General Assembly to be asked to continue paying for partial-birth abortions By Craig M. Kibler The Layman Online Wednesday, May 7, 2003 Commissioners to the 215th General Assembly will be asked to continue funding partial-birth abortions – despite the Presbyterian Church (USA) calling the procedure one of "grave moral concern" and the U.S. Senate voting to ban it. The Advocacy Committee for Women's Concerns is recommending that commissioners reject an overture that seeks to deny payment by the Board of Pensions for any procedure of grave moral concern unless there is certification from a physician that any other procedure cannot be safely substituted. The committee's rationale is that "the role of the medical staff with a woman in pregnancy is to be protected and not influenced by outside agencies." On June 22, 2002, the 214th General Assembly – by a 77 percent vote – approved a statement that sanctioned late-term abortions, making the PCUSA the first mainline denomination in the nation to approve of partial-birth abortions. That statement, in part, reads: "The ending of a pregnancy after the point of fetal viability is a matter of grave moral concern to us all, and may be undertaken only in the rarest of circumstances and after prayer and/or pastoral care, when necessary to save the life of the woman, to preserve the woman's health in circumstances of a serious risk to the woman's health, to avoid fetal suffering as a result of untreatable life-threatening medical anomalies, or in cases of incest or rape." National events since have cast a shadow on the General Assembly's action. The U.S. Senate voted 64-33 on March 13 to ban partial-birth abortion, with 11 of the 13 Presbyterian senators voting for the ban. The U.S. House is expected to vote soon. If both houses of Congress concur and President George W. Bush signs the legislation, which he says he will, the PCUSA could be in the position of supporting an illegal procedure that is opposed by an overwhelming majority of Americans. Overture 03-4 from the Presbytery of Flint River to the 215th General Assembly, which will meet in Denver on May 24, asks commissioners "to instruct the Board of Pensions to deny the payment of any procedure for which the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has expressed grave moral concern unless the claim is supplemented by a statement from the physician certifying that the procedure was necessary and an alternative procedure, which would have protected the life and health of those involved, could not be safely substituted." In its rationale, the overture argues that the "church should be consistent in what it says and does. Our current policy on Problem Pregnancies and Abortion (1992) states that "abortion should not be used as a method of birth control" (p. 11, E.1.f.; see also Minutes, 1992, Part I, p. 368, paragraph 27.094); "abortion is not morally acceptable for gender selection only or solely to obtain fetal parts for transplantation" (E.l.g.; see also Minutes, 1992, Part I, p. 368, paragraph 27.095 ); "abortion ought to be an option of last resort" (E.1.l.; see also Minutes, 1992, Part I, p. 368, paragraph 27.100)." "The 209th General Assembly (1997) stated that 'the procedure known as intact dilation and extraction (commonly called "partial birth" abortion) of a baby who could live outside the womb is of grave moral concern and should be considered only if the mother's physical life is endangered by the pregnancy" (Minutes, 1997, Part I, p. 65). "Currently the Board of Pensions pays for all induced abortion claims submitted by members covered under its medical plan, including those opposed by our current policy. This overture seeks to remedy this inconsistency, bringing the Board of Pensions medical plan in line with our current policy on induced abortion. "The Board of Pensions Relief of Conscience provision is not an adequate substitute for this overture because 1. The church should not pay for something over which it expresses grave moral concern. 2. While Relief of Conscience redirects funds for medical benefits that it pays directly on its pastor(s) (and other staff if the PC(USA) Medical Plan is used for them), a church's per capita continues to pay for induced abortion for the presbytery and General Assembly level staff whose salary comes from per capita and who are members of the Medical Plan. 3. There are many Presbyterians and churches who do not object to their offerings being used for early abortion, but who do share the General Assembly's grave moral concern with post-viability abortions. "The Board of Pensions has always insisted on there being a practical way to carry out its directives. However, unlike abortions for gender selection, birth control, or to obtain fetal parts for transplantations, post-viability abortions are objectively identifiable and may be practically controlled by directive. Insurance claims contain a place where the physician's office or hospital places a procedure code. There is one procedure code for induced abortion by dilation and curettage. This is the method used for the 96.8 percent of induced abortions (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. "Abortion Surveillance – United States, 1998. CDC. 51:SS03, June 7, 2002) and it cannot be used after several weeks prior to fetal viability due to the size of the fetus. Claims utilizing this code would not be pulled out under this overture, but claims utilizing one of the other codes for induced abortion would be rejected by the computer. They would require attaching a letter stating the requirements of the Board of Pensions for payment, and requesting that the physician provide documentation that the abortion met the requirements. If such documentation were to be received, then payment would be made. Our policy lists viability at 20 weeks; after this age some babies survive if born. This overture can be implemented and is needed to make the PC(USA)'s actions consistent with her words." This rationale was rejected by the Advocacy Committee for Women's Concerns, which is recommending that this overture be defeated. The committee, while saying that it "recognizes that grave moral concerns are deeply held by all in the church regarding Board of Pensions' coverage," also said that "it is essential that women be supported as moral agents as they make decisions in consultation with physicians, their families, the faith community, and in relationship with God." Before 1983, the denomination regarded "the destruction by parents of their own offspring, before birth, with abhorrence, as a crime against God and nature." The 1983 General Assembly adopted the denomination's first pro-abortion position, saying that abortion was not only a right but also a woman's responsibility if she did not think she had the means to support a child.

Respond to this article

Home · Archives · The Layman · PLC Publications Presbyterian Lay Committee · Feedback · Links