There is deep disagreement about abortion in the PC(USA). We need to talk to each other about that. Association with the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice inflames rhetoric as does Washington Office advocacy. Presbytery studies of abortion, as recommended by the 2006 GA, could promote fruitful dialogue.

Presbyterians 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 church of Jesus Christ to care for both the woman and the child. The 2006 GA approved a statement on late-term abortion that calls the church to promote adoption as an alternative to abortion, to care for women and their babies, and to consider the lives of both mother and child. Statements mean little, however, without programs, materials, and advocacy that flows from them.

We need to study scripture.

Covenant Presbyterian Church in Jackson, Mississippi set up a task force that studied abortion using scripture and other resources. As a result they sent a pro-life overture to the 2006 General Assembly. The GA recommended their process of study be duplicated in each presbytery. Very few presbyteries have acted on that suggestion. This is an opportunity to seek together the wisdom of God in our disagreement! GA gave good counsel. Will presbyteries act?

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 Washington office responded by issuing a ‘clarification’ of PC(USA) policy on abortion, May 21.

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 Mississippi wrote to the denomination’s Executive Council:

“Its [RCRC] position of advocacy, ... unnecessarily disrupts our Church’s carefully balanced and nuanced position on abortion.”

The Northern Central Conference of the United Methodist Church recently adopted a resolution to withdraw from RCRC membership:

“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)