PLANNED PARENTHOOD;
REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH AND MARGINALIZED WOMEN
By the Reverend Dr. J Herbert
Nelson, II
Director, Presbyterian Church
(U.S.A.) Office of Public Witness
Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of god, and who it is that is saying to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.”
-John 4:10-11
The
United States Congress and Planned Parenthood
Two months ago we were on the verge of a
possible government impasse regarding funding for Planned Parenthood Federation
of America. “Planned Parenthood” as it is commonly referred is one of the
largest reproductive health service providers in the United States of America.[i]
The health services they provide include, but are not limited to parenting
skills; counseling; mammograms; birth control; and STI testing and treatment. Most
notably, Planned Parenthood is known as a provider of low cost healthcare for
poor women. Despite the range of services that Planned Parenthood provides, the
most debated aspect of its work revolves around abortions. Planned Parenthood
reports that only three percent of its services are abortion related. However,
when one takes under consideration services related to abortions such as
counseling, health education and money received as revenue for services, the percentage
of Planned Parenthood spending dedicated to abortion services could rise to 12
percent.[ii]
It
must be noted that it is illegal for government money to be used for abortions.
Therefore, arguments on Capitol Hill, state legislatures and local
municipalities are morally based rather than directly related to the
utilization of government funds for abortions. At the center of the debate
is discontinuing government contracts for Planned Parenthood as a service
provider for poor people.
Since the landmark Roe v. Wade decision by
the United States Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional a state law that banned
abortions except to save the life of a mother, both the Church and Society has
struggled with the issues related to abortion rights. [iii]
Planned Parenthood is at the center of many debates regarding reproductive
rights in the United States, due to its policy of performing abortions.
However, these debates often dismiss the good work of counseling and providing
other medical services to both children and adults. Oftentimes these services
are provided to address both personal and family health issues.[iv]
Jesus’ challenge in biblical scripture with
the woman at the well was to take the demonization off of her by the larger
society. He counseled her by telling her truths about herself. He treated her
with respect and restored her dignity to build a sense of belonging despite her
lowly role in the larger society. She could not own property and without a man
that she could call her husband was destined to poverty. Jesus named her
exploitation by the system by reminding her of the number of men she knew as
her husband. Her survival tactics are oppositional to establishing a life in
the Spirit. Surely, the laws regarding her personhood did not fully affirm her
as a person of standing in the society. However, Jesus challenged her on the
basis of learning to affirm her own sense of self worth. He did not tell her
what to do, but instead gave her the impetus to make decisions on her own about
the life she was living. She heard his voice and walked away from the well a
different person. She brought the men who engaged in mutual usury with her to
hear the word of Jesus that penetrated her soul.[v]
The issues in this text are not simply
about prostitution, multiple marriages, or abortion, but the integrity by which we
live.
Presbyterians have struggled with the issue
of abortion for more than 40 years, beginning in 1970 when the General Assembly
voted to declare that “the artificial or induced termination of a pregnancy is
a matter of careful ethical decision of the patient … and therefore should not
be restricted by law”[vi]
 |
| Reverend Nelson speaks at a rally in support of healthcare March 2015 |
I remember sitting in the Health Issues
committee at the 220th (2012) General Assembly in Pittsburgh, PA. while
Commissioners discussed an overture titled Calling
the Church to a New Way Forward on the Issue of Pregnancies and Abortion. The Health Issues
Committee disapproved the overture with comment:
Considering
this resolution invited the committee to consider the 1992 report of the
Special Committee on Problem Pregnancies and Abortion. This noteworthy study
brought twenty years of relative peace on a matter that has been a source of
intense conflict in the PC(USA) for many years prior to the study. The study
accomplished no mean feat in setting forth common ground that Presbyterian can
gather around; common ground that eschews partisanship on either side of the
cultural divide. We found insight and guidance in this document that was both
eloquent and relevant to our work; therefore we do not see the need for a new
study but rather commend the existing study to our church.[vii]
The 1992 report
recognizes and includes many reasons for which abortions might be an option,
including incest, and rape. However, it calls for abortions not to be used as
birth control. Therefore, the policies of our denomination, call women to
responsible care and decision making related to their bodies. The 1992 policies
represented various theological positions on the issues related to reproductive
health. Eleven years post reunion the
PC(USA) demonstrated the courage to reason together regarding one of the most
divisive issues of our Church and Society. This represented an attempt to build
unity in the body of Christ, while acknowledging that this issue of
reproductive rights for women was divisive, but needed to be addressed. The
deliberations and writing of this report was intended to provide a balanced
view of the issues related to abortions without disrupting a woman’s right to
choose.[viii]
This effort by Presbyterians represents prophetic courage in a contentious time
in the life of the denomination and larger society.
