Archive for the Church Timeline on Abortion Category

Birth Control and the Church how did we get here ?

Posted in birth control, Birth Control and Eugenics, Birth Control and the Church, Church Timeline on Abortion with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 26, 2015 by saynsumthn

A documentary film series produced in 2013, but one I have only recently viewed, maintains that the modern church’s stand in accepting birth control is contrary to centuries of early church teaching.

Kevin Peeples Birth COntrol The MOvie

Birth Control The Movie was directed by Kevin Peeples based on his own personal journey to answer the question: As a Christian, is birth control up to us?

Little did he realize that his journey coincided with producers Scott Matthew Dix and Nathan Nicholson.

The series consists of two DVD’s: BIRTH CONTROL: How Did We Get Here?, which looks into why there is no fundamental difference between the Church of Jesus Christ, and the world, on the issue of child prevention.

And Birth Control is it up to us?

Birth COntrol how did we get here is it up to us

For the purpose of this blog, I will review BIRTH CONTROL: How Did We Get Here?

The film features interviews with authors, historians, theologians, radio talk show hosts and others, such as Dr. George Grant, Dr. Allan Carlson, Geoffrey Botkin, Dr. R.C. Sproul Jr., Lila Rose, Kevin Swanson, and Julie Roys.

RC Sproul JR

The Bible says that the serpent is more subtle than any of the beasts of the field. There are a million ways in which the serpent has gotten the church to think his thoughts after him. This is one of those places where we are fed in our selfishness of viewing children as a burden. But, we’ve got a calling to make manifest the reign of Jesus over all things. And that’s why now and always we have the obligation to raise up godly seed…” says Christian minister R.C. Sproul Jr.

Experts in the film maintain that today the Christian use of birth control is based in selfishness over money, materialism and convenience, but that this attitude is a new one that has not been upheld over the centuries of Biblical teaching. Basically saying that the church abandoned it’s historical positions on family and children and the command to procreate and has used the issues of the day to approach scripture rather than using scripture to define the issues of the day.

The film begins with a verse out of Genesis to be fruitful and multiply and makes the claim that from the beginning God ordained children for marriage.

One of our weaknesses in the modern church is all we know about is the modern church,” the film begins.

It has only been in the twentieth century with the influence if evolution and eugenics that Christians have publicly embraced the lifestyle of child prevention as Biblical theology. So how did we get here?” they ask.

George Grant

What first caught my eye when I watched the trailer for the film was that author and teacher George Grant who wrote the book, “Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood” was featured in the film.

Gran Illusions O1,204,203,200_

I have already done timelines for eugenics and also for how the church accepted abortion prior to it’s legalization so watching this compilation of the acceptance of birth control sparked my curiosity.

Birth control was coined by Margaret Sanger founder of Planned Parenthood the film points out but was never the mandate of God’s people who were commanded to be fruitful and multiply according to Genesis and continues into the New Testament of the Holy Bible where the family is elevated over and over again.

In historical terms, the film goes through several Biblical eras where the family or the “dominion mandate” is again upheld as commanded in Genesis.

As a student of eugenics I was aware of how the idea of limiting births came about- beginning with Thomas Malthus and leading to eugenics and abortion.

The concept of breeding the so-called superior over the inferior was imperative to Malthus as well as limiting the looming population time bomb, producers claim.

Next, the film lays out an interesting timeline of how the church went from complete opposition to contraception and the limitation of children by unnatural means to one of accepting it in just over forty years.

One of the main forces driving the decline of fertility in the United States was the rise of the industrial revolution, the timeline begins.

Malthus and Darwin

The timeline goes through the teachings of Thomas Malthus and Charles Darwin whose ideas of evolution laid a groundwork for the eugenics movement.

It then explains the Comstock laws which prohibited contraception, put in place by Anthony Comstock until they were eventually ruled unconstitutional.

Anthony COmstock

The film describes Anthony Constock as a young Christian who saw contraception as “the devil’s attack on young people. He frames contraception as one that had to be tied to abortion and pornography.”

Margaret Sanger

What makes the documentary unique is the way it details not only the views of so-called “birth control pioneer” Margaret Sanger who eventually locked into the views of eugenics but also the way it details how the church initially opposed the idea of fertility limitation before eventually accepting it.

In 1874, the average clergy person had 5.2 living children, the film points out.

Keep that stat in mind because the film will soon reveal how quickly it changes.

    In the 1880’s, Nevada dramatically weakened their marriage laws by making divorce laws easy.

Francis Galton

    Around that same time, Sir Francis Galton coins the term “eugenics.”
    In 1890, the Lutheran Church Missouri Senate pastors had 6.5 children in the US.
    In 1896, the Comstock laws were challenged, but the Supreme Court upheld.
    By 1901, there was a transition away from and agricultural based economy to a machine based one.

Lambeth Conf contraception

    1908, at the Anglican Church’s 5th Lambeth Conference Bishops earnestly called upon all Christian people to, “discountenance the use of all artificial means of restriction as demoralizing to character and hostile to national welfare.”

    But, by 1911, the birthrate of Anglican children falls 55% to only 2.3 children.

What this stat showed, according to the film, was that Bishops and clergymen were engaging in the practice of contraception, while calling it a sin at the same time.

1912 firist international congress on eugenics

By 1912, the first international congress on eugenics commences. It’s leaders strongly embraced evolution and Sanger meets eugenics influences.

Sangers the Woman Rebel

By 1914, Sanger launched the “Woman Rebel” a newsletter which promoted contraception using the slogan “no gods no masters.”

Sanger wrote, “[Our objective] is unlimited sexual gratification without the burden of unwanted children.”

Sanger most merciful thing

The film camps on Margaret Sanger for a while detailing her charges under the Comstock laws, her flight to England to avoid those charges, her various meetings with Malthusians, her introduction to eugenics and her return to the United States.

If she could argue for birth control using the so-called scientifically verifiable threat of poverty, sickness, racial tension and over-population as it’s back drop. Then, she could have a much better chance at making her case,” Grant says.

But, the film states, it was eugenics that left a lasting impression on Margaret Sanger.

Sanger, the film says, cunningly used the divisions between Protestants and Catholics at the time to convince Protestants that birth control was a Catholic issue alone.

    By 1916, Sanger illegally opened the first back ally birth control clinic which was shot down in less than two weeks.

