Health Care should have preservation of life at heart

A friend of Presbyterians Pro-Life recently sent me a copy of a Catechism for Young Children. It was written as an introduction to the Shorter Catechism, one of the documents in the Book of Confessions of the PC(USA). Published by the Presbyterian Board of Publication in Philadelphia, it was and copyrighted in 1840. It is a wonderful gem of truth and teaching.

The first several questions offer teaching about God's creation of human life and about our substance as beings that are more than the bodies we inhabit.

Q. 1 Who made you?
A. GOD

Q. 3 Why did God make you and all
things?
A. For his own glory.

Q. 4 How can you glorify
God?
A. By loving him and doing what he commands.

Q. 5 Why
ought you to glorify God?
A. Because he made me, and takes care of me.

Q. 6 Are there more gods than one?
A. There is only one God.

Q. 19 Have you a soul as well as a body?
A. Yes, I have a soul that can never die.

Our nation is embroiled in a heated debate about health care. It's not a new debate. There is, however, a growing sense that our current system of health care is broken and an intense desire to find a solution quickly. Recently, faith groups--mainline denominations, interfaith coalitions, and advocacy groups-- have joined in calling for a speedy resolution that will provide health care for everyone. The PC(USA) is one of the denominations joining the discussion.

Presbyterians have long displayed an active concern for society and involvement in our country's government. We take seriously the commands of Scripture to "love your neighbor as yourself" (Matt. 19:19). The years of Presbyterian caring are visible in the countless colleges, hospitals, children's homes, mission organizations, food pantries, pregnancy centers, and other works of help and care that have been established. Our compassion causes us to want good health care to be accessable to everyone and the prospect of a quick solution is enticing. But there is grave danger here that in our hurry to help we will sacrifice more lives than we will save.

Once before, Presbyterian compassion led to the abandoment of principles of faith that strike at the heart of who we are as created beings in Christ. In the late 60s and early 70s, Presbyterian women became concerned by the numbers of women dying from botched back alley abortions and they began to work in the church and in the nation for support for legal abortion. Their compassion for women was sincere, but they proposed the wrong solution. Where they should have addressed the spiritual, social, and economic needs that caused women to feel so desparate about their pregnancy, they instead provided abortion as the answer to a "problem" pregnancy.

Thirtysome years later, even some women who would label themselves 'pro-choice' are admitting that abortion harms women. The loss of humanity is staggering. Almost 50 million U.S. babies have been aborted. Countless men and women live with regret, grief, depression, drug and alcohol abuse, and other symptoms as a result of their abortion experiences.

Now PC(USA) voices are speaking out in the national health care debate. Our current policy on abortion and our alliances with pro-abortion groups (i.e. Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice) threaten to cause us to propose the wrong solution once more. Presbyterian General Assemblies have called on the government to establish a national health care plan as recently as 2008. Last week, Gradye Parsons, Stated Clerk of the PC(USA) released a statement urging quick action on national health. The PC(USA) is on record as a supporter of a single-payer universal health care plan.

Where am I going with all this? Well, I'm not a fan of single-payer health care---I prefer personal freedom to government control as a general principle--but, it's not a cross I would die on.....except when that plan would put human lives at stake! When endorsement of a single-payer universal health care plan is coupled with the current PC(USA) social witness policy on abortion, then the result is advocacy for a health care plan that covers abortions. That puts pro-life Presbyterians in fundamental disagreement with the advocacy of our denomination. A Zogby poll in March surveyed 30,117 Americans from 48 states and found that 51-69% oppose federal funding of abortion. It is reasonable to assume that a poll of Presbyterians would produce similar results. Like most Americans, a majority of Presbyterians do NOT want to see abortion funded by tax dollars. They do not want to be complicit in destroying innocent human lives.

Abortion is not health care. Pregnancy is not a disease or injury requiring a cure. Pregnancy is a normal and usually a healthy condition. It involves two lives. While a woman does have particular health care needs during pregnancy, abortion is not a treatment. Abortion causes the death of the child and does nothing to enhance the health of the woman. Abortion is the termination of a human life, as is assisted suicide. Both end life, not in God's timing, but at the whim of human hands. That brings us back to the questions in the Catechism for Young Children: Who made you? Why did God make you...? Do you have a soul? A health care plan that includes abortion and/or assisted suicide goes against everything Presbyterians know and believe about God as creator and owner of human life. It denies who we are as human beings created in His image and for His glory and redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ! We are beings with souls, whose value is more than our bodies and whose purpose is eternal. Our lives, even the care of our bodies, ought not to be placed at the mercy of the political wind.

