Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:05]
A
It's Thursday, March 19, 2026. I'm Albert Mohler and this is the Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. I want to tell you right up front that I have waited until the very last moment to record this because I wanted to know what the House of Lords would vote on one of the most important issues laden with moral concern to face Britain in a very long time. It is a bill that would effectively authorize a woman to seek an abortion or to bring about the abortion of her baby all the way up until the moment of birth. And as of last night, it was adopted in such a way that it was passed on without amendments that were attempted by some to strip that provision out of larger legislation. This is really a very dark day. And the lessons here are not just for the United Kingdom, for Britain, the lessons here are for all of us. And we need to take stock of what has just happened and we need to understand how it happened. First of all, the immediate question, how did it happen? Has to do with the history of this legislation. This particular provision was worked into an omnibus law concerning legal reform there in England under the leadership of the Labor Party in control of the House of Commons. So, in other words, this was not a standalone bill that would have removed all criminal considerations for a woman seeking an abortion in a late term pregnancy. That's not the way this went through the House of Commons. It went through the lower House, the House of Commons, as simply something that was buried in a larger piece of legislation, something we all have to watch all the time. And sometimes that kind of radical action can be embedded in something else. And so a lot of people in Britain, a lot of people in the UK didn't even notice that it happened when it happened months ago, that they just didn't notice. It took some time for the notice to take effect. And so you had pro life activists and others who were just crying out and saying, look, this is a disaster. This is a moral meltdown. This is the culture of death and overdrive. And so next, there were efforts undertaken to try to turn the bill back or radically to revise it in the House of Lords, the upper House. Now, there's more to that story as well. The House of Lords basically is not now what it once was. So, for example, just days ago, the headline from National Public Radio was Britain's Parliament Boots Last hereditary lords after 700 years. So the House of Lords was at one time hereditary Lords, and then it included some who were hereditary and some that were not. By action of the monarch on the recommendation of government. But now all the hereditary peers, as they're known, they're outside of the House of Lords in terms of the voting. And so that means that what had been a significant break, and by the way, the United States Senate was at least in part, designed as a similar kind of break upon the passions of the House. And so we have a division of the Congress into two houses here in the United States, the House of Representatives and the Senate in the United Kingdom, going all the way back to the American Revolutionary period. It was the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The House of Lords has now been redefined, so that it is now now explicitly without a lot of the longstanding, more conservative influence that had been a part of the House of Lords. And now it's just become like another chamber. And so you have the House of Lords, nonetheless, that includes some designated as the Lord's Spiritual. So you can't be in the House of Lords unless you are a lord or a Lord or a lady, that is to say, with that kind of title. But those who are in the House of Lords, they include a number of Church of England bishops, and that's been true going all the way back to the medieval period. And the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is the titular head, the highest title in the Church of England and also in the worldwide Anglican Communion, Sarah Mullally, just recently installed in that position. The question was, would she speak to this legislation, Would she oppose it, and with the others among the Lords Spiritual, also oppose it. Now it gets a little complicated simply because there is an amendment. So a vote for the amendment is a vote against the abortion liberalization. And so the good news is that the Archbishop of Canterbury, the head of the Church of England, which has been in decline numerically precipitously for decades, and quite frankly has been moving ever, ever progressively in a more liberal direction. The fact is that even Sarah Mulally, who is recognized as a left of center Archbishop of Canterbury, she took to the floor and opposed the bill. That is to say, she. She supported the amendment, she said, because it just made sense that women would be protected by the necessity of a consultation in terms of medical authorities and all the rest. The bottom line, I have to say, is that she did make a statement opposing the radical liberalization of abortion. She did speak, and in the background to the Church of England's historic opposition to abortion, but she did not use morally urgent language. She didn't use morally clear language. And I think that's a huge