BACK TO NEWS 

News

RCRC Responds to Absurd Accusations by Extremist “Renewal” Groups

By Reverend Carlton W. Veazey, President and CEO, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice

As in many years past, the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice was a target of so-called “renewal” groups at the national conferences of the Episcopal and Presbyterian Church (USA) in June and annual conferences of the United Methodist Church. The group behind the attacks is The Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD), an ultra-conservative political lobby in Washington DC. The IRD’s tactic is to distort our mission and work and vilify our good name. Repeatedly over the years, the mainline denominations have seen through this deceitful effort and rejected it.

Reproductive choice is not the only sensitive issue that is exploited by the IRD and its allies. Gay rights and doctrinal interpretation are also targets of their attacks. As more research and documentation about the “renewal” movement becomes available, there is greater awareness that this is a coordinated effort to undermine mainline Protestantism by exploiting certain issues. The ultimate goal is to render America's largest denominations incapable of standing up to right-wing politics.

Before the Episcopal, Presbyterian and United Methodist conferences this year, the IRD and its allies circulated sample resolutions that misrepresent the Coalition’s history and positions. One such resolution, “Urging Prayerful Reflection About Church Membership in Abortion Coalition,” starts out with a list of distortions, misinformation, and an outright lie, all couched in seemingly reasonable, logical rhetoric. In the interest of accuracy and fairness, interested persons should read the resolution and RCRC’s responses (below), and judge for themselves. The resolution states: “Whereas, 1) RCRC goes significantly beyond what many self-described "pro-choice" people believe, 2) opposing parental notification requirements for abortions performed on minor girls, 3) supporting taxpayer funding of medically unnecessary abortions, and 4) denouncing legal protections for health care professionals who do not want to be forced to participate in abortions…”

Point 1) In fact, RCRC is a 33-year-old interfaith coalition of religious and religiously affiliated organizations with diverse views on abortion that reflect the views of American society as a whole. Member organizations agree on two foundational principles: 1) reproductive choice is consistent with the traditions and beliefs of each member group and 2) in a pluralistic society such as ours, government has the responsibility to protect diverse religious views, not impose laws based on any one belief.

Along with most religions, the Coalition communicates the grave moral nature of abortion and advocates for education and prevention to reduce unintended pregnancy and encourage responsible sexual behavior. RCRC views “pro-choice” in a broad sense, supporting family planning, sexuality education, and greater access to healthcare. Rather than condemn those who contemplate abortion, RCRC offers information and resources to help individuals and families who struggle with this complex moral issue. One of our main programs is All Options Clergy Counseling, which trains clergy to assist women in making decisions in the context of their faith and beliefs. Research and polling repeatedly show that most people agree with basic RCRC principles and positions.

Point 2) RCRC’s faith-based sexuality education curriculum and All Options Clergy Counseling training actively encourage parental involvement and guidance in teens’ lives and decisions. We know that voluntary parent-teen communication is important in developing healthy behavior and preventing an unintended pregnancy and the possible need for an abortion. RCRC agrees with child health experts that mandatory family communication may result in harm—for example, where incest and abuse are involved. Accordingly, RCRC opposes the government mandating family communications in the case of abortion.

Point 3) The term “medically unnecessary abortion” is pejorative. Doctors determine medical necessity, in consultation with their patient; this is a private determination, according to standard medical practice. RCRC has never taken a position on "taxpayer funding of medically unncessary abortions." However, RCRC supports women as moral agents capable of making wise decisions about continuing a pregnancy and does not discriminate against women based on economic status. RCRC thus conforms to denominational positions.

Point 4) The claim that RCRC has denounced “legal protections for health care professionals who do not want to be forced to participate in abortions” is baseless. In October 1974, RCRC adopted a policy statement on “Public Responsibility for the Use of Public Funds,” asserting that religiously affiliated health institutions that accept public funds assume a public trust to provide health care, which includes abortion care. RCRC’s position affirms that individuals must NOT be forced to act against their religious beliefs or conscience BUT ALSO that individuals must not be deprived of needed and desired healthcare, including abortion services. The individual has the right to refuse to provide abortion services but institutions that serve the public and receive public funds do not have that right and are responsible for providing services. It is important to note that “protections” against being forced to provide and participate in abortions have been in place since 1973, when Congress passed the Church Amendment (named for Senator Frank Church).

The IRD also attacks RCRC as pro-abortion and pro-“partial-birth abortion.” As I have repeatedly and clearly stated, RCRC is pro-choice, not pro-abortion. Further, we have never taken a position on a medical procedure because we are not medical experts and to do so would be inconsistent with the purpose of RCRC as stated above. Regarding so-called “partial-birth abortion,” our Board has opposed this legislation because 1) politicians should not be making medical decisions, 2) it will outlaw abortion as early as the 14th week of pregnancy, and 3) it is in actuality a political campaign that aims to outlaw all abortions, which is why the U.S. Supreme Court found it unconstitutional in 2000 and three federal appeals courts did the same in 2005. Regarding late-term abortion, our Board passed a policy position in March 1982 advising that this issue should be left to the individual member groups.

Similarly, IRD’s claim that RCRC lacks respect for human life is absurd. As our Clergy for Choice Pledge states, “We honor the value and dignity of all human life, but recognize that different religious traditions hold different views regarding when life begins and when ensoulment occurs. Because of these honest disagreements and because we live in a society where all are free to live according to their own consciences and religious beliefs, we do not believe any one religious philosophy should govern the law for all Americans.” Our Clergy for Choice members pledge “to work to create a society where every child is welcomed with joy into a family and a community that is equipped to sustain, nurture, and raise up that child in peace and love.”

What, then, is accurate to say about the Coalition?

We consist of different religions working together to reduce unintended pregnancy and the need for abortion and to preserve the individual’s ability to make decisions about childbearing, free from government interference or coercion.

We recognize that decisions about childbearing and family formation involve a person’s deepest beliefs and hopes. We believe that women must be able to make these most deeply personal decisions with full and accurate information and according to their religious beliefs and conscience.

Rather than condemn or mock those who contemplate abortion, we offer information and resources to help individuals and families who struggle with complex moral issues. We encourage decisions concerning a problem or unintended pregnancy to be made in consultation with clergy and we provide training to clergy to assist women in examining all their options and reaching the decision they feel is most appropriate.

It would be a grave error to believe that the Institute on Religion and Democracy and its allies in the “renewal” movement are concerned about women and families. Rather, they are part of a movement in American politics and culture that happily uses personal issues to agitate and rally people to their cause. The “renewal” groups are a stark contrast to the mainline churches and Jewish traditions, which have been models of compassionate, respectful, and thoughtful discernment about human reproductive issues and have assiduously sought to be inclusive of the diverse views of their members

In the name of justice and decency, it is time to end the silence about the IRD and the “renewal” movement.