Home

Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)

Feminism

Viewpoints

Quote of the Month

Quarterly Newsletter

On-Line Discussion Forum

Letters to the Editor

Mission

The Persecuted Church

Ecumenical Connections

How You Can Help

The VOW Budget

Contact VOW
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

The difference between policy and resolution in the rules of the G.A. 

One member of the work group on implementing the General Assembly's abortion policy wants to see more mention of the action by the 1997 General Assembly opposing partial birth abortion. If policy is a compilation of G.A. actions, he argues, that action should get more attention. But that argument adopts the false assumption of what constitutes "policy." And that question is at the heart of the charge to this group.

When the 1997 G.A. opposed partial birth abortion it was responding to an overture sent up by a presbytery. It was not deciding a policy. According to the rules for developing social witness policy, there is a distinction between "policy" and 
resolution." The rules say, "A resolution' applies existing policy statements to new circumstances." 

When the 1992 abortion policy was adopted no one had heard of D & X or partial birth abortions. When the 1997 General Assembly expressed its "grave moral concern" about this procedure, it was acting in a way that applied the 1992 policy to a new circumstance appropriately. The action on that overture was not the result of a period of study by a task force, as is required for the development of policy. It was, in the best sense, the application of the existing policy. If the 1997 action is understood in this way, arguments for implementing the action on partial birth abortion are fitting and appropriate.

Furthermore, if the older 1983 policy had been in effect, the action to oppose partial birth abortions would have been inconsistent with policy because the 1983 policy expressed no constraints on abortion. Even the wording of opposition to birth control abortions did not come until 1985 and was incorporated into the 1992 policy when it was written. 

The charge to ACSWP deals only with policy. If they fulfill their charge faithfully, they will help the Church by establishing 1992 as the current and operating policy against which resolutions like the one on partial birth abortion are fitting and appropriate.

"Reflecting the diversity of views"

A couple of members of the task group have pointed out that while many materials say there is a diversity of views about abortion in our denomination, almost none of them go on to express any of the beliefs expressed, leaving readers wondering what is the nature of the diversity. This concern also goes to the heart of the charge from the General Assembly to this group. The 1992 abortion policy mandates that publications "reflect the diversity of views." To any reasonable reader that means more than simply saying there is a diversity of views.

One task group member pointed to a statement from The Parent's Guide for elementary school aged children. It says, "There are some people who believe abortion is always the wrong choice. There are others who believe it is always a hard choice, but sometimes the best choice for a woman to make." (P. 28) She thought that statement expressed the diversity of views concisely. 

Another task force member thought it didn't, that it expresses the General Assembly's view (in the second sentence) and one extreme. He thought a third sentence should be added to express the other extreme.

But either extreme is a charicature of positions. Even the PC(USA) Board of Pensions, which covers any abortion for any reason at any time during pregnancy, would not say it holds the position that would be expressed in the third sentence proposed: that abortion is always the right choice in a problem pregnancy. To posit that statement in contrast to the statement that abortion is always the wrong choice is to make the pro-life position look as ridiculous.

One way to contrast the views would be to say in the first sentence that some people believe that carrying a child to term in a crisis pregnancy is always a hard choice, but it best reflects the teaching of Scripture about the value of human life.

Another way to show the contrast of views more accurately would be to say 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.

Achieving the reflection that the General Assembly intended calls for more than these two sentences. And, in fact, the second sentence is well explicated in all the existing publications on this subject. It is the diverse position which is not and which needs a
full explication. Doing that is not simply to comply with the mandate of the General Assembly. It is to help Presbyterians have a fuller understanding of the views and the thinking that underlies the views--to make judgments about which view reflects the historical biblical position of our reformed Christian faith.