Joe Biden and the Issue of Abortion R. Albert Mohler, Jr. The president of the United States, having for decades said that he believes based upon his Roman Catholic convictions. He describes himself and is routinely described as a devout Roman Catholic. The president has stated over and over again throughout his political career, that he personally believes that life begins at conception. And yet on Friday, speaking to the nation, the president of the United States contradicted himself, speaking of his respect for those who believe that life begins at conception, but saying that he does not agree. Now, this is not just a change in position. We're looking at the kind of moment that simply demands our attention. And in order to understand where we stand as a nation, and in order to understand the president of the United States, Joe Biden, we need to take a closer look at something of a timetable of his public position on the issue of abortion since 1972, when he was elected to the United States Senate. In this specific case of Joe Biden, as president of the United States, we need to understand that there has been a development in his argument and in his positions that tells us a great deal of where we are as a nation. And it's also the case that Joe Biden has been speaking to these issues for almost a half century. He entered the United States Senate after being elected in 1972. This is 2021. You can do the math, but we all need to do the math concerning the question of abortion and Joe Biden. And in order to do that, I have constructed many pages of a timeline. I'm going to summarize some crucial developments in order that we can understand where the president is and what that tells us, not only about Joe Biden, but what it tells us about the country, what it tells us about the Democratic Party, what it tells us about the great worldview divide in the United States. Let's just follow the timeline. 1972, Joe Biden, identifying himself as a devout Roman Catholic runs for the United States Senate from Delaware. He is elected and he indicates during the campaign that he holds what is basically an anti-abortion or pro-life position. That was 1972. In 1976, Joe Biden, as a United States senator, votes for the Hyde Amendment. That was the legislation adopted on a bipartisan basis in both the House and the Senate that would prevent the American taxpayer from being compelled to pay for abortion against conscience. Joe Biden would later support the Hyde Amendment for almost 45 years. At so many points, during those four decades and more, bragging about the fact that he had supported the Hyde Amendment from the beginning and indicating his absolute resolve in principle that American taxpayers should not be compelled to pay for abortion when they believe that abortion is a grave moral wrong, he supported the Hyde Amendment in 1976, even when that amendment did not have an exception for rape or incest. And by the way, those exceptions were not put into place until 1983 under the presidency of Bill Clinton. Now we need to know, jump from 1976 to 2016. You're looking there at the span of 40 years. And those 40 years, what happened? Well, the Democratic Party in the year 2016 with its national nominee being Hillary Clinton, running for president, changed its platform to call for the elimination of the Hyde Amendment. That's 2016. As we shall see, just three years later, Joe Biden would announce he had done a U-turn on the Hyde Amendment himself, but here's the point. In 1976, he supported the Hyde Amendment even in its original form. And he would do so for 45 years. In 1977, Joe Biden, the senator, voted against allowing Medicaid to fund abortions in the event of rape or incest. In 1981, Joe Biden went so far as to vote for a constitutional amendment process that would have allowed the states to overturn Roe v. Wade. That's 1981. He would describe that vote as, "The single most difficult vote I've cast as a US senator." In that very same year, 1981, he reaffirmed opposition to federal funding in the case, even of rape or incest. NPR News reported that Biden "was one of just two Democratic senators from the Northeast, the other being George Mitchell of Maine, to vote to end federal funding for abortion for victims of rape and incest." That was 1981. In 1982, Joe Biden cast a vote against the very constitutional amendment he had voted for the previous year. So that's a span of just one year, a crucial change. He was for the constitutional amendment that would've allowed states to overturn Roe v. Wade in 1981, he was against it in 1982. In 1983, as senator, Joe Biden voted against allowing federal employees to use health insurance to pay for abortions. In 1986, he told the Catholic Diocese Newspaper, "Abortion is wrong from the moment of conception." NBC news also reported that he had "seemed to offer the National Conference of Catholic Bishops moral support in pushing for limits, noting that the most effective pro-life groups are those who keep trying to push back the frontier". Speaking of that frontier, then Senator Biden in 1986 said, "I think medical science is moving the frontier