Mainline Protestant church agencies and officials issued a series of statements on Friday following the release of a U.S. Supreme Court opinion in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case. That opinion details an effective reversal of both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, returning abortion as an issue for states to decide.
“I am deeply grieved by it,” wrote Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop Michael Curry. “We as a church have tried carefully to be responsive both to the moral value of women having the right to determine their healthcare choices as well as the moral value of all life. Today’s decision institutionalizes inequality because women with access to resources will be able to exercise their moral judgment in ways that women without the same resources will not.”
The Episcopal Church’s top bishop went on to write that “As Episcopalians, we pray for those who may be harmed by this decision, especially for women and other people who need these reproductive services.”
Within 30 minutes of the release of Curry’s statement, the Episcopal Public Policy Network sent an e-mail action alert urging Episcopalians to advocate for Congressional action “to provide a right to abortion care in federal statute.”
Separately, a group of six lay and clergy leaders within the Episcopal Church earlier offered an outline of a worship service designed as “A Service of Lament and Healing” in response to anticipated overturn of Roe v. Wade.
“We pray for the day when health care providers, women and their families, can exercise their rights to reproductive choice in security and peace,” the service liturgy reads. “We pray for the loss of life yet to come from forced childbirth and illegal abortion.”
The service includes “An Affirmation of Faith” authored by liberal Roman Catholic Sister Joan Chittister in which participants are guided to declare “We believe in the multiple revelations of God” and a version of The Lord’s Prayer from the New Zealand Book of Common Prayer addressed to “Eternal Spirit, Earth-maker, Pain-bearer, Life-giver.”
An introduction to the liturgy is signed by Episcopal cathedral deans in Oklahoma City, Indianapolis, a University of the South (Sewanee) seminarian and the Rev. Katie Nakamura Rengers, who serves at the Episcopal Church Center as Staff Officer for Church Planting.
Statements from Episcopal Church officials contrasted with the favorable reception to the court opinion offered by Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) Archbishop Foley Beach, who commented:
“While this decision doesn’t end abortion in the U.S., it will lead to fewer children being killed through abortion. We thank God for this limited victory, and the Anglican Church in North America recommits itself to serving mothers so they can embrace motherhood and welcome their children. We also continue to point the way to God’s healing and forgiveness for all who suffer physically and emotionally from their abortion experiences.”
The two Anglican provinces hold divergent views on abortion, with the Episcopal Church’s General Convention in 1967 and 1976 declaring in a resolution “unequivocal opposition to any legislation on the part of the national or state governments which would abridge or deny the right of individuals to reach informed decisions [about the termination of pregnancy] and to act upon them.”
The Episcopal Church is affiliated, through an action of the church’s Executive Council, with the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, formerly the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights, an advocacy organization that exists to promote religious voices calling for unrestricted abortion-on-demand. A small number of Episcopal Church dioceses have distanced themselves from this national affiliation.
In contrast, Canon 8 of the ACNA reads, “God, and not man, is the creator of human life. The unjustified taking of human life is sinful. Therefore, all members and clergy are called to promote and respect the sanctity of every human life from conception to natural death.”
The ACNA has an anti-abortion ministry, Anglicans for Life (originally founded in 1966 as Episcopalians for Life) that works “to eradicate abortion and euthanasia through ministry, education, pastoral care, and advocacy.”
Presiding Bishop Elizabeth Eaton of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), which has a full communion agreement with the Episcopal Church, wrote in a pastoral message that “Overturning Roe v. Wade and placing decisions about abortion regulation at the state level encumbers and endangers the lives of all persons who need to make decisions about unexpected pregnancies.”
“Our church teaching holds that there are no exclusive rights in pregnancy,” Eaton wrote. “A pregnant person does not have an exclusive right to abort a fetus at all points during the pregnancy. A developing life does not have an exclusive right to be born.”
A statement provided by the General Board of Church and Society, the public policy office of the United Methodist Church, quoted United Methodist Social Principles that “We recognize tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify abortion, and in such cases, we support the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures by certified medical providers.”
