A recent meeting of a special work group of The Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (ACSWP) demonstrates the extremes to which G.A. entities will go to avoid carrying out the expressed will of the General Assembly. The special work group was charged by the 1998 G.A. to assess the current implementation of the General Assembly's abortion policy. However, the startling facts church members learn from the deliberations of the group apply to any policy adopted by the General Assembly.

A little background
The Manual of the General Assembly (which contains the standing rules of the General Assembly and other information needed by commissioners), is distributed to commissioners each year. One of the documents included in the manual is the G.A.-approved rules for defining and developing G.A. social witness policy. The process is more than two pages long (pp. 55-57). Seven requirements apply to policy documents and nine requirements, many with sub-points apply to the policy statements. Production of a policy statement requires a prospectus and a task force. The task force must attend to a long list of requirements including listening to the biblical text, the Reformed confessions, and the tradition of past policy statements.

The culmination of this comprehensive process defined in the manual is the G.A.'s decision to adopt a particular set of statements as "G.A. policy." The policy they adopt is intended to provide the direction and set the limits for G.A. entities in their work related to the topics covered in that "policy." The manual says, "From this policy base a strategy is developed, a program is defined, and personal social witness is empowered....It [the policy] will determine procedures and program for the units and staff of the General Assembly."

How the authority of the General Assembly to set policy is usurped by those charged to carry out the policies
There are two ways in which the work of this committee shows how the authority of the General Assembly as the policy-setting body of our denomination is undercut by G.A staff and committees ignoring the expressed will of the G.A. and choosing their own course.

1. The first problem is that the ACSWP treats an action of a General Assembly in adopting a policy as equal to the General Assembly's action on overtures. ACSWP places no more weight on a policy statement than on an overture, and it places no more weight on the most recent policy statement than on previous policy statements or G.A. actions. ACSWP picks and chooses from G.A. actions and invents its own perception of what is "policy" and uses that subjective method as a guide for G.A. entities. This process that ACSWP has adopted does not reflect the process governing the development of social witness policy.

If every action by a General Assembly on an issue is a contribution to "policy"; if "policy" adopted after years of study is no different from the action of a G.A. on an item that has not been through the study process called for in the rules, then the rules are meaningless and there is no particular policy. But the G.A. has adopted a process for developing policy that is very clear and in direct conflict with what ACSWP has chosen to do. That is the process outlined in the Manual, pp. 55-57.

2. The second way the General Assembly's authority is usurped is by ACSWP's considering all policies on a subject as current and operative unless a G.A. specifically states otherwise. As times and needs, and even opinions, change, it is proper for policies to be reconsidered and for new policies to be adopted by a G.A. The policy development process requires a task force to consider former policies in the rewrite. If the task force wishes to retain principles and specifics from former statements, it has the former statements to consult and can easily do so. The requirement should assure Presbyterians that if something from the former policy is not present in the new, it was the result of deliberation and decision on the part of the task force and the General Assembly, and not oversight.

A reasonable person would assume that the most recent policy adopted by a General Assembly following the policy development process set forth in the rules would be the current and operative policy. If General Assembly entities regarded as policy on a given subject only the most recent statement produced by General Assemblies which the Assemblies called "policy," any Presbyterian would be able to obtain a copy of the policy and know what it is. Staff would have a reasonably common understanding from a single document or statement about what governs their programs, publications, and actions. To regard all policies as current and operative simultaneously would produce only confusion, and make a mockery of the plain meaning of the G.A.s action when a new policy is adopted.

Heads we win, Tails you lose
ACSWP is playing a game of "Heads I win, tails you lose" with the General Assembly. If the G.A. keeps the policy that staff and entities like, it will be enforced as policy. If the G.A. adopts a new policy which staff and entities do not like, past actions and policies can become operative.

