Item 10-03, from the Presbytery of Pittsburgh, and Item 10-04, from the Presbytery of Beaver-Butler, both overture the 218th General Assembly (2008) to direct all entities of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to advocate both sides of the abortion issue equally in both funding and publications.

The Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (ACSWP) advises that these overtures be disapproved.

Rationale

1.   Items 10-03 and 10-04 are correct in their understanding that the 1992 policy adopted by the 204th General Assembly (1992), Special Committee on Problem Pregnancies and Abortion (Minutes, 1992, Part I, pp. 357ff), respects the individual consciences of Presbyterians by acknowledging

     a.         the diversity of views that exists among Presbyterians with regard to the many complex issues involved in problem pregnancies and abortion. In fact, the first area of substantial agreement listed in the policy states:

     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.” (Ibid, p. 368, Paragraph 27.089)

     b.         that Presbyterians may choose to participate in interfaith groups that “represent different points of view concerning abortion” (Ibid, p. 374, Paragraph 27.145).

     c.         that procedures should be established to assure that mission funds offered by particular churches will not be used in violation of their conscience on the issue of abortion.

2.  However, this emphasis on the diversity of views within the PC(USA) is only one of many other “areas of substantial agreement” (Ibid, p. 367-68, Paragraph 27.087, #1) reached by a “sizable majority of the special committee”—14 of 17 members—and approved by the 204th General Assembly (1992). The offices of the General Assembly must be faithful to these recommendations, many of which describe the social witness of the PC(USA) with regard to public policy on abortion. These offices include the Washington Office, the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (ACSWP), Women’s Ministries, and Presbyterians Affirming Reproductive Options (PARO), which is a ministry of PHEWA and an entity of the Compassion, Peace, and Justice ministry area. Presbyterian Panel surveys of member opinion have shown that varying majorities of Presbyterians support abortion depending on the situation.

With regard to the decision to terminate a pregnancy, the 1992 policy includes the following affirmations that protect the decision-making responsibility of women and their families in both pastoral care and public policy. These particular points are selected to illustrate the public policy position taken by the General Assembly:

     a.         “Problem pregnancies are the result of, and influenced by, so many complicated and insolvable circumstances that we have neither the wisdom nor the authority to … decide each situation” (Ibid, p. 368, Paragraph 27.090).

     b.         “We affirm the ability and responsibility of women, guided by the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit, … to make good moral choices in regard to problem pregnancies” (Ibid, Paragraph 27.091)

     c.         “We do not wish to see laws enacted that would attach criminal penalties to those who seek abortions or to appropriately qualified and licensed persons who perform abortions in medically approved facilities” (Ibid, Paragraph 27.097).

     d.         “… no law should deny access to safe and affordable services for the persons seeking to terminate a problem pregnancy” (Ibid, p. 372, Paragraph 27.129).

     e.         “No law or administrative decision should (1) limit access to abortions; (2) limit information and counseling concerning abortions; or (3) limit or prohibit public funding for necessary abortions for the socially and economically disadvantaged” (Ibid, Paragraph 27.131).

3.  Therefore, the Washington Office, and the other offices of the General Assembly, are mandated to represent these policies of the PC(USA) in their work and communications. There is no “other side” to these policy statements.

4.  The concern that the resources on problem pregnancies and abortion produced by the General Assembly Council ministries are one-sided, representing only “position B” misrepresents the content of the policy that does not divide itself into two opposing and mutually exclusive positions or use the terms “pro-life” and “pro-choice.” In the discussion of Position A and Position B the policy states:

… What follows are two different approaches as to the biblical material that is seen as central to this issue. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive, nor are they the only approaches (Ibid, p. 366, Paragraph 27.074) [Italics added to emphasize that the topic of Position A and Position B is biblical interpretation, not policy recommendations.]

