Presbyterian Disaster Assistance is responding to Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, Maria and the Mexico earthquakes.  LEARN MORE.

Presbyterians Affirming Reproductive Options

PARO welcomes those who support the full range of reproductive options that ensure that every child is loved and wanted. The network is committed to ensuring that the policy of the PC(USA) is articulated, understood, and preserved for future generations.


Resources and Articles

PARO Issues Response to Attacks on Planned Parenthood

Many people of conscience have been distressed by the campaign to discredit Planned Parenthood through the release of heavily edited and secretly recorded conversations between Planned Parenthood staff and anti-abortion activists. The Rev. Mark Pawlowski, a member of the leadership team from Presbyterians Affirming Reproductive Options (PARO), has written a thoughtful and well-researched response to the accusations that were made.  Also see the statements of the Advocacy Committee for Women’s Concerns.

Dispelling the Myth: Fetal Tissue Research and Planned Parenthood
by the Rev. Mark R. Pawlowski, PARO Leadership Team, September 27, 2015

It’s a little known fact – and a discomforting thought for those who have chosen to vilify Planned Parenthood because of recent “sting” videos – that fetal tissue research in the U.S. began before abortion was legal. As is the case presently, so too then, fetal tissue donations came from universities and hospitals.

That research was conducted sixty years ago with great respect and ethical sensitivity seems to be ignored, as well as the results which brought significant breakthroughs and major discoveries in the eradication of human diseases. To date, here is the partial list: vaccines against Chickenpox, Rubella/Measles/Shingles/Rabies, and Hepatitis A.

It’s also a little known fact that the polio vaccine was developed from fetal kidney cells – an achievement for which the 1954 Nobel Prize for Medicine was awarded.

As U.S. News and World Report noted in August, 2015, “Scientists use fetal tissue to study how the human body develops, to better understand and solve developmental abnormalities such as Down Syndrome or malformation of organs, the causes of miscarriages or sudden infant death syndrome. Fetal tissue research has helped medical providers diagnose genetic diseases before birth.”

In 2014 the National Institutes of Health spent $76 million on fetal tissue research.

It can be argued and lamented that such significant and sensitive research continued throughout the years without proper interpretation and rationale by the medical and scientific communities to the larger society. Be that as it may, in 1993, the Office for Human Research Protections promulgated Public Law 103-43 which established the ethical procedures for fetal tissue research that continue to this day.

In defense of several (out of 600) of its health centers donating (not selling) fetal tissue, Planned Parenthood in part referenced the history of ethical and medical protocols and procedures it follows – the very same procedures that are identical to programs at hospitals and universities across the country.

The genesis of outrage initially against Planned Parenthood began with the release of eight videos alleging wrongdoing, i.e. selling fetal tissue for profit. It is significant to note that the organization that created the tapes is called the Center for Medical Progress (CMP). It’s leadership is documented as being connected with bombings of women’s health centers as well as the murder of an abortion provider.

The video excerpts themselves, while perpetuating a myth of wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood, are problematic to say the least since they provide no context for CMP’s allegations (the tapes spurred five state investigations into Planned Parenthood – in all five states no wrongdoing was found). Not helping their cause was the fact that the videos contained at least 42 splices that portrayed seamless conversations and statements that changed the meaning of what was actually said in order to reinforce the false claims being made.

Finally, Planned Parenthood in a press release stated, “that the secretly recorded videos were heavily edited and significantly distort and misrepresent actual events.” Three teams of experts, including a video science instructor at the FBI National Academy, noted that supposed “full footage” that the group (CMP) has released “is edited, inaccurate, and unreliable,” as are transcripts that the group has produced. The experts noted that “no unedited source footage has been released.”

Planned Parenthood, for its part, acknowledged that several of its health centers participated in accordance with all ethical and procedural mandates in fetal tissue donation programs.

This brief overview of the facts and history of fetal tissue research, coupled with the recent attacks on Planned Parenthood, plainly reveals the reality of the anti-abortion movement’s extreme motives. Those motives either deny or are unaware of the very reality of the life-saving medicines and scientific discoveries already discovered, and threaten those yet to come by the elimination of fetal tissue research.

