Thursday, October 29, 2026

It's Thursday, October 29, 2026. I'm Albert Moeller, and this is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. The midterm elections are coming fast. Not fast enough for some, but too fast for some others, simply because they realize they're running out of time to affect the election whatsoever, and so there's just a lot of drama in these closing days. We understand the midterm elections are very important, and this cycle of midterm elections is more important than many because it's coming at the midpoint of an incumbent president's second term, and that means that as soon as the results of the 2026 midterm elections are known, the race for 2028 in terms of the two parties and the presidential nomination, it's on, and it's going to be on with vigor. But what I want us to note is not so many of the candidate questions that are very much the focus of media attention. I want us to focus on something that hasn't received much attention at all, and that's the fact that the transgender issue is going to be on the ballot in five states. Not only the transgender issue, but the issue related to transgender youth or transgender teens. This has never happened before even once. Now you have five different states that are going to decide this issue, and that means measures put before the voters in which the voters are going to make a big decision here. Now let me give you the good news. The good news is that current polling, basically understood as accurate by both sides in this controversy. Recognize that about 69% of adults in the United States do not believe, for example, that boys should play on girls' teams. Even if you have a boy who identifies as a girl, you have a boy who's gone through puberty, you have a boy that has physical advantages, he is physically, structurally a boy. And thus the vast majority of Americans, even those who have said and may even continue to say they're for the transgender revolution, they evidently see some limits. And this is one of those limits. But it's now going to be put before voters in five states, and that means there's so much here on the line. The Washington Post understands this. They ran just yesterday a major article with the headline, In Historic First, Voters in Five States Will Decide Transgender Youth Rights. Well, what are those states? We'll get to that. The big issue is that this is now coming. That means 10% of the states in the United States of America are going to be deciding this question one way or another when it comes to the question of transgender youth rights. So, I'm going to be when it comes to the questions that will be decided by voters. You have Colorado, Nebraska, Arizona, Missouri, as well as Washington. And we are told that there is now big spending on both sides of this. And yet it is also clear that in almost every case, the initiative behind this action is coming from those who do not believe that boys should play on girls' teams, period. And thus you have that 69% pretty much driving the fact that this is going to be on the ballot. Now, that should tell you something. It should tell you that the math is rather consistent here. That's the way you would expect this to fall out. When you have that kind of clear majority, 69%, and you're talking about 10% of the states at one time never having happened before, okay, this gets really interesting. Now, Annie Gowan of the Washington Post tells us, quote, polls show that a majority of Americans oppose transgender athletes competing in girls' sports. So this is talking about children and teenagers. With a Gallup poll last year, again citing that 69%, who believe that transgender athletes should be allowed to play only on teams that match their birth sex. Okay, let me just stop there for a moment and say that's an extremely important sentence. It's also very important that it was published in the Washington Post. And even the Washington Post then, looking at this issue, has to make a distinction between those who identify as transgender and those who are, well, nonetheless, still marked by their birth sex. And so the recognition that birth sex continues, even as transgender identity emerges, that's a very interesting moral statement in itself. Now, when it comes to legislative action, the Post tells us that more than two dozen states, and by the way, these states are Republican-led. That's in the article, in the documentation. Those states have adopted bans on female transgender athletes, which are upheld by the Supreme Court in June. Okay, so I want you to notice something else. This paper, the Washington Post, which has been, for the better part of decades, a very liberal newspaper. It's under new ownership now in recent years with Jeff Bezos. But still, it is rather liberal just in terms of its perspective. And notice what they do here. They then use this phrase, female transgender athletes. Okay, so every word of that turns out to be really important, but two of these words don't go together. And so you just need to recognize that when you hear this, female transgender athletes, that means not actually female. It means a biological male who wants to compete as a female, claiming a transgender identity. Quote, Well, true or false? I don't think that's untrue. In other words, I think that's a part of what's going on here. I think conservatives should recognize that. A part of what's going on here is that the legislatures in these states have not done their jobs. Therefore, the voters are going