One of the most important decisions delegates to the 2008 General Conference of the United Methodist Church will make about our denomination’s public witness is whether we should continue the current membership of our General Board of Church and Society (GBCS) and Women’s Division of the General Board of Global Ministries in the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC).
Formerly known as the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights, or RCAR, RCRC is an activist group primarily focused on the domestic U.S. politics around abortion.[1]
The question before each General Conference delegate is NOT so much whether or not one might personally agree with some or most of the work of RCRC. Rather, the question is whether it is appropriate to use the name of our WHOLE church, which includes millions of faithful members who disagree with RCRC, to offer an unqualified, “blank-check” endorsement to the ongoing work of RCRC.
We respectfully urge the 2008 General Conference to end our denomination’s membership in RCRC, which would involve ADOPTING Petition #80033 — “Withdraw from the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice” (Advanced Daily Christian Advocate Volume 2, p.348) and Petition #80179 — Delete Resolution #114 (ADCA Volume 2, p. 393) and, while REJECTING Petition #80727 — Retain Resolution #114 (ADCA Volume 2, p. 393).
Another relevant resolution worthy of review is Petition #814530 — “United Methodism and the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice” (ADCA Volume 2, pp. 433-434).
All of these have been assigned the Church and Society Committee 2.
What follows is an explanation of specific concerns that delegates should keep in mind as they consider these petitions.
RCRC vs. Our United Methodist Social Principles
What UMC Leaders Say About RCRC
RCRC vs. Our United Methodist Social Principles
Withdrawing our church’s “blank check” endorsement from RCRC would NOT change the official UMC position on abortion as expressed in our Social Principles. In fact, there are several points of conflict between the positions of RCRC and of the Social Principles:
Our Social Principles express “[o]ur belief in the sanctity of unborn human life,” (¶161J)
RCRC refuses to make the same affirmation about the sanctity of unborn human life. In fact, it has at times trivialized the moral significance of the unborn human child, even suggesting that it has no greater moral significance than a kidney[2] or an inanimate rock.[3] RCRC also argues that while “[p]eople have an absolute value in Western morality, fetuses do not.”[4]
Our Social Principles only “reluctant[ly]” giving qualified approval to legalized abortion (¶161J)
RCRC describes performing abortions as “sacred work,”[5] “God’s work,”[6] and “holy work, service provided by God’s people on behalf of God’s people.”[7] This group also encourages supporters to organize events for “[m]embers of the clergy (and political leaders) appearing in front of a clinic [that provides abortions] to ‘bless’ the work they do” in order to “show a powerful symbol of support for reproductive choice”[8]
Our Social Principles say that “[w]e cannot affirm abortion as an acceptable means of birth control, and we unconditionally reject it as a means of gender selection” (¶161J)
RCRC refuses to clearly acknowledge any reason or situation which would make a choice for abortion morally wrong. Its “Words of Choice” publication decries and decries anyone (such as our church) even speaking about “abortion as birth control” or “abortion for gender selection.”[9]
If one considers the dictionary definition of “birth control,” namely, “control of the number of children born,” then we see a conflict with our Social Principles when RCRC vehemently defends abortion as an acceptable option in all circumstances, within the context of its viewing abortion as part of people “making their own decisions about their reproductive life” and exercising control over whether or not the child in question is born.[10] RCRC further defends its abortion ethos by invoking “the right to decide whether you want to have children or not” and asserting that “[t]he bottom line is that if someone does not want to have a child they should not be forced into it.”[11]
Other evidence that RCRC sees abortion as an acceptable means of birth control includes the “Chicago Declaration,” first released by its Illinois chapter in the 1970s, which declares that “[t]he decision to use a pre-fertilization (eg. Condom, diaphragm) or a post-fertilization (eg. I.U.D., stilbesterol) birth control measure, specifically including an early surgical abortion, is a matter of personal conscience.”[12]
There is another way to look at this. According to a recent study by the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute — widely cited by both sides of the abortion debate as a reliable source of data — only a minority of American women who have abortions cite such reasons as “possible [emphasis added] problems affecting the health of the fetus” (13%), concerns about maternal health (including such non-lethal problems as morning sickness, 12 %), or the pregnancy being the result of rape (1%) or incest (less than 0.5%). Much more common reasons given were “having a baby would dramatically change my life” (74%), “can’t afford a baby now” (73%), “don’t want to be a single mother or having relationship problems” (48%), and “have completed my childbearing” (38%).[13] In other words, most abortions in the United States are performed because of non-medical reasons that could be reasonably described as birth control, or perhaps “back up” birth control. Yet the U.S.-focused RCRC broadly defends all abortions.