But, all this talk of contraception was taking a toll on the church, as the film points out:

    BY 1918, just after World War 1, the birth rate of Lutheran Church Missouri Senate Pastors fell 40% to 3.7 children.
    In 1920, the Lambeth Conference gave this warning, “We utter an emphatic warning against the use of unnatural means for the avoidance of conception.”

    American Birth Control League 1921 Margaret Sanger

    But, by 1921, Margaret Sanger and her cronies lobby Anglican Bishops throughout the decade and Sanger’s American Birth Control League is formed.

Lila Rose

In starting the American Birth Control League,” Live Action founder Lila Rose says.

Margaret Sanger wanted to make birth control something that was socially acceptable. Because at he time it was seen as very taboo. It was seen as something that was antithetical to loving marriages that were open to children and very open to life. So, she wanted to popularize it especially to limit children and families that she thought shouldn’t be procreating and should be having no children or only a few,” Rose adds.

    By 1921, the second international eugenics congress was held in New York City.
    In 1923, the Lutheran Church, Missouri City’s official magazine, The Witness, accused the Birth Control Federation of America of “spattering the country with slime,” and labeled Margaret Sanger a “she devil.

    Sanger lectures KKK 1926
    In 1926, Sanger establishes the “Clinical Research Bureau,” she also meets with the Klu Klux Klan.
    By 1929, Sanger had founded the National Committee on Federal Legislation for Birth Control in an attempt to overturn restrictions on contraception under the Comstock laws.

Lambeth COnferenec 7th allows contraception

A major turning point for the church was the 1930 Lambeth conference, for the first time, Anglicans allowed the use of contraception by stating, “In those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, other methods may be used provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles.”

Around this same time, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod dropped its campaign against the BCFA. But, the film points out that while some Protestants were liberalizing the use of contraception, the Catholic Church was holding fast to its prohibition.

In 1936, the Comstock Act was struck down by a test case set up by Margaret Sanger. It held the Act could not ban shipments originating from a doctor and held a distinction between moral and immoral uses of contraception.

The next year the American Medical Society upheld the use of contraception.

Margaret Sanger Negro project

    In 1939, World War 11 begins and Sanger enacts her Negro Project.

By 1945, the public is becoming aware of the horrors of the Nazi eugenic program. Sanger has connections to some of those who helped Hitler’s regime, such as Ernst Rudin.

Margaret Sanger   birth control the movie

Despite her connections to Hitler and eugenics, Grant points out that Margaret Sanger has been reinvented as a heroine.


“No one in his right mind would want to rehabilitate the reputations of Stalin, Mussolini or Hitler,
” Grant states.

George Grant

Their barbarism, treachery, and debauchery will make their names forever live in infamy. Amazingly though, Sanger has somehow escaped this wretched fate. In spite of her crimes against humanity were no less heinous than theirs, her place in history has effectively been sanitized and sanctified. In spite of the fact that she openly identified herself in one way or the other with the intentions, theologies, and movements of the other three. Sanger’s faithful minions have managed to manufacture an independent reputation for the perpetuation of her memory,” he states.

BCFA Planned Parenthood 1942 and 1944

During the time the Nazi crimes were becoming a reality to America, Sanger’s organization was renamed, Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

If you look at Planned Parenthood’s advertisements what you quickly see is their disdain for the church and it’s teachings, for it’s traditions and it’s influence, ” Grant points out.

Over the course of the years, Planned Parenthood has specifically targeted lingering doubts about the authority of the church to speak with any sort of moral authority,” he adds.

In 1951, Sanger was able to obtain a grant from Biologist Gregory Pincus to begin hormonal contraception research. And, by 1953 she garnered the support of her wealthy friend Katherine McCormick who expanded funding by up to 5000% with clinical trials using human subjects.

Lambeth 9th COngress pill

In 1958, the 9th Lambeth congress openly accepts contraception as a “choice before God” calling it “responsible parenthood.”

National Council of Churches Pill Responsible parenthood

    In 1961, The National Council of Churches allowed birth control and even embraced abortion, emphasizing motives and essentially turning it into a “privacy matter.”

Griswold V COnneticut COmstock

In 1965, the Supreme Court declared the Comstock law totally unconstitutional. Griswold v. Connecticut pointed to emanations from the Bill of Rights which pointed to the so-called “right of privacy.”

The film claims that by the 1950’s and 60’s the evangelical church began changing the scriptures regarding the issue of birth control, claiming that the commands in Genesis were not commands.

By the middle of 1966, Margaret Sanger had died.

The timeline continues – showing examples of modern evangelicals, who the film claims compromised on the message of contraception.

Geoffry Botkin

“One of the great tragedies of the twentieth century was how willingly Christians were being pulled along and manipulated along to go along with the entire agenda that was anti-baby, anti-family, pro-contraception, pro-eugenics agenda. And, they felt almost like they had a duty to embrace it because it was “scientific” and they wanted to be modern, they wanted to be with it, they wanted to be cultural. And so in embracing it they rejected the very doctrines of Christianity,” says Geoffrey Botkin.

Grant summarizes that abortion continues in America because the church by and large still holds to the idea that contraception and unnatural family limitation is acceptable, going as far as implying it is pragmatic disobedience to God.

In the modern evangelical church there is almost unanimity against the sinfulness of abortion, ” Grant says.

George Grant

“The bottom line is that while we decry abortion, and the abortion clinic. We decry Planned Parenthood, we decry pro-abortion candidates, when our own circumstances get difficult, when our own economy seems to be constricted. When our own finances are compromised, we’re willing to act on pragmatism rather than principle time after time after time.”

“As a result, abortion in America remains at the forefront of the injustices perpetrated by all of us precisely because the church has not stood on principle and obeyed our God,” Grant concludes.

The film lays a compelling argument that contraception was never acceptable in early church teaching. It documents step by step the influence birth control gained in Protestant church teaching and beliefs.

One of the most interesting facts that I see is how the same ideas that helped usher in the concept of birth control also helped lay the framework for abortion on demand. Yet, many within the church are fine with it.

The debate over whether acceptance of birth control among married couples appears to be settled in modern Protestant church teaching or lack of it.

The question remains, is it settled in God’s mind? That is the question all Bible believing Christians must wrestle with as they seek obedience to our Lord.