“We grieve and lament today’s decision,” the GBCS statement reads. “Today The United States Supreme Court decision denied the value and dignity of women to access the fundamental right to the supportive care and services they deserve.”
The GBCS, which is housed in the United Methodist Building adjacent to the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., was required by an act of the United Methodist General Conference in 2016 to disaffiliate from the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. That same General Conference repealed a four-decade-old previous affirmation of Roe v. Wade.
Officials from Foundry United Methodist Church in Washington issued a pastoral statement lamenting “the misogynistic decision of the court,” adding “We remain firm in our commitment to advocate for reproductive rights and access to private, safe healthcare for all people.”
The Foundry clergy exhorted congregants to “be bold in your advocacy for the rights and dignity of women, trans, and non-binary persons, and for their freedom to govern their own bodies.”
Comment by Dan W on June 24, 2022 at 6:18 pm
What, none of the Mainline denominations gave thanks for the lives that will be saved? No affirmation of adoption as an alternative to abortion? May God have mercy on their souls.
Comment by David on June 24, 2022 at 7:08 pm
Whether or not a fetus is a person is largely a religious belief and not a matter of civil law. Banning abortion is forcing a religious belief on others in violation of their 1st Amendment rights. Much was made that abortion was not mentioned in the Constitution. Well, there are many rights not mentioned there as the right of women to hold public office. Their right to vote is mentioned, but not this. Women were definitely not considered “persons” when the 14th Amendment was ratified. The Constitution does have a provision concerning rights not enumerated in the document. At the time the Consitution was ratified, one would be hard pressed to find laws restricting abortion.
Comment by Loren J Golden on June 24, 2022 at 8:54 pm
Praise the Lord, for His providential work in overturning this most grievous of Supreme Court rulings, made nearly 49-1/2 years ago, at the behest of His faithful servants’ prayers! May He even now continue to work in the hearts of the legislators of this land to ban the unjust practice of abortion in all fifty states, which always results in the willful termination of at least one human life, with the sole exception allowed for those most regrettable of cases, in which the mother’s life is physically endangered by a continuation of the pregnancy.
Comment by Loren J Golden on June 24, 2022 at 9:00 pm
David,
A fetus is a person simply by virtue of the fact that he or she is a human being, and is therefore justly entitled to basic human rights, including the right to live. If the legislatures and the courts can declare that a human being is not a person, and therefore not subject to the protection of basic human rights, what is to prevent them from declaring you or me to not be persons?
Comment by Rick Plasterer on June 25, 2022 at 1:32 am
David,
A new human individual exists from the moment of conception, and continues to be the same individual until he/she dies. That is the scientific truth. Anything else destroys the equality of persons, such a sacred concept to the Left in other circumstances. But the bottom line is “quality of life,” as the affluent liberal/left assesses it. There’s no other place to draw the line but conception. Embryonic stage? Fetal stage? Birth (not necessarily, anymore). One month after birth, six months, two years.? Maybe an age limit to life, like 75 (that would help social security and Medicare). What about people like me, with our toxic ideas? Do we have a right to life? Or are we “harming” society too much? Following the quality of life criterion, the answer is obvious.
Rick
Comment by Tom on June 25, 2022 at 12:26 pm
The euphemisms are staggering. No one mentions what it really is, the killing of an unborn baby.
And the quote, “persons who need to make decisions about unexpected pregnancies.” is just either horrifying or hilarious. Does this woman really not know what causes pregnancies?
Comment by Dan W on June 25, 2022 at 1:44 pm
I wanted to add some context to my previous comment. My older brother, myself, and a lot of our schoolmates were given up for adoption by our birth mothers. The adoptees I know were born mainly between 1958 and 1973. We were all Pre-Roe babies. Birth control and abortion are not the only options for an unwanted pregnancy.
Comment by betsy on June 25, 2022 at 2:08 pm
There is much work yet to be done when it comes to why men and women engage in sexual relationships.
A young female protestor in Chicago justified having an abortion because without it she would “have a child with a person who was not a partner”.