to have to decide this issue and clarify this issue and codify this issue. Remember, we're talking about the states of Colorado, Nebraska, Arizona, Missouri, and Washington State. Now, Missouri is not uniformly a liberal state. Arizona can go back and forth on many of these issues. Colorado, very libertarian and leaning democratic in a pretty liberal way in recent cycles. Washington State, very liberal. But the state of Nebraska is in this. And Nebraska is, by and large, not a liberal state. It has one liberal congressional district. But the state as a whole? No. It's deep red conservative. But nonetheless, I think we understand what the Washington Post is trying to say here, especially when you put on Washington State and Colorado. You are talking about states that have just very much tried to avoid dealing with this kind of issue at the level of the legislature. But now I want you to hear something else from this article. The person cited is Vivian Topping. That's the identity. Quote, the senior director for advocacy at the Equality Federation, a national advocacy group that supports a network of state-based, LGBTQ rights groups. Quote, they're trying to do an end run around legislators that voters elected. End quote. Well, that's one of those statements that sounds like she's saying something until you understand that she's really not saying anything at all. Let me repeat the statement. Well, you can't say you're doing an end run around legislators if the voters themselves are voting on the issue. That's getting the entire equation upside down. But if we're talking about the transgender equation and we're talking about an activist for LGBTQ groups, I guess turning the world upside down just in its own strange way makes sense. It's also interesting that in this article, you do have people come out against these measures. So Kelsey Gellner, identified as a pediatric nurse and a board member of her state's Nurses Association, she said, quote, I'm concerned we are villainizing transgender children, creating a boogeyman out of them when there are far greater issues we should face to keep our children safe. She said it's a small minority who just want to belong, end quote. Well, just think about that. If you think about that and realize what we're talking about, then that logic would extend to virtually anything. In other words, just get rid of all the rules because they're going to impinge upon someone. The initiative in Washington state, I think, should have a lot of attention from Christians and especially Christian parents. We're told this, quote, Let's Go Washington has raised a total of $12 million for the three initiatives on this year's ballot. While the opposition group, No Hate in Washington State, has raised $4.5 million, quote, Supporters of the initiative requiring parents to know about medical treatments at school say parents deserve to know what's going on with their child, particularly one who might be struggling with gender issues. Opponents worry it will have a negative effect on LGBTQ youth and survivors of abuse who might feel safer confiding in a teacher or a counselor than a parent, end quote. Okay, from a Christian worldview perspective, bombs should be going off now. The alarms should be going off. We should be very aware this is a huge problem. We are being told here straightforwardly by advocates of this kind of liberal approach. We're being told straightforwardly that the grave danger to teenagers is their parents. And so there has to be a way for these teenagers even to explore something and to go ahead and proceed with something like an alternative gender identity supported by people in the schools and the therapeutic and counseling community. Without even the knowledge of their parents. And the reason that this is being proposed, as you see here, the argument on this side says that some parents just might not be adequately supportive of the child or the teenager in this case. So the entire implication of this, just notice this, the entire implication, the entire presupposition of all of this is that these parents have to be wrong. In other words, there's absolutely no chance, according to the mentality behind this kind of policy, there's no chance. The parents could actually be right. The parents are thus, by definition, the problem, not part of the solution. In this article published in the Washington Post, there is a reporting that goes back and forth between these various states. But there's one big angle on this I also want to mention. And that is the fact that one of the things you have very clearly disclosed here is that when you do have young people that declare themselves, and in this case, just given the controversy, it's going to be teenage boys who identify as transgender. unless they want to compete as teenage girls. The fact is that you're being told here, at least by some of these authorities, you know, not all boys are that much more, let's just say, they're not just that much faster and that much more athletic. But, you know, when you look at the actual statistics, that's not true. The fact is that the division, the change, the distance between boys and girls at certain ages in this development when it comes to this kind of competition, the fact is that the numbers are just incredibly clear. Frankly, for Christians, we understand the morality is also just incredibly clear. But this article makes it also very clear. The danger is very, very clear. I also want to talk about the fact that just