If you would like to get the film or find out more about it you can check out the film’s website here.

The American church’s complicity with legalized abortion

Posted in Church Timeline on Abortion with tags , , , , , , , , , , on November 28, 2013 by saynsumthn

After reading the Roe v. Wade Opinion it occurred to me that Blackmun recognized that the majority of churches, medical and legal communities had already accepted the basic Roe language that abortion could be legalized for rape, incest, health of the baby baby, and life of the mother.

SUMMARY:

1973- Justice Blackmun wrote this into the Roe V Wade decision: So this proves that the church swayed the decision of the court – Also make a note that Blackmun sought desperately information on the Hippocratic Oath and concluded that it was created by a few people and did not represent the entire medical community:

“It may be taken to represent also the position of a large segment of the Protestant community, insofar as that can be ascertained; organized groups that have taken a formal position on the abortion issue have generally regarded abortion as a matter for the conscience of the individual and her family. [n58] “

The foot note leads to 58. Amicus Brief for the American Ethical Union et al. For the position of the National Council of Churches and of other denominations, see Lader 99-101.

______________________________________________________________

I have put together a Timeline to show how many churches came on board abortion and why churches MUST repent for their role in the legalization of the nation;s largest holocaust ever: abortion.

1902– In 1902, the Carnegie Institution, dedicated to scientific research, was opened in Washington, D. C. and donated nearly 8000 pipe organs to church.

The Eugenics movement paid churches and pastors to preach eugenic sermons. IN fact, much of the church has been influenced by outside forces when it comes to the evil of the age.

According to author George Grant, most churches of the time didn’t know what to do with abortion. Some were bold in their testimony, as evidenced by an 1868 Congregational church conference declaration on abortion: Full one third of the natural population of our land, falls by the hand of violence; that in no one year of the late war have so many lost life in camp or battle, as have failed of life by reason of this horrid home crime. We shudder to view the horrors of intemperance, of slavery, and of war; but those who best know the facts and bearing of this crime, declare it to be a greater evil, more demoralizing and destructive, than either intemperance, slavery or war itself. ( SOURCE: http://www.abort73.com/HTML/I-I-3-history.html, Christian Mirror, August 4, 1868. Cited in George Grant, Third Time Around (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1991), p. 99. )
*************************************************************************

The 1869, General Assembly of the “Old School”: Presbyterian Church adopted the following resolution as its official denominational statement: This assembly regards the destruction by parents of their own offspring, before birth, with abhorrence, as a crime against God and nature…..We also exhort those who have been called to preach the gospel, and all who love purity and the truth, and who would avert the just judgments of Almighty God from the nation, that they be no longer silent, or tolerant of these things, but that they endeavour by all proper means to stay the floods of impurity and cruelty.

The congregationalist churches in New England and the Great Lakes region also engaged in anti-abortion activities. Arthur Cleveland Coxe, episcopal bishop of the diocese of western New York, publicly supported efforts by American physicians to tighten up the abortion laws. “As to those crimes which I have likened to the sacrifices of Moloch,” wrote the bishop, “I am glad that our physicians are beginning to be preachers.” ( Minutes of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the USA (Northern), Vol. 18 (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Publications Committee, 1869), p. 937.)

Abortion and the Christian: What Every Believer Should Know ©1984 ~ John Jefferson Davis, Ph.D
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Phillipsburg, New Jersey
__________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

1920– Russia was the first country in the world to legalize abortion, in 1920. The procedure was briefly driven underground, when Soviet leader Josef Stalin banned abortion in an attempt to encourage women to have larger families.

But after Stalin’s death in 1953, the ban was lifted. A decade later, the practice had become so common that the USSR officially registered 5.5 million abortions, compared to just 2 million live births.

______________________________________________________________

1921– Margaret Sanger, “The one issue upon which there seems to be most uncertainty and disagreement exists in the moral side of the subject of Birth Control … Our first step is to have the backing of the medical profession so that our laws may be changed, so that motherhood may be the function of dignity and choice, rather than one of ignorance and chance. ( SOURCE: Margaret Sanger, “The Morality of Birth Control”
delivered 18 November 1921, Park Theatre, NY, Speech can be read at the website of the Iowa State University)
____________________________________________________________

1933– German Penal Code
“A doctor may interrupt a pregnancy when it ‘threatens the life or health of the mother [and] an unborn child that is likely to present hereditary and transmissible defects may be destroyed.’” (German Penal Code and Hamburg Eugenics Court, 1933)
(SOURCE: WHY CAN’T WE LOVE THEM BOTH by Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Willke
CHAPTER 37 DOCTORS & NURSES)
______________________________________________________________________________________

1958 – American Ethical Union – Brooklyn, 1958 : STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD
Brooklyn,

STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD
“The American Ethical Union joins the Board of Directors of the IHEU in ‘recognizing that population pressures in many parts of the world constitute an increasing threat to human dignity and welfare’. To diminish that threat The American Ethical Union considers it the obligation of its members to help in all ways they can to spread everywhere the knowledge made available by modern science in the area of control of human reproduction in order to help peoples everywhere in family planning. We urge this because we feel that each child should be a wanted child with the great possibilities for the fullest growth and development of the whole person. The suppression or withholding of such scientific information compounds the threat by depriving free peoples of full knowledge and understanding upon which to make free choices. The American Ethical Union believes it to be the duty of publicly supported hospitals and health and welfare agencies to make family-planning information readily available to everyone, and it urges its own constituent Societies and Groups to work for this goal and to support in all ways they can the program and work leading to that end of the Planned Parenthood Federation.”
__________________________________________________________________________________________

1959-World Council of Churches endorses all forms of Birth Control as part of the answer to population crisis:

The council, representing some 171 Protestant, Anglican and Orthodox denominations, emphasized that it was making no official decision. (Said one official: “We are no Vatican; we issue no edicts.”) But in Geneva, the council secretariat authorized publication of a study group’s report that reached a dramatic, clear-cut conclusion: “Limiting or spacing of children is a morally valid thesis . . . There appears to be no moral distinction between the means now known and practiced—whether by the use of estimated periods of fertility [i.e., “rhythm” system], or of artificial barriers to the meeting of sperm and ovum [i.e., contraceptives], or indeed of drugs which would, if made effective and safe, inhibit or control ovulation in a calculable way.”