There is no rule that stipulates that the most recent policy document or statement adopted by a General Assembly on a subject shall be the current and operative policy on which program, advocacy, and resources are developed. Therefore ACSWP expects the church to accept their proposition that all policies are equally in force at the same time, whether they are old or new. That is egregious usurpation by staff and entities of the power of the General Assembly to determine its own policies. A reasonable person would not think it necessary to have to stipulate that the most recently-adopted policy is the only one in force. It would seem only logical.

An unwritten set of rules at work
At the recent task group meeting of the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (ACSWP), staff member Peter Sulyok told the group his understanding of what constitutes policy. He said that the most recent policy statement adopted by a General Assembly on a subject following the rules for policy development is not the current and operative policy unless a General Assembly explicitly says it is. Without that explicit statement, former actions by General Assemblies and former policies remain in force unless they are judged contradictory to the most recent policy. Sulyok did not say who judges whether a statement is "contradictory." Sulyok explained that other actions by General Assemblies elaborate and nuance the policies. General Assemblies do not seem to know these internal rules by which Sulyok and others operate. They are not written in the Manual of the General Assembly.

Sulyok's version of policy development is followed by many staff and G.A. entities. General Assembly actions go back many decades. The compilation of actions put together by ACSWP goes back to the 1940s in some cases. Somewhere, in some action by some General Assembly, staff and entities can find the nuance they need to justify what they want to do.

This is a practice that is destructive to the church. Only the "interpreters" know what policy is under the Sulyok understanding of policy. The typical church member could not know. Holding anybody accountable to policy is next to impossible with an approach that is mysterious and elusive--and defined by those charged to carry out the will of the General Assembly. My report of the recent meeting that dealt with the 1992 abortion policy is a practical example of how the ACSWP practices defeat the intentions of General Assembly, overrule the will of the General Assembly, and usurp the power of the General Assembly.

The overture process could correct this problem
The addition of one little line to the rules for social policy development would correct this problem. It should say explicitly that the most recent policy document or statement on a subject adopted by a General Assembly using the process set forth in these rules, shall be the only policy in force and it shall be the policy which guides the program, witness, advocacy, and publications of General Assembly staff and entities.

Since 1992, however, publications from G.A. entities remain identical to those based on the 1983 policy and have not changed to present the view of the new policy. Actions by the 1998 G.A. (two years ago) called for a review of how the 1992 abortion policy was being implemented. That assignment was given to the task force that recently met for the first time.

Monitoring team formed in response to overtures from 1998 G.A.
The ACSWP monitoring team decided at their Nov. 3-5 meeting in Louisville to use the 1992 abortion policy as their base for their appraisal of implementation of the G.A.'s abortion policy. With help from a non-Presbyterian consultant, they will pull together all the policies and statements of General Assemblies since 1983, eliminate what they judge to be duplications, and produce a summary policy statement for the church. The consultant will then help them judge whether their cumulative policies have been or are being implemented.

The monitoring team is the result of a referral from the 1998 General Assembly. Two overtures calling specifically for the implementation of the 1992 abortion policy were referred to ACSWP. In 1999 a commissioner's resolution calling for implementation of the 1992 abortion policy also was referred to ACSWP. The resolution was submitted by a member of the task force that produced the report which was adopted as policy by the 1992 General Assembly.

What constitutes policy on abortion?
The first item of business the group discussed was the question of what constitutes policy. Co-moderator Dora Lodwick insisted that her understanding is that all statements stand as policy unless a General Assembly explicitly says otherwise. She noted that the charge to the task force that produced the 1992 policy was to use their own study and "other statements of past General Assemblies" to "formulate a new policy statement" for the church. She agreed that the charge was to produce a new policy, but she could not find in the action of the 1992 General Assembly an explicit statement that they intended this policy to be a "new policy." Consequently, in spite of the charge that produced the 1992 policy, it must join all previous statements as an equal among policies.

Kenneth Hall was the moderator of the General Assembly that called for a task force to develop a new policy. In a recent phone interview, when asked if he thought the charge to the task force was to produce another statement of the church on abortion which would join the body of policies on the subject, he replied, "That would be no policy at all." He said the General Assembly directed the task force to consider past statements and produce a "new" policy for the church.

