of the Abortion Policy Has Second Meeting (January 12-14, 2000)to Evaluate
Work of Entities Using the Fifteen “Policy Themes” They Created
by
Terry Schlossberg
The Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy task group on implementation
of the abortion policy has second meeting (January 12-14, 2000) to evaluate
work of entities using the fifteen “policy themes” they created
The Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy’s (ACSWP) selected task
group on implementation of the General Assembly’s abortion policy ended
their second and final face-to-face meeting without adopting a report. But
the group seemed to agree that for the most part the abortion “policies” are
being implemented satisfactorily. Dora Lodwick, co-moderator, proposed that
the group offer some “suggestions” rather than recommendations, for
tinkering with implementation so as not to appear to be a whitewash of their
charge.
The task group meeting was held at the Louisville Marriott Courtyard Hotel
from Jan. 12-14, 2000. The group is made up of co-moderators Dora Lodwick
and Nancy Becker, who serve on ACSWP’s standing committee. ACSWP selected
four additional Presbyterians to serve on the task group (Al Freundt, Joseph
Etua, Mary Elva Smith and Theresa Lura) and hired a non-Presbyterian
consultant (Margaret Jendrek) to help them evaluate implementation of the
policy. Staff members Peter Sulyok and Belinda Curry sat at the table with
the group and entered the discussion at will. Sulyok was especially
assertive when it came to defining policy.
*Process legerdemain: Changing the policy to fit the implementation*
How did the concerns that led four presbyteries to appeal to the General
Assembly for implementation of the abortion policy become a situation that
appears to need only minor tinkering? It happened through a process by which
“policy” was completely redefined and then transformed into “themes” created
by the task group. Materials selected and submitted by five General Assembly
entities were then evaluated in light of the newly-created “themes.” And all
of this was done with the straightest of faces.
*Background: The historical position of the church reversed in 1983*
The Presbyterian Church historically held a position that the unborn are
human from the moment of conception and that abortion therefore is not a
moral option. In 1983 the newly-formed Presbyterian Church (USA) adopted a
policy on abortion that reversed the former stance of the church and
declared abortion a responsible decision of good Christian stewardship. The
change in policy provoked a flood of overtures for several years. Finally,
the 1988 General Assembly called for a special committee to study the issue
and produce “a new policy” for the church. The special committee delivered
its report and policy recommendations to the 1992 General Assembly, which
then adopted a new policy that year.
*”Pro-choice” replaced by “diverse views” in 1992*
The narrative portion of the 1992 policy paper expresses two diverse views
about problem pregnancies and abortion. The document’s policy section
specifies some circumstances in which the church does not regard abortion as
a moral decision. And the policy calls for the expression of the alternative
views set forth in the document in the publications of General Assembly
entities. One of those views might be regarded as “pro-choice.” The other
view is not. That is the view that since God has created each human being in
his own image, and since God has prohibited us from killing the innocent and
instead called us to care and provide for the needy and vulnerable, abortion
is not a moral choice in a problem pregnancy.
*No change following 1992; presbyteries finally call for accountability in
1997 and 1998*
The 1992 General Assembly document was clear that both views ought to be
expressed in the programs and work and publications of General Assembly
entities. From 1992 until 1997, that did not happen. In 1997 and again in
1998 a total of four presbyteries sent overtures to the General Assembly
calling for implementation. The 1998 General Assembly referred the two
overtures that came that year to ACSWP. A similar commissioners’ resolution
in 1999 was also referred to ACSWP.
*How the intent of the new policy was subverted*
Each of the overtures referred specifically to implementation of the 1992
policy. Nevertheless, the ACSWP task group has decided that the 1992 action
did not produce a “new policy” even though that is what the 1988 General
Assembly called for specifically. Instead it simply added a new statement to
those of General Assemblies since 1983, the compilation of which constitutes
the policy.
