Presbyterians Pro-Life NEWS, Summer 2007
Our association
with RCRC compounds our disunity on abortion
By Marie Bowen
There is deep
disagreement about abortion in the PC(
|
P |
resbyterians have struggled with their differences over abortion for more than 30 years. For centuries, the Christian church was united in a pro-life position that was rooted in Scripture. Believers understood that life was a gift from our Sovereign Creator God, who formed us in his own image and who cherishes and nurtures us throughout our lives. But, in the late 60s and early 70s when culture began a shift toward women’s rights, the church’s pro-life stance began to be eroded as it sought to accommodate the changes in the culture.
The 1992 document, “Problem Pregnancies and Abortion,” reflects multiple views of abortion that exist in the PC(USA). It is not a pro-life document although it includes pro-life statements. The policy section—the part that matters in terms of public advocacy—reflects a radical pro-choice view. Still, restraint is expressed. Not all abortions are viewed as morally acceptable. Abortions for reasons of gender selection or as a means of birth control are not condoned.
A chart published by the Presbytery
of Great Rivers recently characterized PC(USA) abortion policy as “pro-care.”
The 1992 policy statement does call the church to consider that God is Creator
of human life. It points to our responsibility as the
We need to study scripture.
Covenant Presbyterian Church in
We need less radical advocacy.
For several months after the 2006 GA the Presbyterian Washington Office was silent on matters of abortion and stem cell research. It was a welcome change. Pro-life members appreciated the respite from the relentless advocacy for the right for a woman to abort her child for any reason at any time during a pregnancy. But, when the Supreme Court’s decision on the Partial Birth Abortion Ban was handed down in April the PWO responded with the abortion rights bias that has become normative in their communications on abortion.
Quoting voices of “advocates of a woman’s right” in the April 23 edition of Witness in Washington Weekly, the Washington Office called the decision “vague.” It “may cause confusion” regarding what procedures may be used late in pregnancy authors wrote. There is “no exception to allow its use if the woman’s health is in serious danger,” complained the Weekly. Authors expressed “fear” that the decision would lead to the overturning of Roe v. Wade, a “decision that has stood for over 30 years.” Not a word was written about the protection from a gruesome death by abortion that the ban offers to late-term viable babies!
Apparently the PWO response
“generated questions across the church” about the PC(USA) position on abortion.
The
The clarification exposes the need for
new abortion policy.
The clarification quoted the 2006 statement on late-term abortion,
“We affirm
that the lives of viable unborn babies—those well-developed enough to survive
outside the womb if delivered—ought to be preserved and cared for and not
aborted…”
…and the 1992 policy.
“The strong
Christian presumption is that since all life is precious to God, we are to
preserve and protect it. Abortion ought to be an option of last resort…”
(Minutes of the 204th GA (1992), PC(USA), p. 367-374.)
Then, the Washington Office explained their advocacy platform by using quotes from 1970, 1992, and 2006 rejecting legal restrictions on abortion,
“[T]he artificial or induced termination of a
pregnancy is a matter of careful ethical decision of the patient…and therefore
should not be restricted by law…” (Minutes of the 182nd GA (1970), UPC USA, p.
891)
...and affirming the right and responsibility of women to make choices.
“We affirm
the ability and responsibility of women, guided by the Scriptures and the Holy
Spirit, in the context of their communities of faith, to make good moral
choices in regard to problem pregnancies.” (Minutes, 204th GA (1992), PC(USA),
p. 367-374.)
What’s driving this pro-choice advocacy? Three things: PC(USA) staff who interpret GA policy through a one-sided lens; the policy portion of the 1992 document itself; and the association of PC(USA) entities with the radical, pro-choice, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC).
We need to end RCRC alliance.
One of the influences driving abortion advocacy in the PC(USA) is the membership of three denomination entities in RCRC. The PC(USA) name is used as if the whole denomination were aligned with RCRC’s extreme position on abortion. In a recent reaction to the Supreme Court decision on Partial Birth Abortion RCRC said:
“The
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, founded in 1973, is the national
coalition of religious and religiously affiliated organizations from 15
denominations, including the Presbyterian Church (USA),...”