Task force members protest the lack of implementation of the 1992 policy
Two members of that task force appointed by Kenneth Hall have protested the failure of General Assembly staff and entities to implement the 1992 policy. Both signed the majority report that the G.A. adopted as policy. Physician Myers Hicks wrote in 1998, "My blood pressure goes up every time I realize the staff in Louisville completely ignores the action of the G.A. They were clearly instructed that all literature from the denomination have a 'balance' of information instead of just pro-choice. They should be called to task for contempt of court for not abiding by the G.A. mandate. They have no right to take contrary independent action." The Rev. Zolton Phillips wrote, "What has happened since 1992 is the continuation of the 1983 position of the church, and ignoring of what we did. Why? I suspect the reason is that it does not agree with the positions and beliefs of those who lead our agencies and church."

Focus on the most recent abortion policy would limit their work
ACSWP staff Peter Sulyok said that a General Assembly must say explicitly that it means for a new policy to replace an old policy. When monitoring team members Al Freundt objected that simultaneously holding many statements on the same subject produces confusion in the church, Sulyok answered that ACSWP's job is to "say what the church's policy is." He suggested that this group may wish to make a statement that they would recommend as an appendix to interpret the church's policy on abortion.

Co-moderator Nancy Becker observed that the overtures and commissioner resolution referred to them all stipulated the 1992 policy as the presenting concern and should be the focus of their attention, another team member Theresa Lura remarked that if they were limited to the overtures referred to them, their work would be limited significantly.

ACSWP invited presentations from PPL and PARO
On Thursday morning, the monitoring team heard presentations from Terry Schlossberg, of Presbyterians Pro-Life and Donald Wilson, of Presbyterians Affirming Reproductive Options. Both groups had been invited to send representatives to address the group with their concerns. Schlossberg's presentation accompanies this report.

Monitoring team looks for "themes" that constitute the policy
Monitoring team members spent the remainder of the meeting culling through statements related to abortion by General Assemblies since 1983 and to expressing the themes they found in the statements. They identified statements made by General Assemblies that do not appear in the 1992 policy in an effort to be sure those statements or themes are included in the statement of policy by this group. At the close of the meeting the group handed over the rough draft of their statements of themes with the associated General Assembly actions to consultant Margaret Jandrek. She will edit and refine their work and assess whether the policies are being implemented. Each person will be given a box of material prepared by staff and sent to them by Peter Sulyok to help them assess implementation. For example, Sulyok explained that the Board of Pensions has submitted a 20 page report of its implementation of the abortion policy.

At their next meeting, scheduled for January 12-14 in Louisville, the group plans to review the consultant's report and put the report in order to submit to the ACSWP committee which meets later that month. From there the report will go to the 2000 General Assembly.

Members of the monitoring team are Dora Lodwick and Nancy Becker, co-moderators and members of the full ACSWP committee; Margaret Jandrek, consultant from Miami University in Miami, OH; Al Freundt, Presbytery and Synod Stated Clerk from Mississippi; Joseph Etua, pastor from Mississippi; Theresa Lura, physician from Tennessee; Mary Elva Smith, elder from Southern California; and Peter Sulyok and Belinda Curry, staff for ACSWP. Mary Elva Smith was not present at the meeting. The monitoring team was selected by ACSWP.

Good morning. I want to begin by thanking you for the opportunity to bring the concerns of Presbyterians Pro-Life to your monitoring group. What I have to say today expresses not only the concerns of PPL but also the concerns of at least three presbyteries that sent up overtures in 1997 and 1998, of commissioners who supported the commissioner's resolution at the 1999 General Assembly, and of members of the task force that produced the 1992 abortion policy.

I have a number of items to leave with you, some of which I will make reference to in my presentation. Among this material is a statement from an overture advocate for one of the overtures you are considering, and letters from two members of the task force that produced the 1992 abortion policy.