before that article appeared in the Washington Post, in the New York Times Sunday edition on October the 25th, another very interesting headline ran. This one's the headline, GOP, the Republicans push trans issues in days before the election. Amy Harmon is the reporter on this story, quote, advocates for transgender rights say the attacks against trans women are not just a matter of time. It's a matter of weeks. Distort complex questions of medicine, science and law and encourage anti-trans bigotry. Some Democrats say the approach may backfire since voters are saying the economy is one of the most pressing issues. Others have deflected the ads and sometimes shifted their positions on trans issues. Later in the same article, the reporter writes, quote, some Democrats argue that Republican critiques over trans issues resonate because Democrats have seemed to suggest that support for transgender rights should be a candidate litmus test without building consensus. While large majorities of Americans oppose discrimination against transgender people in areas like housing and employment, many people believe that self-identified gender should not replace birth sex when it comes to sports, locker rooms and identity documents. End quote. I wanted you to hear those words from the New York Times again because there's something very big disclosed in the way this article appeared even in the New York Times. A matter of just a few years ago, I can tell you the article wouldn't have been structured this way. The new thing, which even the New York Times and others in the liberal media now have to recognize, is that the vast majority of Americans still believe that biology plays a role. Now, the confusion on the part of many Americans is actually made clear in what I just read because we're told that majorities of Americans, now remember that's majorities according to polling, they oppose discrimination based on transgender people in areas like housing and employment. Okay, that makes sense. But then we are told that a majority of Americans also, opposed transgender teens being on athletic teams in this kind of athletic competition. Also, as the article says, when it comes to sports, locker rooms and identity documents. So now identity documents has dropped in. So in other words, the transgender ideology, which appeared to be just going forward, unobstructed, unimpeded, a matter of just say five or six years ago, I'm going to argue that it's not just conservative arguments that have had an effect here. I don't want to take anything away from the conservative argument. I don't want to take anything away from the conservative arguments that have been made, the accurate biological, biblical arguments. I've done my best to make those arguments. I am going to say that I think this is also full evidence of the fact that God made human beings in his image as moral creatures. And there's a certain amount of moral honesty about, say, the difference between male and female that most Americans just can't get past when they think about bathrooms, locker rooms, teenagers, kids, and well, you go down the list. In other words, even when they think themselves to be so progressive, they don't know what to do. And so, I'm going to argue that it's not just progressive on issues of adult transgender people in housing and employment. When it comes to bathrooms, locker rooms, and private area, I think there are an awful lot of adults, in particular adult women, who really don't want biological males in their adult bathrooms or personal areas either. By the way, one thing we need to note there is that there is a distinction between what people say they are. I'm pro-LGBTQ, but in many cases, even those who say that are really saying it with an asterisk. It may take some time to figure out what follows that asterisk. Okay, when we're talking about this issue, of course, the Senate election in Texas comes into play. And it's also very interesting that when it comes to James Tallarico, the state legislator, who is, of course, at least claimed by many in the media to be ahead in that race, the first Democrat that is, at least they're saying, with just a very good chance of being elected senator in the state of Texas. Hasn't happened in a generation. But the Wall Street Journal runs a very big headline just in recent days. Tallarico walks a fine line in red Texas. Now, let's just state the obvious. James Tallarico is not a conservative of any sort. I don't believe there is any case that he's a moderate of any sort. He is a liberal of some sort. And here's where we've already discussed the fact that for most of his political life, he's really identified as a very radical liberal, someone way on the left. Now, when it comes to the transgender issue, I want to say I think the reporters for the Wall Street Journal have done a good job here. Listen to this. Quote, in 2021, during a hearing on a bill to ban transgender athletes from interscholastic sports, Tallarico said, quote, some things are more important than perfectly fair competition in sports, end quote. OK, just hold the presses for a moment. That's absolutely massive. And it is a statement I don't believe many in the media have actually reported in full force. Because if you follow the logic of James Tallarico here in that statement made in ancient history, when James Tallarico says, quote, some things are more important than perfectly fair competition in sports. Well, he says something's more important even than fair competition