Greetings:

Now that the Supreme Court of the U.S. has determined that it is reasonable for states to intervene in an individual's ability to preserve individual bodily integrity and to use the force of law to coerce each and every pregnant woman into full-term birth, I thought it might be useful to revisit the PC(USA) stance on reproductive choice from 1992:

The position of the 204th General Assembly (1992) Majority Report

(a) The state has a limited legitimate interest in regulating abortions and in restricting abortions and in restricting abortions in certain circumstances.

(b) Within this context of the state’s limited legitimate interest, no law should impose criminal penalties against any woman who chooses or physician who performs a medically safe abortion.

(c) Within this same context of the state’s limited legitimate interest, no law should deny access to safe and affordable services for the persons seeking to terminate a problem pregnancy.

(d) No law or administrative decision should provide for a complete ban on abortion.

(e) No law or administrative decision should

(i) limit access to abortions;

(ii) limit information and counseling concerning abortions; or

(iii) limit or prohibit public funding for necessary abortions for the socially and economically disadvantaged.

(f) No law should prohibit access to, nor the practice of contraceptive measures.

(g) No law should sanction any action intended to harm or harass those persons contemplating or deciding to have an abortion.

(h) No law should condone mandatory or forced abortion or sterilization. Such laws should be abolished where they do exist.

And further affirming that no state or federal law should be enacted to defund or criminalize family planning for the purpose of denying or delaying access to family planning services…

In posting this stance on social media, I was asked how the church could support taking a life. In responding, it is important to note that the Bible is not a great resource in defining biological process. The point at which life “begins” is open to interpretation. For the most part, insofar as it can be determined, Scripture seems to define life as the moment of independent breath rather than conception or heartbeat (Genesis 2.7). Psalm 139.13-16, often quoted in these conversations, indicates the life in the womb is a work in progress, not a completed being, using the terms knitted and woven. The poetic wonder of the Psalmist is how God knew him even when he was only pre-formed threads of possibility, months before he became a living being.

I realize this is not an unheated conversation. People have become extremely confident in their assertion of what God does and does not approve. Yet faithful people can disagree and remain faithful. My major concern is that the highest court of the land has put an unwavering thumb on the scale, supporting those who wish to deny women the right to weigh their own choices. On an issue where even churches disagree on substance, it troubles me when civil authority asserts absolute public control over a private concern. The only people who have an interest in a woman’s choice are those whom she has invited into the room. State legislators are not welcome guests.

Keeping my faith in God’s grace rather than politics, I remain,

With Love,
Jonathan Krogh
Your Pastor