The committee based part of its argument on a statement of practical problems: the worldwide “population explosion,” high incidence of abortion, Christianity’s occasional tendency to escape reality by taking refuge in tradition. Says the report: “The extremely high rates of abortion in many regions, Eastern and Western, with their toll of human suffering and violation of personality, testify to a tragic determination among parents to find some means, however bad, to prevent unwanted births.” The committee added: “It must be confessed that in the past Christian thought has, especially in the area of the family and its relationships, often clung to tradition without taking into account new knowledge. In the current age, God is calling upon us not to desert the eternal Christian truth but to apply it to the changing circumstances of the modern world.”

True marriage and parenthood, said the committee, are areas in which the Christian is permitted freedom of twofold kind: “This means freedom from sensuality and selfishness which enslave. It also means considerable latitude of choice, when the motives are right, in regard to mutually acceptable and noninjurious means to avert or defer conception.” The only controlling factor: individual conscience. God has put it up to husband and wife to decide for themselves, said the committee, “whether any one act of intercourse shall be for the enrichment or expression of their personal relationship only, or for the begetting of a child also . . . Sexual intercourse within marriage has in itself a goodness given by God, even when there is neither the possibility nor the immediate intention to beget children.”
( SOURCE: Time, Concerning Birth Control, Oct 19,1959)

________________________________________________________________________________________

1959- The American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code

The American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code (1962) provided an important catalyst. The “tentative draft” of the code’s section on abortion (§ 230.3) was first published in 1959. It proposed that abortion should be a felony, with the level of punishment to depend on whether the abortion took place up to or after the twenty-sixth week of pregnancy. It added, however, that “[a] licensed physician is justified in terminating a pregnancy if he believes there is a substantial risk
(1) that continuation of the pregnancy would gravely impair the physical and mental health of the mother or
(2) (2) that the child would be born with grave physical or mental defect, or
(3) (3) that the pregnancy resulted from rape, incest, or other felonious intercourse.”
During the decade or so between 1962 and 1973, nineteen states reformed their abortion laws. Some adopted all three of the Model Penal Code’s expanded justifications for abortion; others followed it only in part. Four states (Hawaii, Alaska, New York, and Washington) went further and removed all limitations on the reasons for which abortions could be performed. The New York law enacted in 1970 was the most sweeping. It permitted all abortions within the first twenty-four weeks of pregnancy and did away with both residency and hospitalization requirements (thus encouraging the growth of free-standing abortion clinics).

_______________________________________________________________________________________

1963-Unitarian General Resolution

WHEREAS, we as Unitarian Universalists are deeply concerned for dignity and rights of human beings; and
WHEREAS, the laws which narrowly circumscribe or completely prohibit termination of pregnancy by qualified medical practitioners are an affront to human life and dignity; and
WHEREAS, these statutes drive many women in the United States and Canada to seek illegal abortions with increased risk of death, while others must travel to distant lands for lawful relief;
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED: That the Unitarian Universalist Association support enactment of a uniform statute making abortion legal if:
1. There would be grave impairment of the physical or mental health of the mother;
2. The child would be born with a serious physical or mental defect;
3. Pregnancy resulted from rape or incest;
4. There exists some other compelling reason — physical, psychological, mental, spiritual, or economic.
Last updated on Wednesday, March 21, 2007.

__________________________________________________________________________________

1965- American Ethical Union (AEU) 1965 resolution on abortion follows the Unitarian one and states:

Westport, Connecticut 1965
FOR HUMANE ABORTION LAWS
WHEREAS the social and physical welfare of the woman should be of prime importance in all decisions to interrupt unwanted pregnancies;
WHEREAS the laws of most of the United States stipulate that abortion is illegal unless necessary to preserve the life of the woman;
WHEREAS present laws and prevailing attitudes encourage costly illegal abortions, a scourge imposed by mores of a less enlightened and humane era;
WHEREAS the LIFE of a woman is rarely jeopardized by pregnancy; not infrequently, however, her HEALTH and the proper development of her fetus are so jeopardized;
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that it is a moral obligation to eliminate illegal abortion, a social disease and malpractice which discriminates against those who can least afford its outrageous costs, makes them parties to a crime, and imposes serious health hazards and a high incidence of fatalities;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that laws should be enacted making abortion legal if:
1. There is substantial risk of the physical or mental health of the mother,
2. The child is likely to be born with a grave physical or mental defect,
3. Pregnancy results from rape or incest.

__________________________________________________________________________________

1963 Unitarian General Resolution
WHEREAS, we as Unitarian Universalists are deeply concerned for dignity and rights of human beings; and
WHEREAS, the laws which narrowly circumscribe or completely prohibit termination of pregnancy by qualified medical practitioners are an affront to human life and dignity; and
WHEREAS, these statutes drive many women in the United States and Canada to seek illegal abortions with increased risk of death, while others must travel to distant lands for lawful relief;
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED: That the Unitarian Universalist Association support enactment of a uniform statute making abortion legal if:
5. There would be grave impairment of the physical or mental health of the mother;
6. The child would be born with a serious physical or mental defect;
7. Pregnancy resulted from rape or incest;
8. There exists some other compelling reason — physical, psychological, mental, spiritual, or economic.
Last updated on Wednesday, March 21, 2007

______________________________________________________________________________________

1966- American Medical Association

1966- Birth Curb urged by head of AMA: Chicago: Dr. James Z. Appel, outgoing president of the AMA, calls for extra efforts to educate the “lower economic and intellectual levels of society.” On birth control. At the same time, the AMA is picketed for denying membership to Black doctors. ( SOURCE: New York Times: Birth Curb Urged by head of AMA: 6/28/1966)

__________________________________________________________________________________

1967- American Medical Association ( AMA)

1937 American Medical Association officially recognizes birth control as an integral part of medical practice and education.

