some voters on this issue. But there’s something else here, and that is that when you look at the Democrats on this issue, if they’re not so interested in IVF what are they interested in? Well, I think what they are interested in is absolute consistency in holding to a position that allows for the disposition of unborn life, however, an individual may choose period without restrictions and eventually with taxpayers footing the bill.

So we’ll be following this, but I will predict right now that is exactly where this is going. And all you have to do to believe that is take the Democrats in the Senate behind this effort at their word. Oh, one last thought about this. I don’t have the opportunity right now to make Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington answer a question. But if I did have the opportunity, say I had her under some kind of cross-examination where she would have to answer a question, this is what I would ask her. “Well, if the human embryo is not worthy of any protection, then at one point in the continuum of gestation does that biological entity deserve some kind of protection?” I will assure you that’s a question she does not want to answer. But the lack of an answer to that question is indeed in itself a horrifying answer.

Part II

---

Gov. Beshear Bans ‘Conversion Therapy’ in Kentucky — But His Definition of Conversion Therapy Includes Historic Biblical Christianity

But after this, we need to shift to another announcement. But in this case it’s not about legislation, it’s about an executive order. And this executive order has come down here in the Commonwealth of Kentucky signed by our Democratic governor, Andy Beshear. His office put out a statement saying that the executive order relates to “Protecting minors from conversion therapy.” So here’s the big news, here’s the headline, Kentucky’s governor signs an executive order saying that conversion therapy is now not to be allowable in the state of Kentucky. In one sense, the full reach of this executive order is not yet known. It’s likely to be challenged in court, but as the Kentucky State website itself declared today, “Today Governor Andy Beshear signed an executive order officially banning the practice of conversion therapy on minors in the state of Kentucky.” In his signing statement, and remember this is an executive order. It’s not legislation, didn’t go through the general Assembly.

The Kentucky governor said, “Kentucky cannot possibly reach its full potential unless it is free from discrimination by or against any citizen, unless all our people feel welcome in our spaces, free from unjust barriers and supported to be themselves. Conversion therapy,” He said, “has no basis in medicine or science, and it can cause significant long-term harm to our kids, including increased rates of suicide and depression. This is about protecting our youth from an inhumane practice that hurts them.” So Kentucky’s governor, proudly, publicly, I’ll even say noisily, advertised the fact that he was signing this executive order. And if you’re going to have in legal term something defined, as in an executive order on conversion therapy, you’re going to have to define in those legal terms what you mean by conversion therapy. And this is where things get really, really crucial. And that’s because there are a lot of Christians who would have concern about some forms of what has been called conversion therapy.

But at the same time, Christians have to understand that what this executive order and similar efforts represent is an attempt to prevent any kind of biblical judgment being made or any kind of biblical message being sent to a young person. That means a minor under age 18 on this issue. So I said, you have to define what it means. So how did this come to be defined in this statement signed by the governor as an executive order? Here’s the definition, “Conversion therapy means any practice, treatment or intervention that seeks or purports to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same gender.” Now, let me just ask a question. Is anyone paying attention to this? But here we are told that what is forbidden by this executive order is any effort, “To change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same gender.”

So think about that for a moment. This is the message being sent, if you believe that it is in any way wrong to claim an LGBTQ identity. And in this case of course, this gets right down to the full spectrum here. And when you’re talking about sexual orientation or gender identity, this means even more than those loaded terms meant say 10 years ago. Just think of the T at LGBTQ, the transgender revolution. So here we are being told that it is categorically wrong and indeed, forbidden by executive order in the state of Kentucky to tell someone you ought not to think this about yourself. That is to tell a minor, and this is the reach of this particular executive order. Again, it is almost assuredly going to be challenged in court. 

But let’s just notice that this would include everything from say, an organized conversion therapy program. At least by this definition it would affect, it would even outlaw a parent statement to a child. Now, they are going to say it doesn’t cover conversations inside the family. And as you look at some of the technical language, it is mostly addressed to those who are licensed by the state or those who are in child care programs by the state. But as you look at the logic of this executive order, let’s be clear, this would endanger the right of any Christian church, of any Christian evangelical congregation in the state of Kentucky to hold to a consistent position on this when it comes to minors. It would include Christian schools and for that matter, at least in terms of those who would admit minors under the age of 18, it would apply to Christian colleges and other institutions, Christian ministries in the state. Now I think again, you’re going to have state officials say, “Look, that is not absolutely the intention here. That is not the reach of likely state action.”

I just want to state this is the way it works, folks. This is the way it works. You have this kind of executive order and the next thing you know it is being applied across the board. And don’t misunderstand this. Right now, there are jurisdictions in the United States. And quite infamously right now, this would include the state of Minnesota with Tim Walz, the Democratic vice presidential candidate there as governor. The presumption is that an agent of the state has more authority to define these issues than a parent in the home. And that’s abundantly clear in the legislation that was signed by Governor Walz. And makes very clear that the state of Minnesota has the right to intervene on behalf of a minor, even against the guidance and will of parents.