NOTE:  The 213th General Assembly (2001) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) affirmed the use of fetal and embryonic tissue for vital research with careful regulation. Along with this, they recognized the “need for continuing, informed public dialogue and equitable sharing of information of the results of stem cell research.” (Minutes, 213th GA, Part I, 463)

For further reading:

False Dichotomies

By Marci Glass

marci_auld_glass-2012_small150Many people presume that because I am a pastor, I must, therefore, be pro-life. It is presumed to be the “Christian” position on the subject, right? And I want to be able to call myself “pro-life.” Really, I do. I am a big fan of life. I am thankful for it. I do my best to treasure it each day. I work hard in both my personal and professional life to try to make life better for the people I encounter on this journey through life. Life is beautiful. Life is a gift. Life is precious. Who wouldn’t be a fan of life? So I want to declare myself “pro-life”. But, somehow, that term has already been taken. And the people who have claimed it have told me I don’t belong. That I can’t be in the club because, as much as I love life, I also believe women should be able to make their own choices about pregnancies and abortion. | Read full article

Free birth control cuts abortion rate dramatically, study finds

By Brian Alexander, NBC News Contributor, October 4, 2012 | Read article

November is National Adoption Awareness Month

national_adoption_month_all_year_long_medium300The month of November is observed as National Adoption Month, by proclamation of the President of the United States. It is an initiative of the Children’s Bureau, within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, supported through AdoptUSKids and Child Welfare Information Gateway, members of the Children’s Bureau Training and Technical Assistance Network.  This partnership provides valuable resources and technical assistance to raise public awareness about the need for foster and adoptive families for children in the public child welfare system; and to assist U.S. States, Territories, and Tribes to recruit and retain foster and adoptive families and connect them with children.

Of Power, Women, Voting, and Prayer

By The Rev. Bebb Wheeler Stone, Ph.D., President of the Presbyterian Health, Education & Welfare Association (PHEWA)
Polit­i­cal rhetoric is always about power. As a woman lis­ten­ing to cur­rent polit­i­cal rhetoric, I am con­vinced that the polit­i­cal con­test among some has been framed to gain power over Amer­i­can women. The gains for Amer­i­can women to full cit­i­zen­ship and full moral agency made through great strug­gle over the past 90 years are threatened. | Read full article

What does pro-choice really mean?

By Sylvia Thorson-Smith
Pro-choice—for choice. So simple and yet so complex. The most basic definition for pro-choice,and the one offered by Webster’s dictionary, is “favoring the legalization of abortion,” which is clearly what was meant when the term was first used in the mid-1970s. Following the Roe v.Wade decision by the Supreme Court in 1973, the legality of abortion was challenged and increasingly debated. Pro-choice became the common self-description of people who supported the Court’s legalization. Since then, the term has come to describe those who support the right of women to make decisions about the full range of options regarding their reproductive lives. | Download article

Prayerfully Supporting Women and the Choices They Make

“Problem Pregnancies and Abortion.” The 204th General Assembly (1992) Response to The Report of the Special Committee on Problem Pregnancies and Abortion (Majority Report) | Download report

Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC)

“The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) was among the founding members of The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice in 1973, with leadership of our much beloved Mary Jane Patterson,  then serving as Director of the PC(USA) Washington Office. RCRC’s website says, “The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC) is the national community of religious and spiritual people, denominations, and organizations from all faith traditions dedicated to achieving reproductive justice. For people of faith, reproductive justice is a moral imperative, grounded in centuries of sacred texts. Through education, mobilization and advocacy, we are leading the religious movement to advance the health and well-being of women and families. RCRC mobilizes the moral force of thousands of clergy, religious leaders, and other people of faith. Together, we work for ethical and responsible policies, laws and resources that make reproductive health care and rights accessible to all. Our religious traditions call us to this sacred work.” They offer prayers and sermons and other resources and educational series.


