A (0:00)

Foreign It's Monday, May 4, 2026. I'm Albert Mohler and this is the Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. Absolutely massive news on the abortion front. Several different fronts. Most importantly, we go to New Orleans, Louisiana. We go to the Fifth Circuit. That is the U.S. court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. And that is what one of the U.S. courts of Appeal that's just short of the Supreme Court of the United States. A unanimous three judge panel found that the Biden administration's policy that allowed for the prescription of the abortion pill mifepristone and its delivery by mail was not valid precisely because the government had failed in its duty to make certain it was adequately protecting women's health by allowing this policy. The Washington Post reported the story this way. A federal appeal court is temporarily reinstating a requirement that abortion pills be picked up in person instead of sent through the mail. A victory for anti abortion advocates that one of the drug's manufacturers quickly sought to place on pause. Okay, so we're talking about a big clash here, and it might not sound like that big an issue, but I want to lay the landscape for understanding why it is so big. Number one, let's set the landscape. Roe v. Wade was the US decision that forced all 50 states to legalize abortion. You could even say legalized abortion in all 50 states. That was in 1973. And then you fast forward almost exactly 50 years and you come to 2022 when the US Supreme Court reversed the Roe v. Wade decision in the decision known as Dobbs, the Dobbs decision. Now what that decision did was to strike down Roe v. Wade. It then basically returned the abortion question to the states. And that meant that you had red states, pro life states, and you had blue states. There were pro abortion states. The big question when, say, looking over the last three to four years is this, why did the net number of abortions not go down? The number of clinic abortions went way down, the number of surgical abortions went way down, but abortion total numbers didn't go way down. And that's because of two reasons. Number one, most importantly, death by pill. The abortion pill, the regimen of two different pills, but mifepristone, the major, the most widely distributed of these pills. And then secondly, the Biden administration, President Joe Biden was in office then and he basically served the pro abortion cause by pushing through a change in policy to allow women in all 50 states by, you might call telemedicine to get a prescription and then to get by mail delivery of the abortion pills so that even if they were in a deep, deep red pro life state, they could effectively get the abortion pill and at least throughout much of the pregnancy, receive a medical abortion by means of that pill. The pill sent by mail and prescribed by telephone. That's at least the way they put it. It's often, you know, something like a Zoom, FaceTime, something like that. In any event, it's not an in person visit. And this meant, perhaps most importantly, that a woman seek an abortion by means of the abortion pill did not have to see or be seen by a doctor in a clinical setting. It was instead remote. And this obviously is something that should be seen as endangering women's lives, particularly when the manufacturers of these drugs and others who were involved with it had acknowledged the fact that it can be quite problematic. Now, of course, the promoters of abortion and those who are trying to sell these pills are just way loud out there saying no, they've been proved to be safe and so many millions of them have been distributed, et cetera, et cetera. But I want to go to attorneys such as Aaron Hawley, who has been one of, I think, the leading attorneys by any estimation, on the pro life cause and really coming up with an incredibly effective legal strategy years ago to go after mifepristone on the basis of its inadequate health provisions and of the Biden administration policy in particular. And I'll mention that Erin Hawley has written a very good piece for us at World Opinions this morning on this fifth Circuit decision. It is absolutely massive. A unanimous three judge panel went ahead and agreed with the attorneys in this case, the pro life attorneys, that the US Government had basically run roughshod over the risk to women's health in pushing through this agenda in order to serve the pro abortion interests. And it has served the pro abortion interest in a big way. As I say, the total number of abortions even after the Dobbs decision has not gone down. And that is because the activism of the pro abortion movement has been, well, let's just say rather astounding as has been the complicity, I would say, of many politicians, not just the Biden administration. The panel, the three judge panel that unanimously ruled against the Biden administration policy and against this telehealth distribution of the abortion pill Mifepristone said, and I quote, the public interest is not served by perpetuating a medical practice whose safety, the agency admits was inadequately studied. Instead, the public interest demands the opposite, end quote. So this is just hugely, hugely revealing. And this is really something we need to see as these worldviews clash here. This clash of worldviews shows that you have one side that is indeed pro life. That is to say, it is out in a consistent way to oppose every abortion under every circumstance. Truth be known, and I'm one of those persons who says it is intellectually dishonest for the pro life movement ever to act as if anything else is our aim. Okay? There is also a pro abortion movement. Now, they have tried for years, tried for decades to try to disguise themselves as what they call a pro choice movement. But the bottom line is it's pro abortion. And you really see that by the determination with which they go after the argument and why there are basically, if not profoundly, for abortion in every case, for every woman, every time she might think she needs one, period. In other words, it's so pro abortion, it's really difficult to exaggerate the case. And here you see the pro abortion zeal who were pushing the Biden administration, and the Biden administration, quite frankly, starting at the top, was ready to be pushed to force through a change in the protocols and the policies of the Food and Drug Administration