1967-Except for periodic condemnation of the criminal abortionist, no further formal AMA action took place until 1967. In that year, the Committee on Human Reproduction urged the adoption of a stated policy of opposition to induced abortion, except when there is “documented medical evidence” of
(1) a threat to the health or life of the mother, or
(2) that the child “may be born with incapacitating physical deformity or mental deficiency,” or
(3) that a pregnancy “resulting from legally established statutory or forcible rape or incest may constitute a threat to the mental or physical health of the [*143] patient,”
(4) two other physicians “chosen because of their recognized professional competence have examined the patient and have concurred in writing, [**722] ” and
(5) the procedure “is performed in a hospital accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals.”
The providing of medical information by physicians to state legislatures in their consideration of legislation regarding therapeutic abortion was “to be considered consistent with the principles of ethics of the American Medical Association.” This recommendation was adopted by the House of Delegates. Proceedings of the AMA House of Delegates 40-51 (June 1967). (SOURCE: Blackmun opinion in Roe vs. Wade)

________________________________________________________________________________________

1967 – UK – Parliament

Abortion Act of 1967
( WIKPEDIA) The Abortion Act 1967 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to regulate abortion by registered practitioners, and the free provision of such medical aid through the National Health Service(NHS).
It was introduced by David (later Lord) Steel as a Private Member’s Bill, but was backed by the government, and after a heated debate and a free vote passed on 27 October 1967, coming into effect on 27 April 1968.
The act made abortion legal in the UK up to 28 weeks gestation.

( Blackmun- Roe V Wade Opinion) –The Abortion Act 1967 permits a licensed physician to perform an abortion where two licensed physicians agree
(1) that he continuance to the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant women , or
(2) of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant women, or
(3) any existing children or her family, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, or
(4) there is substantial risk , that if the child were born, that it would suffer from physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.

15 & 16 Eliz. 2, c. 87.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

1967- Colorado legalizes abortion

1967, Colorado became the first state to reform its abortion law based on the ALI recommendation. The new Colorado statute permitted abortions if
(1) the pregnant woman’s life or physical or mental health were endangered,
(2) if the fetus would be born with a severe physical or mental defect, or
(3) if the pregnancy had resulted from rape or incest.
( SOURCE: The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy March 2003, Volume 6, Number 1 Special Analaysis, Lessons from Before Roe: Will Past be Prologue?)

______________________________________________________________________________________

1967- California legalized abortion

________________________________________________________________________________________

1967-Episcopal Church

1967- The 62nd General Convention of the Episcopal Church supported abortion law “reform” to permit the “termination of pregnancy” for reasons of life, rape, incest, fetal deformity, or physical mental health of the mother.

For example, the Episcopal Church at its 1964 General Convention stated, “The Church continues to condemn non-therapeutic abortions….” Yet its 1967 General Convention approved abortions where “the physical or mental health of the mother is threatened seriously,” and in cases where the child would be born with disability or was conceived in rape. In 1976, the Episcopal General Convention reaffirmed this statement and went further. It expressed “unequivocal opposition to any legislation on the part of the national or state governments which would abridge or deny the right of individuals to reach informed decisions in this matter and to act upon them.”
( Source: The Protestant Churches on Abortion: Complex, Contradictory, and Challenging By Kathleen Sweeney)

______________________________________________________________________________________

1968- Planned Parenthood openly endorses abortion

1968-Planned Parenthood World Population approved unanimously a policy recognizing abortion and sterilization as proper medical procedures. It called for the legalization of both. They elect the first Negro as Chairman, Dr. Jerome H. Holland. Holland pledged his support to the organization and said that those who called birth control a form of “genocide” , “ Are not aware of the real meaning of Family Planning and its uses.” His comments came after the Pittsburgh NAACP critisized family planners in 1967 as bent on trying to keep the Negro birth rate as low as possible. ( SOURCE: New York Times, Abortion and Sterilization Win Support of Planned Parenthood; Proper Medical Procedures, Agency Says — Asks End of Laws Forbidding Them :11/14/1968)

____________________________________________________________________________________
1968- Planned Parenthood calls for repeal of abortion laws:

1968- Planned Parenthood-World Population, which in November, 1968, passed resolutions calling for repeal of the abortion laws in support of its declared policy of voluntary parenthood..
(SOURCE: The Atlantic, THE RIGHT OF ABORTION, by Harriet Pilpel , 1969)
____________________________________________________________________________________________

1968- Georgia passes Abortion law – Christian Council of Metropolitan Atlanta

1968- Georgia passed first abortion bill HB281
In the 1967 Georgia Legislative Session Rep. Starnes introduced what eventually became House Bill 281. The bill-in its passage through the State House and Senate in 1967 and 1968-was amended many times in its finer points. From beginning to end, however, it was seen by opponents and proponents alike as one of our nation’s most permissive abortion laws.
H.B. 281 would allow a physician, with the approval of two other doctors, to perform an abortion if:
1) continuation of the pregnancy would endanger the life of the mother or would seriously or permanently injure her health,
2) the fetus would very likely be born with a grave, permanent, or irremediable mental or physical defect, or
3) the pregnancy resulted from forcible or statutory rape.

.HB. 281 passed in the Georgia House of Representatives 129-3. The next year it passed in Senate 33-17. Except for one public hearing in 1968, the bill came and went with little notice and even less concern and opposition from the public or the church.

The newspapers favored liberalizing Georgia’s law. The Atlanta Journal gushed, “One of the most enlightened bills in the nation has been passed by both chambers of the legislature and awaits only the signature of Gov. Maddox.” Then in true “newspeak” the paper proclaimed, “Abortion in such cases does more to preserve life than to take it.” (Atlanta Journal, March 2, 1968)
The Pastors
H.B. 281 came to the desk of Governor Lester Maddox-for him to sign, veto or simply ignore and it would automatically become law in 30 days.
Gov. Maddox struggled with the morality of the bill. He went to a local pastor’s association for direction-asking the representatives of 32 denominations (through the Christian Council of Metropolitan Atlanta) to vote on H.B. 281. The pastors’ association was asked to express their own opinion on whether the 1876 abortion law should be liberalized. The vote returned: 117-6 in favor of the new law. This vote by Atlanta’s religious leaders likely convinced Maddox that H.B. 281 was not immoral.
Maddox would not sign but did not veto the bill and it became law on April 15, 1968.
( SOURCE: Georgia RTL The History of The Georgia Right to Life Committee
http://www.grtl.org/history.asp)