Our Social Principles “oppose” and “call for the end of” most partial-birth abortions (¶161J)
Since the mid-1990s, RCRC has consistently lobbied legislators as well as U.S. Supreme Court justices against any limits on partial-birth abortion.
It is true that our Social Principles statement opposing partial-birth abortion does make exceptions for rare instances “when the physical life of the mother is in danger and no other medical procedure is available, or in the case of severe fetal anomalies incompatible with life.” In most cases, this specific procedure has not been performed because of problems with the mother’s physical health (let alone life) or fetal abnormalities.[14]
In its energetic lobbying in defense of partial-birth abortions, RCRC has repeatedly made clear that it opposes any meaningful attempt to limit the procedure. An October 2, 1995 letter sent by RCRC, NARAL, Planned Parenthood and others to Members of Congress broadly argued that it was “unprecedented, and inappropriate, for Congress to legislate the type of surgical procedure [including partial-birth abortion] that a physician may or may not use in a particular case.” In a Supreme Court brief filed in 2006, RCRC broadly “urge[d] the Court to not allow Congress to force a moral consensus” on the specific practice of partial-birth abortion.[15] These are but two of many possible examples of RCRC making clear that its strong opposition to government oversight and regulation of abortion even extends to partial-birth abortions.[16]
Interestingly, the late-term abortion practitioner who was the lead plaintiff for the two U.S. Supreme Court cases on partial-birth abortions is an RCRC Board member.[17]
While RCRC has occasionally faulted specific legislative attempts to ban partial-birth abortion for failing to include a broad exception for the mother’s “health,” the 2000 General Conference rejected an amendment to add such a “health” exception to our opposition to the practice. American abortion law has treated considerations of the mother’s health as broadly including such factors as her emotional state, so that a wide exception for the maternal “health” would effectively nullify any ban.[18] One 2000 General Conference delegate appeared to point this out before the vote was taken.[19]
It is important to keep in mind what RCRC is defending when it defends partial-birth abortion: “Sometimes called D and X, for dilation and extraction, it entails partly extracting an intact fetus from a woman’s uterus and killing it by collapsing and removing the brain from the skull so that the fetus can pass through the birth canal.”[20]
Our Social Principles teach that “sexual relations are only clearly affirmed in the marriage bond” (¶161G) — which is a covenant of “shared fidelity between a man and a woman” — and “support laws in civil society that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman”(¶161C)
RCRC negatively characterizes “the conservative Christian view that both pre-marital sex and homosexual conduct are sinful and therefore to be avoided” as “a narrow moral view” which is “supported by extremist organizations.”[21] RCRC also promotes “a new sexual theology” that “will celebrate fidelity in our commitments without legalistic prescription as to the precise forms such fidelity must make.”[22] (Apparently, expecting your spouse to never cheat on you may be too “legalistic.”)
The website of RCRC’s Missouri chapter features a sermon by its executive director in which she argues for “new sexual ethics” that “should emphasize monogamy instead of marriage.” Among the critiques she offers of the ethic that sex is only for marriage are the protests that such a moral standard “ignores same-sex relationships” and “just plain doesn’t work in our culture.”[23]
Our Social Principles consider homosexual practice to be “incompatible with Christian teaching” (¶161G)
RCRC’s leaders repeatedly use their positions to oppose United Methodist teaching on homosexuality. RCRC has argued at length that “[i]t is, at best, inaccurate to use scripture to condemn committed, consensual same-gender sexual relationships.”[24] Several RCRC leaders have endorsed a “Religious Declaration” calling for church “blessing of same sex unions” that was developed by an Institute whose Advisory Board includes RCRC President and CEO Carlton Veazey.[25] RCRC’s own Speakers’ Bureau includes the President of the Board of the Massachusetts Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry (a group dedicated to lobbying for same-sex marriage — in opposition to our Social Principles) and an advisory board member for the National Religious Leadership Roundtable (a program of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force).
RCRC’s chief executive has also used the prominence of his position to endorse a 20-page booklet entitled “And God Loves Each One: A Resource for Dialogue About Sexual Orientation” that argues that the Bible does not truly condemn the practice of homosexuality (pages 10-11) and challenges readers to “support those among us who strive to establish loving, enriching, committed relationships of whatever sexual orientation” (page 17).[26]
Much more documentation of RCRC’s opposition to the UMC’s position on homosexuality is contained in the “Argument” section of a brief filed in 2006 with the Judicial Council of The United Methodist Church by the Rev. Karen Booth (the following link also explains the context for this brief):
Our Social Principles “urge policies and practices that ensure the right of every religious group to exercise its faith free from legal, political, or economic restrictions” and “condemn all overt and covert forms of religious intolerance” (¶162B)
Despite describing its own perspective as “pro-choice,” RCRC has repeatedly appeared critical of conscience protections to allow pro-life health professionals the right to choose not to participate in abortions.[27]
In a recent mailing to 2008 General Conference delegates, RCRC touts the fact that in 1992, our Judicial Council issued Decision #683, stating that support for RCRC was consistent with the position of the Social Principles on abortion. However, that decision was made eight years before the General Conference added the statement on partial-birth abortions. Furthermore, that decision only compared the positions of RCRC and the Social Principles on abortion, ignoring other important areas of conflict such as those cited above. During the oral arguments for the case Council members did not ask any questions (although they asked many questions during a the oral arguments for another case in the same Judicial Council session). In its decision, the Judicial Council cited only three RCRC documents.[28] More recently, in Decision #1047, the Judicial Council notably declined to affirm an assertion that “RCRC does not conflict with the Social Principles.”
