After the leak of a draft majority opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which details the reversal of both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, many pro-life Christians are rejoicing.
But some liberal religionists are lamenting the loss of what they consider to be a sacred constitutional and human right. These members of the religious left, far from acknowledging the sacredness of all human life, instead claim abortion should simply be left to personal choice.
Defenders of Roe v. Wade and abortion rights include officials from the United Methodist Church, Episcopal Church, Presbyterian Church (USA) and United Church of Christ.
United Women in Faith, United Methodism’s official women’s agency, declared:
As a leading Christian women’s organization committed to the needs of women, children, and youth, United Women in Faith must voice alarm at the possibility of women losing the Constitutional right to legal abortion guaranteed by the Supreme Court’s precedent-setting Roe v Wade decision. Overturning Roe could also endanger the right to privacy that should also protect women from being prosecuted for a miscarriage and affords women access to widely used, safe, and legal contraceptives.
This statement ignored that The United Methodist Church, at its 2016 governing General Conference, officially revoked its 40-year support for Roe v. Wade. Meanwhile, the United Methodist Building on Capitol Hill across from the U.S. Supreme Court posted on its sign that “Christ trusts women,” apparently in response to the court’s impending abortion ruling. Of course, the Gospel doesn’t say Christ trusts women or men but asks us all to trust Him.
The Presbyterian Church (USA) Office of Public Witness, which is housed in the United Methodist Building, declared Roe v. Wade “was pivotal in advancing reproductive justice in our nation, protecting a pregnant person’s access to full healthcare services, and ensuring bodily autonomy” while lamenting “woman’s reproductive rights have been under relentless attack.” It urged congressional action, noting as “the Supreme Court appears increasingly likely to weaken reproductive rights, it is more vital than ever that Congress pass legislation to codify Roe.”
In a similar vein, the Episcopal Church’s Office of Government Relations, also housed in the United Methodist Building, released a statement saying that it would “continue to advocate at the federal level to protect reproductive rights,” a position the church body has held “since 1967.”
Several United Church of Christ officials also signaled their anguish in the wake of the leaked opinion. The Rev. Traci D. Blackmon, the Associate General Minister of the UCC’s Justice and Local Church Ministries, proclaimed that “the United Church of Christ faithfully supported access to safe abortion before Roe v. Wade” and “will faithfully support it now.”
UCC cleric Chuck Currie vented his frustrations on Twitter, saying “Jesus affirmed the moral agency of women,” before also calling “on Christian clergy across the nation to do whatever in their power to assist women seeking abortions – regardless of the law.”
In an attached image to the tweet, Currie further expounded on his pro-choice views, saying that “while many opponents of abortion point to vague passages to justify their stance…the Bible…offers no clear guidance on abortion as we understand it today,” ignoring tradition’s role in interpreting the Scriptures.
“As an example,” Currie maintained, “pro-life activists often quote Psalm 139…as evidence that God would oppose abortion. However, this text, in which the author reflects on humanity’s relationship with God, has nothing to do with abortion.” Currie perhaps did not consider that the nature of humanity’s relationship with God points to a particular understanding of abortion.
Catholics for Choice president Jamie L. Manson also expressed outrage, castigating “the Catholic bishops of the United States” for their role in bringing about this reversal, as well as exclaiming that “abortion is a part of the life of the church.”
Catholic USA Today columnist and CNN political analyst Kirsten Powers tweeted similarly that though “evangelicals love to cite Psalm 139 as the go to verse on abortion…most Jewish rabbis don’t interpret that verse as being about abortion.”
Powers further differentiated the Supreme Court justices who voted to strike down Roe and Casey with her own beliefs, tweeting “I am Catholic, but not like those Supreme Court appointees…I’m more like the majority of Catholics who support Roe,” citing Pew Research statistics demonstrating that most Catholics support the 1973 ruling, placing them at odds with church teaching.
Abortion rights advocacy from professing Christians typically evinces the church’s failure to catechize its flock in historic church teaching. When senior church officials defend abortion rights, it signals their denomination has neglected, rejected or forgotten historic church teaching.
If the Dobbs leak accurately foretells the end of Roe v. Wade, Christians must better provide realistic alternatives to fearful pregnant women. They must also better teach the richness of orthodox Christian teaching about human life in their own churches and among their own clergy.
Comment by Reynolds on May 8, 2022 at 5:16 pm
““Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.””
Jeremiah 1:5 ESV
https://bible.com/bible/59/jer.1.5.ESV
Comment by David S. on May 8, 2022 at 5:50 pm
Not to be outdone by OPW, the PC(USA)’s social justice magazine Unbound, has decided to, under the figleaf of prochoice, has gone all on in support of abortion on demand:
https://justiceunbound.org/6-things-to-do-to-fight-for-reproductive-justice/
Comment by Henry Stokes on May 8, 2022 at 6:47 pm
Until you can satisfactorily explain to me why God allows 1 out of every 4 pregnancies to abort naturally, I am hard-pressed to tell a woman she cannot decide for herself how to approach her own pregnancy.
And until you can show me why a woman carrying a brain-dead fetus must be forced to spend months letting her body feed what will eventually be a still birth, I see no grace in her suffering.
Comment by David S. on May 8, 2022 at 8:31 pm
Henry, with all do respect, the but what aboutism are very myopic and shrill red herrings. What you are describing moves from an abortion to a genuine surgical procedure. The most ignorant arguments against being put forth are the what aboutisms regarding ectopic pregnancies and similar situations.
Statistically, only a very tiny percentage are due to medical situations such as this, and the vast majority of the population would demand medical exceptions. Please act like a thinking person rather than a hyperpartisan hack on a social media website or certain far leftist cable news outlets.
