ACSWP_Jan2000

Presbyterians Pro-Life
Posted January 30, 2000

The Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy task group on implementation of the abortion policy has second meeting (January 12-14, 2000) to evaluate work of entities using the fifteen "policy themes" they created
by Terry Schlossberg

Shorts on ACSWP and the Abortion Policy
by Terry Schlossberg

The Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy's (ACSWP) selected task group on implementation of the General Assembly's abortion policy ended their second and final face-to-face meeting without adopting a report. But the group seemed to agree that for the most part the abortion "policies" are being implemented satisfactorily. Dora Lodwick, co-moderator, proposed that the group offer some "suggestions" rather than recommendations, for tinkering with implementation so as not to appear to be a whitewash of their charge.

The task group meeting was held at the Louisville Marriott Courtyard Hotel from Jan. 12-14, 2000. The group is made up of co-moderators Dora Lodwick and Nancy Becker, who serve on ACSWP's standing committee. ACSWP selected four additional Presbyterians to serve on the task group (Al Freundt, Joseph Etua, Mary Elva Smith and Theresa Lura) and hired a non-Presbyterian consultant (Margaret Jendrek) to help them evaluate implementation of the policy. Staff members Peter Sulyok and Belinda Curry sat at the table with the group and entered the discussion at will. Sulyok was especially assertive when it came to defining policy.

Process legerdemain: Changing the policy to fit the implementation
How did the concerns that led four presbyteries to appeal to the General Assembly for implementation of the abortion policy become a situation that appears to need only minor tinkering? It happened through a process by which "policy" was completely redefined and then transformed into "themes" created by the task group. Materials selected and submitted by five General Assembly entities were then evaluated in light of the newly-created "themes." And all of this was done with the straightest of faces.

Background: The historical position of the church reversed in 1983
The Presbyterian Church historically held a position that the unborn are human from the moment of conception and that abortion therefore is not a moral option. In 1983 the newly-formed Presbyterian Church (USA) adopted a policy on abortion that reversed the former stance of the church and declared abortion a responsible decision of good Christian stewardship. The change in policy provoked a flood of overtures for several years. Finally, the 1988 General Assembly called for a special committee to study the issue and produce "a new policy" for the church. The special committee delivered its report and policy recommendations to the 1992 General Assembly, which then adopted a new policy that year.

"Pro-choice" replaced by "diverse views" in 1992
The narrative portion of the 1992 policy paper expresses two diverse views about problem pregnancies and abortion. The document's policy section specifies some circumstances in which the church does not regard abortion as a moral decision. And the policy calls for the expression of the alternative views set forth in the document in the publications of General Assembly entities. One of those views might be regarded as "pro-choice." The other view is not. That is the view that since God has created each human being in his own image, and since God has prohibited us from killing the innocent and instead called us to care and provide for the needy and vulnerable, abortion is not a moral choice in a problem pregnancy.

No change following 1992; presbyteries finally call for accountability in 1997 and 1998
The 1992 General Assembly document was clear that both views ought to be expressed in the programs and work and publications of General Assembly entities. From 1992 until 1997, that did not happen. In 1997 and again in 1998 a total of four presbyteries sent overtures to the General Assembly calling for implementation. The 1998 General Assembly referred the two overtures that came that year to ACSWP. A similar commissioners' resolution in 1999 was also referred to ACSWP.

How the intent of the new policy was subverted
Each of the overtures referred specifically to implementation of the 1992 policy. Nevertheless, the ACSWP task group has decided that the 1992 action did not produce a "new policy" even though that is what the 1988 General Assembly called for specifically. Instead it simply added a new statement to those of General Assemblies since 1983, the compilation of which constitutes the policy.

That is why the task group spent hours pouring through fifteen years of General Assembly minutes in an attempt to locate every action on problem pregnancies and abortion. A previous effort by ACSWP to do that missed quite a number of actions on the subject that we discovered when we went through the minutes in the PPL office. Most of the missing actions would be considered "pro-life" in emphasis. It's likely that nobody will know for sure if the task group got them all this time. But why should they?

We have a process for arriving at a single statement of policy; the 1992 policy was produced by that process
Good and orderly process would have a means for arriving at a single policy that all Presbyterians can identify as the policy. The logical means for arriving at that policy would be by action of our highest governing body, the General Assembly. In fact, we have a process for doing exactly that. It is the process that the 1988 General Assembly set in motion and that culminated in the action of 1992 General Assembly when it adopted a new policy. It is a single document. It is not a compilation or a series of "themes."

Why has ACSWP resorted to "themes" instead of the 1992 policy?
Since the overtures refer specifically to the 1992 policy, and since the 1992 policy was created to provide a "new policy" for the church, why will the General Assembly now be asked to judge implementation of the policy based on "themes" developed by a task group of ACSWP? The answer is very clear. Denominational entities refused to implement the pro-life aspects of the 1992 policy even though they were mandated by the policy to do so. When presbyteries acted to call for accountability, ACSWP assumed a mode of protecting its colleagues and itself at the national level of the denomination.

The final report is not in yet
The final action of this meeting of the task group was to name a drafter for their report. The drafter is a member of ACSWP, Dora Lodwick. Her report will be presented to the full ACSWP committee before the task group sees it and signs off on it. After ACSWP has acted on the draft, the task group will hold a conference call to decide if they are ready to approve their report.

