12

The most basic definition for pro-choice, and the one offered by Web-ster’s dictionary, is “favoring thelegalization of abortion,” which isclearly what was meant when theterm was first used in the mid-1970s.Following the Roe v.Wade decisionby the Supreme Court in 1973, thelegality of abortion was challengedand increasingly debated. Pro-choicebecame the common self-descriptionof people who supported the Court’slegalization. Since then, the term hascome to describe those who supportthe right of women to make deci-sions about the full range of optionsregarding their reproductive lives.

Historical Perspective

In order to understand howimportant the language of choice is for women, it helps to reviewsome of the history of abortion and reproductive rights.The ques-tion of abortion has not held muchinterest in the history of Christian-ity.When abortion was condemnedin earlier Christianity, it was under-stood to refer to termination wellinto the process of pregnancy, afterensoulment—the point at which the

breath of God entered the fetus. Notuntil 1869 did the Roman CatholicChurch declare that ensoulment (orpersonhood) begins at the momentof conception.

No Protestant clergy or theolo-gian gave early support for proposednineteenth-century laws banningabortion in the United States. It islikely that Protestant clergy, oftenmarried and poor, understood thatdecisions about abortion were set invery real life circumstances thatinvolved suffering and difficultoptions.Those Protestants whofinally did join the antiabortionmovement were often influenced byracist and classist arguments thatAmerica’s strength was threatenedby white, middle-class women’slower birth rate.1

The mid-nineteenth century wasmarked by a significant change affect-ing the lives of women—the firstwave of the Women’s Rights Move-ment. It is sometimes difficult forpeople today to grasp how very littlechoice women had, in every arena oftheir lives, prior to this organizedsocial movement for women’s rights.Patriarchy—the rule of the fathers—

was codified into all social and legalinstitutions.Wives were subject totheir husbands and their sexuality wastruly not their own in any of theways we assume today. Furthermore,medical and legal authority con-verged with religious and familialauthority to uphold men’s powerover virtually all reproductive andprocreative decisions.Women’s lack ofauthority in the social realm left themwithout authority in the domesticsphere as well.

By the end of the nineteenth cen-tury, women were actively workingfor increased control over theirreproductive lives. Margaret Sangerand others challenged the Comstocklaws that made it illegal to sendinformation about contraception(labeled as obscenity) through theUnited States mail. Little by little,with the help of supportive men(often clergy and doctors), womengained more of a social right tomake decisions about the health oftheir bodies.

Although the organized Women’sRights Movement became less visibleafter the passage of the NineteenthAmendment to the United StatesConstitution in 1920 (giving womenthe right to vote), women continuedto assert well into the twentieth cen-tury that they were entitled to fullhuman standing and authority underthe law to make decisions aboutthemselves.When a second wave ofthe movement developed in the1960s, reproductive rights emerged asa major issue, intensifying the ques-tion,“Who has the authority tomake decisions regarding procreationand fertility?” Prior to its ruling onabortion, the Supreme Court estab-lished the principle of privacy andapplied it to matters of contracep-tion.All people, the Court declared,are entitled to a zone of privacy inwhich to make procreative decisions

What DoesPRO-CHOICEReally Mean?

BY SYLVIA THORSON-SMITH

Pro-choice—for choice. So simple and yet so complex.

13May/June 2006

that are not the govern-ment’s business.Womenwere the ultimate benefi-ciaries of the extension ofthis new reproductiveauthority. No longer couldhusbands, partners, fathersand doctors legally preventwomen (both married andsingle) from obtaining andusing birth control meth-ods, although it wasn’tuntil 1965 that the Courtdeclared a ban on the useof contraception unconsti-tutional.

The Religious Movementfor Reproductive Choice

Before Roe v.Wade, both Protestantand Jewish faith communities wereactive in ministering to women whofaced problem pregnancies. By themid-1950s, most Protestants acceptedtherapeutic abortion to save the lifeof the mother and later, to preventfetal anomalies. Some will rememberthe case of Sherry Finkbine, who in1962 was prescribed the drugthalidomide, soon to be known forcausing horrific birth defects.Although abortion was prescribed byher doctor, she was refused by a hos-pital and, after working around thedenial of a visa by the United Statesgovernment, finally managed toobtain an abortion in Sweden.Thestark contrast between rich and poorcame into public view as Americansbegan to see that those with moneyand resources had access to safe med-ical abortions—and choice—whileother women did not.