I believe that you have before you four principal questions for your work. They are:

Those are the questions I will address this morning.

Yesterday's discussion of policy was based on a theory of evolution, a word which was used in a recent PCUSA News report of your monitoring team's task. I want to give you evidence and argument for challenging the assumption that policy is the result of the accumulation of statements by General Assemblies rather than the most recent statement by a General Assembly which the General Assembly itself calls policy.

I do not know what materials you have as resources. I hope you have a copy of the "Requirements" for the formation of social witness policy. I have them here in The Manual of the General Assembly (pp. 55-57). The rules which govern social policy formation distinguish between actions by General Assemblies which are "policy," "resolution," "study document," and "a Social Involvement Report." I have put a copy of the rules in your packet. The rules for policy development require the formation of a task force, and a long list of other requirements. For example, one of the rules is that the task force listen to the "tradition of past policy statements" as it formulates a new policy. Most overtures and most recommendations of General Assembly entities adopted by General Assemblies do not meet the requirements for "policy."

You as a monitoring team may believe that an examination of a collection of actions by General Assemblies on problem pregnancies and abortion over thirty or more years is important to your assignment. But a first question of your examination should be whether any given statement that you consider meets the General Assembly requirements for "policy." I believe that you will find that the only documents that meet the requirements are the policies adopted by the General Assemblies of 1983 and of 1992. Both followed rules that preceded those currently in place. But the former set of rules, attached to the letter to me from James Andrews, which is in your packet, were very similar to the current rules.

The specific charge to the task force that produced the 1992 policy statement
The full charge from the 1988 General Assembly is on page one of the 1992 policy document titled "Problem Pregnancies and Abortion." The second item of the charge says: "That the above study and other statements of past General Assemblies be used to formulate a new policy statement for the Presbyterian Church (USA) concerning the issues related to problem pregnancies...."

The plain meaning of the text seems to be that even if rules for social policy development were not in place, the intent of the 1988 General Assembly was clear in expecting that the result of the work of this Moderator-appointed task force would be the adoption by the General Assembly of a policy which would be the single new operating policy on problem pregnancies and abortion. Before I came to this meeting, I called Kenneth Hall who was elected Moderator of 200th General Assembly in 1988 and who appointed the task force that produced what became the 1992 abortion policy. I asked him his interpretation of the charge to the task force. Mr. Hall seemed perplexed by my question, so I asked him if he understood the charge to be that the task force would produce a policy statement that would be added to other statements of the denomination and which collectively would constitute the General Assembly's policy on this matter. Mr. Hall laughed and replied, "That would be no policy at all." He then stated that he understood the charge to mean that the task force would consider past statements of the denomination on this subject as they formulated a new policy for the church. Mr. Hall is currently in Ireland, but said that when he returns he would be happy to discuss with any of you what is his interpretation of the charge to that abortion task force.

Finally, I direct your attention to the overtures and commissioner resolution which were referred to ACSWP and resulted in the formation of your monitoring group. The clear intent of those overtures is the implementation of the 1992 abortion policy. It is the "resolved" portions of overtures which General Assemblies adopt, and the resolves all refer directly to the 1992 policy. Not a single appeal of concern to a General Assembly regarding implementation of policy on this subject has addressed anything but the 1992 policy.

Therefore, it seems clear that the 1992 abortion policy is the current and operative policy and your task is to judge to what extent that policy is being implemented properly and to make recommendations for the purpose of a more faithful implementation of the General Assembly's intent.

The 1992 abortion policy expects acceptance of "open debate and mutual respect for a variety of opinions concerning the issues related to problem pregnancies and abortion," and acceptance of those who come to "diverse conclusions and actions" (page 10), which is its most significant difference from the policy of 1983. The report goes to the trouble of setting forth alternative perspectives with theological rationale, and refers to them as "positions A and B" on pages 9 and 10. The implications of both of those perspectives are then expressed in various statements in the policy portion itself on pages 10 and following.