Reproductive health information: Separating fact from fiction

Myths are common in the often heated discussions around reproductive health. PARO is dedicating this space to exploring those myths.

Myth: The number of abortions could be reduced by making abortion illegal.

Not true. A study by the World Health Organization and the Guttmacher Institute, published in the medical journal, Lancet (October 13, 2007), found that the abortion rate has decreased more in developed countries where abortion is generally safe and legal than in developing countries where it is mostly illegal and unsafe. In addition, the abortion rate was almost the same in developed countries (26 per 1,000 women) and developing countries (29 per 1,000 women). Illegality does not stop abortions. Of the 42 million abortions worldwide in 2003, the vast majority — 35 million — took place in the developing world. Almost all unsafe abortions (97 percent) took place in developing nations. A spokeswoman from the International Women’s Health Coalition pointed out that, “The legal status of abortion has never dissuaded women and couples, who, for whatever reason, seek to end pregnancy.” See the full study (free registration required).

Regular access to effective contraception, as in the developed world, is the best way to reduce unplanned pregnancies and the need for abortion. Unfortunately, current U.S. policies restrict family planning assistance to foreign non-governmental clinics and agencies that perform or even discuss abortion or advocate liberalizing abortion laws. The result has been a loss of family planning services and less access to condoms in many developing countries — services that would help reduce the need for abortion. Learn more at the Population Action International Web site.

Myth: Abstinence-only sex education decreases the likelihood that teenagers will engage in sexual intimacy before marriage.

Early reports, based on surveys at the end of the first school year in abstinence-only programs, indicated that youth in abstinence-only education were significantly more supportive of abstinence than those in the control group who had not received this education. However, the findings of a nine-year study involving over 2,000 youth in four highly regarded abstinence education programs were released in April 2007. The study, authorized by the United States Congress and conducted by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, followed the youth for five years. Researchers concluded that “youth in the program group were no more likely than control group youth to have abstained from sex and, among those who reported having had sex, they had similar numbers of sexual partners and had initiated sex at the same mean age” (xvii). Abstinence-only education showed no “statistically significant impact on eventual behavior” (29). There was no statistical difference between the groups with regard to having been pregnant, gotten someone pregnant, or having a sexually transmitted disease (35).  Read the full report or the executive summary.

Myth: Sex education courses are more likely to result in teens having sex than in preventing sexual activity.

A study of sex education courses that include information about human sexuality, the prevention of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, and abstinence (“comprehensive” or “abstinence plus” courses) was published in 2001. According to its author, Dr. Douglas Kirby (former Director of Research, National Campaign to Prevent Teenage Pregnancy), “… programs that emphasize abstinence as the safest approach, but also encourage those who are sexually active to use condoms and contraceptives do not increase sexual behavior; they do not do harm.” They do not hasten the initiation of first sex or increase the frequency of sex or the number of sexual partners. (P.O.V. Web site). Due to the many scientific studies that have reached this conclusion, the Surgeon General of the United States (2001) and virtually all major professional health associations, such as the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Public Health Association, recommend comprehensive sexuality education. Some, such as the AMA, specifically oppose the use of abstinence-only education.

Myth: When teens have true faith in Jesus they do not need sex education.

False: It is certainly true that the more important a teenager’s faith is to him or her and the more involved they are in their religious community, the less likely they are to engage in sexual intercourse. For example, 31 percent of 17-year-olds who are closely involved with their faith tradition have had sexual intercourse compared to 61 percent of all teens (Clapp, Helbert and Zizak, Faith Matters: Teenagers, Religion, and Sexuality, 2003: 37. See also Lyons, “Open the Door and See All the – Teenagers,” Gallup Poll: 2003 and Mark Regnerus, Forbidden Fruit, 2007). However, it is also true that religiously active teens are involved at significantly high levels in sexual intercourse (almost one-third of the 17-year-olds) and in other forms of sexual behavior: oral sex, fondling, nudity with the opposite sex, masturbation and kissing (Clapp, 48). Therefore, even religiously involved teens are at risk of pregnancy and contracting sexually transmitted diseases. As many as a half million children are sexually abused each year, most by people they know and trust, including church people (Stop It Now Web site.) Yet, most religiously active young people feel that their religious communities are inadequate in providing information and guidance on sexual issues (Clapp, 115). What teens need from their faith communities is sex education that provides accurate information, a solid foundation of values and help in developing interpersonal skills for healthy and responsible relationships.