But RCRC’s conflict with UMC teaching is not limited to the Social Principles. Along with all faith communities within the bounds of historic, Trinitarian Christianity, our United Methodist Church teaches that some of our human choices are sinful, and it is for our sins that Jesus Christ had to suffer and die for us on the cross.[29]
In contrast, RCRC encourages religious leaders to “tell women that all of their choices, including their choice for abortion, are holy and healthy”[30] (emphasis added). In advising women considering abortion, RCRC appears to further promote a vision of God unconditionally blessing all human decisions, teaching: “You are to claim your godlike, God-given role in creation by saying yes or no, secure in the knowledge that whatever you decide, after having honestly sought what is right, God will bless.”[31]
One RCRC publication even asserts that it was “not clearly right or wrong,” from a moral perspective, for Mary to have “chose[n] to have her child, Jesus.”[32]
In a recent mailing to General Conference delegates, RCRC called itself a “respected voice of moderation.” However, independent polling data reveals that in the particular political and legislative fights that RCRC picks (in our church’s name), it is actually on the extreme end of the American political spectrum, staunchly opposing even moderate, commonsense regulations of abortion widely supported by “pro-lifers” and “pro-choicers” alike. Here are some examples:
|
The American People |
RCRC |
|
80% support “requiring that at least one parent be told before a girl under 18 years of age could have an abortion”[33] |
“oppose[s] all such legislation”[34]
|
|
78% support legally “requiring women seeking abortions to wait 24 hours before having the procedure done”[35] |
Consistently opposes such “waiting period” laws[36] |
|
72% favor outlawing partial-birth abortions[37] |
Has repeatedly lobbied against any attempt to limit the practice; decried the federal ban on it as “devastating”[38] |
|
74% oppose “tax dollars” being “used to pay for abortion”[39 |
Routinely condemns limits on taxpayer funds for even medically unnecessary abortions[40] |
RCRC has shown itself to be more extreme and uncompromising in its defense of abortion than even much of the secular leadership of the pro-choice movement. In a recent book, prominent Democratic political strategists James Carville and Paul Begala, both of whom are staunchly pro-choice, respectively call opposition to such measures as parental notification and banning partial-birth abortions “remarkable” and “the very definition of extremism.”[41] When the U.S. Congress considered “the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act” (which would have required women seeking late-term abortions to be given information about the “substantial evidence” that unborn children may be capable of feeling pain after 20 weeks and to be given the option of anesthesia for their unborn child), even NARAL Pro-Choice America did not oppose it.[42] Yet in a 2006 e-mail alert to supporters, RCRC stressed “the urgency and importance of defeating this bill,” although RCRC acknowledged that the pro-choice House Democratic leadership had “said this will be a ‘vote of conscience’ and they will not attempt to sway the outcome.”[43] This bill is an example of the sort of specific issues in which our church’s witness is effectively “outsourced” to RCRC despite the General Conference’s having not taken a position.
Several other “mainline” U.S. Protestant denominations with similarly nuanced positions on abortion to that of the UMC are not affiliated with RCRC.
The Northern Province of the Moravian Church officially declares “that abortion should be a matter of responsible personal decision” and “view[s] abortion in the perspective of possibly bringing mercy to a difficult situation” (emphasis original). Yet it has ended its membership in RCRC, citing, among other concerns, a desire to “the inevitability of differences of opinion” over the work of RCRC. The full Northern Moravian position on abortion can be read on pages 11-14 at this link [link to: mncp.org].