Comment by George on May 8, 2022 at 8:50 pm
If 1 in 4 cancer patients die are efforts to save them unwarranted? Mr. Stokes’ logic would end all healthcare. I’m glad to see a distinction made between pro-life “Christians” and pro-death “religionists.” That honesty is refreshing. Scripturally defined, Christians must be disciples of Jesus. Going to church, even if one is a bishop or a pope, does not require being such a Christian. Nominal-only Christianity has cloaked some of the cruelest and most destructive scourges of human history: inquisitions, pograms, genocides and has promoted the murder of over 60 million innocent human lives in America alone! God loves and gives life. But Satan, who loves and promotes death always comes cloaked as God or “reason” to those who do not know God and thus can’t discern the disguise.
Comment by David on May 9, 2022 at 8:03 am
“Meeting in St. Louis, Missouri, during the summer of 1971, the messengers (delegates) to the Southern Baptist Convention passed a resolution that stated, ‘we call upon Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.’ The Southern Baptist Convention, hardly a redoubt of liberalism, reaffirmed that position in 1974, the year after the Roe decision, and again in 1976.”
Comment by Steve on May 9, 2022 at 8:28 am
The unattributed out of context quote from the prior poster was from the following:
How Southern Baptists became pro-life
https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/how-southern-baptists-became-pro-life/
As the article further recounts, the Roe v Wade decision occasioned a lot of back and forth in the following years, pro-choice arguments being prominent enough that mainstream media plausibly listed Southern Baptists among pro-choice denomination. But the matter was not settled; there were other Southern Baptists who advocated otherwise, eventually winning the discussion. If we judge a denomination by its official pronouncements, given the resolution previously mentioned, Southern Baptists were never officially pro-choice except in the most extreme circumstances.
Comment by Mike on May 9, 2022 at 8:32 am
“The Southern Baptist Convention, hardly a redoubt of liberalism, reaffirmed that position in 1974, the year after the Roe decision, and again in 1976.” David, in all fairness, you have quoted something from the period when Southern Baptist leaders were trying to take the SBC in the direction of liberalism. It was in reaction to such actions as these that many conservatives opened their eyes and starting working to turn the SBC around.
Comment by Beth on May 9, 2022 at 9:53 am
I have seen no information to the effect that the new Global Methodist Church will take a firm pro life stand. I pray that it will.
Comment by Search4Truth on May 9, 2022 at 9:55 am
Mike, don’t become overly concerned. Some of the posters are simply looking for sensationalism with out regard to the truth. If you are really seeking the Lord, you know what His truth is.
Comment by David on May 9, 2022 at 10:52 am
Here is the link that people desire to see,
https://religiondispatches.org/the-evangelical-abortion-myth-an-excerpt-from-bad-faith/
Comment by Rev. Dr. Lee D Cary (ret. UM clergy) on May 9, 2022 at 11:43 am
“Defenders of Roe v. Wade and abortion rights include officials from the United Methodist Church, Episcopal Church, Presbyterian Church (USA) and United Church of Christ.”
That’s likely true. And here’s why:
Officials of legacy liberal denominations have long believed in the sanctity of the Federal Government. And not in the Constitution of the United States. In short, they are dedicated statists.
The end, if it comes, to nationally legalized abortion does not mean the end of abortion – as the aforementioned “officials” claim to believe.
It means that each State will have the right to define its own stance on abortion.
Why is that so difficult for church “officials” to grasp?
And why do they trust the wisdom of the Federal Government more than their own duly elected State officials?
Comment by David on May 9, 2022 at 11:52 am
The states did not do such a good job supporting civil rights. I am sure some would still be delighted to see Brown v. Board of Ed. overturned by the court. It is likely the idea of a United States has outlived its usefulness and dividing the country into two or three separate parts would be the better way to go. The division would be very difficult, but Lincoln’s idea of preserving the Union was historically a big mistake.
Comment by Brian Evers on May 9, 2022 at 1:25 pm
Suddenly the prochoice are sola scriptura? Up until 5 minutes ago those who were for abortion were in the metaphor and good story group of bible readers.
Luke 1: 41 made it clear that it was a baby and agency enough that it would participate with the holy spirit.
Comment by Jeff on May 9, 2022 at 2:11 pm
>> I am sure some [states] would still be delighted to see Brown v. Board of Ed. overturned by the court.
Really, David? You’re sure? Please name one such state — and show your evidence.
But let’s get real — you’re making that claim up out of whole cloth. I guess that’s the sort of “logic” based on fake “premises” we are to expect from those without a factual argument to stand on.
Comment by Tom on May 9, 2022 at 5:31 pm
Again, we have to ask: Are the Episcopal Church, the UMC, the PCUSA, and the UCC not shrinking fast enough to satisfy their executive staff?
And, by the way, “Thou shalt not kill” should be sufficient here. I guess it is not.
Comment by Ken Howes on May 10, 2022 at 12:04 pm
It should be mentioned that the liberal “main line” groups do not necessarily speak for all Christians of their tradition any more than, going the other way, the Roman Catholic Church speaks for all who call themselves Catholics. PCUSA is as the article describes; many Presbyterians do not belong to PCUSA but to PCA or OPC. The Episcopal Church does not speak for many Anglicans who belong to the Anglican Church of North America, the Reformed Episcopal Church, the churches of the Anglican Continuum or the Anglican Orthodox Church. Another article mentioned a congregation of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America. ELCA barely speaks for half the Lutherans in the United States. The largest conservative Lutheran body, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, will, if present trends continue, be larger than ELCA within about seven years, not because LCMS is growing but because it’s not imploding like ELCA.