By the mid-1960s, Protestant andJewish leaders joined the growingmovement to reform abortion laws.In 1967, 21 ministers and rabbis inNew York formed the Clergy Con-sultation Service on Abortion,which, within a year became a

national organization of nearly 1,400clergy.Their common statement ofpurpose declared “that there arehigher laws and moral obligationstranscending legal codes” and “weagree that it is our pastoral responsi-bility and religious duty to give aidand assistance to all women withproblem pregnancies.”2 Functioninglike the Underground Railroad, thischain of religious counselors helpedwomen obtain abortions in hospitalsand doctors’ offices for years prior to1973. My husband, Mike Smith, waspart of this network in his role ascampus minister at the University ofArizona.At the time, states like NewYork, California and Colorado hadlegalized abortion, so Mike and otherclergy helped women without suffi-cient resources overcome unequalaccess to safe, legal abortion services.

These ministers were not maver-icks. Both predecessor denomina-tions to the current PC(USA) calledfor a change in abortion laws priorto Roe v.Wade. In 1970—three yearsbefore Roe v.Wade and with the sup-port of United PresbyterianWomen—the General Assembly ofthe United Presbyterian Church inthe U.S.A. adopted a report (Sexual-ity and the Human Community) fromthe Advisory Council on Church

and Society stating,“abor-tion should be taken out ofthe realm of the law alto-gether and be made a matterof the careful ethical deci-sion of a woman, her physi-cian and her pastor or othercounselor.”

3

In the same year, the Pres-byterian Church in the U.S.affirmed,“there is no consen-sus in the Christian commu-nity about when human lifebegins” and “the willful ter-

mination of pregnancy bymedical means on the consid-ered decision of a pregnant

woman may on occasion be morallyjustifiable.” Circumstances regarded asjustifiable included “medical indica-tions of mental or physical deformity,conception is the result of rape orincest, conditions under which thephysical or mental health of eithermother or child would be gravelythreatened, or for the socio-economiccondition of the family.”4

Following the 1973 Roe v.Wadedecision, a full-scale debate aboutthe legalization of abortion ensuedon many fronts.At least 20 religiousorganizations regarded abortion asan issue of privacy and supportedthe Supreme Court’s decision toextend to women the legal—andmoral—right to make abortiondecisions free of governmentalinterference.The two predecessordenominations of the PC(USA)regarded women’s choice in abor-tion decisions as consistent withtheir overall repudiation of the his-toric oppression of women. As mas-sive organizational efforts, ledprimarily by Roman Catholic cler-ics, sought to overturn the Court’sdecision, representatives of mainlineProtestant and Jewish faith commu-nities, including Presbyterians, metto form the Religious Coalition for

AP Photo/Kevin Wolf

Thirty-six years after Roe v. Wade, the debatecontinues.

14

Abortion Rights (RCAR). Eventhough their specific positions aboutabortion varied, these religious bod-ies joined together for one purpose:“To encourage and coordinate sup-port for safeguarding the legaloption of abortion, for ensuringthe right of individuals to makedecisions in accordance with theirconscience, and for opposing effortsto deny this right of conscience,through constitutional amendmentor federal and state legislation.”5

In 1993, RCAR becameRCRC—the Religious Coalitionfor Reproductive Choice, indicatingthat there are many other reproduc-tive issues besides abortion rights,which deserve the protection of pri-vacy and individual choice.

The Meaning of Choice

In the past 30 years, Presbyterianshave been deeply involved in thestruggle over abortion rights and themeaning of language applied to thisdebate. Members have not been ofone mind on this issue.The Presby-terian Church (U.S.A.) continues tobe a member of RCRC, in spite ofrepeated overtures to GeneralAssemblies urging that we withdraw.Presbyterians Pro-Life, an independ-ent group, works actively to reversePresbyterian policy on abortionrights and membership in RCRC.However, for more than threedecades, the PC(USA) has continuedto uphold a basic commitment tochoice. It does so through the workof Women’s Ministries and theAdvocacy Committee on Women’sConcerns (ACWC), the WashingtonOffice (which advocates on behalfof Presbyterian policies) and Presby-terians Affirming ReproductiveOptions (PARO), a network of thePresbyterian Health, Education andWelfare Association (PHEWA).

As a member of PARO andwomen’s advocacy groups of the

Presbyterian Church, I have offeredtestimony to many General Assemblycommittees in the past 30 years.Whenever I do, I rely on the follow-ing principles, which I think are atthe heart of the pro-choice position:

Pro-choice advocates arefundamentally committed toredressing the historicoppression of women.

Choice arguments seek toadvance the full humanity and decision-making authority ofwomen, who throughout historyhave been denied the right to deter-mine the direction of their lives andexercise their reproductive options.It is because of a legacy of deniedchoice that contemporary womenwork so hard to preserve the legaland ecclesiastical gains of the twen-tieth century Women’s RightsMovement.

Pro-choice is not the oppositeof pro-life.