Similarly, the American Baptist Churches, USA decline to take a clearly “pro-life” position on abortion. Instead, that denomination “acknowledge[s] the diversity of deeply held convictions within our fellowship.” Its full position on abortion can be read here. This denomination has also ended its past membership in RCRC.[44]
The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) has a position on abortion that is in key ways more strongly “pro-choice” than our Social Principles statement. However, its Homeland Ministries division rejected formal affiliation with RCRC, citing a belief that “[c]hurch members must speak as individuals, accountable for their beliefs and concerns, rather than hide behind a corporate or bureaucratic strategy.”[45]
The position of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), which can be read here, contains both significant “pro-choice” and “pro-life” elements, as does the UMC Social Principles. Yet the 1995 ELCA Churchwide Assembly voted overwhelmingly (778 to 101) against affiliating with RCRC, after a committee pointed out that RCRC’s exclusive focus on promoting the “pro-choice” side of U.S. abortion politics was inconsistent with the denomination’s more balanced position.[46]
All of this is to say nothing of that large part of the body of Christ that strongly and categorically opposes abortion.
There are significant ecumenical barriers created by our membership in RCRC. This is particularly true in light of its often harsh rhetoric toward pro-life Christians, whom on countless occasions it has broadly denounced with such epithets as “radical”[47] and “anti-women”[48] “neo-fascists,”[49] “Religious Right fundamentalists,”[50] “the forces of oppression,” “twisted ideologues” who seek to “again teach everybody that the Earth is flat,” and “extremists” who “are trying to roll back every right.”[51]
While it is one thing to seek to lovingly defend one’s positions in the context of civil dialogue, what good is accomplished by our church attaching its name to such uncharitable and unconstructive name-calling against our brothers and sisters in Christ?
While hurting the cause of unity with many of our fellow Christians, our membership in RCRC also yokes our church with some curious partners. For instance, RCRC’s other member organizations include the openly “nontheistic” American Ethical Union and Society for Humanistic Judaism. One RCRC article promotes the perspective of a self-described “Wiccan High Priestess” who argues that “[a]ll consensual sex is good, even when it is simply a pleasure shared between friends.”[52]
Another awkward ally with whom our church has, though RCRC, made common cause is the pornography industry. In RCRC’s early years, it received funding from the Playboy Foundation, whose stated goal is “to implement the principles of the Playboy Philosophy and to support issues reflected in the editorial message of Playboy magazine.” RCRC has also received funding from abortion clinics themselves.[53]
As mentioned at the outset, the question before each General Conference delegate is NOT primarily much whether or not you might personally agree with some or even most of the positions promoted by RCRC. Rather, the question is whether we should use the name and reputation of our ENTIRE church, which includes millions of faithful members who disagree with RCRC, to offer an unqualified endorsement to the whole of RCRC’s work. While retaining Resolution #114 (which puts the General Conference “on the record in support of the work of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice”) does not completely prevent our church from taking our own positions on specific relevant issues, it does significantly complicate our public witness, as it allows RCRC to continue purporting to represent our church and its membership, in spite of its many disagreements with our Social Principles.[54]
Some supporters of our denomination’s continued endorsement of RCRC have asserted that there is value in our “staying at the table” for the sake of conveying our denomination’s particular positions. Yet if that were all that the General Conference wanted to do, it could pass a motion to authorize the sending of official observers with voice but not vote to meetings of RCRC — as well as to meetings of the National Pro-Life Religious Council — without requiring that any official agencies of our denomination be formal members of either coalition and without having the General Conference offer any unqualified endorsement of the work of either. It should also be kept in mind that the General Board of Church and Society (GBCS) has had its staffer, Linda Bales, as its representative on the RCRC Council of Governors, despite the fact that she is on the record as opposing the Social Principles statement on partial-birth abortion. At the Fall 2002 GBCS meeting, she (unsuccessfully) lobbied directors to support a motion to delete that sentence.
We should also remember the circumstances in which the 2004 General Conference (by a relatively close vote) adopted Resolution #114, affirming the work of RCRC and the membership of our two general agencies in it. The record shows that the plenary session only allotted two minutes of discussion on this resolution. Furthermore, the vote was taken after one RCRC supporter assured fellow delegates that RCRC “does not do or advocate for anything which is inconsistent with” our Social Principles, and there was no opportunity for rebuttal (despite the mistakenness of this assertion demonstrated above). The fact that over 42% of voting delegates opposed continued UMC affiliation with RCRC, even with such favorable voting circumstances for the status quo, demonstrates that our denomination is far from being of one mind on RCRC.[55]
We hope that this time, General Conference delegates will have more time to review relevant information and adequately discuss the concerns United Methodists have about RCRC. And we respectfully urge this General Conference to vote to ADOPT Petition #80179 (ADCA Volume 2, p. 393) and Petition #80033 (ADCA Volume 2, p.348), while REJECTING Petition # 80727 (ADCA Volume 2, p. 393).