Myth: The Bible is clear in its opposition to abortion.

There are no texts in the Bible that address directly the question of elective abortion. This is rather surprising because specific prohibitions of abortion were present among certain neighboring peoples and cultures. No such prohibition can be found in the Old or New Testaments. The appeal to biblical texts necessarily involves interpretation. None of the texts alone or together provides a single conclusive answer. (Paul D. Simmons, “Personhood, the Bible, and the Abortion Debate,” Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Educational Series, No. 3)

It is clear that Christians disagree about how biblical teachings apply to questions related to abortion. In its study in 1992, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) points to two quite different views. The first maintains that teachings about God as the Creator of all life and poetic language about life in the womb lead Christians to oppose abortion as an option.  The second emphasizes that women and men are created in the image of God and are entrusted with the responsibility to be faithful stewards of life in reproductive decisions; therefore, abortion is one of the choices they may conscientiously consider. (Problem Pregnancies and Abortion, 204th General Assembly (1992), Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)

The differences in these viewpoints cannot be resolved by appeal to specific biblical texts. Conscientious Christians continue to disagree about biblical interpretation, as they disagree also about the option of abortion itself. But it is inaccurate, as well as intolerant, to maintain that the Bible provides a single clear-cut answer to the complex dilemmas persons face when they are considering abortion.

Myth: Women who have an abortion are more likely to have emotional problems.

For decades some groups have insisted that women who have abortions are likely to experience a post-abortion syndrome similar to PTSD, or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Although there have been many attempts to document the increase in emotional problems, and even suicide, following an abortion, the most rigorous scientific research has failed to substantiate this belief. In 1989 the American Psychological Association (APA) thoroughly examined a wide range of data and concluded that nothing like post-abortion syndrome could be found (APA press release, January 18, 1989). Such a diagnosis is not recognized among medical and psychological professionals today.

While some women who have abortions may experience emotional stress, guilt, depression and regret, when interviewed most women express overwhelming relief and feelings of happiness (N.E. Adler, et al., American Psychologist, 1992). Furthermore, studies have found that the most important predictor of emotional health following an abortion is the mental state of the woman before an abortion. Women with high self-esteem before an abortion are likely to still have high self-esteem afterward. Research also shows that the emotional consequences for women who choose adoption are higher than for women who choose abortion. Having an abortion may be acute stress, while worrying about the fate of a child may lead to chronic, ongoing stress (N.F. Russo, in J.D. Butler’s Abortion, Medicine, and the Law, 1992). Any important life decision may involve some level of stress that can change over time.

As for suicide, stories can be found about depressed women going to extreme measures when they have been prevented from having an abortion, as well as when they have had one. The United States Office of Population funded a study in 2000 that called for better post-abortion care for women around the world. It contended that too many women receive poor-quality services that don’t address their multiple health needs, including counseling, family planning and services for post-abortion complications. Governments have been challenged repeatedly to improve women’s physical and mental health care following an abortion and link it to other reproductive health services (Frontiers in Reproductive Health Population Council, Washington, D.C.,Program Brief #1, September 2000).

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has addressed this issue in a 2004 brochure entitled When Pregnancy Involves Loss. In it, we are reminded that there are multiple contexts in which women make abortion and adoption decisions, and “women may have conflicting emotions following the termination of a pregnancy or the placement of a child for adoption.” It is important to recognize that some people stigmatize all women who have abortions. Therefore, people need to resist messages that impede the healing process and fuel feelings of guilt and shame. Whatever decision a woman makes, “she deserves to know that she is created in the image of a loving God and is capable of making ethical decisions about her reproductive life” (from When Pregnancy Involves Loss).