back so that by the year 2000, we're going to have more and more pressure. And rightfully so in my view, of moving back further and further the circumstances under which an abortion can be had." Again, he seems to be saying to the National Council of Bishops, that's the Roman Catholic bishops, that he is all for them and with them in the defense of unborn human life, even basically offering them advice. In 1994, Biden wrote a letter to his own constituents, and this came in the context of debate over the Clinton administration's healthcare proposals. He bragged that on no fewer than 50 occasions, those are his words, he had voted against federal funding of abortion. On no less than 50 occasions, he said in 1994. He went on to say, as a matter of principle, "Those of us who are opposed to abortion should not be compelled to pay for them." Now, again, that's us language. "Those of us who are opposed to abortions should not be compelled to pay for them." That was 1994. In the year 2006, Joe Biden was still in the United States Senate, and he had said to CNN that he was the odd man out among Democrats on the issue of abortion. He explained that he did support bans on abortion later in pregnancy, and he did support a ban on federal funding of abortion. "I do not vote for federal funding for abortion." He went on to describe his predicament. "I voted against partial birth abortion to limit it, and I vote for no restrictions on a woman's right to be able to have an abortion under Roe v. Wade. Great. And so I am, I made everybody angry. I made the right to make people angry because I won't support a constitutional amendment or limitations on a woman's right to exercise their constitutional right as defined by Roe v. Wade. And I've made the women's groups and others very angry because I won't support public funding and I won't support partial birth." Again, a rather significant rather long, if rather confused statement, but that was 2006. In 2007, he published what became a New York Times bestselling book. It was in preparation for his anticipated run for the Democratic nomination in 2008. The book was entitled Promises to Keep. In that book, he described himself as personally opposed to abortion. He described his position as middle of the road. He also stated, "I refuse to impose my beliefs on other people." Now, there's background to that statement, and it's a particularly Catholic background. It is because liberal Catholic politicians have been negotiating with liberal Catholic theologians to come up with an answer as to how they might hold personally to the Catholic church's teaching on the issue of the sanctity of life, while at the same time supporting abortion in public policy. This was the line they came up with, you'll hear it over and over again. I will not impose, or I do not want to impose my religious beliefs upon others. In this case, he identifies his religious belief very clearly as the sanctity of life going so far as we have seen as to describe life and its sacredness beginning at the moment of conception. In a way that should have been embarrassing, Biden presents himself in this autobiography as a profile in courage, claiming that he stands for intellectual consistency above political expediency. That's a hard argument for him to keep given his own changing positions on this issue, but more on that in a moment. Back in that 2007 book, Promises to Keep, Biden said that he had responded to Abraham Ribicoff, another United States senator, on the question of abortion. "Well, my position is that I personally am opposed to abortion, but I don't think I have the right to impose my view on something I accept as a matter of faith on the rest of society. I've thought a lot about it," said Biden, "and my position probably doesn't please anyone. I think the government should stay out completely." Now, Senator Ribicoff responded to that statement by basically indicating that it was nonsensical. Biden picks up on it and says, "Well, I will not vote to overturn the court's decision." That means Roe v. Wade. "I will not vote to curtail a woman's right to choose abortion, but I will also not vote to use federal funds to fund abortion." Well, the senior senator supposedly said to Biden, "That's a tough position kid." And Biden supposedly said on the Senate escalator, "Yeah, everybody will be upset with me. I told him 'except me', but I'm intellectually and morally comfortable with my position." Again, later in the same paragraph, he describes it as a middle of the road position and Biden also said this: "I've made life difficult for myself by putting intellectual consistency and personal principles above expediency. I'm perfectly able to take the politically expedient way on issues that don't seem fundamental, especially when a colleague I trust needs help, but by and large, I follow my own nose and I make no apologies for being difficult to pigeonhole." Now, again, he claims to be a paragon of intellectual consistency rather than political expediency. Well, just hold onto that for a moment. In 2008, this is so crucial. That is just a matter of say, 13 years ago, Joe