Three
PC(USA) entities speak out against balance and equality in advocacy on abortion
ACWC admits they exclude the
pro-life view in implementing PC(
Two overtures coming to the GA with strong votes of approval from their presbyteries call for fairness in dealing with abortion advocacy and funding. Both have elicited disapproving responses from three PC(USA) entities.
Item 10-03 from
the Presbytery of Pittsburgh asks:
“…
the 218th General Assembly (2008) to direct all PC(USA) entities in both
funding and in publications to reflect balance and equality in advocating both
sides of the abortion issue so that any advocacy is in full compliance with our
1992 Abortion Policy. Therefore, we direct our national offices to uphold this
policy in any and all of their communications with both church and society.
Item 10-04, from the Presbytery of
Beaver-Butler differs slightly in its request. It asks the GA to:
1. Direct all PC(USA) entities, in both funding and in
publications, to reflect balance and equality in advocating both sides of the
abortion issue so that any advocacy is in full compliance with our 1992
abortion policy.
2. Direct the PC(USA) national offices to uphold the 1992 abortion policy in any and all funding allocations, and in all of their communications with both church and society; or to immediately cease funding in support of any one side of this critical issue. (Either of these actions would be in compliance with the 1992 Abortion Policy and would affirm the policy’s statement that the church provide for freedom and exercise of conscience on this matter which so clearly divides us.)
Each overture is one page. Comment
from the three PCUSA entities calling for disapproval of the overture totals five pages! The Advisory Committee on
Social Witness Policy (ACSWP), The Advocacy Committee for Women’s Concerns (ACWC),
The General Assembly Council (GAC) have all advised disapproval of 10-03 and that
10-04 be answered by the response to 10-03.
Don’t you wonder with me why all the fuss? These overtures do not ask for a change in policy on abortion---would that they did! These overtures only ask that the whole 1992 abortion policy be implemented. The Special Committee on Problem Pregnancies and Abortion, who wrote the 1992 policy document Problem Pregnancies and Abortion, understood the deep divisions on abortion in our denomination. They wrestled with them and heard from people across the denomination who gave passionate testimony indicating a range of views. The Special Committee chose to include two opposing views in the document and to give full descriptions that were accurate reflections of the division on this issue. Then they wrote into the section adopted as policy (Section I. E. 1-3) these statements:
1. a. “The church ought to be able to maintain within its fellowship those
who, on the basis of a study of Scripture and prayerful decision come to
diverse conclusions and actions.” (p.10)
1. k. “As God has expressed love and grace in Jesus Christ, so we are to
express that love and grace to one another when faced with this difficult and
complex subject. Despite our diversity of opinion, we should pray for one
another and exhibit grace and peace toward one another.” (p.11)
The Special Committee on Problem Pregnancies and Abortion did more than make those two statements about our relationships with one another, however. The Committee made five recommendations which were approved by the commissioners of the 1992 General Assembly. The adoption of the above mentioned policy is one of those five. The last recommendation is a word of commendation to the Special Committee and the other three recommendations deal with ensuring fairness and representation of the diversity of views in the denomination on the issue of abortion:
ACSWP discounts Views 'A' & 'B' (View A could be called
‘pro-life’ and View B ‘pro-choice’) as
being only “narrative” and not “policy” recommendations. They are wrong. The
language in Recommendation
ACSWP makes a broad statement that Presbyterian Panel results “have shown that varying majorities of Presbyterians support abortion depending on the situation.” Their statement in the context of their comment is misleading. One might think from it that Presbyterians approve of abortion in general. In fact, these studies (1990 very old for survey results---18 years) show instead that majorities of Presbyterians support legal abortion in only a few circumstances.
In 1990 a Presbyterian Panel asked the question:
“Please tell us whether or not you think it should be
possible for a pregnant woman to obtain a legal abortion…”
…if there is a strong chance of serious
defect in the baby 78%
…if the woman’s health is seriously
endangered by the pregnancy 92%
…if she became pregnant as a result of rape 88%
…if she became pregnant as a result of
incest 88%
For all the other reasons a majority of Presbyterians answered
that abortion should not be legal,
(from Appendix A of Problem
Pregnancies & Abortion, p. 17). The number of abortions performed
in the
In an August 2001
Presbyterian Panel Survey, the questions, which related only to post-viability
abortion, revealed similar percentages.
Point #2 of ACSWP’s rationale quotes the Sec. E-3. a-e. ACSWP treats these “church and the law” statements as though they were the only “policy” portions of the document. In fact, all of Section I E, 1-3 (pp 10-16) was approved as policy. The portions ACSWP chooses to quote are simply those upon which the Washington Office, ACSWP, Women’s Ministries, PARO, and the Stated Clerk’s office have based their continued advocacy of unrestricted abortion. There is no mandate that they do so without regard for the restraints, concerns, and declarations about the value of human life that are also part of the policy portion of Problem Pregnancies & Abortion.