So, I believe I speak for most pro-life Presbyterians when I say, there are some specific things we ought to see in a health care plan endorsed by the PC(USA):

1. A good health care plan needs a statement excluding coverage of abortion, assisted suicide or any procedure or treatment that would deliberately cause the death of the patient (born or unborn).
2. It should include stated protections against the withholding of care or treatment needed to preserve a life, no matter how limited that life might be, and including those waiting to be born.
3. There ought to be written protections for medical providers so they are never required to participate in procedures or treatments against their religious conscience or risk losing their jobs if they refuse such participation.

Verbal assurances that these protections will be in the end product are not enough. Americans have been told that an advisory board will make these decisions. In the proposed H.R. 3200, decisions about what would be covered in an "essential benefits" package would be made by an advisory board appointed entirely by the President. Two thirds would be appointed by the president directly and the other 3rd appointed by the Commissioner (who apparently would be appointed by the President). One person would essentially control what procedures and treatments are covered by the plan. With each change of administration we would be embroiled again in controversy over what is a covered charge.

Without apology, this Presbyterian will be lobbying my senators and representatives to work for a health care plan that holds the preservation of human life as its central purpose. It's the right thing for Presybterians--we who believe that "he made me and takes care of me," "I have a soul that can never die" and "there is only one God"--to do.

These things we can say together

Is there Common Ground on abortion? Is there any hope of fruitful dialogue? Is it possible for pro-lifers and pro-choicers to work together to reduce abortion? Can this happen in our sharply divided nation? Can it happen in the PC(USA)?

Tuesday was one of those days filled with little occurrences that are separate, yet somehow all of a piece. By afternoon I began to ponder whether God was trying to communicate something in particular. After a few days of reflection I think maybe I am seeing a way forward for the church on the prickly issue of abortion and perhaps even a model for other areas of conflict…..or I could be wrong. Let me just ‘think it through’ aloud in this blog and you can respond with your comments.

This morning I made a presentation to the Pittsburgh Presbytery Council on behalf of The Pittsburgh Presbytery’s Task Force to Study Abortion. As I was waiting, I chatted with a friend…

A friend of mine asked if she could talk with me a while ago and confessed that she had not one abortion, not two….she had four abortions, and the guilt! She cried and cried. Fortunately she attends a church that teaches forgiveness through Jesus Christ and she is going to be okay…

I was called into the Council meeting to give the Task Force report. I requested that Council approve distribution of the report to the churches in the Presbytery. I told how four women with differing views on abortion were surprised to discover common areas of concern and a shared vision for tangible, practical care and ministry that if engaged by the whole church could provide women with real alternatives to abortion. Our study together did not alter our political or theological positions on abortion, but we found a desire to work together to reduce abortion in our denomination and in our community.

One council member admitted that when he saw the topic of the Task Force report—abortion-- he cringed and almost didn’t read it. He expressed his weariness of the debate on abortion. But then he shared how he was drawn in as he began to read and he concluded by saying it was the “most even-handed” and perhaps the “best” document he had seen from the church on abortion. He enthusiastically gave his endorsement for the broadest possible distribution of the resource.

As I left the meeting of the Council, I fell into conversation with a stranger who had listened to my presentation…


Didn’t President Obama say he wanted to work with pro-lifers on alternatives to abortion?


I explained that I’ve been away for a few days and haven’t paid attention to the media. We were interrupted and our conversation ended.

I stopped at McDonald’s for a cup of coffee and a late breakfast and headed back to my office. I turned on the radio, set to my favorite Christian station…


The solution to conflict and division in the church is God’s grace!

Yes! That resonates with my recent experience on this Task Force. We listened to one another carefully and deeply. We shared our hearts and not simply our positions. We extended grace to one another in the prickly moments when we disagreed most sharply. Sometimes we were simply silent rather than being defensive. We were aware of deep differences in the way we read and interpret Scripture and in our political positions on abortion. Yet, we found commonality as beings created in God’s image, sinners for whom Christ died. God’s grace provided a unity that was stronger than our differences.

Upon arriving at the PPL office I found in my email inbox two articles and a video link all responding to President Obama’s commencement speech at Notre Dame University. Baptist Press said:

Obama urged both sides of the abortion debate "to work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions," to "reduce unintended pregnancies," to "make adoption more available" and to "provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term.""Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion and draft a sensible conscience clause and make sure that all of our health-care policies are grounded not only in sound science but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women," the president said.[1]

All three commentators agreed there is NO common ground. The problem they exposed is that Obama’s call to “work together” is denied by the pro-abortion actions he has taken since his inauguration and by the appointments of numerous pro-abortion radicals to positions of power and influence.