The 1992 policy states that “We affirm the ability
and responsibility of women, guided by the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit, in
the context of their communities of faith, to make good moral choices in regard
to problem pregnancies.[ix]
 |
| Women Marching for Equal Rights. Source: Library of Congress |
It is unclear as
to how this issue of abortion has been watered down to the language of pro-life
and pro-choice. We have forgotten or never been made aware of the complexities
of bringing children into the world. Or, we do not understand the impact that
remains as scars for so many women in our society who are victims of rape,
incest and a host of other violent acts upon their personhood. Our faith calls
us to an awareness of the issues and the individual. We are all pro life,
however there are variances in how we live and move and have our being.
Addressing
The Double Standard
A Presbyterian minister
in a rural congregation shared with me that he was once challenged when he
refused to continue the practice of making a woman stand before the
congregation to repent when she became pregnant outside of marriage. He raised
the question with the elders of the Church as to whether the man who
impregnated her was to publicly repent as well. The response from the all male
Session was “no” although they knew the father of the child. During a time in
this country when it was an embarrassment to be pregnant without a spouse, the
Pastor felt that to have the woman stand alone before the congregation
admitting her sin as though it occurred without the assistance of a male (who
remained blameless) was exploitation of this woman.
The issue of unwanted
pregnancies remains the imperfection of a woman rather than a shared
responsibility in our society. The woman at the well was blamed for hustling
men in order to make a living. However, the societal laws and standards placed
her in a position that she had to engage in usury of men to survive. While I
was pastoring a New Church Development in the late 1990’s in Memphis, Tennessee,
our church committed to evangelizing the poor to the PCUSA. Over the course of
that evangelism, it was shocking to discover that thousands of men in Shelby
County Tennessee were behind in paying child support. The challenge to this
type of behavior leaves the responsibility to raise children solely on the woman.
The failure to provide child support by such a large number of men raises
significant questions regarding the collusion of government with the expectation
that women are to bear the sole responsibility of raising children. This type
of inaction on the part of our government sends a message to men that their irresponsibility
in supporting their child/children is given a pass.
As a Church we cannot
dismiss our societal standards that place the sole responsibilities of becoming
pregnant; delivering a child; and bearing the financial responsibility of the
child’s upbringing on a woman. Maybe, when our government leaders vote
affirmatively to pay women the same amount of compensation as a man for doing
the same job it may take away the need to consider the financial hardships that
women must bear in many cases to become a single parent.[x]
Or, when our leaders determine that stricter enforcement of childcare payments
are paid in full and on time, women will have another view other than to abort
a child.