The most important point in this connection is that the "pro-life" position as described in the paper, cannot be included as one "choice" in the "pro-choice" position. Morally speaking, the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" positions are opposites. Here is why.

The pro-life position, position A in the document, holds that an unborn child is an innocent human being that must be protected. This understanding is not based on the circumstances of a pregnancy or a woman's decision. It is based on a moral standard derived from the biblical teaching regarding the prohibition against taking the life of an innocent person. The "pro-life" position can say that elective abortion is morally wrong because the standard for the judgment comes from outside the circumstances and the decision-maker. The "pro-choice" position is not able to say that any abortion is morally wrong. In the "pro-choice" view abortion can only be regarded as wrong by the person making the decision. The "pro-life" position, by definition, does not accept elective abortion as a moral alternative. To say that giving birth to and raising a child or planning for the child's adoption are among the choices does not represent the "pro-life" view. The pro-life perspective is conveyed only when the choices are limited by the limits God gives in Scripture when dealing with innocent human beings. This distinction is crucial in evaluating whether implementation of the abortion policy has been properly accomplished.

Many Presbyterians regard the 1992 abortion policy as more temperate than the previous 1983 policy. In particular, the 1992 policy holds that diverse views on abortion are not only present in the church but also are legitimate views for people in the Presbyterian Church to hold. This was not a speculative statement by the task force. They commissioned a Presbyterian Panel to assist them in discovering what Presbyterians believe on this matter. Their report spoke from the findings of the panel.

The 1992 report outlines two diverse perspectives on abortion and says in its policy section on page 10 that the church encourages "an atmosphere of open debate and mutual respect for a variety of opinions concerning the issues related to problem pregnancies and abortion." The policy concludes with specific recommendations on page 16 which became the mandates of the General Assembly, but which have not been implemented by denomination offices and entities.

The PC(USA) Guide to Resources catalogue lists what it says are "currently available programmatic resources, as well as other recommended resources" that may be purchased directly from denominational sources. We in PPL have ordered every item in the catalogue pertinent to this subject. We found only one publication that contains the perspective that elective abortion is not a morally-acceptable alternative. It is the issue of Church and Society that carried the presentations from the General Assembly-mandated dialogue on abortion perspectives in 1989.

Only the perspective that regards elective abortion as a morally-acceptable alternative is given official voice in the denomination. That perspective is represented in the official reports and other written resources provided to the public and to commissioners deliberating the business at General Assemblies. The perspective which does not regard elective abortion as a morally-acceptable alternative has no official voice. This is one example of how current practice discourages the open debate and mutual respect called for by the policy.

No official office or entity of the denomination represents the position that elective abortion is not a morally-acceptable alternative, or includes an official expression of that position in advocacy, message, or materials.

Ecumenical and interfaith organizations currently supported by denomination entities represent a single perspective. Denomination offices give financial support to the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice and to Presbyterians Affirming Reproductive Options (PARO), and nothing to advocacy groups or ministries representing an alternative perspective.

• The PC(USA) Board of Pensions has no exclusions for abortion in its medical benefits plan. It will pay for any abortion for which a claim is submitted, even though no General Assembly ever instructed or requested the Board of Pensions to provide abortion coverage.
• Presbyterian Women repeatedly has rejected requests from PPL to provide an alternative perspective in the workshops on abortion that it offers at its Churchwide Gatherings for Women.
• Efforts to establish ministries and resources for those seeking alternatives to abortion, to those who are seeking forgiveness and reconciliation following abortion, for those seeking materials expressing the view the of "Position A" in the 1992 policy, are all supported unofficially by Presbyterians Pro-Life and by local congregations, without denomination acknowledgment or encouragement. Such ministries and resources are absent from expression in the General Assembly entities. While the denomination's resource catalogue lists materials provided by PARO, materials available from PPL are not mentioned.

