Will a ‘balanced’ presentation of abortion prevail?
Deborah A. Hills, The Layman, June 25, 2008
SAN JOSE, Calif. — The Health Issues Committee of the Presbyterian Church (USA)’s 218th General Assembly finally reached consensus on what was originally an overture for a balanced approach to difficult reproductive issues.
Overtures 10-03 from Pittsburgh Presbytery and 10-04 from Beaver-Butler Presbytery called for the PCUSA, in advocating and funding activities relating to the abortion issue, to reflect balance and equality for both sides.
By a 50-to-20 vote (with one abstention) Tuesday, the committee replaced “balance” and “equality” with a “full spectrum of Biblical, theological and pastoral counsel.” At one point, a motion suggested that the General Assembly Council (GAC), “in cooperation with representatives of the variety of opinions, including but not limited to persons with pro-choice and pro-life opinions,” redevelop materials dealing with problem pregnancies.
But many on the committee believed that the church already has a policy that is in compliance with the 1992 report of the Special Committee on Problem Pregnancies and Abortion, as well as the 2006 policy on late-term pregnancies and abortion requiring balance. But evidence shows that policy has not always been followed.
One sticking point became the brochures on the subject produced by the GAC: When No Choice is Easy, When You Need the Wisdom of Solomon, When Pregnancy Involves Loss and There’s Always a Father. The content does present both the pro-life and pro-choice sides of the issue. But the evidence showed it to be slanted in favor of abortion by a considerable margin.
A minority report reflects details many feel should not have been left out of the final version of this overture. It reads, in part, “… we direct the General Assembly Council, in cooperation with representatives, including, but not limited to, persons from PARO [Presbyterians Affirming Reproductive Options] and Presbyterians Pro-Life to redevelop material dealing with problem pregnancies. These tools shall enable a comprehensive Biblical, theological, medical and pastoral counsel.”
Marie Bowen, the overture advocate, commented that there were two things lacking from the final version of the overture:
- There was no “defined representation.” The spectrum of counsel is so vague that it could actually allow the situation to remain unchanged, she said
- The focus turned to “publications” rather than “advocacy.” There is nothing in the final overture mandating the presentation of options other than abortion in any form of preaching, teaching or counseling about this issue, she said.
In addition, the removal of the mandate to address medical issues relieves pro-choice advocates of having to include information about how abortion harms women.
In the end, Bowen was asked, is there any guarantee that this new overture, if accepted by the GA and the PCUSA, will actually produce a more balanced representation of the pro-life and pro-choice views? The best Bowen could conclude is that she “will hope toward that end.”