to allow the use of mifepristone in this way. Aaron Hawley, a very influential pro life attorney who's done very important work in this field and was very involved, has been on this issue for a long time. As she makes very clear here, you had a government that is supposed to be protecting the health of women, instead endangering the health of women by basically the Biden administration's policy. The fifth Circuit, however, has now put that on hold, and in particular, the availability of the abortion pill by mail in this way and without a clinical visit. And of course, the pro abortion side is howling and organizing and intending to go all the way to the Supreme Court in order to seek a reversal of the fifth Circuit. But this is even more complicated than you think, and it really brings in the complication of the current Trump administration. In President Trump's second administration, he's basically wanted to back off all these issues, particularly in light of something like the midterm elections. So whether he likes it or not, President Trump is going to find that his administration is going to have to respond to this one way or the other. And of course, there are some who will be putting pressure on the White House to go along with the pro abortion movement on this. And quite frankly, politically, that might be the easy way out. It would be absolutely the wrong policy, absolutely the wrong direction, and it would be morally a complete sellout. And that's exactly what the White House must not do. My guess is that the President will not be happy about this development in terms of this timing, but it's going to be very difficult for his administration to side with the abortion providers in this case. So it's going to be interesting to see where this goes, but it is going to be a very interesting few weeks and months. And at least in part, it's going to have a great deal to do with what happens with what is at least applied for as an immediate relief from the US Supreme Court coming from the pro abortion side and from the manufacturers and distributors of of mifepristone. Now the news source known as the Hill. We are told that Democrats are quote, pushing back on a recent court ruling that blocked doctors ability to prescribe the abortion pill mifepristone through telehealth and dispense the drug through the mail, arguing it will significantly restrict reproductive care nationwide. So the clash of worldviews is seen right there, where on the one hand you have the defense of life and the defense of women's health, while on the other side you face this adamant defense and projection and expansion of abortion rights, quite frankly, even in the face of inadequate health tests in order to approve this procedure. And also, it's just every abortion is to be celebrated, it is to be repackaged as reproductive care. And the thing that is to be avoided at all costs is a restriction on what they define as reproductive care nationwide. And I just want Christians to understand this is an absolute direct head on collision between two worldviews. And so sometimes you see a glancing blow, sometimes you see looming worldview implications. The looming worldview implications are right here on the front page. Right here on the front line, right here. Undeniable. You are either going to agree entirely with this unanimous decision from the fifth Circuit panel or you are going to be entirely against it. It is morally indefensible to be in between the two, to be honest. And it is now increasingly politically untenable to be between the two. And this is another thing in worldview analysis we need to understand, and that is that when you have a definitional issue like this, the definitions just get more and more precise. The difference is more and more clear. The chasm between the two positions deeper and deeper and more and more impossible to deny. All right. The other big case is not so big on a national level. As a matter of fact, it's just a court case here, a Jefferson Circuit judge in Jefferson County, Kentucky, right here, Louisville, Kentucky, here's the headline from Louisville Public Media. Kentucky Judge Strikes Down Definition of Human Being in Abortion Ban. Okay. Now in worldly implications, this might be a relatively small court in terms of its jurisdiction, but can you imagine a bigger issue for a court to consider? I read the headline to you once again. Kentucky Judge Strikes Down Definition of Human Being in Abortion Ban. Sylvia Goodman and Joe Sonka of Louisville Public Media are reporting on the story. A judge ruled part of Kentucky's abortion ban defining human life as beginning at conception unconstitutional in a lawsuit brought by Jewish women. Okay, Every word in that turns out to be important, including the last two words, Jewish women. This was a case brought by Jewish women. And at least in part they were making the argument that Kentucky's pro life law, the ban on abortion, actually discriminates against them on religious grounds because according to their own understanding of Judaism and they're coming from the left here, then life begins not at conception, but rather at a later stage. Classically in some Jewish discussions, quickening. But the fact is they were arguing on religious liberty grounds or on the establishment of religion grounds that it was wrong for the state of Kentucky, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, to take on this legislation in its comprehensive abortion ban. And so we're talking about a giant issue here. And it's hard to imagine, once again, the collision any more clear than what you see here over the definition of what it means to be human. Sometimes people say, well, you know, abortion has been around for a long time. The issue just won't go away. Well, we're talking about what it means to be human. And in this case, the headline tells us so this judge struck down a definition of human being in this abortion legislation. So we're now down to arguing over who is and who is not a human being at what stage of development. And the big issue here was the religious liberty claim, which by the way, the judge did not accept. And in this case we're talking about Judge Brian Edwards here in Louisville, Kentucky. He handed down an opinion and order. He did find the law unconstitutional, but he found it unconstitutionally vague. He did not find that it was any kind of head on collision with religious liberty. Okay, so