problem. So let's score. At least she did oppose the liberalization of abortion all the way up until the moment of birth. I sure wish she had brought some moral passion, some theological argument to that debate, but at least she did oppose the liberalization. I also want to recognize one member of the House of Lord, that is the Baroness Monckton, who offered an amendment that would have stripped the expansion of abortion out of the legislation, otherwise would have let the rest of it stand. And so the official votes can be confusing because the amendment failed. But unfortunately, that means that the larger legislation now moves forward. Okay. I also want to recognize there were some very clear voices in Britain to make the nation aware of what exactly was at stake. And you would have thought that this might have moved the conscience of the nation sufficiently to have headed off this legislation. Alison Pearson, writing in the Telegraph, warns that Britain is about to make a sickening change to the abortion law again. Now, sickeningly enough, it has gone forward as of the developments late last night. As she explained, if passed in the current form, a new bill would mean a woman could no longer be prosecuted for inducing her own abortion right up until birth. And so she's right. She is right to call that out as infanticide. Infanticide is the killing of a human infant. Now, those of us who hold to a pro life position, we have to go all the way back to the moment of fertilization when God says, let there be life. We have to protect life from that point onward. But this is an expansion. Britain already has notoriously liberal abortion laws. This is up until the 24th week of pregnancy. That's about twice of the average length even of legislation in other European countries and other European Union countries where the average is something like 12. And so this was already a very liberal law. Now it's off for the entire 40 weeks of gestation. It's off right up until the moment of birth. This means no criminal consequences for the woman seeking an abortion. By the way, this is also hypocritical legislation because it doesn't remove the strictures against physicians. And so this is going to lead to all kinds of horrifying situations. It's just fundamentally subversive to the dignity and sanctity of human life. It's a direct rejection. It is a direct authorization of the murder of the unborn right up until the moment of birth. It is also a medical disaster which was called out. And so you had people such as Alison Pearson and such as lords and ladies there in the House of Lords who did make very clear this is a danger to women's health. Why? Because a woman here is told that there is no criminalization for her to use, say, an abortive fashion drug, an abortion pill, all the way up until the latest development of the unborn child. And that would lead to a situation in which the child would die. And that requires the removal of the child from the woman. But the doctor is here not authorized to undertake that action, or if so, only after the absolutely horrifying reality that the child is declared to be dead and this is now a medical emergency to remove the dead child's remains from the mother. Do you realize how dark this is? The culture of death has been gaining, well, you could say, ever since Genesis 3. Yes, but in the modern age, the culture of death has been gaining so much since the midpoint of the 20th century, since the end of the Second World War. The culture of death, which, by the way, should have been horribly chastened by the reality of the Holocaust, should have been awakened to the reality, the sanctity of human life in a whole new way. Instead, you had the abortion rights movement. You had the development of all kinds of pills, including abortifacient pills. You have, of course, the technology of death, and you have the legalization. The United States Supreme Court has played its own part in this until, thankfully, that all changed with the Dobbs decision of 2022. But the aftermath of that decision is that the federal decision mandating abortion in all 50 states was struck down. That means that right now you have some states that are very liberal on abortion, other states that are very pro life on abortion. It's still a muddled mess here in the United States. In Great Britain, we're talking about national legislation. And so what's dark in terms of what happened just in the last few hours is that the House of Lords has voted down an effort to take the abortion radical legislation out of the bill. It's now going to go forward. It's just incredibly sad. Alison Pearson, I mentioned in writing her article, she points out that, by the way, the liberalization that has taken place on the abortion issue in the state of New Zealand has led to the fact that, quote, abortion was decriminalized in 2020. Treating like a health service. She says late abortions have increased by 40%, late increases by 40% on abortion because of the legislation that changed in that country. And then the author goes on to say, what is being proposed in the guise of compassion for women is an act of appalling moral evil. That's exactly what it is rightly called. Out that way in this article. It's also really interesting that this article published in the