A great resource for information on RCRC and its dramatic departures from the teachings of the very denominations it purports to represent is the short 2003 book, Holy Abortion? A Theological Critique of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. It can now be read or listened to online: #
Another great online source of information on RCRC is, of course, the group’s own website: www.rcrc.org
What UMC Leaders Say About RCRC
“I think it’s a mistake for us to have agencies of the church that are involved there, because I think it really compromises the Christian witness of protecting those who have been conceived and are in the womb.” [56]
Bishop Timothy Whitaker, Florida
“I wouldn’t want one nickel of my money going to that group.”[57]
Bishop Lindsey Davis, North Georgia
“Hopefully, Holy Abortion? A Theological Critique of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice will be a wake-up call for all who have let the stridency about this issue lull them into indifference. Christians simply cannot give up our commitments to the care of unborn life.”[58]
Stanley Hauerwas
Gilbert T. Rowe
Professor of Theological Ethics
Duke Divinity School
“The problem with the coalition is that it only sounds like it supports a woman’s choice and ignores the part in the Book of Discipline about the unborn.” [59]
Bishop Richard Looney (now retired)
In 2007, five United Methodist Annual Conferences (Holston, South Indiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Northwest Texas) adopted resolutions or General Conference petitions calling our denomination to end its affiliation with RCRC.
[1] Projects that are more international in their scope constitute a rather small part of RCRC’s overall work.
[2] One RCRC publication includes this moral argument: “If one turns the argument around and says that it is wrong to abort a fetus because God created it, then one is face with other difficulties. Should a physician not remove or transplant a kidney? Because God created plants and living creatures, does that mean that we may not kill organisms in either category?” Roy Bowen Ward, “Is The Fetus a Person? The Bible’s View,” RCRC Educational Series No. 2, page 4; available from #; accessed 12 April 2008.
[3] On page 8 of RCRC’s “Prayerfully Pro-Choice: Resources for Worship,” the Rev. Howard Moody declares that the reverence pro-lifers have for the life of the unborn human child (which he caricatures as “the deification of the fetus”) “is as heretical an idolatry as any pagan practice whereby a human was sacrificed for the sake of some idolized animal, stone, or tree….” This document is available from #; accessed 12 April 2008.
[4] Paul D. Simmons, “Personhood, the Bible, and the Abortion Debate,” RCRC Educational Series No. 3, page 2; available from: #; accessed 12 April 2008. The next sentence reads “They have value, but they are not of equal moral value with actual persons—in particular, the pregnant woman.”
[5] That specific remark was made by the RCRC Board Chair at the annual meeting of the National Abortion Federation, which describes itself as “the professional association of abortion providers in the United States and Canada.” Prayerfully Pro-Choice, pp. 27-31.
[6] Prayerfully Pro-Choice, p. 102.
[7] Prayerfully Pro-Choice, p. 101.
[8] Prayerfully Pro-Choice, p. 63.
[9] RCRC, “Words of Choice: Countering Anti-Choice Rhetoric,” pp. 2-4; available from #; accessed 12 April 2008.
[10] RCRC, “FAQs”; available from #; accessed 12 April 2008.
[11] Prayerfully Pro-Choice, p. 35.
[12] A copy of this statement was reprinted in the May 29, 1991 issue of the Lifewatch newsletter.
[13] These figures reflect respondents being able to cite multiple reasons. Lawrence B. Finer et al., “Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives,” Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 37, no. 3 (2005): pp. 110–118; available from: #; accessed 12 April 2008.
[14] Among many other possible citations is an article from the Los Angeles Times reporting that roughly 3,000 to 5,000 partial-birth abortions were performed each year in the United States and that “Doctors say only a small percentage of those are done because of medical complications or fetal deformity.” David G. Savage, “Abortion Method Returns to Justices: Supporters of a Law Banning ‘Partial-Birth’ Procedures are Counting on Alito to Provide the Key Vote in the Case,” Los Angeles Times, 7 November 2006.
[15] This quote appears on page 2 of RCRC’s brief, the full text of which can be read online, along with a statement announcing that it was being filed: #news/gonzales_v_carhart.cfm; accessed 12 April 2008.