That is why the task group spent hours pouring through fifteen years of
General Assembly minutes in an attempt to locate every
action on problem pregnancies and abortion. A previous effort by ACSWP to do
that missed quite a number of actions on the subject
that we discovered when we went through the minutes in the PPL office. Most
of the missing actions would be considered “pro-life”
in emphasis. It’s likely that nobody will know for sure if the task group
got them all this time. But why should they?
We have a process for arriving at a single statement of policy; the 1992
policy was produced by that process
Good and orderly process would have a means for arriving at a single policy
that all Presbyterians can identify as the policy. The
logical means for arriving at that policy would be by action of our highest
governing body, the General Assembly. In fact, we have a
process for doing exactly that. It is the process that the 1988 General
Assembly set in motion and that culminated in the action of
1992 General Assembly when it adopted a new policy. It is a single document.
It is not a compilation or a series of “themes.”
*Why has ACSWP resorted to “themes” instead of the 1992 policy?*
Since the overtures refer specifically to the 1992 policy, and since the
1992 policy was created to provide a “new policy” for the church, why will
the General Assembly now be asked to judge implementation of the policy
based on “themes” developed by a task group of ACSWP? The answer is very
clear. Denominational entities refused to implement the pro-life aspects of
the 1992 policy even though they were mandated by the policy to do so. When
presbyteries acted to call for accountability, ACSWP assumed a mode of
protecting its colleagues and itself at the national level of the
denomination.
*The final report is not in yet*
The final action of this meeting of the task group was to name a drafter for
their report. The drafter is a member of ACSWP, Dora Lodwick. Her report
will be presented to the full ACSWP committee before the task group sees it
and signs off on it. After ACSWP has acted on the draft, the task group will
hold a conference call to decide if they are ready to approve their report.
*What should the final report say?*
If this group acted faithfully, they would hold up as central a statement
which opens the policy section of the 1992 document:
“Therefore, the Presbyterian Church (USA) encourages an atmosphere of
open debate and mutual respect for a variety of opinions concerning the
issues related to problem pregnancies and abortion.”
And they would look at the recommendations in the 1992 report, which became
mandates when they were adopted by the General Assembly. A principal
recommendation in the 1992 policy, which has been at the center of appeals
for implementation, says,
“We recommend that future publications of the denomination and its
ministry units reflect the diversity of positions about problem
pregnancies and abortion found herein [in the policy document].”
If they acted faithfully, they would acknowledge that the publications since
1992 have not reflected the diversity of positions expressed in the policy,
and they would recommend that denominational entities take immediate steps
to ensure that new publications be made available that reflect the position
which does not regard elective abortion as a moral option in a problem
pregnancy. And they would stipulate that those publications be prepared by
Presbyterians who hold the position so that it is faithfully represented.
*The 1992 policy produced a difference that made a difference*
Those who do not want the 1992 to be implemented are adamant about declaring
that we are a “pro-choice” denomination. If “pro-choice” means that the
denomination supports a woman’s right to choose abortion under any
circumstances and at any time
during pregnancy, that was true from 1983 until 1992.
What changed in 1992 was that the “pro-choice” view was acknowledged as only
one view held by Presbyterians. The document itself expressed two basic
alternative positions on the morality of abortion. And the document said
that people who hold those views legitimately reflect the diversity in our
denomination on abortion.
The term “pro-choice” does not appear in the 1992 document. The policy
itself altered the status of the “pro-choice” position by acknowledging that
it is one of the diverse views. The “pro-life” position is another view held
legitimately by Presbyterians, and
neither is said to prevail. Both are said to be acceptable. Since 1992 it
has been a misrepresentation of denominational policy to describe the
Presbyterian Church (USA) as “pro-choice.” But that is ground that is
difficult for those in positions of power to yield.
*The policy was intended to bring a change; the General Assembly can make
that happen *
The 1992 policy was intended to change the abortion policy in our
denomination. The special committee that produced it was charged to do
exactly that. The wording of the policy would bring change if it were
implemented: “pro-life” and “pro-choice” views
would have equal standing. But it does not appear likely that we will see
that change brought about by ACSWP. However, the General Assembly will
receive their report and will have an opportunity to speak to the matter.