There is no “other side” to these policy statements ACSWP
claims. What they uncover in that statement is the size of the fault line in
the 1992 policy. It calls for both views to be represented, but is that
possible? Can a denomination be pro-life and pro-choice when it comes to
abortion? Is it possible to represent both views in publications? The moment
you endorse abortion as a morally acceptable choice in certain circumstances
you deny the pro-life view which holds that God is creator and owner of human
life and He alone has the right to give and take life. How can one hold the
view that a woman may freely choose to end the life of her pre-born baby because
she deems her circumstances to be too difficult, and simultaneously uphold the
sixth commandment, “Thou shalt not kill”? Can one, with integrity, agree that
to take a human life is sin and at the same time advocate that a woman is free
to terminate the life of her pre-born child at every stage of pregnancy, especially
if you don’t know when that human life begins?
Perhaps these two views cannot be reconciled. If God, the owner & creator of human life, knows us from before our birth, calls us to be his own, buys us with a price; then, we are not our own. We are not personally autonomous, self-determining, moral agents with the right to make choices that cost the life of another human being. Maybe this policy on abortion just doesn’t work!
What the 1992 policy has done is frustrate many on all sides of the issue. More than 30 churches have left the PC(USA) since 2006. For most, maybe all of those churches the issue of our denomination’s abortion policy was at least a part of the reason for their decision to seek departure. Clearly advocating only a small portion of this policy document is not working for us!
So what is the remedy? 10-04 might just offer the right
option: “immediately
cease funding in support of any one side of this critical issue.” 10-03 asks
for a more balanced implementation than we have seen in the 16 years since this
policy document was written.
ACSWP’s fifth point holds up publications which, in their words, “present the full range of faithful responses” to a problem pregnancy. They refer to four brochures which were added by amendment to an overture on late-term abortion in 2004 and sent out to the churches with a letter. These resources are proof that the pro-life view is not represented in denomination publications. These booklets all present abortion as a morally equal choice alongside the life-giving options to give birth and make an adoption plan, or give birth and parent. A publication that includes abortion as a “faithful response” to a problem pregnancy does not represent the pro-life view. Therefore it cannot fulfill the recommendation of the 1992 GA to reflect the “diversity of positions… found herein.” Acknowledging that there is a diversity of opinion is not at all the same thing as reflecting a diversity of opinion.
ACSWP and the GAC incorrectly state in their comments that
the PC(USA) is a member of the Religious Coalition for
Reproductive Choice (formerly Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights). What is
accurate is that The Washington Office, The Women’s Ministry, and PARO are each
members of that organization. ACSWP contends that the RCRC quotes current PC(USA)
policy on abortion, but more frequently
they quote the no longer current, but archival document, from 1983: Covenant and Creation: Theological
Reflections on Contraception and Abortion. That more radical document
better suits the RCRC’s extreme advocacy position. The RCRC opposes
restrictions on abortion even for viable babies, something which the 2006
General Assembly spoke out against. [Minutes,
217th General Assembly, PC(
The RCRC works with other entities to seek to identify abortion as one of the “human rights.” They also seeks to defeat laws intended to protect women by requiring informed consent, laws to protect minors by requiring parent notification, or laws to protect the father’s right to be informed before his child’s life is terminated. Recently the RCRC has been on a campaign to discredit medical facilities and medical providers who refuse to perform abortions or pharmacies and pharmacists who decline to fill prescriptions for abortifacient drugs for reasons of conscience. They seek to make such acts of conscience illegal. (For verification of these statements take a tour of the articles on their website at www.rcrc.org )
ACWC says this overture
“mischaracterizes” the ( 92) policy
The overture advocate for 10-03 responds that it is ACWC and the other entities commenting on this overture that misrepresent the heart of what the Special Committee on Problem Pregnancies and Abortion tried to do in representing the diversity of views in the 1992 policy. By lifting out certain phrases with which they find agreement, these agencies have misrepresented the 1992 policy for 16 years.