Biden said, "I'm prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception." Now let's just pause for a moment and understand how important that question is. As evangelical Christians, let's consider for a moment how central that question is. You're going to have to answer the question one way or the other as to when human life begins or when it begins to be sacred or when something that is prehuman begins to become human. You're going to have to answer that question. The only right question, the only consistent question given the revelation of God in Scripture and in creation is the moment of fertilization, often referred to as the moment of conception. The thing we need to understand is that in 2008, Joe Biden indicated his absolute agreement with that, "I'm prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception." But here's where evangelical Christians need to look at that sentence and understand if we use those words, those words well means something different then when Joe Biden as a Roman Catholic uses those words. Now, how can that be so? Well, it has to do with what he says: "I'm prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception." In other words, he says, "I'm not stating that as a matter of objective truth or of ontological truth in being. I'm not saying that I'm going to stick my life on the fact that it's true. I'm saying that I accept the fact that the Roman Catholic church teaches that to be true. So I accept it as a matter of faith." A key issue we need to confront is that in the year 2015.... So here, we're just looking at say six years ago, just six years ago, Joe Biden, who was then vice president of the United States, gave an interview to America magazine. That's a prominent American Catholic periodical. The interview took place September 17, 2015, at the vice president's office in Washington, D.C. The interviewer was Matt Malone, a Jesuit, president and editor-in-chief of American Media. In that interview, Malone raised the issue of abortion, and he spoke about specific public policies, "Where you've had to take positions that were at odds with the bishops of this country on contentious questions like abortion." Malone asks, "Has that been hard for you?" Joe Biden responded, "It has been, it's been hard in one sense because I'm prepared to accept de fide doctrine on a whole range of issues as a Catholic, even though, as you know, Aquinas argued about in his Summa Theologica, about human life and being when it occurs. I'm prepared to accept as a matter of faith, my wife and I, my family, the issue of abortion, but what I'm not prepared to do is to impose a precise view that is born out of my faith on other people who are equally God-fearing, equally as committed to life, equally as committed to the sanctity of life. I'm prepared," said Biden, in this 2015 interview. "I'm prepared to accept that at the moment of conception there's human life and being, but I'm not prepared to say that to other God-fearing, non-God-fearing people that have a different view." Now that's quintessential Joe Biden, say, "I'm not going to argue with other God-fearing people. For that matter, non-God-fearing people." As if they're Americans who would just come out and say, "Put me in the non-God-fearing category." Well come to think of it. There probably are some. But the point is that even if we take Joe Biden at his word in 2015, he says that he accepts de fide doctrine of his church. And by the way, that's, again, a technical definition. Is a de fide teaching? It is a point on which disagreement with the church is not just disagreement. It is heresy. It is heresy tantamount to excommunication. By the illogic, of course, in all this is saying, "No, I believe based upon theological reasoning." Or for Joe Biden, the Catholic to say, "I believe in the de fide teaching of my church that life begins at conception, that the unborn human life is indeed a human person, and that that's a human person with sacredness of life, but I'm not going to use public policy to defend that sacred human person." Things move very quickly at this point. That was 2015. In 2019 on June 6, just a day after the previous day, affirming his support for the Hyde Amendment, Joe Biden as a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, all of a sudden announced he had changed his position, that he now opposes Hyde. Candidate Biden then said, "If I believe healthcare is a right as I do, I can no longer support an amendment that makes that right dependent on someone's zip code." In other words, even as Joe Biden talks about how he resists political expediency and stands for intellectual consistency, in this case, he did a 180-degree turn in a matter of 24 hours for no reason other than blatant political expediency, because he wasn't going to be allowed within a hundred yards of the Democratic presidential nomination, unless he avidly, aggressively, assertively opposed the Hyde Amendment, which he had been supporting for 45 years and had bragged about voting for Hyde in similar measures no less than 50 times. And he said that almost 20 years ago, but he made that turn in 