I agree with Peter that the president's position inherently renders him as of a moral leader; however, when religion is brought into the discussion and the Bible is used as a legitimate source in policy making, I think the president and other politicians have inappropriately crossed a boundary and unnecessarily blurred morality and religion. While some consider certain issues as fundamentally religious, it is important to remember that this country is not a theocracy and that there is in fact a separation of church and state. In deciding legislation for these delicate issues, it seems safest to either create a law that caters to and protects the widest range of the population rather than an overly stringent one that alienates ordinary citizens, or instead, to leave the decision in the hands of local, state government.
Concerning the issue of abortion, while some consider not having an anti-abortion law equivalent to the government sanctioning murder, I think it would be far more irresponsible to ban it and leave women without viable and safe options (not to mention preaching abstinence as a practical and realistic solution and alternative). Moreover, medicine is still practiced in this country despite certain religious beliefs that oppose it all together. Essentially, the government is responsible for the well-being of all of its citizens; and while it cannot (and perhaps need not) always ease individuals' consciences, it is still able to (and thus obliged) to fulfill it's duty of ensuring the nation's physical well-being.