BIRMINGHAM — The 217th General Assembly Health Committee on June 17 voted to recommend to the General Assembly disapproval of Overture 10-02 from the Presbytery of Beaver-Butler. The proposal asked that no funds of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) be used to support any advocacy either for or against abortion.
The overture had the concurrence of Shenango presbytery.
Jim Powers, elder of the Beaver-Butler Presbytery and overture advocate, called their proposal an even-handed, balanced approach to making sure no PC(USA) monies were used for pro-or anti-abortion support such as information materials. Presbyterians who think their contributions are going to fund a position antithetical to their own cease giving to the denomination, according to Powers. Adoption of their overture would likely result in some donors reestablishing their giving to the PC(USA), he indicated.
The overture also encouraged PC(USA) congregations and members to voluntarily support organizations that represented their convictions on this matter.
“This overture is position neutral–it does call for the end of a contentious practice,” he told the committee. For instance, he cited the use of the term “pro-abortion” rather than “pro-choice” and conversely, “Why are ‘pro-life’ members noted as ‘anti-choice’ in PC(USA) publications?” he asked. Powers said later the basis of their characterization of some denominational resources was computer word searches on terms like “pro-abortion” or “anti-choice”.
Such terminology seen in PC(USA)-funded resources places some Presbyterians in an ethical “mental cul-de-sac,” he said.
Commissioners acknowledged the deeply-held positions of Presbyterians on human reproductive issues, but focused most specifically on the questions of effects the overture would have on denominational agencies’ funding and the smorgasbord approach to giving.
Some felt the concerns expressed in the overture were already addressed in current documents such as “Problem Pregnancies and Abortion” (1992). Charles Youther of Miami Presbytery noted that despite such documents many Presbyterians have a misunderstanding about both official positions on such issues and the funding related to groups working in these fields. “After 14 years we have not successfully explained to our denomination where we stand,” he said.
Karen Chakoian of Scioto Valley presbytery raised the issue of timing in light of the recent GAC restructuring. “Allow the process to go forward for two years. This overture is premature. See what develops,” she said.
Funding questions centered on how certain groups such as the PC(USA) Washington Office, PARO (Presbyterians Affirming Reproductive Options) a network of PHEWA (Presbyterian Health and Welfare Association) are funded; and what, if any, funding streams–per capita, designated, etc.–would be affected by this overture. Powers had asserted that some advocacy groups including the PC(USA) Washington Office were funded through per capita giving. Elenora Giddings Ivory, director of the Washington Office, clarified for the committee that no per capita funds were used for the Washington Office. Adoption of the overture could also affect PC(USA) ecumenical efforts with other groups, for example working with United Methodists in disaster relief. Methodists have adopted a pro-choice position.
Two PC(USA) agencies made recommendations on this overture. Both ACWC (Advocacy Committee in Women’s Concerns) and ACSWP (Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy) recommended the overture be disapproved.