[16] What follows is but a sampling of other instances of RCRC broadly defending the practice of partial-birth abortion, beyond what has already been noted: In an April 23, 2007 e-mail to supporters, RCRC President and CEO the Rev. Carlton Veazey declared that he was “angry and outraged” that the U.S. Supreme Court had declined to strike down “an abortion procedures ban,” in reference to the ban on partial-birth abortions. In that same e-mail, Veazey referred to the ban as “the thing we’ve feared most.” Around that same time, RCRC decried the Supreme Court’s failure to repeal the democratically enacted partial-birth abortion ban as “a devastating setback” — “Supreme Court Decision A Devastating Setback for Women's Health and Freedom of Conscience,” available from #; accessed 12 April 2008. A 2004 RCRC newsletter singled out “the so-called Partial-Birth Abortion Ban of 2003” as an example of “political radicalism” — RCRC, “Conversaitions with Clergy: Respect for Women at Core of Faith,” Faith & Choices, Fall/Winter 2004, p. 9. That same year, a newsletter of RCRC’s New York affiliate included an article written by RCRC’s Director of Public Information explained that “the RCRC Board of Directors’ view” was that the effort to legally limit partial-birth abortions (whose proponents include our denomination) was “part of a ‘deceptive and corrupt misinformation campaign to deny women full and effective reproductive health care.’” — Marjorie Signer, “Decision Confirms RCRC View that Federal Abortion Ban is Part of Campaign to Outlaw Abortion,” Voices for Choice, Spring/Summer 2004, p. 2. A November 5, 2003 press release (which has been removed from the RCRC website since it was redesigned) was entitled “RCRC Vows to Continue to Expose Deceptive Campaign About Abortion Procedures, Applauds Lawsuits to Stop the Ban” and declared with characteristic stridency: “The ‘partial-birth abortion’ ban bill of 2003 signed into law by President Bush arose from a deceptive and corrupt misinformation campaign to inflame the public, confuse the media, criminalize doctors, and strip women of their ability to make medical decisions.” RCRC’s June 6, 2003 National Report (Issue 41) included an article entitled “RCRC Urges Bush to Reject ‘Partial-Birth Abortion Ban’ Bill.” That report explained that this position was reached by the RCRC board, which had issued a statement decrying opposition to partial-birth abortions as an effort “‘to further restrict the right of women to make reproductive decisions.” A June 19, 2002 RCRC press release was entitled “Reintroducing So-Called ‘Partial-Birth Abortion Ban’ Bill Defies Reason.” While this press release has also been removed from RCRC’s current website, at least the beginning of it can be viewed online at #; accessed 12 April 2008. Page 12 of RCRC’s “Words of Choice” publication broadly decries “so-called ‘partial-birth abortion’ bans” as “put[ting] women’s health and lives at risk and violat[ing] the constitutional right to reproductive choice” — RCRC, “Words of Choice: Countering Anti-Choice Rhetoric”; available from #; accessed 12 April 2008. RCRC also dismisses concerns about late-term abortions as “fodder in [pro-lifers] propaganda war against women” — RCRC, “FAQs”; available from #; accessed 12 April 2008. All of the above overwhelmingly indicates that RCRC’s defense of partial-birth abortions applies to all cases, far beyond the narrow exceptions in our Social Principles statement.
[17] RCRC News, “Supreme Court Decision A Devastating Setback for Women's Health and Freedom of Conscience,” available from #; accessed 12 April 2008.
[18] Doe v. Bolton, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling which, together with Roe v. Wade, legalized abortion throughout America, specified that the mother’s “health” (in exception clauses to abortion bans) broadly encompasses “all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the wellbeing of the patient.” United States Supreme Court, Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973); available from: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=179; accessed 12 April 2008. So in other words, an abortion doctor need only say that the pregnant woman may experience some emotional distress if she does not have the procedure or that she is in college and too young to have a baby for such a “health” exception to take effect.
[19] See pages 97-99 (or 2464-2466 in the numbering printed on the pages themselves) of the transcript for May 13, 2000: #; accessed 12 April 2008.
[20] Julia Preston, “Appeals Court Voids Ban on ‘Partial Birth’ Abortions,” New York Times, 9 July 2005.
[21] RCRC, “Special Report on Sexuality Non-Education,” 7 April 2004; available from: #; accessed 12 April 2008.
[22] The Reverend Debra W. Haffner, “The Really Good News: What the Bible Says About Sex,” RCRC Educational Series, available from #issues/good_news.cfm; accessed 12 April 2008.
[23] Rebecca Turner, “Sexual Ethics in an Oversexed, Fundamentalist World,” 23 January 2005; available from #; accessed 12 April 2008.
[24] Haffner.
[25] Endorsers are listed alphabetically at #; accessed 12 April 2008. The list of endorsers includes RCRC’s chief executive Carlton Veazey, Rabbi Bonnie Margulis (RCRC’s Director of Clergy Programming), the Rev. Dr. Katherine H. Ragsdale (who signed as chair of the RCRC Board – a position she held until 1999), the Rev. Cynthia Bumb of RCRC’s Missouri chapter, Linda Morgan Clark of RCRC’s Oklahoma chapter, the Rev. Karen Lipinczyk of RCRC’s Ohio chapter, and Jeff Briere (whose listed affiliation is “RCRC” and who is described on RCRC’s website as a Unitarian Universalist minister and member of RCRC’s Clergy for Choice network — #; accessed 12 April 2008).