In a subsequent paragraph, the executive order says, “Conversion therapy does not include any practice, treatment or intervention that provides acceptance, support or understanding to an individual. Or any practice, treatment or intervention that facilitates an individual’s coping, social support and identity exploration and development.” Listen to this, “So long as such practice, treatment or intervention does not seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity.” Now again, let’s just remember that we as Christians are committed to a biblical understanding, a gospel understanding. And as you look at this, you realize the Scripture about this is abundantly clear. The Scripture says, “You ought not to do this.” The Scripture says God created us male and female. And of course, this is far beyond the gender identity question. This gets right down to LGBTQ and its comprehensiveness. We’re not supposed to now be able to tell a young person, you ought not to be sexually involved with another young person of the same sex, because that will be legally defined as a statement that is in violation of this particular executive order.

And I want to be very clear there are those behind this who would say, this is about therapeutic interventions. This is about official structures. I just want to make the case, it will not work that way and it will be used. I will state this emphatically. It will be used to limit parental rights and parental authority. And I believe it is certain that it will be used also to conscribe the religious liberty of Christian organizations. It implies that the Commonwealth of Kentucky has an official position on this issue. Now, it is not legislation, it’s an executive order signed by the current Democratic governor of Kentucky, who after all just a little while ago was very much in contention, he believed and we were told to be the vice presidential nominee on the Democratic ticket. The fact is this is a political act. But as Christians understand, the fact is this is a deeply moral act and this one subversive of moral order, religious liberty and parental rights.

It’s also interesting to note that the Kentucky governor stated a theological rationale for his executive order, “My faith teaches me that all children are children of God. And where practices are endangering and even harming those children, we must act.” He said, “The practice of so-called conversion therapy hurts our children.” Well, of course, our answer to that is it is this very executive order that hurts our children. And that’s not based on just our own moral analysis or our own political or legal consideration. It’s based upon creation order. It is based upon the authority of the Word of God. It is based upon our understanding of the Creator’s intention. So this executive order to put the bottom line on it, is no small thing. And it’s no small thing to me, that this is taking place right here in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. It just underlines our challenge even in so-called Red America.

Part III

---

The Elites vs. the Rest: What’s the Real Dynamic Driving Today’s Politics?

Well, speaking of the battle of worldviews, the conflict of the age, and for that matter, the November election, I want to make reference to an argument made by Ross Douthat of the New York Times. The title of his column was “Sympathy for the Voter.” He basically points to what he calls a deadlock between the elite and populist sides in our political equation, especially as related to those who identify as undecided voters. So in other words, the undecided are undecided they say about their choice in the November election, frankly, one of the big questions is whether they will vote at all. But as you think of someone who’s undecided at this point, you have to wonder what they actually believe about anything. But Ross Douthat makes the point that one of the major dynamics at work in this election cycle is the contrast, the dichotomy between the elite and populist tendencies in the United States.

And so you really do have two different sides lining up here, and it’s not just R and D, it’s not just a donkey and an elephant, it’s not just liberal and conservative. As we look at it as Christians, we really do need to understand that it is to a considerable extent, a matter of a distinction between the elites in our society and the rest of the society. Now, one of the ways you look at that is just demographically we often talk about red and blue America. I just made reference to it a moment ago. And you look at a map, it’s not evenly distributed. And as you look at the elites in the United States, they are not equally distributed. The elites are largely found on the coast. They’re found on the elite college campuses. They are found the closer you get to a city, and they are found even in major American corporations.

So you take those four Cs together, that’s where the elites are concentrated. And where they’re concentrated, you don’t have to wonder in advance is it going to be red or blue? Is it liberal or conservative? It’s going to be very liberal. It’s going to be overwhelmingly secular. That’s one of the distinctions in the United States between the elites and the rest is the elites are far more progressive, they’re far more ideologically on the left, and they are far more secular. And even as that doesn’t always map out exactly in terms of our electoral terrain, over and over again it does pretty much map out in terms of the two parties and the fallout as you look at a presidential election, for instance. Or as you look at a major election, even in some states where the distinction between say the more rural counties and the urban counties is as clear as any map of red and blue.

I will say that Ross Douthat paints this in his own characteristically powerful prose, “Since the populist surge that gave us Brexit and the rise of Donald Trump, politics in the Western world has polarized into a distinctive stalemate. An inconclusive struggle between a credentialed elite that keeps failing a basic task of governing and a populist rebellion that’s too chaotic and paranoid to be trusted with authority instead.” Well, that’s a not so happy painting of our political landscape, but you look at it and you recognize there are reasons why he wrote it just that way. And you also realize that the distinction here between the populists and the elites is something that didn’t happen just yesterday, and it’s not going to go away tomorrow. This is an enduring part of our landscape, even as the society is being transformed right before our eyes.

Thanks for listening to The Briefing.