what's really interesting here is what could be vague, because I don't think the legislation's vague. I'm not sure where this case is going to go, although I guarantee you it's going to go somewhere where we are talking about what it means to be a human being according to the law, it's going to have to go somewhere. And even legal observers just over the weekend. And let's just say Kentucky's been rather obsessed with other developments over the weekend. The Kentucky Derby gets a lot of attention. I'm not sure too many people even in the legal community were paying attention to the fact that this happened just as we went into the weekend, but I guarantee you it's going to get a lot of attention on the other side. We're talking about the very definition of human being. Now up in the air in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, you talk about worldview issues at stake. It's hard to come up with one more fundamental than this when it comes to human existence. How's that for Monday morning? All right. So as you might expect, there's more to this case. And yes, the more to this case is three letters, ivf. And once again, you see the worldview issues just right before us. It's helpful in the sense of clarifying this. The Louisville Public Media report honestly says, quote, it's not immediately clear what effect the ruling has on the enforcement of Kentucky's abortion ban, but attorneys representing the women who brought the suit view it as an immediate win for women seeking in vitro fertilization. The judge's order, quote, does not include any specific injunction on the enforcement of the abortion statute. So it does look like the IVF issue is the presenting issue, at least in terms of the policy question. And you're talking here about one of the women and several of them had tried to bring the action. The judge reduced it to one, believing that because she had frozen embryos, then she had a stake and this had standing to bring the case. And so she wanted to make certain, according to how she described her purpose in bringing the case, that if she used the IVF technique, she wanted to make certain she would be on safe legal ground to destroy the embryo she didn't want to use. Now, rarely do you have anything presented quite so straightforwardly. I mean, this is it. And so let me just read to you from another report coming from here in Kentucky. Quote, the ruling marks a significant moment in a years long legal battle brought by Jessica Kolb, a Louisville resident who sued in 20222 alongside two other Jewish women. She has nine frozen embryos and filed the challenge claiming that Kentucky's abortion restrictions combined with its definition of life beginning at conception creates a confusing legal landscape that conflicts with her Jewish faith, which holds that life begins at birth. So you see the issues just put before us here. And by the way, there have been long standing Jewish arguments that life begins with birth, the first breathing in. However, you know it is even embedded within Roe v. Wade going back to 1973. Even in the pro abortion Roe v. Wade, there was the recognition that at least in the third trimester of the nine months of development, the state had a legitimate moral interest in preserving human life. So let's just say that that is something that is being presented here. It's even more radical, or you might even say far more radical than what came down in terms of the Roe v. WADE decision in 1973. But it is helpful to have these issues put out so honestly. The honesty really is bracing. It's shocking. I think, to most people, it's going to be very offensive. It's also really clear in setting out the issues related to IVF that a lot of people, including a lot of Christians, don't want to face. Because here you have a woman saying straightforwardly, this technology means that we have produced more embryos than we will transfer to the womb. And she doesn't want it to be a problem if they are destroyed. She doesn't see the embryos as morally significant. I just want to say that for Christians, I don't think that's any kind of an option, period. Now, once again, there are going to be some immediate calls for appeal and, of course, further clarification. This is a Louisville District Court judge who handed down this decision. And thus far, even the case itself and the decision, you haven't had a great deal of news coverage or cultural attention. I think there will be a lot of attention coming very fast. Once again, we are talking about the definition in the law of what it means to be a human being. It's hard to imagine how anything goes forward without answering that fundamental question. All right. We will be tracking all of these things together. A reminder that the news just doesn't wait. You have these giant developments. People sometimes say to me, you know, it appears that Christians have an obsession on certain issues. They keep coming back to certain certain issues. Let me just remind you, I didn't decide these would be two interesting things to talk about today. Two dimensions of the abortion issue that would be interesting. These are two monumental developments that came just in the last 72 hours or so. That tells us a lot about how the worldview issues are now just playing themselves out in the political, legal, judicial, cultural context. All around us, life and death hanging in the balance. As if anyone had any question about that. That that ruling here in Louisville, Kentucky, ought to get your attention. All right. There's so many other issues going on. The collapse of Spirit Airlines over the weekend is something that doesn't come with the same kind of moral importance, but it is important. We're talking about the failure of a major American corporation. By some estimations, you know, it had reached the point at times when it was the seventh largest US Carrier. So we're not talking about a small operation. We're talking about something like 2,000 flights a day, many days. And we're talking about 2,000 pilots, by the way. So you're talking about about 17,000 employees who now do not have an employer. That's not insignificant, just given Christian concerns. We're also talking about the bankruptcy of a major American corporation. We're talking about big issues that have to do with headlines, big issues in terms of the economy. And just some basic things that we ought to keep in mind, and that is that