In fact RCRC’s “coalition” is with three PC(USA) entities: Presbyterian Washington Office, Presbyterians Affirming Reproductive Options (PARO, a PHEWA network), and Women’s Ministries. The April statement which used our name was inflammatory and filled with errors. RCRC misidentified the “outlawed” procedure as “dilation and evacuation,” (D&E, used in abortions in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters) rather than “intact dilation and extraction,” (D&X, used late in pregnancy and often on viable babies. )
RCRC claimed that women’s lives will be endangered by the decision.
“We are
alarmed that the Court has taken a step toward valuing a potential person over
the woman whose life may be at risk.” (www.rcrc.org)
Actually, the PBA procedure is allowed by the PBA Ban Act when the woman’s physical life is at risk.
The ban
“does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life
of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness,
or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by
or arising from the pregnancy itself.” [Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, 2003, Chapter 74,
§1531. (a)]
The PBA Ban Act does not allow the broader exception of “health” because Congress found no health risk.
Congress
finds that partial-birth abortion is never medically indicated to preserve the
health of the mother; is in fact unrecognized as a valid abortion procedure by
the mainstream medical community; poses additional health risks to the mother;
blurs the line between abortion and infanticide in the killing of a
partially-born child just inches from birth; and confuses the role of the
physician in childbirth and should, therefore, be banned. [Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, 2003, Sec. 2,
Findings. (13) (O)]
RCRC puts us in
opposition to our own policies for sex ed.
RCRC is an organization working in direct opposition to PC(USA) GA mandates regarding sexuality education. A trip to their teen website (SYRF.org) is revealing. Their “sexuality education” offers no moral guidelines and no encouragement to choose chastity before marriage. At SYRF.org you will find plenty of information about sex: “Condom Cues”, “Talking about It: Talking Tips” and a link to Planned Parenthood’s, “Masturbation 101!” Through other links on the SYRF site you can find definitions of oral sex, anal sex, and sexual intercourse. What you will not find is “that sexual relationships belong only within the bond of marriage of a man and a woman.” And that is the standard for sex education materials and websites set by the 2006 General Assembly of the PC(USA)!
RCRC works against giving full medical information to women about abortion. They protest laws that would protect teens by ensuring parental notification before abortion procedures are performed on minors.
RCRC does not have a Presbyterian understanding “that God alone is Lord of the conscience.” They want to pass laws requiring physicians, hospitals, and pharmacists to participate in abortions and provide abortifacients even if they have moral objections based on their religious beliefs.
Other mainline denominations are dissatisfied with ties to RCRC.
Episcopal Church clergy and lay
delegates at the annual meeting of the Diocese of Mississippi, approved a
resolution objecting to a January 2006 decision of their Executive Council to
join RCRC on behalf of The Episcopal Church. Bishop Duncan Gray of
“Its [RCRC]
position of advocacy, ... unnecessarily disrupts our Church’s carefully
balanced and nuanced position on abortion.”
The Northern Central Conference of
the
“RCRC works
for abortion rights in any and all circumstances, while The United Methodist
Church teaches that moral discernment, on matters related to abortion, is
essential; for the church “[believes] in the sanctity of unborn human life,”
“cannot affirm abortion as an acceptable means of birth control,” and
“unconditionally reject[s] [abortion] as a means of gender selection” (The Book
of Discipline [2004], Paragraph 161J)
Jim Berkley exposed the problem with our ties to RCRC in his response to a May 22 RCRC press release:
There’s one
sentence in the press release that pretty well highlights the RCRC’s central
failure to propound essentially Christian belief rather than growing-stale
secular opinion. Here is what the Reverend Carlton W. Veazey, president and CEO
of the RCRC, claimed:
“...the
continuous political attacks on abortion have obscured the single most
important concern for the woman with an unwelcome pregnancy: making a decision
that is right for her and her family.”
Shouldn’t
it instead be the case that in distinctively Christian reckoning, the single
most important concern ought to be making a decision that is right with God? (jimberkley.blogspot.com)
© Presbyterians Pro-Life
Allison
www.ppl.org/