In their 2nd point, ACWC reduces the policy to one point of “substantial agreement” from E-1. e which they quote incompletely:
The considered decision of a woman to
terminate a pregnancy can be a morally
acceptable, but certainly not the only or required, decision (Minutes, 1992, Part 1, 27.093)
ACWC does not include in their quote the next sentence of that paragraph which qualifies the first sentence and makes all the difference! The second sentence in this paragraph shows that in the collective mind of the Special Committee on Problem Pregnancies, not all abortions were morally acceptable, but rather abortion “can be” (not ‘is’) justifiable in certain circumstances. That very important second sentence in this paragraph states:
Possible justifying circumstances would include 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. (Minutes, 1992, Part 1, 27.093) [Emphasis mine]
The difference implied by the inclusion of the second sentence
of this paragraph is significant. Only 7% of women polled have abortions for
the reasons of rape & incest, physical life of the mother, and several
fetal deformity incompatible with life. Adding severe mental deformity and
mental health of the mother might raise the percentage points slightly. Still, more than 90% of abortions would fall
outside the reasons that the Special Committee viewed as “justifying
circumstances” in which an abortion “can be” deemed “morally acceptable.” [Bankole Akinrinola; Sing, Susheela; Haas, Taylor. Reasons Why Women
Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries. Family Planning
Perspectives, 1998, 24(3):117– 127 & 152 as reported by: The Alan Guttmacher Institute Online.]
The inclusion of this qualifying sentence reveals that the Special Committee on Problem Pregnancies and Abortion did not have “substantial agreement” as ACWC declares that any and all abortions are “morally acceptable.” That view expressed by ACWC is indeed what they and others have promoted, published, and advocated since 1992, but it is not an accurate portrayal of the published work of the Committee.
The recommendation of the 1992 assembly asked that both views be represented…it did not say we were a “pro-choice denomination.” It did not say we were “moderately pro-choice”. The labels ACWC uses are frequently applied by ACWC and PARO, but their saying it does not make it so. WE are a divided church on this issue and that division was a concern to the Committee in 1992 and a concern which they addressed in their recommendations.
Bias is shown in ACWC’s terminology (i.e. “anti-choice” &
“potential life”). They document in their own comments their practice of exclusion:
“The only position that [the PC(
Contrast ACWC’s perception of the 1992 policy with the actual text which calls for reflection of the “diversity of views….found herein” (i.e. Views A & B). (See my early paragraphs above). The pro-life view, excluded by ACWC, was one of two that the 1992 GA specifically stated should be represented in future publications & advocacy.
One word about the idea that those who are pro-life do not allow for “women’s moral agency” ---rubbish! Women do make their own moral decisions. Christian women make decisions in voluntary submission to God’s principles out of profound gratitude for his saving grace in their lives. A pro-life, Christian woman leaves in the hands of God decisions about the lives that He has created in her womb. The difference between pro-life and pro-choice views of ‘moral agency’ is a difference in how we relate to God not in how we relate to women.
ACWC comments that PARO is “largely” supported by individual contributions. That may be true, but PARO also received $9000 in funds from PHEWA in 2006, and $2000 “for conference calls” in 2007 (2007 phone conversation with Nancy Troy, Director of PHEWA).
ACWC says that “the PC(USA) entities listed operate according to policy of the PC(USA)”. The advocate for this overture is glad to hear it! That is all we are asking, compliance with the whole of the policy section of the 1992 policy document. One does have to wonder, however, if these entities are already doing what this overtures requests----why the need to respond with 5 pages of comments? Why the recommendation to disapprove something they are already doing?
ACWC is correct in one statement. The PC(USA) is not a member of Clergy for Choice or the Progressive Religious Partnership. These two points in the rationale of 10-03 are incorrect. The error was discovered by the overture advocate after approval of the overture by the Pittsburgh Presbytery. Our Stated Clerk was notified immediately and he contacted OGA and was told it was too late to make a correction. The misinformation augments one of the reasons our association with the RCRC is a problematic alliance. The PC(USA) is referenced as a member of RCRC on web pages for Clergy for Choice and Progressive Religious Partnership. This gives the appearance of alliance where none exists. In the same way when the RCRC lists its members at the end of a legal brief it implies agreement with the statements made in that brief even when the member organization has not signed the brief. The RCRC disclaimer mentioned in ACSWP’s comment is often overlooked by the reader.
The General Assembly Council (GAC) also offered comment on these two overtures. For the most part my responses to ACSWP & ACWC cover what they have written. One statement in their second paragraph is incorrect and the difference is important. GAC states that “the 217th General Assembly (2006) affirmed the monitoring report from the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (ACSWP), which reviews the implementation of problem pregnancies and abortion policies.” In fact the 217th GA approved the recommendation of the Health Issues Committee as amended. As the amended language indicates, the report was “received” not affirmed:
[Approve] [Receive] this “Monitoring Report on
the Implementation of the Problem Pregnancies and Abortion Policies.” http://www.pc-biz.org/IOBView.aspx?m=ro&id=869
I was present in the Health Issues Committee and I can attest that this amendment resulted from the commissioners’ conclusion that implementation of the 1992 policy was “one-sided” and their expressed desire to see a more balanced advocacy.
This response is lengthy and I thank you for reading to the end. I leave you with one thought: If fair implementation of the policy is already being done, then why the need for lengthy comment and a recommendation to disapprove. Why all the fuss?