Telegraph makes clear that in taking this action, this puts Britain more or less with Communist China in terms of laws that liberalize abortion, that make abortion possible all the way up until the moment of birth. Now, by the way, even the nation of China under Communist rule, it's backing up on that, not because it has new moral scruples, but simply because the birth rate has plummeted to such an extent that it has become an existential crisis for China. And so China's not looking at a moral recovery on this issue. It is looking at a government acknowledgment that the falling birth rate, and that includes government paid for and sponsored and in some sense in the past, coerced abortion. That has become one of the developments that is now endangering the future of China. Britain has done this voluntarily. It is absolutely appalling to know that Britain's House of Commons adopted this and now Britain's House of Lords in a way that is unavoidably conscious of the issues at stake. There are some in the House of Commons who said they didn't really understand all this was packed in the legislation. Now, look, the House of Lords last night knew exactly what it was doing. It had gone through hours upon hours of debate about efforts to remove that language so that abortion would be taken out of the bill. The two efforts to remove that language are what failed. Now the legislation goes forward. The culture of death took a massive stride just last night. One of the saddest things is for Americans to just look at that legislation, look at what's just happened in the British Parliament, and understand it won't stay there. The same kind of arguments are going to show up right over here. And by the way, the abortion rights movement, when it's honest, has no barrier to making this argument. And you see this, for example, in some states in the United States right now, where they're not saying that they're approving of abortion all the way up until the moment of birth. The reality is, however, they have decriminalized it. In some cases, they're even providing support for what amounts to the very same thing. The culture of death is advancing all around us. And quite honestly, yesterday is going to go down in British history as an extremely dark day. But this isn't contained just to Britain. This is about Western civilization. And furthermore, it is about Christians, wherever we are, understanding what is at stake here. Now, because of the importance of this development, I think there's Going to be a lot said about this bill and about the parliamentary discussion in the House of Lords in days to come. We'll be watching that very carefully. It's likely to be very disclosive. But I waited to record this today, and indeed, the parliamentary vote is in. It is a disaster. It is going to be one of those incredibly dark days. When you look at the history of efforts to defend unborn life. Yesterday was a very dark day with very grave cost. Along the same lines, we need to understand the advocates for assisted dying, for euthanasia or assisted suicide. They've been making a lot of progress. Also in Britain's Parliament, it was thought that the measure might come up for a vote. Even just in recent weeks. It looks like that's going to be postponed. It is being advanced in Britain pretty much with the sense that there's massive cultural momentum behind the approval of assisted suicide, what's called medically assisted dying or medical assistance in dying. Another a very dark mark. The culture of death again marches forward. It is important to recognize that legislation that would have immediately moved in that direction failed in the Scottish Parliament when a member of the Scottish Parliament who had been sending this kind of legislation forward admitted the failure on Tuesday night of legislation by vote of 69 to 57. And yet even the BBC says it is expected to come back with increased support at the next opportunity. So, again, this is the battle we're in, folks. And by the way, have you noticed, it's the subversion. It's the attack upon the dignity and sanctity of human life in the beginning and at the end. Isn't it interesting that those two go together? Isn't it interesting to see that in this secularized age in which so many really awful things are being set loose, that efforts are to subvert the dignity of life in the womb and, let's just say in the nursing home, you know, at the end stage of life. It's a very sad thing. Britain here is right now the most interesting laboratory for this legislation. It's likely to remain that way for some time. All right. While we're thinking about similar kinds of issues, I want to come back to the United States because every once in a while there's an incident that emerges, and you say that really is an interesting moral happening turns into something of a moral barometer in a nation like the United States. And when you consider how important sports as a realm is in the United States, the sports realm is just massively powerful. But the sports realm also comes into intersection with a lot of Other worldview issues, a lot of other moral issues. Okay, so what's the big headline we need to see right now? It is coming from Atlanta, and it has to do with the fact that a promotion has been canceled for a major NBA