The U. S. Attorney General, Merrick Garland’s response to the reversal of Roe v Wade included this statement: “The Supreme Court has eliminated an established right that has been an essential component of women’s liberty for half a century – a right that has safeguarded women’s ability to participate fully and equally in society. ” https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-merrick-b-garland-statement-supreme-court-ruling-dobbs-v-jackson-women-s
Comment by David on June 25, 2022 at 9:01 pm
In the major Jewish traditions, a fetus does not have personhood until it breathes air (is born). The words used for “soul” or “spirit” are all related to breathing in Hebrew. So again, it is a religious opinion. Given that an estimated 45% of human conceptions fail, one can only conclude that God favors abortion. Otherwise, things would be different and all fetuses would turn out as Gerber babies. God either approves of this or is powerless to stop it. You cannot have both ways. There are instances where science tells us more about God than scripture.
Comment by Loren J Golden on June 25, 2022 at 11:04 pm
“Given that an estimated 45% of human conceptions fail, one can only conclude that God favors abortion. Otherwise, things would be different and all fetuses would turn out as Gerber babies. God either approves of this or is powerless to stop it. You cannot have both ways.”
David,
That is a patently false conclusion. Miscarriages do not occur because someone has deliberately decided that a fetus should die. Abortions do. Intent matters profoundly.
To apply your logic to the human condition, one would say, “Given that 100% of human lives end in death, one can only conclude that God favors murder.” However, the fact that God Himself gave “You shall not murder” as one of the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20.13, Dt. 5.17) argues decisively against this conclusion. It also argues decisively against yours.
As I point out in my blog, “Miscarriage is a sad fact in this world lost in sin and is itself a curse of the Fall. Had our first parents not fallen, there would be no miscarriages, no stillbirths, and no infant deaths in this world. This is not to say that miscarriages, stillbirths, or infant deaths are punishments for specific sins committed by the children’s parents, any more than that a man should be born blind because of his parents’ sin (Jn. 9.1-3). But the sad fact of miscarriages will remain until the Lord Jesus returns in glory and makes all things new.”
The value of human life is that God made humankind—male and female—in His image (Gen. 1.26-27, 5.1-2, 9.5-6, I Cor. 11.7, Eph. 4.24, Col. 3.10, Jas. 3.9), and to deliberately kill a human being is to murder God in effigy (Gen. 9.5-6).
If you disbelieve and dismiss this testimony of Scripture as to the ground of the value of human life as, “forcing a religious belief on others in violation of their 1st Amendment rights,” then you need to answer the following questions:
1. Upon what objective ground is the value of human life predicated, and why should the deliberate termination of human life (i.e., murder) be illegal?
2. Upon what objective ground does a woman have human rights, whereas a living human being in her womb does not?
Comment by Quigg Lawrence on June 26, 2022 at 7:36 am
The fundamental sin involved in those who advocate and participate in the shedding of innocent blood (something Scripture declares that God hates!) is the idolatrous belief that we not our Heavenly Father are the Creator and therefore possess the right to end that innocent life
Secondly, answer this question, “Does dismembering a helpless baby of any age glorify God?”. Does that sinful sense of ownership and murder GLORIFY God or glorify the flesh?
Whenever someone starts screaming about THEIR RIGHTS, you have a clear indication that the creature is usurping the rights of the Creator.
Abortion, except in the rare case of a legitimate threat to the mother’s life, is a sacrament for those who mistakenly think they are God.
Comment by David S. on June 27, 2022 at 8:27 am
David,
Many others have addressed the deficiencies of your religious and moral arguments, so I shall address the deficiencies of your point on the legal history and a few points of church history. You are clearly misinformed about the legal aspects regarding abortion law prior to the ratification of the Constitution. Had you actually read the opinion written by Justice Alito, you would have immediately noticed the great pains to which he went to establish the legal history regarding abortion under English common law on which our legal system and order is based, including the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the United States Constitution, which succeeded the Articles as the foundational governing document. Justice Alito traces the common law history all the way back to a 13th century law and explains why the arguments surrounding the permissibility of abortion under that.