24 hours. On June 5, 2019, he was proudly for the Hyde Amendment. On June 6, 2019, he acted as if it had never happened, but he also said that he wasn't going to apologize for his former position. Just move on. And the way political expediency works, his party was ready to just move on. For the sake of politics, his party understood it needed to, it needed to move on. And it moved on in 2020 to Joe Biden being elected president of the United States on an aggressively pro-abortion platform. And then in 2021 upon taking office, he has issued a series of executive orders and a pro-abortion position striking down the Mexico City policy that limited American funds to be used for abortion or abortion advocacy overseas, reinstating Title X funding to planned parenthood, seeking to repeal the Hyde Amendment, announcing support for federal legislation to replace Roe, and siding with those who affirm abortion at taxpayer expense, all the way to birth. That's not the way he would put it, but in functional terms, that's where he stands. His presidential appointments at the cabinet, to the judiciary, and throughout have been avidly pro-abortion. And then on September 3rd, just days ago, after the Texas law went into effect, the president said, and this is a change not only in his policy, but it is a rejection of what he had claimed as his personal religious conviction. "I respect those who believe life begins at the moment of conception. I respect that. Don't agree, but I respect that." Well, he had said that he did believe that life begins at conception, over and over again, and it was not just a series of anecdotal statements. It was a series of statements in which he agreed with, stated his agreement with the de fide declarations of his own church concerning the sanctity of human life and the fact that human life begins at conception. But that was then, this is now.
Should Christians be banned from the process of writing legislation? Atheists will sometimes argue that because the moral beliefs of devout individuals stem from their religion, and religion is excluded from consideration by government entities charged with the establishment of criminal and civil law, it follows that Christians have no business taking part in the writing of any laws that will govern our nation. However, in a certain sense, even laws authored by complete atheists are based on "religious beliefs," and are therefore no different that something that a Christian, Muslim or Jew might come up with. For evidence of this fact, one need look no further than the Biden administration's own EEOC compliance manual for employers, where under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, religion is not limited to the ideas or practices recognized by one or another organized religion, but rather, it is defined as whether one's beliefs are equivalent to something that is religious. Indeed, a belief in God (or gods) is not even necessary, nor are theistic beliefs. The fact of the matter is, non-theistic beliefs can also be religious for purposes of Title VII. All that is required is that the beliefs occupy in the life of the individual a place parallel to that filled by God in traditionally religious persons (e.g., one's conscience). The law protects employees who do NOT possess religious beliefs or engage in religious practices. Indeed, it accommodates anyone whose beliefs are substantially or deeply moral. Title VII defines religion to include all aspects of belief—not just practices that are mandated or prohibited by a tenant of an individual's faith. Moreover, the beliefs do not have to be part of a formal church or sect. If fact, the beliefs can even be illogical and unreasonable, and they need not be confined in either source or content to a traditional or parochial concept of religion. A belief is religious for Title VII purposes if it is religious in the person's own scheme of things, meaning that it is a sincere and meaningful belief which occupies a place in the life of the individual that is parallel to that filled by God. Again, this is just another way of saying one's conscience. The law states that the religious belief can be unacceptable, illogical, inconsistent, and incomprehensible, and still be protected. This is true even if the employee is affiliated with a religious group that does not espouse or even recognize the individual's belief. Religious beliefs include non-theistic moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong that are sincerely held with the strength of traditional views. These are beliefs that concern ideas about: life; purpose; death; fundamental and ultimate questions; deep and imponderable matters; and comprehensive belief systems. The fact that there is an overlap between a religious and political view does NOT place it outside the scope of Title VII's religious protections. So in this sense, an atheist's moral beliefs stem from their religion just as much as that of a traditional Jew, for example; and consequently, members of a church, or a synagogue, or a mosque, or a temple have just as much right to attempt to "legislate their morality" as atheists do.