Riley B. Case
One of the most divisive issues facing society, as well as the church, is the issue of abortion. While many people, on either side of the abortion issue, would like for the Social Principles to state more firmly either a stronger pro-life or a pro-choice position, others who call themselves moderate, believe that the United Methodist Social Principles represent a careful attempt to steer a middle position between the extremes.
On the one hand The Social Principles, under certain circumstances, support the right of abortion. On the other hand the Social Principles are very definite and restrictive as to what those circumstances are. There are references to the sanctity of unborn life, as well as a reference to “tragic conflicts of life with life” (which assume that the unborn child is “life” and not just a fetus). There is a strong opposition to abortion as a means of birth control, which strictly speaking, would rule out 99 percent of the abortions. There is unconditional opposition to abortion as a means of gender selection and to late-term abortions. There is mention of our reluctance to approve abortion.
One of the problems facing the church, which causes a great deal of misunderstanding among United Methodists, is that the United Methodist position is sometimes referred to as a “pro-choice” position, whereas in actuality the position is much more nuanced and is an attempt to find some middle ground between pro-life and pro-choice.
Our church’s careful position is obscured especially with the membership of the General Board of Church and Society and the Women’s Division in the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. There is nothing nuanced about where the Coalition stands. The Coalition stands for abortion without restrictions. There is no mention of the sanctity of life. There is no mention of tragic conflicts of life with life. There are continual references to support for partial-birth abortions. The unborn child is never called an unborn child but always a “fetus.” There is continual harsh rhetoric against what the Coalition refers to, in pejorative language, as the “anti-choice” position. The Coalition’s position might be described as: any time at any place under any circumstances if the woman so decides.
The coalition claims to speak for groups with membership of 40 million. This, of course, includes groups like the Unitarian-Universalists, the American Humanist Association, Ethical Culture, and Reform and Conservative Judaism. Even with all that, and even if all of Methodism is thrown into the number, the 40 million is less than 20 percent of America’s Christian population. The vast majority of American Christians are far more moderate or conservative on the issue of abortion.
In other words, the Coalition for Reproductive Choice should be considered an extremist organization, every bit as far to the left as any of the groups that are sometimes identified as the “religious right.” The church would object strenuously if any of our agencies belonged to any of the “pro-life” coalitions. Why then do we not object when denominational money is committed to a coalition which basically lobbies for abortion on demand without any restrictions and advocates a position which is violation of the United Methodist Social Principles?
There will be an opportunity at General Conference to delete a Resolution that supports the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. This would not change the United Methodist position on abortion at all, but it would help clarify the perception that church supports an extremist position on abortion.
Riley B. Case is a retired member of the North Indiana Conference, assistant executive director of the Confessing Movement, and a lifetime member of the Good News Board of Directors. He is also the author of “Evangelical and Methodist: A Popular History” (Abingdon).