in sports. He's talking about teenagers and children. What could be more important? The answer is he's talking about transgender identity and affirming that. We know that. And furthermore, the Wall Street Journal reports, quote, on the campaign trail in September. So that's just that's just weeks ago. On the campaign trail in September, he told Fox News he would oppose trans-American athletes playing a girl's sports, quote, if it risks health or fairness, end quote. So notice he appears to have changed his policy. But when he says if it risks health or fairness, that means that it is the burden of those who would disqualify a transgender athlete identified in this case, this would be a biological boy who claims to be a girl. The burden is now going to be on the girls on the team to prove that the presence of that biological male on the team or in the locker room space that that is unfair and unjust. He sounds like he's a moderated disposition, at least somewhat. But then you look at it and you realize, no, he really hasn't at all. I appreciate the fact that the Wall Street Journal doesn't really let him get away with it. Listen to this, quote, the difference drew social media outcry from both right and left wing voices, while Tallarico said he had long believed the matter should depend on particular sports and school boards, end quote. So there you have a third argument. OK, here's a here's one coming again in which he says, no, let's just leave it up to particular sports. It could vary sport by sport, he seems to be saying and to school boards, let school boards deal with this. Let me just state the obvious. We talked about this at this link today because it's interesting with it never having appeared in a referendum before. The question of transgender teens is showing up in 10 percent of the states of the United States of America for the first time within less than a week. And furthermore, you have candidates such as James Tallarico who are not able to avoid the fact that they're answering the questions in terms of having to say something. They're making some noise. But when it comes to James Tallarico, the noise is fundamentally nonsense. I just wish there were more people who recognize nonsense as nonsense and say so. All right. I want to talk about one other big issue in terms of the moral landscape. And this is not something that is so important in this election cycle when it comes to American politics. But it's in the background. It's always in the background. And as we're talking about how close a threat this is, I want us to look right across America's northern border. I want us once again to look at Canada. And that's because Reuters just in the last hours has reported something that is absolutely ominous. The headline is this. Canada introduces bill to allow people to be euthanized after they lose the capacity to decide. So this is something that has come up. And by the way, when we are told Canada introduces bill, that's not the kind of language that we're going to use. It's not the kind of language that we're that sentence wouldn't make sense in the United States if he said United States introduces bill. So when it says Canada introduces bill, what does that mean? It's like saying that Britain did so. It means the government, the government in a parliamentary system has brought the legislation. And that means with the support of the prime minister. So Canada has now introduced this bill. It comes particularly from the justice minister as a part of the Canadian government, Sean Frazier. And this is coming from the Canadian government itself. As Reuters reports, quote, the Canadian government will introduce a new bill on Tuesday to allow people to request being euthanized at a later date when they have lost the mental capacity to make that decision in a potential further expansion of one of the world's most liberal assisted dying programs. OK, just let that sink in for a moment. Now you have Canada that has moved faster than virtually any other society in the full embrace of assisted suicide. And by the way, they have done so even going far beyond where they said they would not go. Just a matter of a few short years ago, they've done so even as Parliament took action. And then Canada's Supreme Court ruled even further action expanding those who qualify for assisted suicide. And basically, it was Canada's Supreme Court, its highest court that said it can't just be for, let's just say, unsufferable physical distress or suffering. It also has to be for psychological or psychiatric distress. And thus, you can just see how this expands and it expands and it expands. And as we go on, we're going to see how this expands. And as we go on, we're going to As we've already seen in Europe, it expands. which you have now even young people and children who, on the basis of physical or psychological distress, can claim the right to end their own lives. You also see the attempt to try to dress it up as something else by calling it medical assistance in dying. That's a very deadly confusion in and of itself. But what's really frightening about this is that this Canadian measure coming from the government, so this isn't some just lone ranger out there in parliament proposing this, this is coming as a government proposal. By the way, in a parliamentary system, the government ought never to lose a vote because the government is only the government in terms of the parliamentary majority because they are a majority. Okay, so now you've