the economy is itself a moral test, or it's a constant series of moral tests, a pattern of moral tests. It's a test for consumers, it's a test for producers. It's a moral test for marketers, a test for retailers. Every stage within a free market economy. And by the way, it's not just a free market economy. Every step in every economy comes laden with moral importance, but it comes with a particular moral importance when you're talking about capitalism, a free market economy. And so in such an economy, corporations can come together and corporations can fall apart. They can have a very successful business plan until all of a sudden the business plan is not so successful. When it comes to Spirit Airlines, the business plan was quite simply cheap, be as inexpensive as possible and undercut the major legacy carriers who have so much overhead. They have these giant systems. And so Spirit was one of those startups, brash startups, that simply said, you know, we're going to have a limited number of routes, we're going to have a limited number of aircraft, we're going to keep costs as low as possible. If you want to Diet Coke, you're going to have to pay for it. You might have to bring it with you on the plane. If you have luggage, you're going to have to pay for that. You know, basically it got so bad that some were joking that, you know, they were going to start to put a toll booth on the bathroom on the airplane. That's about how they ran it. And you know what, There is a pattern in all these things, and that is that these low cost alternatives, whether it's the airlines or something else, they often come in with an immediate impact and they often bring savings throughout the entire system because the legacy carriers have to Adjust. And so that's one of the things legacy carriers do. They did adjust. So on many of these competitive routes, they lowered their own costs, and they could only go so far with that. But they could usually go so far that they could leverage their strength over against what was a pretty audacious plan on the part of an upstart, Spirit, the most recent of those upstarts to fail. But as an economy works in moral terms, and every stage of it being moral, customers are going to do if they're buying a ticket, they factored in, okay, I don't want the frills. I just want to get to Florida. And so here's what I'm willing to pay. The legacy carrier said, well, okay, we'll come alongside and we'll lower our costs. And then consumers have a choice. And the legacy carriers come with enormous benefits. And some of those are made very clear with the failure of Spirit, because there are an awful lot of people stranded by the thousands who are only going to get home probably if they get a seat on one of those legacy carriers who, after all, are still flying. But there's another part of this that we have to keep in consideration, and that is when you're talking about an economy, and this is a key conservative insight, and that is that the economy is made up of so many independent parts that it's impossible to manage all those parts together. That's one of the fundamental flaws of Marxism. It's also one of the fundamental flaws of the administrative state, believing that somehow you could have a command economy with all these things taken into account. The fact is, you have millions and millions and millions of consumers and millions of products, and they basically are going to have to work this out on their own. But then you add some other issues, such as the cost of fuel, and then you talk about the war in Iran, and you talk about the shortage and stoppage even of petroleum, about 20% of the world's oil going through the Strait of Hormuz. And all of a sudden you realize with the prices going up, where it hurts worst, it hurts worst among the economy carriers, because they're working on the most fragile, the most thin business margins and models anyway. You also have to look at one of the major legacy carriers indicating that its cost for fuel for the remainder of this year would now be estimated to have gone up 4 billion. That's billion dollars, not 4 million. Up $4 billion simply because of the rising cost of jet fuel. And in Europe, they're already looking at absolute constrictions of fuel having to cancel flights because there just isn't enough airline fuel to go around. When you look at Spirit Airlines, the story now over, at least going into a final chapter, it is interesting. It started in the 1960s and 1964 as a trucking company. It became a ground and air transfer company and then became a charter service in the air, and then spirit Airlines in 1992. So this is one of those things that's an American story. You start out with one thing, you see an opportunity, you expand, you go from trucks to planes, from charters to scheduled passenger flights, and it works for a long time. One other interesting development here was that President Trump himself, who, by the way, also once owned an airline, he thought the government might be able to assume some kind of ownership stake and save Spirit Airlines. But that required a certain amount of capitalization on the part of the airline, and the airline failed that test. And so all of that went. Basically, by the way, our hope will have to be that those pilots will find jobs. That's actually likely. In a world that actually needs as many trained jet pilots as it can find the other employees, it may be a little more difficult for them to work their way into employment by the other carriers, although that is also likely given the churn and turnover. But we're talking about 17,000 people, maybe even 17,000 families that are affected here. And so obviously this is a major economic loss. One of the big tests of an economy is whether economic losses like this are offset by even far more significant economic gains. Somewhere out there is a new company that may be growing almost as fast as Spirit Airlines went down, just running out of cash. But evidently it might be a good time to buy a jet airplane, because 131 of them, painted bright yellow, are now evidently available. Thanks for listening to the briefing. For more information, go to my website@albertmuller.com you can follow me on X or Twitter by going to x.comalbertmohler for information on the Southern Baptist Theological seminary, go to SB for information on Boyce College, just go to boycecollege.com I'll meet you again tomorrow for the briefing.