I found myself reminded of the PC(USA) policy document on abortion, “Problem Pregnancies and Abortion”. The policy document was written by the Special Committee on Problem Pregnancies and Abortion and approved by the General Assembly of the PC(USA) in 1992. The Committee was made up of persons with differing views on abortion. Like Obama they acknowledged the conflict on this issue. They recommended that future publications of the denomination reflect the diversity of positions on abortion. They called the church to “open debate” and “mutual respect” in areas of controversy and debate. And, like Obama, they expressed a desire to protect individual conscience.

Unfortunately, like Obama, the actions of the PC(USA) in advocating an extreme abortion rights position over the years since 1992 have caused all the words about “areas of substantial agreement[2]” to be neglected and forgotten. The portion of the document dealing with the church and the law is the section over which there was the least agreement among committee members.[3] It essentially affirms that there should be NO laws restricting abortion or limiting access to or public funding for abortion. For many years Louisville staff and the Washington Office have used this part of the 1992 document as platform from which to advocate for unrestricted and fully funded abortion.

Recently, however there seems to be a change. During the last two years there has been a virtual silence on abortion from the Washington Office. That silence is a welcome breathing space that allows dialogue on abortion to bear fruit in groups like the Pittsburgh Presbytery Task Force to Study Abortion.

What does this uncanny string of Tuesday’s events mean? What is God saying?

I think the point is this. What that one Presbytery Council member found to be so different in the Task Force’s report from other church documents on abortion is simple. We did not attempt to make a statement on those things about which we disagree. We chose to focus on our areas of agreement and we sought God’s guidance to help us identify what we could do together. We extended God’s grace to one another in all the areas of disagreement between us and we relinquished our need to say more than those things about which we were united. We essentially said only two things: 1) The church needs to break silence on abortion and talk to one another about their differences, and 2) The church can do much better in making alternatives to abortion tangible and practical choices for women.

The search for common ground can be treacherous. Too often it crumbles beneath us into coercion and compromise and leaves a trail of forsaken conscience and lost integrity. Too often “dialogue” is a thinly veiled “hearing” by a governing entity that has already decided their course of action. I don’t hold a lot of hope for finding common ground with the Obama administration on abortion, but for the church I have a great hope.

“The solution to conflict in the church is God’s grace.” Yes! There it is. When we practice God’s grace we hear the other’s heart. We listen to views that oppose our own and forsake angry response. We make ourselves vulnerable by the completeness of our honesty. When God’s grace is present and acknowledged we are reduced to the lowest common denominator--- we are all sinners saved by grace through the death of Christ on the cross. In the presence of God’s grace we know complete equality and our common value as adopted sons and daughters of the Most High God.

From such loved-ness comes the safety to engage in open-hearted, honest, caring conversation that helps us identify those things--limited though they may—that we can do together to make a tangible difference in the lives of women and men facing problem pregnancies. This we can do. This we must do.



By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another. John 13:35


Related:

Report of the Pittsburgh Presbytery Task Force to Study Abortion, May 2009
Obama's 'Common Ground' on Abortion is Killing Ground, Family Research Council, May 20, 2009

[1] “Pro-Lifers: Policies deny common ground, Staff, Baptist Press, May 18, 2009.
[2] The report said there was “substantial agreement” that “we are disturbed by abortions that seem to be elected only as a convenience” and that “abortion should not be used as a method of birth control” or “for gender selection” or “to obtain fetal parts for transplantation.” The committee expressed “grave concern” over the number of abortions in our society. There was agreement that “we ought to express love and grace to one another,” and that “after a human life has begun, it is to be cherished and protected as a precious gift of God,” and that “taking human life is sin.” (pp.10-11)
[3] Problem Pregnancies & Abortion, Section E.3, e, 1-3, p.15

Fear of the truth takes RCRC off focus

An email from the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC) dated March 9 carried the headline: “Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice President Applauds Obama Stem Cell Research Policy”. It was written by The Reverend Dr. Carlton W. Veazey, President and CEO of RCRC.

It caused me to wonder. What possible reason could The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC) have to “applaud” President Obama’s Stem Cell Research Policy? Why would they have any interest in embryonic stem cell research? How does it relate to their mission “to ensure reproductive choice through education and advocacy and… to give clear voice to the reproductive issues of people of color, those living in poverty, and other underserved populations.” Why does The RCRC need to speak publicly on the issue of embryonic stem cells?