been warned. But as you look at this legislation, it would require the government to work with provinces and territories on implementation. And of course, the government says it must come with rigorous safeguards to protect people and ensure the decision remains voluntary and free from external pressure. But remember what they're talking about here. They're saying that people can now sign an agreement in advance so that when they are even past the capacity of communication or reasoning, they no longer have what's legally judged to be the minimal mental capacity to make this decision. They can make it in advance. And that also means, by the way, that if they appear in that diminished mental capacity, no longer to want or desire physician-assisted suicide, as we have already seen in cases in Europe. Claim is made, well, when they had the right mental capacity, they signed this. So it is our moral duty, actually, now to kill them, even though they now say they don't want to be killed. It's also very interesting to read in this report from Reuters, quote, new safeguards will be introduced. That's almost always said. You just need to recognize when you see that alarm bell should go off. New safeguards will be introduced and people will have to be experiencing, quote, intolerable suffering, end quote, at the time when they are killed. Okay, another remarkable sentence we need to think about. Number one, when intolerable suffering is put in quotation marks, that means it is a legal term. It's a definitional term, but that is something that is inherently subjective because that means that the individual gets to state that him or herself. But then you'll notice it says at the time when they are killed. I am oddly thankful for the way that sentence was written. I want to tell you because it's a rare demonstration of intellectual and moral honesty. The phrase there, when they are killed, and I want to draw attention to that because it's actually true. It's honest and it's straightforward. And that kind of language coming in the mainstream media is rare. It's rare because they want to avoid saying things like a person is killed. They want to say the person exercises personal autonomy in order to see suffering and to have escape, et cetera, et cetera. It is interesting that even the Reuters report recognizes that the first legalized euthanasia in Canada was just 2016. So that's just 10 years ago. Then it was limited to persons who were certifiably terminally ill in the last stages of their illness. It was then broadened in 2021, quote, to allow people with incurable but not terminal conditions to seek death. But just notice the shift here. The shift from terminal conditions to incurable conditions is absolutely massive in moral terms. There are rashes that are incurable conditions. They certainly are not terminal. And thus you add the psychological and psychiatric issues here. And I think it also just illustrates the acceleration of this issue so much faster than most Americans could have imagined. I think so much faster than most Canadians could have imagined. But now you look at the Canadian government. Again, this is a government proposal saying that the law there in Canada needs to be changed so that people can be put to death after they lose the capacity to decide. Just think of how the culture of death advances. It's usually more subtle than this. It has to be far, far along before you see legislation this candid. It's hard to hide in any sense what this is. By the way, just as I close on this issue, National Review ran a piece by David Alton, and it makes a very good point about why assisted suicide failed in Britain. And one of the reasons it failed in Britain, and by the way, it fundamentally failed in the House of Lords, more so, of course, than in the House of Commons. And that just points again to the fact that even as the Senate is the cooling chamber in the American congressional system from the House of Representatives, the House of Lords is still something of a cooling chamber when it comes to legislation in Britain also. But just to get to the bottom line here, the legislation that would have authorized physician-assisted suicide in Britain, it was expected to pass probably overwhelmingly. But again, it didn't pass in the House of Lords. It didn't pass in the House of Lords. One of the reasons it didn't pass is because of an unlikely coalition of people who came together. And that unlikely coalition included not only conservative Christians who hold to a biblical worldview, but also some others who simply saw the danger in this and the fact that it would be too easy to get rid of people such as the elderly and the infirm. So even as conservative Christians were very much wanting to stop this legislation in its tracks, the bill was also opposed by Jeremy Corbyn, a socialist. The bill was also opposed by Jeremy Corbyn, a socialist. Former leader of the Labour Party, Diane Abbott, a very well-known figure on the political left. That tells you something. It tells you that Britain at least was able to hold to its senses, at least for now, because it didn't rush ahead. That's exactly what we see happening in Canada. There's no other word for it other than rushing ahead. Rushing ahead into the culture of death. Thanks for listening to The Briefing. For information on the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbts.edu. For information on Boyce College, just go to boycecollege.com. I'll meet you again tomorrow for The Briefing.