emphasis with sponsorship by an Atlanta strip club, a sex club. Now, in any era of American history, I think this would make headline news. I think if you go back to the founding era, which, by the way, also had prostitution and this kind of thing, you know, you would know exactly what was being talked about. Now, this headline, and the New York Times covers it, by the way, it's very interesting in the sports section. And so it is under the catalog of pro basketball, the headline, promotion canceled for cultural epicenter, which is also a strip club. Here's what the Times tells us. Quote, each year, NBA teams put on hundreds of theme nights. They celebrate cultural heritage, veterans, Barbie movies, or cancer research. But in late February, the Atlanta Hawks announced an unusual theme night, Magic City Monday. Okay, what's Magic City? It is, quote, an iconic cultural institution which is very much in the city of Atlanta, but it's also a strip club, says the paper, known for its acrobatic dancers, its place in hip hop history, and a famous clientele, including many professional athletes. Okay, wait just a minute. Whoa. This turns out to be really big. And I think most Americans don't know about this, but you kind of know about it now because of the controversy over this Magic City Monday that the team had to cancel. Okay, so what are we looking at? We're looking at a sex club. I mean, that's just what it is. It is basically about erotic entertainment. It is a strip club. I'm not going to go into further detail. Let me just say that what you have here is sin dressed up as big business. And it has been very popularized with this particular NBA team and its clientele. It's been very much tied to hip hop culture. And so the team felt like it actually had the margin to its own cultural and economic advantage to declare this Magic City Monday feature. Like they have so many other features, as the article tells us, during the NBA season. But there was pushback. And by the way, the pushback turns out to be very interesting because two groups are pushing back. Okay, so notice this in worldview analysis. This turns out to be very interesting. Who are the two groups that would press back on the NBA team there celebrating or commemorating this Magic City Monday? The two groups are conservative Christians and liberal feminists. Okay, all right, so women's rights activists and Christians are in common Cause against this. Alright, how does that work? Well, it's two different sets of interests for conservative Christians. The opposition here has to do with pornography, the glorification of sex outside of marriage. It's just basically sexual grotesque sin that is commercialized. And here is being basically sponsored by this particular NBA team by its adoption of Magic City Monday. And thus you have the collusion between an NBA team which is marketing itself to America, including American families, as entertainment that's now linking with this explicitly pornographic, sexually erotic entity. We'll just put it at that. The feminists are opposed to it because of the objectification of women and the danger this poses to women, the degrading status this puts upon women, very real harms that come upon women. And by the way, conservative Christians should be concerned about those harms too. And so it shows you that even when you're looking at some of the concerns from the left, conservative Christians want to say, you know, that's actually right. You're right. These women are being commodified, these women are being oppressed, these women are being misused. It is leading to very real injury. So all that to say it did lead to controversy in Atlanta and the team did have to step back. The Hawks, as the paper said, quote, took the unusual step of canceling the promotion. There are lots of interesting things in this. The article that appeared in the sports section is more than a half page in print. So there is a lot here. The NBA team is looking at the fact that it was, it was really caught in a very complicated moral situation. It was trying to use it to its advantage. It also tells you something, and this is something I think Christians need to think about and note from time to time. How did this get past? Lots of people had to say, you know, I don't think that's a bad idea. You know, in other words, you look at the organization of the Atlanta Hawks and evidently you can get inner circle, middle circle, outer circle. All those inside circles nonetheless thought, you know, I think this is okay. I think we'll get away with this. There seems to be some very genuine surprise that at least a lot of people in Atlanta said, that's atrocious, shouldn't happen. It's also interesting that the team and the league, they did not cancel the event with a lengthy explanation or even a direct and honest explanation. As the Times tells us, the league didn't give a reason for canceling the promotion. But in a statement, Commissioner Adam Silver, as the commissioner of the NBA, said the league heard the significant concerns from a broad Array of league stakeholders, including fans, partners, and employees. Now, notice there's not even the slightest attempt on the part of the NBA commissioner to come out and say, well, this was a stupid idea. There's not even the slightest