_________________________________________________________________________________________

1968- American Baptist Convention

American Baptist abortion resolution

In 1968, the American Baptist Convention adopted a resolution stating that “abortion should be a matter of “responsible, personal decision,” and that legislation should be provided for termination of pregnancies prior to the twelfth week.[4] In the same year, the General Assembly of the Unitarian Universalist Association urged that efforts be made to abolish existing abortion laws, and that the decision to have an abortion be a private matter between a woman and her physician.[5] Other American denominations such as the United Presbyterian Church, the United Methodist Church, and the Protestant Episcopal Church adopted similar resolutions.
___________________________________________________________________________________________

1968-United Methodist Church
STUDY DOCUMENTS, SOCIAL POLICY RESOLUTIONS
1968
The “Church and Family” study document stated: “We believe that responsible family planning, practiced in Christian conscience, fulfills the will of God. The present population problems call for a continuing responsible attitude toward family planning. … Recognizing that there are certain circumstances under which abortion may be justified from a Christian standpoint, we recommend a study of existing abortion laws.”]
___________________________________________________________________________________________

1969- United Church of Christ

General Synod first called for legalizing abortion in 1969

Freedom of choice in reproductive matters was first affirmed by the General Synod in 1971 and has been reaffirmed in one way or another by several General Synods since.(SOURCE: APRIL 1996 Office of Communication United Church of Christ )
____________________________________________________________________________________

Churches cannot agree on abortion 1974

1969- American Psychological Association (APA)

Abortion
WHEREAS, in many state legislature, bills have recently been introduced for the purpose of repealing or drastically modifying the existing criminal codes with respect to the termination of unwanted pregnancies; and WHEREAS, termination of unwanted pregnancies is clearly a mental health and child welfare issue, and a legitimate concern of APA; be it resolved, that termination of pregnancy be considered a civil right of the pregnant woman, to be handled as other medical and surgical procedures in consultation with her physician, and to be considered legal if performed by a licensed physician in a licensed medical facility. ( SOURCE: http://www.apa.org/governance/cpm/chapter12.html Chapter XII. Public Interest (Part
__________________________________________________________________________________________

1969- Arkansas based on the Model Penal Code, Delaware, Kansas, NM, Oregon liberalize abortion laws ( ALL )

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

1970: Alaska, Hawaii, New York, and Washington liberalize abortion laws, making abortion available at the request of a woman and her doctor. ( NAF)

________________________________________________________________________________________________

1970 – AMA member Opposed to abortion

1970- Bernard Hirsh, head of the AMA’s legal department in Chicago, said his organization was “violently opposed” to abortion in advanced stages of pregnancy. “ It’s just horrible, whether you call it murder, or anything else” Hirsh said. He said the AMA was opposed to abortions after 12 or 14 weeks and opposed to New York’s limit of 24 weeks. Hirsh said it was not in line with the organization’s policy of good medical practice. (SOURCE: San Mateo, The Times, Aborted Fetus is Surviving: 12/19/1970)

But in June of 1970 the American Medical Association passed a liberal abortion policy:

AMA 1970
______________________________________________________________________________________

1970- American Public Health Association

1970- adopted standards for abortion services
The position of the American Public Health Association. In October, 1970, the Executive Board of the APHA adopted Standards for Abortion Services. These were five in number:
a. Rapid and simple abortion referral must be readily available through state and local public [p145] health departments, medical societies, or other nonprofit organizations.
b. An important function of counseling should be to simplify and expedite the provision of abortion services; it should not delay the obtaining of these services.
c. Psychiatric consultation should not be mandatory. As in the case of other specialized medical services, psychiatric consultation should be sought for definite indications, and not on a routine basis.
d. A wide range of individuals from appropriately trained, sympathetic volunteers to highly skilled physicians may qualify as abortion counselors.
e. Contraception and/or sterilization should be discussed with each abortion patient.
Recommended Standards for Abortion Services, 61 Am.J.Pub.Health 396 (1971). Among factors pertinent to life and health risks associated with abortion were three that “are recognized as important”:
a. the skill of the physician,
b. the environment in which the abortion is performed, and above all
c. the duration of pregnancy, as determined by uterine size and confirmed by menstrual history.
Id. at 397.
It was said that “a well equipped hospital” offers more protection
to cope with unforeseen difficulties than an office or clinic without such resources. . . . The factor of gestational age is of overriding importance.
Thus, it was recommended that abortions in the second trimester and early abortions in the presence of existing medical complications be performed in hospitals as inpatient procedures. For pregnancies in the first trimester, [p146] abortion in the hospital with or without overnight stay “is probably the safest practice.” An abortion in an extramural facility, however, is an acceptable alternative “provided arrangements exist in advance to admit patients promptly if unforeseen complications develop.” Standards for an abortion facility were listed. It was said that, at present, abortions should be performed by physicians or osteopaths who are licensed to practice and who have “adequate training.” Id. at 398.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

1970- American Psychological Association (APA)

1970- Quote: The APA made this resolution in 1970: “WHEREAS, in many state legislature, bills have recently been introduced for the purpose of repealing or drastically modifying the existing criminal codes with respect to the termination of unwanted pregnancies; and whereas, termination of unwanted pregnancies is clearly a mental health and child welfare issue, and a legitimate concern of APA; be it resolved, that termination of pregnancy be considered a civil right of the pregnant woman, to be handled as other medical and surgical procedures in consultation with her physician, and to be considered legal if performed by a licensed physician in a licensed medical facility.” ( SOURCE- Council Policy Manual: N. Public Interest – Part 1: APA.Org)
______________________________________________________________________________________

1970- United Methodist Church

STUDY DOCUMENTS, SOCIAL POLICY RESOLUTIONS

UMC 1970 Abortion resolution

The special session of the General Conference approved a resolution on the “population crisis,” which said states should “remove the regulation of abortion from the criminal code, placing it instead under regulations relating to other procedures of standard medical practice. Abortion would be available only upon request of the person most directly concerned.” This was the church’s first official position on abortion.