5.  Because the 1992 policy states that

Problem pregnancies are the result of, and influenced by, so many complicated and insolvable circumstances that we have neither the wisdom nor the authority to … decide each situation. (Ibid, p. 368, Paragraph 27.090)

Resources for the pastoral care of those facing such circumstances present the full range of faithful responses to a variety of issues facing women and their families during a problem pregnancy. Such publications include Nurturing the Children of God: The Call to Foster Parenting and Adoption, When No Choice Is Easy, and There’s Always a Father—Does the Father Have a Problem, Too? For example, the brochure When No Choice Is Easy discusses having and keeping the baby, giving the infant up for adoption, and whether abortion would be a moral choice. These publications can be accessed on the PARO Website. (http://www.pcusa.org/phewa/paro.htm)

6.   In addition, other General Assembly resources that do not specifically mention problem pregnancies or address the issue of abortion nonetheless respond to the directive of the 1992 policy regarding “public policy initiatives and suggestions for the life of the church” that might serve to “reduce the numbers of unintended pregnancies and the numbers of women who choose abortion” (Ibid, pp. 369-70, Paragraph 27.108). These initiatives and suggestions include addressing economic realities, pornography, access to effective contraception, the promotion of healthy family life, and many others (Ibid, pp. 370-73, Paragraphs 27.109–.134). Some of these concerns have been addressed in such publications as Transforming Families, and God’s Work in Our Hands. The ACSWP reports before the 218th General Assembly (2008) concerning homelessness, pay equity for women, serious mental illness, and a new social creed address economic concerns that can cause women to consider abortion.

7.   Finally, the PC(USA) is a member only of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, but provides no financial support to it. This membership is appropriate because the RCRC literature is consistent with the PC(USA)’s 1992 policy of respect for women’s capacity “to make good moral choices in regard to problem pregnancies” (Ibid, p. 368, Paragraph 27.091) and for public policies that protect women’s access to legal abortion. The RCRC literature quotes PC(USA) policy, as well as the policies of other denominations, and includes the following disclaimer: “Coalition membership does not require or imply conformity to all the actions and initiatives of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.”

It would be inappropriate for the PC(USA) to join or financially support organizations that oppose the policy of the PC(USA) concerning the protection of women’s full range of reproductive options and the public policies that assure the availability of that range. Individual Presbyterians, of course, may choose to do so.

Item 10-03 asks the 218th General Assembly (2008) to direct all PC(USA) entities to reflect balance and equality in both funding and publications when advocating both sides of the abortion issue. This action is requested in order to be in full compliance with the church’s 1992 policy on abortion. It also directs national church offices to uphold this policy in all communications with church and society.

The Advocacy Committee for Women’s Concerns (ACWC) advises that this item be disapproved.

Rationale

This item mischaracterizes the policy and recommendations of the 1992 report, Problem Pregnancies and Abortion, and the work related to these issues by the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

1.   The 1992 policy is introduced with a recognition that theological and political differences coexist in the PC(USA):           

Clearly there is both agreement and disagreement in our use and interpretation of Scripture. There is also agreement and disagreement on the basic issue of abortion. (Special Committee on Problem Pregnancies and Abortion, 204th General Assembly (1992) Minutes, 1992, Part I, paragraph 27.086)

However, it moves from this acknowledgement to a listing of areas in which there is substantial agreement on the issue of abortion. In developing policy to be considered by the 204th General Assembly (1992), a majority of the special committee assigned to complete this study spoke about their own (“our”) agreement and disagreement. When the 1992 General Assembly adopted this report, the policy began to speak for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) as a whole. Within our denomination we do have differences theologically and politically on the issue of abortion. Two scriptural approaches are described as Position A and Position B in the narrative of the report. Every General Assembly since 1992 has upheld the policy of this report. Although we live with disagreements, the PC(USA) continues to be a denomination that finds “substantial agreement” on the areas that make up Presbyterian policy on the issue of abortion.