The conclusion is that no General Assembly entity includes the expression of Position A: the view that elective abortion is not a morally-acceptable alternative in a problem pregnancy in materials, in advocacy, or in resources. One perspective has official expression in denominational entities and publications; the other does not. The policy calls for the expression of both.

Two members of the abortion task who signed the majority report, which was adopted as policy in 1992, have expressed their dismay over the failure to implement the new policy. One, the Rev. Zolton Phillips, was the sponsor of Commissioner's Resolution 99-15 which asks for immediate implementation of the 1992 policy. Dr. Phillips wrote to me recently by email. In his note he says "What has happened since 1992 is the continuation of the 1983 position of the church, and ignoring of what we did." Dr. Myers Hicks, another member of the majority on the abortion task force also wrote to me in 1998 expressing his anger over the neglect of staff to implement the 1992 policy. I have permission from both gentlemen to share their correspondence with you, and it is in the packet.

We in PPL believe that if the recommendations of the General Assembly in adopting the 1992 policy document were justly implemented, the spirit and letter of the new abortion policy would be kept and the will of the General Assembly would be carried out. Meeting those recommendations should include, but not necessarily be limited to:

• Offering an equal or nearly equal number of publications representative of the view that elective abortion is not a morally-acceptable alternative (Position A). Representatives of those who hold that view should be involved in the selection of appropriate materials designed to serve the theological and pastoral needs of local congregations;
• Any offices or committees of the General Assembly that publish materials, advocate a position, recommend or develop policy, write curriculum, or advise governing bodies, on issues of problem pregnancies and abortion, ought to have in their number members or resource persons to the extent required to ensure that both positions expressed in the policy are equally and officially represented both within the General Assembly entity and to the Presbyterian public;
• Representatives of the position that elective abortion is not a morally-acceptable alternative should be consulted for recommendations of organizations that express that point of view so that the agencies of the General Assembly begin to support equally the alternative perspectives in ecumenical and/or interfaith organizations.
• The Board of Pensions should be directed to exclude from its abortion coverage those abortions regarded as immoral or of questionable morality by the 1992 abortion policy.
• Presbyterian Women should be directed to include in its publications and workshops equal expression of the alternative perspectives on abortion by offering alternative articles and workshops or forums in which both perspectives are expressed by those who hold the alternative views.

These actions should be presented to the 212th General Assembly for adoption. Recommending these actions would not turn the PC(USA) into a prolife denomination. They would instead allow for the proper expression of the diverse views on abortion in the church which the 1992 abortion policy recommendations call for.

Additionally, in order to allow every church member to know with clarity the General Assembly's own statement of policy on problem pregnancies and abortion, denominational offices should be reminded to comply with the action of the General Assembly in 1997 and print on the cover of the 1983 abortion policy that it has been superseded by the policy of 1992.

We in PPL know that your work is of serious consequence to the church. Much of what you are doing is a demonstration of our Presbyterian form of government at work. You are being asked to provide a corrective to ensure that a policy enacted by the General Assembly is carried out by the offices and entities of the church as they are intended to be. It is a task that is serious because the subject matter of this policy is serious. But it is also serious because without proper implementation of General Assembly policies the work and actions of our highest governing body are rendered ineffectual. Not only because of our interest in the content of this policy, but also because of our concern for the integrity of our form of government, I assure you of the prayers of all of us in Presbyterians Pro-Life. I am happy to answer any questions you have related to my presentation, and hope to be able to continue this discussion with you.

1. What is the current abortion policy? (Manual of the General Assembly, pp. 55-57):

• The rules distinguish between "policy," "resolution," "study document," and "a Social Involvement Report." Only two documents on abortion since 1970 have met the rules for "policy": the policies adopted by the 1983 and the 1992 General Assemblies.
• The General Assembly of 1988 charged the task force that produced the 1992 policy to use past statements of General Assemblies in their work to "formulate a new policy statement...."
• The social policy formation rules and the charge from the 1988 General Assembly make clear the General Assembly's intent that the 1992 abortion policy is the only current and operative policy.

