ELCA Opposes Repeal of Roe v. Wade?

[DCharlton]

https://www.elca.org/News-and-Events/8141

[David Garner]

I was curious on what grounds it opposes repeal.  From the statement:

"I recognize that the leaked court draft does not represent the Supreme Court's ruling in its final form; nevertheless, it contradicts this church's teaching. This church teaches that abortion and reproductive health care, including contraception, must be legal and accessible."

Yet it cites only to its own Social Statement, which itself cites to Scripture only to stress the value of life.  I assume, then, as the current statement seems to say, the ELCA speaks only for itself, and makes no attempt to derive this teaching that "abortion and reproductive health care, including contraception, must be legal and accessible" from any Scriptural or Patristic foundation at all.

It seems to me, then, that this is simply the ELCA embracing secular and, let's be honest, partisan, politics over and against the consistent teaching of the Church throughout history.  So we know where they stand, and why they stand there.

[DCharlton]

Bishop Eaton is predictably disingenuous:

She says:

"This church's social teaching states that abortion must be legal, regulated and accessible. People who choose to have legal abortions should not be harassed or prevented from accessing abortion due to economic or other factors."

But then:
"Any ruling similar to the leaked draft will upend 50 years of legal precedent in our nation and damage the health and well-being of many."

No.  It will allow states to regulate abortion.  Something which Bishop Eaton says we favor.

[David Garner]

Bishop Eaton is predictably disingenuous:

She says:

"This church's social teaching states that abortion must be legal, regulated and accessible. People who choose to have legal abortions should not be harassed or prevented from accessing abortion due to economic or other factors."

But then:
"Any ruling similar to the leaked draft will upend 50 years of legal precedent in our nation and damage the health and well-being of many."

It will allow states to regulate abortion.  Something which Bishop Eaton says we favor.

The 1991 Social Statement says expressly "the position of this church is that government has a legitimate role in regulating abortion."  And again, "Because of our conviction that both the life of the woman and the life in her womb must be respected by law, this church opposes: ..... the total lack of regulation of abortion."

Yet, the current state of the law under Roe and Casey is precisely that government can scarcely regulate abortion.  So.......

[DCharlton]

Bishop Eaton is predictably disingenuous:

She says:

"This church's social teaching states that abortion must be legal, regulated and accessible. People who choose to have legal abortions should not be harassed or prevented from accessing abortion due to economic or other factors."

But then:
"Any ruling similar to the leaked draft will upend 50 years of legal precedent in our nation and damage the health and well-being of many."

It will allow states to regulate abortion.  Something which Bishop Eaton says we favor.

The 1991 Social Statement says expressly "the position of this church is that government has a legitimate role in regulating abortion."  And again, "Because of our conviction that both the life of the woman and the life in her womb must be respected by law, this church opposes: ..... the total lack of regulation of abortion."

Yet, the current state of the law under Roe and Casey is precisely that government can scarcely regulate abortion.  So.......

Exactly.

[DCharlton]

In the social statement, this church holds both women and "developing life in the womb" (p. 2) as neighbors.

Sadly, I find this statement to be laughable.  Can anyone remember a time when the ELCA used this social statement to advocate for neighbor B, the "developing life in the womb."

[George Rahn]

Eaton’s recent statement does not point out that the abortion issues  would vacate any ruling on abortion at the federal level.  Any ruling regarding the leaked opinion hands the abortion issue back upon the states for deliberation.  Imo it is appropriate for the Supreme Court to transfer this matter away from federal jurisdiction and burden the states with this level of deliberation and ruling.

[peter_speckhard]

It would be interesting to see the ELCA insist as strongly about the regulations of abortion as it does about the legality and accessibility of it. After all, it is a teaching of the church that abortion "must" be regulated but I didn't see them opposing the recent senate bill that would have eliminated the power of any legal entity to regulate abortion up to the time of birth.

[Richard Johnson]

Bp. Eaton, like so many others, claims the Social Statement is a moderately conservative one which should be acceptable to everyone, but then reads it as being effectively pro-choice.

I also find laughable (not in a good way) her falling into line with the current liberal insistence on talking about "pregnant persons," as if it isn't women who get pregnant. Seems to undermine the legal argument that the "right to choose" is an issue of gender equality.

[Dan Fienen]

Bp. Eaton, like so many others, claims the Social Statement is a moderately conservative one which should be acceptable to everyone, but then reads it as being effectively pro-choice.

I also find laughable (not in a good way) her falling into line with the current liberal insistence on talking about "pregnant persons," as if it isn't women who get pregnant. Seems to undermine the legal argument that the "right to choose" is an issue of gender equality.