[26] Ann Thompson Cook, And God Loves Each One: A Resource for Dialogue About Sexual Orientation, 2d ed. (Washington: Dumbarton United Methodist Church, 2004). The publishing congregation is a prominent member of the pro-homosexuality Reconciling Ministries Network, which “co-sponsored” the booklet. In endorsing the booklet, the RCRC’s Veazey declared that the author’s “compassion and wisdom about sexual orientation have contributed immeasurably to my life,” and he “highly recommend[ed] that you allow [this] booklet to contribute to yours.” While Veazey’s endorsement blurb appears on the back cover, it can also be read online:Amazon.com link; accessed 12 April 2008.
[27] RCRC’s article entitled “Do No Harm: Far-Right Medical Groups and Religion Don’t Mix” extensively critiques the Christian Medical Association, and notes that among other things, this “association supports so-called ‘conscience clauses’ that allow health providers to refuse to provide reproductive health services” (like abortion) — see #; accessed 12 April 2008. A July 14, 2004 e-mail action alert from Bonnie Margulis, RCRC’s Director of Clergy Programming, entitled “Urge Appropriations Committee to Vote ‘No’ on Sweeping Refusal Clause,” asserted that “It is deeply troubling to think that health care providers—both for-profit and not-for-profit—would be legally able to refuse to provide some forms of healthcare,” such as abortions. An RCRC newsletter lamented “a troubling trend toward codifying the refusal to provide services,” which it said included the facts that “45 states now allow certain medical personnel or health facilities to refuse to participate in abortion” and “22 states give individual health care providers exemptions from providing family planning services [a phrase often used as a euphemism for abortion] if they object on moral or religious grounds.” — RCRC, “Whose Conscience Counts?,” Faith & Choices, Fall/Winter 2004, p. 8. RCRC’s “In Good Conscience: Guidelines for the Ethical Provision of Health Care” released in April 2007 says that part of “the problem” it sees with the availability of abortion is the fact that “[f]orty-six states allow individual health care providers to refuse to provide abortion services and 43 of these states allow health care institutions to refuse to provide abortion services” — RCRC, “In Good Conscience: Guidelines for the Ethical Provision of Health Care,” p. 3; available from #; accessed 31 March 2008. An e-mail entitled “Stand with RCRC against the Medical Right!” sent to RCRC supporters on November 8, 2007 decried “the dangerous progression” of the efforts of “extremist medical organizations” as seen as such offenses as the fact that “46 states allow health care providers to refuse to provide abortion services.”
[28] “Abortion Rights Group O.K. by Judicial Council; RCAR Vows to Keep UMC ‘Pro-Choice,’” Lifewatch, 1 December 1992, p. 2.
[29] “Our Doctrinal Standards and Our Theological Task,” ¶¶ 101-104 in the 2004 Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church.
[30] Prayerfully Pro-Choice, “A Litany of Challenge,” pp. 75-76.
[31] Rev. George Luthringer, “Considering Abortion? Clarifying What You Believe,” RCRC Educational Series No. 9, p. 6; available from #; accessed 12 April 2008.
[32] Rev. Nancy Rockwell, “How Good Women Make Wise Choices,” RCRC Educational Series No. 7, pp. 3, 4; availablefrom #; accessed 12 April 2008.
[33] CBS News Poll. July 13-14, 2005. MoE ± 4. A Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll conducted April 25-26, 2005 found that 78% (including 64% of self-identified “pro-choice” respondents) support such parental notification laws.
[34] CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. January 10-12, 2003. MoE ± 3.
[35] Gallup Poll. May 10-13, 2007. MoE ± 3
[36] Zogby International Poll. April 15-17, 2004. MoE ± 2.8. Even on the question of the general legality of abortion, RCRC is decidedly in the minority. In a CBS News Poll of registered U.S. voters (conducted Oct. 12-16, 2007), just 26% of respondents said that abortion “should be permitted in all cases” (RCRC’s position), a total of 54% of respondents said that abortion should either never be permitted or “only be permitted” to save the women’s life or in cases of rape and incest, and 16% said that abortion “should be permitted, but subject to greater restrictions than it is now.” A more recent but more vaguely worded ABC News/Washington Post Poll (conducted Jan. 9-12, 2008 with a margin of error of ± 3), further demonstrated how RCRC’s absolutist view is not one of “moderation.” In that survey, 21% affirmed RCRC’s stance that “abortion should be legal in all cases,” 36% said that it should be “legal in most cases,” 25% said that it should be “illegal in most cases,” and 15% said “illegal in all cases.”
[37] RCRC, “FAQs,” available from #; accessed 12 April 2008. RCRC has repeatedly lobbied against such measures. According to a timeline on its website, this has been RCRC’s position since at least 1991 — RCRC, “A Proud History as a Voice of Conscience” available from #; accessed 12 April 2008.