In the email, Rev. Veazey reveals his prejudice against “right-wing religious politics.” Then he trots out the list of religious organizations (sadly including the PC(USA)) that have made statements supporting embryonic stem cell research. Most of these organizations also speak out against cloning. Veazey doesn’t mention that Obama’s policies would allow cloning by any private organization. Embryos created by the cloning process could then be used in any research funded by taxpayers like you and me. His email leaves the erroneous impression that the only human embryos that would be destroyed by stem cell research would be those already slated for destruction---“leftover” embryos from IVF (in vitro fertilization). [The routine creation of excess embryos for IVF and their subsequent destruction is yet another example of our moral confusion about human life in its earliest stages of development]. Veazey is either misinformed about the effects of lifting the current ban on use of embryos in stem cell research, or he is ignoring the truth in an attempt to make Obama's policies seem less immoral.

To get back to my original why question, I believe The RCRC’s real motivation for speaking out publicly in support of Obama’s policies on stem cell research is fear. They know that if embryonic stem cell research is banned it will serve as an affirmation that a unique human life--a new person--is present in that embryo at fertilization. They know it will result in the moral comprehension that the human embryo is a tiny ‘person of potential’ and not merely ‘potential life’ or a ‘potential person’.

The RCRC is well aware that if the public accepts the truth that “a person is a person no matter how small” (Dr. Suess, in Horton Hears a Who) and they apply that truth by banning embryonic stem cell research, it is only a matter of time until they also apply that truth to abortion. Fear is the motivation. Fear that we might believe the truth.

Members of the PC(USA) should be informed that three entities of our denomination hold membership in RCRC: The Washington Office, Women's Ministries, and Presbyterians Affirming Reproductive Options (PARO). PARO is one of the networks of Presbyterian Health, Education, & Welfare Association (PHEWA).

Painful Consequences

One of the ways we love our children best is by teaching them to avoid painful consequences. It is the reason we run across the kitchen to snatch the hand of a child reaching toward a hot burner. "No! Hot! Don't touch!" we say with urgent intensity (usually with a raised voice) and then in a slightly calmer tone. "Hot! Mommy doesn't want you to burn your fingers. Mommy loves you!"

Our desire to protect our children from painful natural consequences is the reason we emphasize "Look both ways before crossing the street!" It is the reason we teach careful handling of knives and needles, and washing hands, and bandaging of scratches & wounds. As our sons and daughters approach their teens we issues warnings about the negative results of smoking, of drinking, of sexual activity outside of marriage, of careless driving, and of using drugs.

My father gave us countless (and long) lectures about the dangers of guns. Unlike other boys in my rural community, my brothers did not receive BB guns when they turned 10, and my father did not take them hunting. I 'got it' that guns were dangerous, but I was an adult before I peered into my Father's past and truly understood.

My dad was with his father when Grandpa pushed some rifles backward on a wagon. The trigger caught on something in the wagon causing the gun to fire directly into my grandfather's chest. Hours later, my Dad, the oldest son, lay next to his father on a gurney in the hospital, donating his own blood in a direct transfusion in a frantic effort to save his dad's life. Blood-type matching was not used then and sadly their blood types were not a match. Grandpa died that day, leaving my 40 year old Grandma the single parent of 8 children (including two with special needs).

I was never privileged to meet my itinerant pastor Grandpa. My father carried the burden of that experience in silence for many years. I only learned of it in the last year before Dad went to be with the Lord at the age of 83. My dad loved his children. He did not want us to suffer a similar painful consequence and he taught us how to be safe in our use of guns, or (his preference) by not using them at all.

If the church is to truly love women, we must break the silence about the painful consequences of abortion. We ought to stop presenting abortion as a choice that is morally neutral. We ought to admit the numbers of men and women who suffer guilt, depression and grief following abortion. We need to cry out and warn women that this is an irreversible choice that ends the life of a child and there are painful and spiritual consequences for such a choice!

Abigail Hughes gets it. She is 13. Disturbed by abortion, she wrote this poem for an English assignment:

Invisible Pain, Silent Cry

January 22, 1973

It became legal

The murder of a child

Medically or surgically

Invisible pain silent cry

Fear that she couldn't provide

The doctor shows her a picture

She looks away

She doesn't want to feel ashamed

Invisible pain silent cry

The pressure is gone

People applaud her

but deep inside she knows

she just killed her own daughter

Invisible pain silent cry.