1970-Population issue: General Conference Meeting in session in St. Louis, Mo. April 25,1970: The resolution recognizes the population problem as a religious and moral concern and calls for action by the church, government, and individuals. It understands the small family norm as a means for arriving at population stability and this protecting the quality of life. The resolution further notes that families with more than two children contribute to the population explosion. The need to remove the regulation of abortion from the criminal code, placing it instead under regulations relating to other procedures of standard medical practice is indicated. ( SOURCE: Rev. David O. Poindexter, Director: Population Communications Center, United Methodist Church, New York: Statements at Public Hearings of the US Commission on Population Growth and the American Future; 1971, LOC # 72-600129; 1972; 67)
___________________________________________________________________________________________

1970- American Lutheran Church

The Environment Crisis, A Statement of The American Lutheran Church (1970)

Adopted by the Fifth General Convention of The American Lutheran Church, October 21-27, 1970, “as a statement expressing the judgment and corporate conviction of The American Lutheran Church as its contribution to the discussions seeking an informed solution to a difficult problem of contemporary life and society.”) Source: The Journal of Lutheran Ethics http://www.elca.org/jle/article.asp?k=202

Population growth was a natural way of aiding the survival of earlier human society. But questions now arise: how many people can the earth sustain? How can we provide the physical and cultural needs, and handle the waste products, of billions of people without destroying the natural environment? Do people have a natural right to produce as many children as they wish? Such questions force a basic policy decision upon the nations of the world: Shall they rely on natural processes to curb, or technological advances to cope with, the rapid growth of population? Or shall it be a matter of public policy to control population growth? What forms of population control can be effective without destroying basic human and democratic rights and values?

Sex, Marriage, and family : Edited by Cedric W. Tilberg
Commission on Marriage, Board of Social Ministry, Lutheran Church in America: 1970
View Here https://www.elca.org/archives/text/Sex%20Marriage%20&%20Family%20A%20Contemporary%20Christian%20Perspective.pdf

( PAGE 76-77) Sterilization by the state for eugenic reasons for the safety of society is justifiable only under the protection of wise and just legislation, which guarantees the most humane means of implementation.

( PAGE 77) Abortions may be done for therapeutic reasons Abortions performed for other reasons are considered illegal when , as defined by present law in most jurisdictions, no medical problem exists which justifies the termination of pregnancy.

( PAGE 79) Legislation ought to be enacted , roughly uniform throughout a nation, which permits abortion for such reasons as the following: 1) threatens a mother’s physical or mental health 2) results from rape or incest, or, 3) is likely to produce a child with severe mental or physical defects
_______________________________________________________________________________________
1970- Presbyterian Church ( USA)

In the PCUS statement adopted in 1970, possible justifying circumstances for an abortion included,
(1) “Medical indications of physical or mental deformity ,
(2) conception as a result of rape of incest,
(3) conditions under which the physical health or mental health of either the mother or child would be gravely threatened, or,
(4) the socio-economic condition of the family.” ( PCUS, Report of the special committee on problem pregnancy and abortion, Published by the Office of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA, 1992 Ref: Minutes, PCUS, Part I, page 126)

1970 Presdby Church read here

the Presbyterian Church (USA) stated in 1962 and reaffirmed in 1965 the following statement:
The fetus is a human life to be protected by the criminal law from the moment when the ovum is fertilized…. [A]s Christians, we believe that this should not be an individual decision on the part of the physician and couple. The decision should be limited and restrained by the larger society.
Despite this strongly pro-life 1965 statement, the Presbyterian Church (USA), in every statement and resolution since 1970, has supported free and open access to abortion without legal restriction. ( Source: The Protestant Churches on Abortion: Complex, Contradictory, and Challenging By Kathleen Sweeney)

Presbyterians have struggled with the issue of abortion for more than 30 years, beginning in 1970 when the General Assembly, the national governing body of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) declared that, “the artificial or induced termination of a pregnancy is a matter of careful ethical decision of the patient…and therefore should not be restricted by law…”(1) In the years that followed this action, the General Assembly has adopted policy and taken positions on the subject of abortion. ( SOURCE: http://www.pcusa.org/101/101-abortion.htm#1)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
1971- Southern Baptist Convention

1971 SBC Abortion Resolution

SBC abortion Resolution 1971Resolutions on Abortion
Resolution On Abortion, adopted at the SBC convention, June 1971:
WHEREAS, Christians in the American society today are faced with difficult decisions about abortion; and
WHEREAS, Some advocate that there be no abortion legislation, thus making the decision a purely private matter between a woman and her doctor; and
WHEREAS, Others advocate no legal abortion, or would permit abortion only if the life of the mother is threatened;
Therefore, be it RESOLVED, that this Convention express the belief that society has a responsibility to affirm through the laws of the state a high view of the sanctity of human life, including fetal life, in order to protect those who cannot protect themselves; and
Be it further RESOLVED, That we call upon Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as
(1) rape, incest,
(2) clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and
(3) carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother
__________________________________________________________________________________
1971 United Church of Canada

1971 United Church Canada

_________________________________________________________________________________

1972- American Bar Association

The position of the American Bar Association. At its meeting in February 1972 the ABA House of Delegates approved, with 17 opposing votes, the Uniform Abortion Act that had been drafted and approved the preceding August by the Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. 58 A. B. A. J. 380 (1972). We set forth the Act in full in the margin. n40 The [*147] Conference [**724] has appended an enlightening Prefatory Note. n41 ( SOURCE – Blackmun- Roe v Wade Opinion)

n40 “UNIFORM ABORTION ACT
“SECTION 1. [Abortion Defined; When Authorized.]
“(a) ‘Abortion’ means the termination of human pregnancy with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus.
“(b) An abortion may be performed in this state only if it is performed:
“(1) by a physician licensed to practice medicine [or osteopathy] in this state or by a physician practicing medicine [or osteopathy] in the employ of the government of the United States or of this state, [and the abortion is performed [in the physician’s office or in a medical clinic, or] in a hospital approved by the [Department of Health] or operated by the United States, this state, or any department, agency, or political subdivision of either;] or by a female upon herself upon the advice of the physician; and
“(2) within [20] weeks after the commencement of the pregnancy [or after [20] weeks only if the physician has reasonable cause to believe
there is a substantial risk that continuance of the pregnancy would endanger the life of the mother or would gravely impair the physical or mental health of the mother,
(ii) that the child would be born with grave physical or mental defect, or
(iii) that the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, or illicit intercourse with a girl under the age of 16 years].