[38] Among other places on the RCRC website, see RCRC, “Call to Justice: Abortion Access,” 9 January 2006; available from #; accessed 12 April 2008.
[39] RCRC News, “Supreme Court Decision A Devastating Setback for Women's Health and Freedom of Conscience,” available from #; accessed 12 April 2008.
[40] See, for example, RCRC, “Call to Justice: Abortion Access,” 9 January 2006; available from #; accessed 12 April 2008.
[41] James Carville and Paul Begala, Take It Back: Our Party, Our Country, Our Future (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006), pp. 36-37.
[42] Congressman Steve Chabot, Opening Statement for Oversight Hearing on “Pain of the Unborn,” 1 November 2005; available from #; accessed 12 April 2008.
[43] Reverend Carlton W. Veazey, “Call Congress to Oppose Deceptive Bill,” e-mail sent 5 December 2006 on behalf of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.
[44] Michael J. Gorman and Ann Loar Brooks, Holy Abortion? A Theological Critique of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (New York: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2003), p. 43.
[45] “DHM Says ‘No’ to Abortion Rights Ties,” The Disciple, August 1994.
[46] Gorman and Brooks, 44.
[47] RCRC, “March for Women’s Lives: Huge Religious Pro-Choice Presence Captures the Nation’s Attention,” Faith & Choices, Fall/Winter 2004, p. 3.
[48] RCRC, “Anti-Choice Agenda at a Glance,” Faith & Choices, Fall/Winter 2004, p. 6.
[49] Steve Wissler, “UM Involvement in Abortion Rights Questioned,” Good News magazine, May/June 1986, p. 47.
[50] RCRC, “Religious Freedom Compels Supporter, Faith & Choices, Fall/Winter 2004, p. 11.
[51] These last few quotes are taken from an eye witness account of an RCRC-organized vigil and a speech by the Rev. Veazey — John Lomperis, “Mainline Churches Participate in Abortion Rights March,” Good News magazine, July/August 2004; available from #; accessed 12 April 2008.
[52] Judy Harrow, “Choice, Care and Responsibility: How Pagans Cope with Pregnancy Decisions” available from the website of RCRC’s Spiritual Youth for Reproductive Freedom (SYRF) program: #; accessed 12 April 2008.
[53] Wissler 46-47. Cf. “Four Facts About RCAR & the UMC that Your Annual Conference Delegates Should Know,” Lifewatch, 29 May 1991, pp. 1-2. Cf. “Abortion Rights Group O.K. by Judicial Council; RCAR Vows to Keep UMC ‘Pro-Choice,’” Lifewatch, 1 December 1992, p. 2.
[54] For instance, while lobbying U.S. Senators in 2003 on behalf of RCRC, the group’s President and CEO, Carlton Veazey, claimed that “We represent over 20 million people,” in reference to the combined membership of RCRC’s affiliated denominations: #; accessed 12 April 2008. In a letter dated 11 July 2005 urging U.S. Senators to oppose the Supreme Court nominees who fail to meet a litmus test of commitment to striking down democratically enacted restrictions on abortion, the Rev. Veazey said, “I write on behalf of the 39 national religious organizations that our members of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice” (emphasis added). In “calling for all health care providers to implement” its “In Good Conscience: Guidelines for the Ethical Provision of Health Care” (see above), RCRC claimed it was “representing” its affiliated “denominations and faith traditions” — see rcrc.org; accessed 12 April 2008. Furthermore our denomination’s continued endorsement of RCRC has sent the message to the mainstream media that RCRC represents our church’s membership. Some examples: the Associated Press has reported that RCRC “comprises organizations with more 20 million members nationwide,” with the clear implication to most readers being that these 20 million members of RCRC-affiliated denominations are represented by RCRC (“Religious Groups Sign on to Protest Notification,” Concord Monitor, 17 October 2005; available from concordmonitor.com; accessed 12 April 2008) and PBS has reported that “[t]he faith-based organizations that march with [RCRC’s] banner represent some 20 million Americans” (PBS, NOW with Bill Moyers, 30 April 2004; transcript availablefrom #; accessed 12 April 2008.)
[55] See pages 64 and 66 (or 2307 and 2309 in the numbering printed on the pages themselves) of the official transcript of the final day of the 2004 General Conference: #; accessed 12 April 2004.
[56] John Lomperis, “Exclusive Interview with Bishop Timothy Whitaker”; available from #; accessed 12 April 2008.
[57] John Lomperis, “Exclusive Interview with Bishop G. Lindsey Davis”; available from #; accessed 12 April 2008.
[58] Back cover endorsement blurb for the book.
[59] Quoted in Julia Duin, “Methodists Step Back From Abortion-Rights Group,” Washington Post, 17 October 1992.