Much more could be said about the consequences to the child who dies as the result of abortion and about what the loss of that individual means to society. Much more needs to be said about the spiritual damage to the women and men who make abortion decisions and the consequences to their relationship with God. Those topics will have to wait for future articles. My point here is this: My dad loved us well by his warnings and his teaching. None of his 8 children have suffered a gun related accident. The church ought to do more to warn women and men of abortion's painful consequences. Love teaches moral guidelines for decision-making. Love is not silent where there is danger of painful consequences. Where abortion is concerned the silence of the church is not love. It is abandonment.

"Slaughter of the Innocent": An open letter to President Obama

Dear President Obama:

I was thankful to hear you speak out against the slaughter of the innocent. I have some suggestions to help you achieve that goal.

First, do not revoke the Mexico City policy that prevents our tax dollars from being used to promote the slaughter of innocent children prior to birth- instead continue to support FP programs that are not associated with abortion of innocent children before birth. Millions of innocent Chinese children are slaughtered at birth against their parent’s wishes with the assistance of the UNFPA.

Often a woman is under intense pressure by her family or by the man who impregnated her to have her innocent unborn child slaughtered. Women’s Right to Know Acts give these women information that helps them withstand this pressure. Abortions in states with these laws drop significantly. None of these laws prevent even one woman who wants to have her innocent child slaughtered before birth from legally hiring a licensed doctor to slaughter her innocent child, so her choice is intact. Promoting a Federal WRTK act would prevent the needless slaughter of some of these innocent children, if only the ones whose mothers would otherwise agree under duress to their slaughter.

You can promote the bill to protect adolescents from child predators who impregnate them and then take them across state lines to avoid state parental notification/consent laws and have their innocent unborn children slaughtered. The bill would make such interstate commerce illegal. Whether these innocent children were still slaughtered with their grandparents knowledge or not, al least their grandparents would be there for their daughters and to monitor them for complications. And some adolescents with their parents support might choose not to slaughter their innocent unborn children.

Another thing you can do is to leave intact the new regulations that protect physicians like me and other healthcare professionals from being forced to participate in the slaughter of innocent children prior to birth either directly or through being forced to refer them to someone else who will slaughter these innocents. There has been a move on the part of some agencies to force this, and it is significant that regulations to prevent this went into effect on your inauguration day. Please keep them.

Finally, you can resist the pressure from members of your party to make the American people pay for the slaughter of innocents in any proposed health plans either directly through tax dollars or indirectly through mandated insurance coverage of abortion, the slaughter of innocents prior to birth.

Sincerely,

Patricia Lee June, MD

Dr. June is a Pediatrician from Moultrie, GA and a member of the Board of Directors of Presbyterians Pro-Life.

When did I get to be a "foe"?

This morning's Pittsburgh Tribune Review included a headline, "Foes of abortion....". Wait a minute! Stop there. Are you talking about me?

It's true, I am outspoken against abortion. Who wouldn't be? Have you seen what abortion does to an unborn baby? Are those images of tiny hands and feet severed and lying in pools of blood burned into your brain as they are into mine? Who wouldn't be a "foe" of such violent destruction of the smallest and weakest of human beings?

On the other hand, I don't view myself as "anti" anything or a "foe" of anyone. And by the way, when have you ever known the media to refer to those holding a pro-choice view as "foes of the fetus" or "anti-life-of-the-unborn"? Of course not. Clearly that would be a disrespectful way to address the many who still believe our disagreement is about woman's choice rather than the lives of millions of unborn babies.

Instead the article I read this morning called those who want women to have the right to end the life in their womb, "advocates for legal abortion". Hmm, that's odd. I've never read an article that identified a pro-lifer as an "advocate for the pre-born" and yet, that is exactly what we are!

Today hundreds of thousands of advocates for the pre-born will march in Washington D.C. as a living testimony to our government officials that we are "foes" of Roe v. Wade and, yes, "foes of abortion". They will worship and pray and sing as they march. They will not look or sound like foes. Most of them will look like you and me. Many will be young men and women, passionately aware that millions of their generation are missing due to the legalization of abortion in America!

Sadly, not many of those marching will be Presbyterian...because in the PC(USA) those who hold a pro-life view, "advocates for the pre-born" are viewed as dissenters---as "foes" if you will. It's not a popular identification and not many can stomach it. Too many are silenced by fear of being seen to be a "foe". Still, in July 2010 in Minneapolis, members of the Presbyterians Pro-Life GA team will stand once more, giving testimony in committee that we are "foes" of the social policy of the PC(USA) which currently endorses the slaughter of innocents, as a morally acceptable choice. We have been standing against abortion on behalf of the pre-born in this denomination for more than 30 years. Maybe we are "foes of abortion", and I think I'm okay with that!

"From my mother's womb you have been my God." Psalm 22:10