Regarding church history and tradition that rejects abortion is that during the Roman era, if one could not procure an abortion, or did not want the risk of an abortion, one simply had the child and then set it out in the elements to die or be killed by the wild animals. In the Roman era, what we would now legally considered infanticide, would be considered as equal to abortion until a certain period immediately after birth. Then, as a historian has recently pointed out, contrary to popular assumptions, during the 19th century American evangelicals were opposed to abortion, the most notable example being the Presbyterian Hodge family, which included a few ministers, most notably Charles Hodge, President of “Old” Princeton Seminary, and a few doctors. Lastly, while most certainly the apparent evangelical opposition waned to a select few between the late 19th and through the mid-20th century due to the modernist debates over much weightier theological matters regarding the Scripture and Christ, Roe served as a wake-up call to the broader group of evangelicals that abortion needed to be addressed once more.
General comment regarding the Mainline Denomination not mentioned
The PC(USA), which is currently in the midst of a hybrid General Assembly at the denominational headquarters in Louisville took a unique approach to addressing the decision. Rather than Mr. J. Herbert Nelson, II issuing a statement individually on behalf of the denomination and the General Assembly, a video statement featuring himself, President and Executive Director Diane Moffett of the Presbyterian Mission Agency, Ms. Joanne Sharpe (a Director of Education at a Colorado Congregation), and Mr. Jimmie Hawkins of the Office of Public Witness was released.
The statement was generally filled with the usual leftist to far leftist language already mentioned above without any mention of historic language addressing both sides of the issue, which denominational leadership prior to the election of Mr. Nelson and the ratification of the 2014 amendments on marriage to the Book of Order occurred would release. Frankly, the change in approach can only be interpreted as the denomination is officially pro-abortion, while continuing to using the pro-choice language that is officially adopted as a euphemism and cover and the leadership is in direct contravention of the historic intent of the General Assembly. (What else is new in light of the goings on in the UMC over LGBT matters and disaffiliation.) However, the most telling matter is this quote from Mr. Nelson, that was published in the website news release of the video statement: “The Presbyterian Church has been very clear about its position on this matter,” said Nelson. “We still have a lot to say about this issue from the impact on people of color, health and safety, as well as religious freedom.”
It seems that after denouncing the exercise of religious freedom and liberty at its 2018 General Assembly over LGBT matters, the apostates and false Christians running the PC(USA) are now suddenly concerned about this issue. Some far leftist individuals in the visible church have labeled the right to have an abortion as an exercise of religious freedom, which ironically, the Church of Satan has asserted on its social media feed. Kind of tells you all that you need to know about these people calling themselves Christians, if they are in agreement with the Satanists on this matter.
Comment by Rev. Dr. Lee D Cary (ret. UM clergy) on June 27, 2022 at 2:51 pm
“‘I am deeply grieved by it,’ wrote Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop Michael Curry. ‘We as a church have tried carefully to be responsive both to the moral value of women having the right to determine their healthcare choices as well as the moral value of all life. Today’s decision institutionalizes inequality because women with access to resources will be able to exercise their moral judgment in ways that women without the same resources will not.”
With due respect, Bishop Curry’s convoluted statement is unworthy of the leader of a significant Protestant Christian denomination, or any denomination for that matter.
1. Labeling the ‘moral value” of abortion as ‘health care’ is comparable to calling an execution by lethal injection an act of kindness. Or the murder of German Jews as ethnic cleansing.
2. The Bishop grossly exaggerates the impact of the SCOTUS decision. Except in those (likely few) states where abortion is allowed under no circumstances, non-profit organizations will pay for transportation to open-abortion that offer abortion services to out-of-state patrons. (Perhaps Bishop Curry’s denomination can start a fund to make available travel expenses for that purpose.)
3. Even without a law degree, the Bishop should know that an abortion is not a Constitutional right. Declaring it so 49 years ago was a mistake. Since then, over 63,000,000 abortions have resulted in the premature extinguishing of about 40 million black fetuses. So, just how did that advance ‘health care’?
BTW: To be fair, the recent statement of the Bishops of the United Methodist Church (in the process of self-aborting) is equally as unenlightened.