2.   One of the most significant areas of Presbyterian policy addresses women’s decision-making in circumstances of problem pregnancy and abortion. There is “substantial agreement” in the 1992 policy that:

e.            The considered decision of a woman to terminate a pregnancy can be a morally acceptable, though certainly not the only or required, decision. (Minutes, 1992, Part I, paragraph 27.093)

This statement is at the heart of the “pro- and anti-choice” debate. Presbyterian policy recognizes that not all Presbyterians agree, and yet, since 1992, General Assemblies have concluded that Presbyterians continue to “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” (Ibid, paragraph 27.091). While abortion under any circumstances is never to be required, Presbyterians understand that there are situations in which abortion may be a “morally acceptable” decision. This is what it means to be “pro-choice.” To advocate on behalf of women’s moral agency and right to make moral decisions regarding abortion is to abide by Presbyterian policy.

3.   This overture suggests that if Presbyterian entities are engaged in any kind of “pro-choice” activity, they also need to advocate “anti-choice” or “pro-life” positions as well. However, this either/or approach does not comply with the policy of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). While the extremes of the spectrum share a careful regard for life as a gift of God, each weighs the adult and “potential life” differently. The policy recognizes that Presbyterians disagree on the issue of abortion, but there is not substantial agreement that we are both a pro-life and a pro-choice church. “Pro-life” members would not substantially agree that women’s abortion decisions can be morally acceptable; however, “pro-choice” members can agree that there is room for people to support or reject abortion as a moral alternative. Therefore, current Presbyterian policy is moderately pro-choice, acknowledging that we “hold varying points of view about when human life begins” (Ibid, paragraph 27.102) and our church “does not advocate abortion but instead acknowledges circumstances in a sinful world that may make abortion the least objectionable of difficult options” (Ibid, paragraph 27.102A).

4.   This overture accuses PC(USA) entities, commonly responsible for the interpretation of General Assembly policy with regard to programming, of having only represented one side of the debate. The policy is inclusive of many differences. The only position that it excludes is one that does not allow for women’s moral agency (commonly referred to as the pro-life position). The overture contends that the Presbyterian Washington Office, Racial Ethnic, and Women’s Ministries/Presbyterian Women, the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy, and Presbyterians Affirming Reproductive Options (PARO) are supported by the church and not individual contributions. This is true for all mentioned but PARO who is largely supported by individual contributions.

Presbyterians Pro-Life (PPL) is not like these denominational entities of PC(USA) and it is not an appropriate comparison. The PPL is an independent organization with no line of authority or accountability to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). The PC(USA) entities listed operate according to the policy of the PC(USA). Their work is monitored and reported to General Assembly (last in 2006) and has been deemed to be completely consistent with Presbyterian policy.

5.   This overture suggests that entities of the PC(USA) are not in compliance with Recommendation III.B. of the 1992 policy, which recommends that publications reflect the diversity of positions about problem pregnancies and abortion. This simply is not true. Many resources have been published since 1992 on issues related to abortion, some of which include: four brochures (When No Choice Is Easy; When You Need the Wisdom of Solomon; There’s Always a Father;and When Pregnancy Involves Loss); Nurturing the Children of God: The Call to Foster Parenting and Adoption; and Life Abundant: Values, Choices, and Health Care. All of these resources convey the complexity of problem pregnancy decisions and the diversity of opinion that Presbyterians hold on how various options should be considered.

6.   This overture contends that the 1992 policy is violated when PC(USA) entities partner with ecumenical and interfaith organizations such as the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC), Clergy for Choice, and the Progressive Religious Partnership. Recommendation III.D. of the 1992 report acknowledges “the prerogative of Presbyterian entities to participate in ecumenical and interfaith organizations that represent different points of view concerning abortion”(Ibid., paragraph 27.145). Pro-choice organizations recognize a wide diversity of opinion on the issue of abortion, while maintaining—as does Presbyterian policy—that the considered decision of a woman to terminate a pregnancy can be morally acceptable. The PC(USA) is not a member of Clergy for Choice or the Progressive Religious Partnership. Its membership in RCRC involves no financial support for the organization.