What should the final report say?
If this group acted faithfully, they would hold up as central a statement which opens the policy section of the 1992 document: "Therefore, the Presbyterian Church (USA) encourages an atmosphere of open debate and mutual respect for a variety of opinions concerning the issues related to problem pregnancies and abortion." And they would look at the recommendations in the 1992 report, which became mandates when they were adopted by the General Assembly. A principal recommendation in the 1992 policy, which has been at the center of appeals for implementation, says, "We recommend that future publications of the denomination and its ministry units reflect the diversity of positions about problem pregnancies and abortion found herein [in the policy document]." If they acted faithfully, they would acknowledge that the publications since 1992 have not reflected the diversity of positions expressed in the policy, and they would recommend that denominational entities take immediate steps to ensure that new publications be made available that reflect the position which does not regard elective abortion as a moral option in a problem pregnancy. And they would stipulate that those publications be prepared by Presbyterians who hold the position so that it is faithfully represented.

The 1992 policy produced a difference that made a difference
Those who do not want the 1992 to be implemented are adamant about declaring that we are a "pro-choice" denomination. If "pro-choice" means that the denomination supports a woman's right to choose abortion under any circumstances and at any time during pregnancy, that was true from 1983 until 1992.

What changed in 1992 was that the "pro-choice" view was acknowledged as only one view held by Presbyterians. The document itself expressed two basic alternative positions on the morality of abortion. And the document said that people who hold those views legitimately reflect the diversity in our denomination on abortion.

The term "pro-choice" does not appear in the 1992 document. The policy itself altered the status of the "pro-choice" position by acknowledging that it is one of the diverse views. The "pro-life" position is another view held legitimately by Presbyterians, and neither is said to prevail. Both are said to be acceptable. Since 1992 it has been a misrepresentation of denominational policy to describe the Presbyterian Church (USA) as "pro-choice." But that is ground that is difficult for those in positions of power to yield.

The policy was intended to bring a change; the General Assembly can make that happen
The 1992 policy was intended to change the abortion policy in our denomination. The special committee that produced it was charged to do exactly that. The wording of the policy would bring change if it were implemented: "pro-life" and "pro-choice" views would have equal standing. But it does not appear likely that we will see that change brought about by ACSWP. However, the General Assembly will receive their report and will have an opportunity to speak to the matter.

Shorts on ACSWP and the Abortion Policy

The difference between policy and resolution in the rules of the G.A.
One member of the work group on implementing the General Assembly's abortion policy wants to see more mention of the action by the 1997 General Assembly opposing partial birth abortion. If policy is a compilation of G.A. actions, he argues, that action should get more attention. But that argument adopts the false assumption of what constitutes "policy." And that question is at the heart of the charge to this group.

When the 1997 G.A. opposed partial birth abortion it was responding to an overture sent up by a presbytery. It was not deciding a policy. According to the rules for developing social witness policy, there is a distinction between "policy" and "resolution." The rules say, "A resolution' applies existing policy statements to new circumstances."

When the 1992 abortion policy was adopted no one had heard of D & X or partial birth abortions. When the 1997 General Assembly expressed its "grave moral concern" about this procedure, it was acting in a way that applied the 1992 policy to a new circumstance appropriately. The action on that overture was not the result of a period of study by a task force, as is required for the development of policy. It was, in the best sense, the application of the existing policy. If the 1997 action is understood in this way, arguments for implementing the action on partial birth abortion are fitting and appropriate.

Furthermore, if the older 1983 policy had been in effect, the action to oppose partial birth abortions would have been inconsistent with policy because the 1983 policy expressed no constraints on abortion. Even the wording of opposition to birth control abortions did not come until 1985 and was incorporated into the 1992 policy when it was written.

The charge to ACSWP deals only with policy. If they fulfill their charge faithfully, they will help the Church by establishing 1992 as the current and operating policy against which resolutions like the one on partial birth abortion are fitting and appropriate.

"Reflecting the diversity of views"
A couple of members of the task group have pointed out that while many materials say there is a diversity of views about abortion in our denomination, almost none of them go on to express any of the beliefs expressed, leaving readers wondering what is the nature of the diversity. This concern also goes to the heart of the charge from the General Assembly to this group. The 1992 abortion policy mandates that publications "reflect the diversity of views." To any reasonable reader that means more than simply saying there is a diversity of views.

One task group member pointed to a statement from The Parent's Guide for elementary school aged children. It says, "There are some people who believe abortion is always the wrong choice. There are others who believe it is always a hard choice, but sometimes the best choice for a woman to make." (P. 28) She thought that statement expressed the diversity of views concisely. Another task force member thought it didn't, that it expresses the General Assembly's view (in the second sentence) and one extreme. He thought a third sentence should be added to express the other extreme.

But either extreme is a charicature of positions. Even the PC(USA) Board of Pensions, which covers any abortion for any reason at any time during pregnancy, would not say it holds the position that would be expressed in the third sentence proposed: that abortion is always the right choice in a problem pregnancy. To posit that statement in contrast to the statement that abortion is always the wrong choice is to make the pro-life position look as ridiculous.

One way to contrast the views would be to say in the first sentence that some people believe that carrying a child to term in a crisis pregnancy is always a hard choice, but it best reflects the teaching of Scripture about the value of human life.

Another way to show the contrast of views more accurately would be to say since God has created each human being in his own image; and since God has prohibited us from killing the innocent and instead called us to care and provide for the needy and vulnerable, abortion is not a moral choice in a problem pregnancy.

Achieving the reflection that the General Assembly intended calls for more than these two sentences. And, in fact, the second sentence is well explicated in all the existing publications on this subject. It is the diverse position which is not and which needs a full explication. Doing that is not simply to comply with the mandate of the General Assembly. It is to help Presbyterians have a fuller understanding of the views and the thinking that underlies the views--to make judgments about which view reflects the historical biblical position of our reformed Christian faith.

Top / Nov. 1999 ACSWP Task Group Report / Jan. 2000 ACSWP Report

Home	About PPL	Contact PPL	Topical Index	PPL Publications
Pregnant? We’ll Help	Adoption Resources	PPL NEWS Articles	Order Resources	Prayer Calendar