It is important
that we who are of faith recognize the broadness of circumstances that trap the
poor, victimized, and abandoned in our society. We must be conscious of the
extraordinary struggles that women encounter when laws remain unjust towards
them. It was appalling to see an all
male group of religious leaders standing at a Congressional Hearing in 2012 testifying that the Obama administration went too far
with its mandate that all insurers except churches - including non-church
religious affiliated organizations - must offer health insurance. The hearing
was titled "Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State” and centered
around reproductive health, however not one person testifying on behalf of a
religious organization was female. Linda Valentine, then Executive Director of
the Presbyterian Mission Agency wrote a letter decrying this insensitive
omission in which she wrote:
The
views represented by the invited witnesses… boasted some glaring gaps in
mainstream religious life in the United States. Not only were the voices of
women missing, but also absent was a voice from the breadth of the mainline
Protestant community. Grounded in our conviction that God wants healing and
wholeness for each of us, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is a supporter of
universal access to comprehensive health care, including the full range of
women’s reproductive health care. [xi]
Whether one agrees or
disagrees with denominational policy on this issue, it must be asked “Why does
this issue of conscience carry so much weight of authority in our nation when
fifty one percent of the children in the United States are low income?[xii]
Do we care that in the most developed country in the world 35% of households headed by single women are
food insecure?[xiii]
Or, does it matter that while we send children to public schools everyday, many
do not graduate or possess no skills to work?” It seems reasonable that if we
make deeper commitments to mothers and fathers about the future of their
children, the issues surrounding abortion may be easier to solve. Most parents
want to know that their child or children will have a future. It is difficult
to convince a pregnant teenager or an out of work expectant parent that their
child can become significant to the world when they have no reference in their
own lives to give them hope.
It must be made clear
that this is not an attempt to simplify the outcome or remedy to this struggle
in the United States regarding women’s rights, but instead that this issue is
interconnected to deeper struggles within the Church and Society.
Conclusion - Affirming Our Current Policy
I anticipate that
there will be a number of critics and supporters responding to this PCUSA
Office of Public Witness policy commentary. Family issues are known to be “hot
button” topics for our office. Please be reminded that we advocate for the
social justice polices approved by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian
Church (U.S.A.). These policies emanate from congregations, and committee
members who sit in pews. Policies are discussed and voted on by persons serving
on committees who worship in congregations and not national offices. It is
important that we read and review the 1992 policy, before rushing to judgment.
While Congressional
leaders hold hearings related to fetal tissue and abortions, it is my prayer
that child poverty, low graduation rates, gun violence, food security and a
host of other issues related to children and their families would be addressed
with the same fervor. More importantly, I pray that the Church of Jesus Christ
would recognize that human life does not operate in a vacuum.
Our challenge is to
create an environment on this earth that is conducive to human life being
received as a blessing by all and not a curse. I pray that we can now focus on
ways that all human beings can have life and have it more abundantly.
###
To Download a copy of this publication click HERE
[i]Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Forbes. http://www.forbes.com/companies/planned-parenthood-federation-of-america/
[ii] Fact
Check: How Does Planned Parenthood Spend That Government Money? By Danielle
Kurtzleben
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/05/429641062/fact-check-how-does-planned-parenthood-spend-that-government-money
[iii] The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) continues to debate the issue at
General Assembly meetings. In recent years the 1992 report of the Special Committee on Problem Pregnancies and
Abortion has provided the impetus for interpreting the position of the General
Assembly on Abortions. http://bit.ly/20oluWx
[iv] https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/general-health-care
[v] John 4:4-26
[vi] Minutes of the 182nd
General Assembly (1970), United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., p. 891
[vii] Minutes of the 220th
General Assembly (2012). Presbyterian Church USAPage 68. https://www.pcusa.org/site_media/media/uploads/oga/pdf/journal2012.pdf
[viii] The 1992 policy was
developed with a variety of persons who represented various views on the issue
of abortion.
[ix] Minutes of the 220th
General Assembly (2012). Presbyterian Church USA Pg. 1707.
https://www.pcusa.org/site_media/media/uploads/oga/pdf/journal2012.pdf
[x] God’s Work in
Women’s Hands: Pay Equity and Just Compensation. Presbyterian Church USA, 218th
(2010) General Assembly. http://www.pcusa.org/site_media/media/uploads/acswp/pdf/acswppayequity.pdf
[xi] Valentine, Linda.
Letter to Chairman Issa, US House of Representatives. March 1,2012.
[xii] Southern Education
Foundation. New Majority Research Bulletin. http://bit.ly/1Nm5Aqo
[xiii] Feeding America
Hunger and Poverty Fact Sheet. http://bit.ly/1kmGwDO