_____________________________________________________________________________________

1972- United Methodist Church

STUDY DOCUMENTS, SOCIAL POLICY RESOLUTIONS
A study document titled “The Family” calls on local churches to work “to remove the regulation of abortion from the criminal code, placing it instead under laws relating to other procedures of standard medical practice.”
____________________________________________________________________________________________

1973, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)

General Assembly Resolution No. 7332 as our precedent. Approved October 1973, NO. 7322 resolved the following:
“THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the General Assembly of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) meeting at Cincinnati, Ohio, October 26-31, 1973, strongly encourages individual congregations to give disciplined study to the matter of abortion, calling upon ethical resources of all God’s people, contemporary and historical, and upon those disciplines which bear upon it, such as medicine, psychology, and laws.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that persons who must decide whether or not to undergo an abortion shall have the informed supportive resources of the Christian community to help them make responsible choices, and that congregations and individuals give continued full support to each person who must make such a decision, knowing that whether or not an abortion is decided the person will need the supportive assurance of God’s grace and love which meaningfully can come with the Christian community.” ( SOURCE: http://www.disciples.org/ga/resolutions/0725/)
______________________________________________________________________________________

1973 – SCOTUS USA

1973 – Justice Blackmun wrote this into the Roe V Wade decision: So this proves that the church swayed the decision of the court – Also make a note that Blackmun sought desperately information on the hippocratic oath and concluded that it was created by a few people and did not represent the entire medical community:

“It may be taken to represent also the position of a large segment of the Protestant community, insofar as that can be ascertained; organized groups that have taken a formal position on the abortion issue have generally regarded abortion as a matter for the conscience of the individual and her family. [n58] “

The foot note leads to 58. Amicus Brief for the American Ethical Union et al. For the position of the National Council of Churches and of other denominations, see Lader 99-101.

And it is no wonder, Blackmun made that comment: because their (AEU) 1965 resolution on abortion follows the Unitarian one and states:

Westport, Connecticut 1965
FOR HUMANE ABORTION LAWS
WHEREAS the social and physical welfare of the woman should be of prime importance in all decisions to interrupt unwanted pregnancies;
WHEREAS the laws of most of the United States stipulate that abortion is illegal unless necessary to preserve the life of the woman;
WHEREAS present laws and prevailing attitudes encourage costly illegal abortions, a scourge imposed by mores of a less enlightened and humane era;
WHEREAS the LIFE of a woman is rarely jeopardized by pregnancy; not infrequently, however, her HEALTH and the proper development of her fetus are so jeopardized;
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that it is a moral obligation to eliminate illegal abortion, a social disease and malpractice which discriminates against those who can least afford its outrageous costs, makes them parties to a crime, and imposes serious health hazards and a high incidence of fatalities;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that laws should be enacted making abortion legal if:
1. There is substantial risk of the physical or mental health of the mother,
2. The child is likely to be born with a grave physical or mental defect,
3. Pregnancy results from rape or incest.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

General

Until the late 1960s, Protestant churches were virtually unanimous in opposing abortion. The child in the womb was surrounded with protection. As an example, the Presbyterian Church (USA) stated in 1962 and reaffirmed in 1965 the following statement: The fetus is a human life to be protected by the criminal law from the moment when the ovum is fertilized…. [A]s Christians, we believe that this should not be an individual decision on the part of the physician and couple. The decision should be limited and restrained by the larger society. Despite this strongly pro-life 1965 statement, the Presbyterian Church (USA), in every statement and resolution since 1970, has supported free and open access to abortion without legal restriction. Almost simultaneously, the United Methodists (1970), the Lutheran Church in America (1970), the United Church of Christ (1971), the Disciples of Christ (1971), and the Southern Baptist Convention (1971) adopted policies allowing abortion as a decision of the woman or the couple. (Fortunately, the Southern Baptist Convention has now come back to a strongly pro-life position.)
For example, the Episcopal Church at its 1964 General Convention stated, “The Church continues to condemn non-therapeutic abortions….” Yet its 1967 General Convention approved abortions where “the physical or mental health of the mother is threatened seriously,” and in cases where the child would be born with disability or was conceived in rape. In 1976, the Episcopal General Convention reaffirmed this statement and went further. It expressed “unequivocal opposition to any legislation on the part of the national or state governments which would abridge or deny the right of individuals to reach informed decisions in this matter and to act upon them.”
However, in 1988 a resolution passed which declared that “All human life is sacred…from inception until death….We regard all abortion as having a tragic dimension….We emphatically oppose abortion as a means of birth control, family planning, sex selection, or any reason of mere convenience….” ( Source: The Protestant Churches on Abortion: Complex, Contradictory, and Challenging By Kathleen Sweeney)

_____________________________________________________________________________

1974 Lutherans split in abortion

1974 Lutherans split on abortion

_________________________________________________________________________

1976: EPISCOPAL Church:

Title: Reaffirm the 1967 General Convention Statement on Abortion
Legislative Action Taken: Concurred As Amended
Final Text:

Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, That the following principles and guidelines reflect the mind of the Church meeting in this 65th General Convention:

That the beginning of new human life, because it is a gift of the power of God’s love for his people, and thereby sacred, should not and must not be undertaken unadvisedly or lightly but in full accordance of the understanding for which this power to conceive and give birth is bestowed by God.
Such understanding includes the responsibility for Christians to limit the size of their families and to practice responsible birth control. Such means for moral limitations do not include abortions for convenience.
That the position of this Church, stated at the 62nd General Convention of the Church in Seattle in 1967 which declared support for the “termination of pregnancy” particularly in those cases where “the physical or mental health of the mother is threatened seriously, or where there is substantial reason to believe that the child would be born badly deformed in mind or body, or where the pregnancy has resulted from rape or incest” is reaffirmed. Termination of pregnancy for these reasons is permissible.
That in those cases where it is firmly and deeply believed by the person or persons concerned that pregnancy should be terminated for causes other than the above, members of this Church are urged to seek the advice and counsel of a Priest of this Church, and, where appropriate, Penance.
That whenever members of this Church are consulted with regard to proposed termination of pregnancy, they are to explore with the person or persons seeking advice and counsel other preferable courses of action.
That the Episcopal Church express its unequivocal opposition to any legislation on the part of the national or state governments which would abridge or deny the right of individuals to reach informed decisions in this matter and to act upon them.

Citation: General Convention, Journal of the General Convention of…The Episcopal Church, Minneapolis, 1976 (New York: General Convention, 1977), p. C-3.

________________________________________________________________________________