The important distinction in the diverse views expressed as "Position A" and "Position B," often referred to as "pro-life" and "pro-choice" views, is:

• The "Position A" or "pro-life" perspective holds that elective abortion is not a morally-acceptable alternative in a pregnancy decision;
• The "Position B" or "pro-choice" perspective holds that elective abortion can be a morally-acceptable alternative in a pregnancy decision.

They are opposing views; one cannot be contained within the other.

The recommendations section on page 16 of the 1992 policy document is important to judging whether the contents of the policy have been implemented. They are:

• Recommendation III.B.: "We recommend that future publications of the denomination and its ministry units reflect the diversity of positions about problem pregnancies and abortion found herein.

Examination of the publications published and distributed by denomination agencies since 1992 shows that there has been no effort to ensure that the "pro-life" perspective is represented equitably and is readily available.

• In recommendation III. C., the General Assembly encourages an atmosphere of open debate and mutual respect for a variety of opinions concerning the issues related to problem pregnancies and abortion.

Only the perspective that regards elective abortion as a morally-acceptable alternative is given official voice in the denomination in official reports and other written resources provided to commissioners at General Assemblies. No official office or entity of the denomination represents the position that elective abortion is not a morally-acceptable alternative, or includes an express of that position in advocacy, message, or materials.

• In recommendation III.D, the General Assembly acknowledges the prerogative of Presbyterian entities to participate in ecumenical and interfaith organizations that represent different points of view concerning abortion, and urges the General Assembly Council as well as the presbyteries to affirm procedures by which particular churches may be assured that their mission funds will not be used in violation of conscience on this issue.

The ecumenical and interfaith organizations in which G.A. entities currently participate represent a single perspective. Denominational offices give financial support to the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice and to Presbyterians Affirming Reproductive Options (PARO), and nothing to advocacy groups or ministries representing an alternative perspective.

• The PC(USA) Board of Pensions has no exclusions for abortion in its medical benefits plan. It will pay for any abortion for which a claim is submitted.
• Presbyterian Women repeatedly has rejected requests from PPL to provide an alternative perspective on abortion in the workshops on abortion that it offers at its Churchwide Gatherings for Women.
• Efforts to establish ministries and resources for those seeking alternatives to abortion, to those who are seeking forgiveness and reconciliation following abortion, and for those seeking materials expressing view of "Position A" in the 1992 policy, are absent from expression in the General Assembly entities.

• Set a well-defined goal for achieving an equal number of publications representing the diversity of views. Involve those who hold the alternative perspectives in the selection of the publications.
• Offices or entities of the General Assembly that publish materials, advocate a position, recommend or develop policy, write curriculum, or advise governing bodies on issues of problem pregnancies and abortion ought to include members or resource persons to the extent required to ensure that both position expressed in the policy are equally and officially represented both within the General Assembly entity and to the Presbyterian public.
• Consult with representatives of those who hold "Position A" for recommendations of organizations that express that perspective so that the agencies of the General Assembly begin to support equally the alternative perspectives in ecumenical and/or interfaith organizations.
• Recommend that the Board of Pensions be directed immediately to devise a means to exclude from its abortion coverage those abortions regarded as immoral or of questionable morality by the 1992 abortion policy.
• Recommend that Presbyterian Women be directed immediately to include in its publications and workshops equal expression of the alternative perspectives on abortion by offering alternative articles, and workshops or forums, in which both perspectives are expressed by those who hold the alternative views.
• Urge General Assembly offices to comply with the action of the 1997 General Assembly by printing on the cover of any copy of the 1983 abortion policy document that it has been superseded by the policy of 1992.

(Mrs.) Terry Schlossberg
Presbyterians Pro-Life, Research, Education, and Care, Inc.
P.O. Box 11130, Burke, VA 22009
PH: 703.569.9474, PresProLife@compuserve.com