These terms reflect differentframeworks for understanding issues

of abortion and procreation.Pro-choice advocates are committedto choosing life; however, theyaccept the premise that people of faith and good will, includingPresbyterians, disagree about themeaning of prenatal existence.Throughout history, theologians and legal scholars have disputed the point at which a conceptus (the product of conception)becomes a human life with person-hood distinct from the woman who is carrying it.To be “forchoice” is not to be “against life.”The 1992 policy on abortionacknowledges,“Presbyterians holdvarying points of view about when human life begins.”The statement also recognizes “diversityof opinion in the church as towhether or not abortion should belegal,” but affirms that, within thecontext of limited governmentalinterest,“no law should deny accessto safe and affordable services forpersons seeking to terminate aproblem pregnancy.”6

Elenora Giddings Ivory, director of the PC(USA) Washington Officeand Carlton Veazey, president of the Religious Coalition forReproductive Choice, deliver a box of petitions to Senator BarbaraBoxer (D-CA) in opposition to the Federal Refusal Clause thatallows health care entities to refuse abortion services to women,even during a medical emergency.

Photo

court

esy

of

Sen.

Barb

ara

Boxe

r

15May/June 2006

In certain conditions ofpregnancy, abortion is amorally faithful option.

Reformed theology, which guidesPresbyterians, recognizes that all life isa gift from God.As human beingswho are gifted with life, we are alsogifted with the awesome responsibil-ity to make a variety of difficult deci-sions about life and death.Thecomplexities of life’s situations areheightened in the twenty-first cen-tury. Gratefully, the PresbyterianChurch (U.S.A.) has consistentlyaffirmed that women as well as menare fully capable of making moraldecisions, particularly about mattersthat pertain to their own bodies. Ourcommunity of faith has resisted thenotion that women should becoerced into carrying a pregnancy toterm against their will, by the gov-ernment or anyone else. Becauseabortion decisions are contextuallyconsidered among other options, thechurch’s most recent policy (1992)states that “the considered decision of a woman to terminate a preg-nancy can be morally acceptable,though certainly not the only orrequired, decision.”7

Choice has different meanings,depending on the context ofrace and class.

It is impossible to disentangle thelanguage of choice from the historyof women’s oppression. Historically,the limits on women’s decision-making authority differ according to their racial and economic experi-ences. In a culture where financialresources guarantee access to repro-ductive options, including abortionservices, women of color andwomen who are poor have beenparticularly disadvantaged in theirright to choose. It is with attentionto social and economic injustice thatpro-choice advocates seek policies

and laws that guarantee reproductiverights for all women.

Pro-choice and right to choosedo not mean “pro-abortion”or favoring “abortion ondemand.”

Such language smacks of angryconfrontation, quite the opposite ofthe attitude of most women whomake abortion decisions in the con-text of quiet personal struggle. Manypeople who are pro-choice cannotsee themselves ever choosing to havean abortion and do not think abor-tion has a preferred status amongother options.The language of choicerepresents an attempt to indicate thatdifficult reproductive decisions will bemade, and abortion is one amongother options. Pro-choice advocatesdo not promote a particular decision.They do, however, contend thatwomen are entitled to make repro-ductive decisions involving their ownbodies, and these decisions maynecessitate inclusion of the option ofsafe, legal abortion.

While individual Presbyterianwomen hold a variety of attitudestoward reproductive rights, Presbyte-rian Women and its predecessor

organizations have long advocatedour denomination’s pro-choice pol-icy.They recognize that the lives andmoral agency of women are at stakewhen our church makes policy onthis issue. Presbyterian theologianGloria Albrecht, in her Church andSociety article “Abortion in GoodFaith,” makes it clear that “we arefaced by the truly ‘hard’ question—the question of our willingness toempower every woman to makeresponsible choices regarding her useof the abilities and opportunities shehas to contribute to the fullness ofLife. It is the question of our willing-ness not to define women solely orprimarily by biological capacity.”8

To be pro-choice is to be fully awarethat decisions regarding abortion willbe made.The question is, who willmake them? The pro-choice answer iswomen who are gifted with God-given moral agency, whose bodiesand lives are most affected by theconsequences.

Sylvia Thorson-Smith lives in Tucson,Arizona. She serves as an elder at St.Mark’s Presbyterian Church and on theleadership team of PARO (PresbyteriansAffirming Reproductive Options), anetwork of the Presbyterian Health,Education and Welfare Association.

Resources

1. Beverly Wildung Harrison,“Theology and Morality of ProcreativeChoice,” Feminist Theological Ethics, editedby Lois K. Daly (Louisville, Ky.:Westminster John Knox, 1994), 218.

2.“The Challenge of Choice:30 Years of Affirming ReproductiveChoice,” Church and Society,November/December 2002, 13.

3. Ibid., 14.4. Ibid., 77.5. Ibid., 15.6. Ibid., 83, 87–88.7. Ibid., 83.8. Gloria Albrecht,“Abortion in

Good Faith,” Church and Society,November/December 2002, 31.

Speaking out at the Walk forWomen’s Lives throughdowntown Atlanta, April 17,2005

AP P

hoto

/R

ic F

eld