hint that he thinks there's anything morally wrong with what was being proposed here. Nonetheless, he just says it was a situation in which there were concerns from a broad array of league stakeholders. Okay, that kind of tells you how a moral catastrophe like this happens and how moral change moves forward. Because there is also the declaration by some of the observers to this that, you know, this will come back, and when it comes back, there's likely to be less attention to it, less opposition to it. This is the way the left pushes a lot of cultural change. There's outrage in 2026. So you know what? Go away for a year or so and come back. There's likely to be less outrage the next time. And I wish I could say they were wrong, but as a Christian, I have to say sometimes I think they're right about that for all kinds of very lamentable reasons. Part of what we see here is the effort to just break down the moral judgments which have shaped this society. Inherited from Christianity. The other point is that if all they are is inherited from Christianity, they can be abandoned in a secular age very quickly. Okay, finally for today, speaking of abandoning, Timothee Chalamet, of course, very famous actor, made comments leading up to the Academy Awards on Sunday night that got him into hot water because he made disparaging statements about opera and ballet, basically saying that they were more of the past than of the present. In a public statement, Chalamet had said that nobody really cares anymore about opera and ballet. Well, you know, who does care about it? People who are the devotees of opera and ballet. And they really jumped on him in a big way. And you know how Hollywood works. You know, someone makes a statement like this, and it becomes a matter of outrage, and then. And then the actor or actress has to apologize for saying this, and then they all move on. But the bottom line is, at least you had newspapers such as the Wall Street Journal just saying, you know, even though there's pushback to this, the reality is that when you look at opera and ballet, they are fast diminishing in terms of interest across the culture. It's a reminder to us as Christians that a lot of the forms of art and culture that shape to a considerable degree, the society around us, they change over time. So we were just talking about that pornographic club, and I mentioned hip hop Music, you know, hip hop music attracts a lot more people than ballet or opera in modern American society. And before you even say, well, I think one's better than the other or whatever, I think you do recognize that it's just undeniably true that there are major portions of elite culture that are disappearing, and some of them are becoming defunded simply because of a lack of money. And one of the interesting things going on right now is that when you look at a lot of the elite artifacts of culture, they've been supported by family after family. The Rockefellers, the Carnegies. You just got on the name these dynasties. But younger generations, even in those dynasties, are not so committed to continuing to fund some of these, well, aspects of elite culture. And if they're not funded, let me just point out the obvious. They're going to go away. Other major media have responded to the controversy over the actor's statement by saying, you know, if this was said by someone inside ballet or inside the opera, it wouldn't even have made news. Because these conversations are very much taking place in those circles. When it comes to ballet, by the way, this is something that is of great interest to a lot of girls and that includes very little girls. The difference is, in terms of the larger culture, there is just not that much interest. And I'll simply say it is because as adults, those issues get, let's just put it this way, a lot more complicated. As always, a lot for Christians to think about. And here's the promise or the threat, tomorrow there will be more. At Boyce College, we believe the Christian life is about absolute faithfulness. That's faithfulness to the church, faithfulness in the workplace, faithfulness to the family and also in the world. That's why we try everything we know to prepare students to know the truth, follow Christ with conviction, and be ready to do whatever the Lord has called them to do. I mention this because we have a Boyce College preview event coming up March 26th and 27th here in Louisville. If you're a high school student or the parent of a student praying about college, this is the best way you can see what sets Boyce College apart. So I just want to invite you to come. Your visit includes two nights of complimentary lodging and meals. The registration fee will waive it if you just use the promotional code. The Briefing. All caps, no space. The Briefing. Come see how Boyce College prepares Christian students for a lifetime of faithfulness. Register@boycecollege.com Preview as always, thanks for listening to the briefing. For more information go to my website@albertmohler.com youm can follow me on X or Twitter by going to x.comalbertmohler for information on the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to to sbts. Edu. For information on Voice College, just go to voicecollege. Com. I'll meet you again tomorrow for the briefing.