The Advocacy Committee for Women’s Concerns (ACWC) is empowered by the PC(USA) to advocate on behalf of women and women’s issues. In advocating for the right of women to make moral decisions regarding problem pregnancies, ACWC stands with other entities in the PC(USA) who are working to uphold Presbyterian policy on abortion. This overture seeks to direct national offices of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to uphold the 1992 policy on abortion in all of its communications. This is already the case and is monitored and reported on regularly. The ACWC advises that Item 10-03 be disapproved.

The General Assembly Council recognizes that abortion is a highly sensitive issue that needs to be approached with prayerful consideration. The General Assembly has acknowledged that within our church there is a wide range of deeply held convictions about the matter. The 204th General Assembly (1992) reflected this diversity of opinion, in its adoption of the report of the Special Committee on Problem Pregnancies and Abortion. 

Clearly there is both agreement and disagreement in our use and interpretation of Scripture. There is also agreement and disagreement on the basic issue of abortion. The committee agreed that there are no biblical texts that speak expressly to the topic of abortion, but that taken in their totality the Holy Scriptures are filled with messages that advocate respect for the woman and child before and after birth. Therefore the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) encourages an atmosphere of open debate and mutual respect for a variety of opinions concerning the issues related to problem pregnancies and abortion (Minutes, 1992, Part I, pp. 367-68, 372-74).

Consequently, as the policies of the General Assembly regarding abortion and related issues have developed, they do not fit neatly into the frequently used forced-choice between “pro-life” and “pro-choice.” There are several points in the rationale of this overture that need to be clarified to accurately reflect General Assembly Council’s role as it fulfills the directives of this policy. The overture expresses concern that General Assembly Council ministries “produce material and advocate specifically and diligently only for the ‘pro-choice’ position.” This concern is not accurate. 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. General Assembly Council ministries preparing resources on problem pregnancies and abortion strive to reflect a diversity of opinion in the resources that are produced. Resources prepared by ministries of the General Assembly Council cover the range of faithful responses in these difficult situations. Examples include: Problem Pregnancy: When No Choice Is Easy, There’s Always a Father—Does the Father Have a Problem, Too?, When Pregnancy Involves Loss, When You Need the Wisdom of Solomon—Helping Others Face Problem Pregnancies, Life Abundant: Values, Choices and Health Care, and Nurturing the Children of God: The Call to Foster Parenting and Adoption.

One concern raised in the overture is about the role of the Presbyterian Washington Office as it reflects General Assembly policy when legislation about abortion is before Congress or is deliberated upon in the Supreme Court. The Washington Office is mandated to express the policy of the General Assembly, and the General Assembly has been very clear on the issue of abortion legislation which states, “We do not wish to see laws enacted that would attach criminal penalties to those who seek abortions or to appropriately qualified and licensed persons who perform abortions in medically approved facilities” (Minutes, 1992, Part I, p. 368).

The overture also questions the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s membership in several organizations that do not, from the overture’s perspective, reflect the comprehensive nature of the denomination’s 1992 statement on abortion. As a matter of clarification, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is not a member of Clergy for Choice and Progressive Religious Partnership, two organizations that were listed in the overture. The PC(USA) is a member of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC) but does not provide any financial support to this organization. The RCRC literature, which cites Presbyterian policy, is in line with the 1992 policy statement. The Religious Coalition appends to all of its documents the following reminder: “Coalition membership does not require or imply conformity to all the actions and initiatives of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.”

The General Assembly Council mission and ministries continue to be guided by the 1992 policy on abortion and problem pregnancies and encourages the church to continue to approach this challenging issue with the atmosphere of “open debate and mutual respect” for a variety of opinions (Minutes, 1992, Part I, p. 374].