This guest post was written by The Rev. Carlton W. Veazey in response to an article written by Mark Tooley of the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD) in the National Review. IRD is an organization funded by secular activists aligned with far right political groups.
By Rev. Carlton W. Veazey
President and CEO, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
A bizarrely titled article on the National Review website, "Aborting Churches/Unholy death warrants," makes a number of inaccurate and misleading statements that must be corrected. Typically RCRC does not comment on writings by the author of this article, a former CIA agent named Mark Tooley who now works for an organization called the Institute for Religion and Democracy, but this time he's gone too far.
In case readers are not acquainted with IRD, it is a non-elected, non-representative group of individuals funded by big right-wing donors. Despite its noble title, IRD aims to effect a fundamentalist takeover of the mainline Protestant denominations, using abortion and other sensitive matters as wedge issues to stir up discord. Tooley has repeatedly and unsuccessfully tried to force the denominations to leave the Coalition by mischaracterizing our views, as he continues to do in this article:
Tooley says that RCRC is "absolutist" in rejecting restrictions on abortion. Actually, RCRC is a 33-year-old interfaith coalition of religious and religiously affiliated organizations from 15 denominations and traditions with diverse views on abortion. Our members agree on two foundational principles: 1) reproductive choice is consistent with the traditions and beliefs of each member group and 2) in a pluralistic society such as ours, government has the responsibility to protect diverse religious views, not impose laws based on any one belief. Along with most religions, the Coalition communicates the grave moral nature of abortion. Rather than condemn those who contemplate abortion, we offer information and resources to help individuals and families who struggle with complex moral issues.
Tooley is confused about RCRC's views on two specific issues. First, he says that laws mandating parental notification and consent are merely "sensible restrictions." Many authorities have pointed out that these laws have been harmful to the most vulnerable teens, including those who became pregnant because of incest and rape and those with abusive families. Accordingly, RCRC opposes mandating family communications while at the same time actively encouraging parents and teens to discuss sexuality issues openly and voluntarily, to prevent an unintended pregnancy and the possible need for an abortion. Second, he is correct that the Coalition has opposed bans on specific abortion procedures but fails to say that we do so because we do not want politicians making medical decisions and we know that "partial-birth abortion ban" legislation is a precursor to outlawing all abortions. Regarding late-term abortion, our Board of Directors passed a policy position in March 1982 advising that this issue should be left to the individual member groups.
Tooley's final and presumably most damning accusation--that mainline churches are declining in numbers because members have abortions--also is factually wrong and logically flawed. Women of all religions have abortions. According to data from the authoritative Guttmacher Institute, 43% of women obtaining abortions identify themselves as Protestant, and 27% identify themselves as Catholic. Ideological certitude is no excuse for failing to do your homework.
It would be naïve to think that Mark Tooley and the Institute on Religion and Democracy are concerned about pregnancy and abortion, let alone women's lives. The IRD is part of a larger movement in American politics and culture that happily uses abortion--and other personal issues--to agitate and rally people to their cause. The mainline churches have been models of compassionate, respectful, and thoughtful discernment about human reproductive issues (Tooley dismisses this as being "ambivalent") and have assiduously sought to be inclusive of the diverse views of their members. It would be tragic if that changed.
