PARO is NOT the
PC(USA) abortion policy
“This is the policy of the PC(USA) on
abortion,” she said, holding out an introductory brochure
for PARO. “Were you aware of that?” I was a little stunned. I almost laughed.
Slowly, I answered, “Well I would disagree with you that PARO represents the
PC(USA) policy position on abortion.” The 1992 policy document, Problem
Pregnancies and Abortion, presents two views on abortion and five
opinions on when human life begins. This diversity is supposed to be
represented in the PC(USA) publications and literature.
PARO
(Presbyterians Affirming Reproductive Options)[1] holds an extreme pro-choice viewpoint. The
organization is one of ten “Networks” of PHEWA (The Presbyterian Health,
Education and Welfare Association).[2] PHEWA is “a ministry of the Presbyterian
Church (USA) Peace and Justice Ministries,” according to their page on the PC(USA) website, and is a 501
(c) 3 organization staffed by the PC(USA).
The 1992 PC(
“Supporting the General
Assembly Pro-Choice and Reproductive Health policies and protecting the
religious and personal freedom of women and men”
Paro is “Pro-Choice.” The term “pro-choice” is inadequate to
describe the complexity and diversity in
current social witness policy on abortion. The term, “pro-choice,” is
used only twice in Problem Pregnancies and Abortion (p. 14). Both times
it refers to a 1983 policy document, Covenant and Creation—no longer
PC(USA)’s position on abortion, but often quoted by PARO and other abortion
rights advocates in the denomination. Current policy is very clear that we are
not united in our view on abortion but ought to remain in fellowship.[4] PARO misrepresents the PC(USA) when it
characterizes the whole denomination as “pro-choice.” PARO is funded by PHEWA,[5] given space on the PC(USA) website, and
sends mailings paid for by denomination entities. That denomination funding
should obligate them to reflect honestly and fairly denomination policies,
including the charge to reflect both View A and View B in its publications.[6]
PARO is “dedicated to
safeguarding the full range of reproductive health options”
“The full range of reproductive health
options” is little more than a euphemism for unrestricted and taxpayer provided
abortion. PARO’s use of the terminology reveals a
source of ideology outside the denomination’s policy. “Reproductive health” is
found only twice in Problem Pregnancies and Abortion—once in a footnote and
once in the appendices. It is a phrase
found 4 times on each of the home pages of two radical pro-choice
organizations: NARAL (National Abortion and
Reproductive Rights Action League )[7] and NOW
(National Organization of Women).[8] “Reproductive health” is found a whopping
29 times on six pages of the website of the Religious
Council for Reproductive Choice (RCRC)[9] an interfaith organization that advocates
for unrestricted abortion rights. PARO is a member of RCRC and featured
pre-dominantly in a picture (see above) on RCRC’s
members page. Also members are the PC(USA) Washington Office and Women’s
Ministries.
RCRC rhetoric and their influence on PARO,
results in an interpretation of PC(USA) policy that contains none of the
restraint expressed in current PC(USA) policy statements.
Yes, an accurate reflection of PC(USA)
current policy does 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.[10]
In that respect, it is “pro-choice”. And the
1992 policy does call for abortion to be unrestricted by any law. In that
respect it is extreme in its pro-choice stance. But the same policy, described
by some as schizophrenic, expresses specific discomforts and moral restraints,
which PARO ignores in their information to the denomination and by that
omission misrepresents the current policy on abortion to PC(USA) members.
Current
policy is not scripturally founded, but neither is it completely void of moral
restraint.
The 1992 document calls the church to work
to reduce the number of problem pregnancies thereby reducing the number of
abortions. It suggests accomplishing this through pastoral care, encouraging a
climate of responsible sexuality, contraception, and addressing economic and
medical reasons women might choose abortion.[11]
Unlike the previous document, Covenant
& Creation, the 1992 policy does not generally condone abortion as
“morally acceptable” but lists limited circumstances that might
justify a woman’s decision to abort her child: “medical indications of severe
physical or mental deformity, conception as a result of rape or incest, or
conditions under which the physical or mental health of either woman or child
would be gravely threatened.”[12] This is not a scriptural view. Scripture
teaches that every human life—no matter how limited, how small, or how well
developed—is to be cherished. Still, the 1992 policy document it is far more
restrained than the position of abortion rights advocates, PARO and RCRC.
Current policy also expresses discomfort
with the idea of abortions for reasons of convenience or to ease embarrassment.
It affirms that “abortion should not be used as a method of birth control”. It
states that “abortion is not morally acceptable for gender selection only or
solely to obtain fetal parts for transplantation.”[13] It delineates a preference for early
abortion rather than later and the most recent GA statement (2006) says viable babies—those
able to survive outside the womb—ought not to be aborted.[14]
The
policy document also calls the church to be pro-active: “to consider expanding
or offering such resources as adoptive services, homes for pregnant women…and
pregnancy counseling” and to work toward alleviating economic realities which
cause women to choose abortion, to provide adoption services and alternatives
to abortion ministries.[15]
Few PC(USA) members know the
abortion policy
In all fairness, the presbytery staff person
who handed me the PARO brochure as “the policy of the PC(USA) on abortion” had
probably never read the policy statements of the church on abortion. I suspect
she was just repeating what she had been told to say to me. A 1990 Presbyterian
Panel poll showed that only 1 in 6 persons knew the denomination had a policy
on abortion and could accurately describe “Covenant and Creation” as
‘pro-choice’. The more cautious and diverse 1992 policy and subsequent General
Assembly actions adding a Relief of Conscience process and late-term abortion
statement make current policy on abortion
more difficult to define. “Pro-Choice” does not accurately describe the policy
but neither does “pro-life.” Regarding the law it is a “pro-choice” document
but as to the duties and ministry of the church it expresses many restraints
meant to protect unborn life and the consciences of those who object to paying
for abortions and abortion advocacy.
The Health Issues Committee, wrestled with abortion during the
217th GA (2006), and realized that most members are still uninformed of the
current social witness policy on abortion and that Presbyterians have an
ongoing need to study abortion using scripture and other resources. The 2006 GA
recommended that every presbytery set up a task force to do just that.[16] With 1.2 million lives at stake annually
this ought to be a priority in every presbytery. Instead, one year and a half
later, of the 166 presbyteries out of 174 that
Home / About PPL / Contact PPL /
Topical Index / PPL Publications / Pregnant? We’ll Help
Adoption Resources / Post Abortion Resources / PPL NEWS Articles / Order Resources / Prayer Calendar
©
Allison
www.ppl.org