I've read the ELCA Social Statement on abortion and found much to agree with in it. The statement is a moderately conservative one. Does it actually serve any purpose in informing the statements and actions of the ELCA other than to be trotted out when people complain that the ELCA is pro-abortion or referenced to justify opposing any restrictions on abortion and opposing any defense or protection for the unborn?

[Matt Hummel]

Bp. Eaton, like so many others, claims the Social Statement is a moderately conservative one which should be acceptable to everyone, but then reads it as being effectively pro-choice.

I also find laughable (not in a good way) her falling into line with the current liberal insistence on talking about "pregnant persons," as if it isn't women who get pregnant. Seems to undermine the legal argument that the "right to choose" is an issue of gender equality.

I've read the ELCA Social Statement on abortion and found much to agree with in it. The statement is a moderately conservative one. Does it actually serve any purpose in informing the statements and actions of the ELCA other than to be trotted out when people complain that the ELCA is pro-abortion or referenced to justify opposing any restrictions on abortion and opposing any defense or protection for the unborn?

It is a Potemkin Statement.

Well, now at least after decades of “ No, we are not pro-choice”, thy have summoned the courage to come out of the closet…

[pastorg1@aol.com]

From a news feed: “The church teaches that abortion must be regulated, but not outlawed, according to the 1991 document. ECLA acknowledges a fetus as human life and a "neighbor" of the woman and the community.”

Oh my goodness. Human life. Neighbor.

Don’t end the human life. Don’t kill the neighbor.
Can’t this “mid-size” “mainstream Protestant denomination” hear the literally deadly conflict in their statement?

Peter (Their cognitive dissonance must make their teeth ache) Garrison

[Dan Fienen]

https://www.elca.org/News-and-Events/8141

I read the statement. I also read the Social Statement on abortion. One good thing that Bp. Eaton said was to remind us that, "In the social statement, this church holds both women and "developing life in the womb" (p. 2) as neighbors." What does it mean that the church holds both women and developing life in the womb as neighbors? Absolutely nothing. That sentence in the third paragraph of the pastoral message was the last time that any concern was shown for the "developing life in the womb." After that, that life was on his or her own, they had to argue their own cases for their life, Bp. Eaton wasn't interested. I suppose that the developing child was just too small, too unimportant, with too quiet a voice to have anyone to speak on their behalf. Certainly, in the name of the ELCA, Bp. Eaton would preclude society speaking out through its laws and government in defense of that small neighbor. That is ruled out.

[DCharlton]

https://www.elca.org/News-and-Events/8141

I read the statement. I also read the Social Statement on abortion. One good thing that Bp. Eaton said was to remind us that, "In the social statement, this church holds both women and "developing life in the womb" (p. 2) as neighbors." What does it mean that the church holds both women and developing life in the womb as neighbors? Absolutely nothing. That sentence in the third paragraph of the pastoral message was the last time that any concern was shown for the "developing life in the womb." After that, that life was on his or her own, they had to argue their own cases for their life, Bp. Eaton wasn't interested. I suppose that the developing child was just too small, too unimportant, with too quiet a voice to have anyone to speak on their behalf. Certainly, in the name of the ELCA Bp. Eaton would preclude society speaking through its laws and government should not speak in defense of that small neighbor. That is ruled out.

The social statement on abortion seems to be the exception when it comes to ELCA social statements.  In almost every other case, an ELCA social statement becomes the justification for unceasing calls for legislation and for action by the denomination.  What is true in every case, however, is that ELCA social statements are always presented to the churchwide assembly as moderate statements of unity, but afterward, always interpreted as justification for the most radical political stances.

[James_Gale]

I was curious on what grounds it opposes repeal.  From the statement:

"I recognize that the leaked court draft does not represent the Supreme Court's ruling in its final form; nevertheless, it contradicts this church's teaching. This church teaches that abortion and reproductive health care, including contraception, must be legal and accessible."

Yet it cites only to its own Social Statement, which itself cites to Scripture only to stress the value of life.  I assume, then, as the current statement seems to say, the ELCA speaks only for itself, and makes no attempt to derive this teaching that "abortion and reproductive health care, including contraception, must be legal and accessible" from any Scriptural or Patristic foundation at all.

It seems to me, then, that this is simply the ELCA embracing secular and, let's be honest, partisan, politics over and against the consistent teaching of the Church throughout history.  So we know where they stand, and why they stand there.

Bp. Eaton's statement is flatly untrue.  The draft Supreme Court opinion does not even deal with whether "abortion and reproductive health care" should be "legal and accessible."  It does not turn on whether the Constitution or other laws should enshrine a legal right to abortion.  Instead, it depends entirely on a conclusion that the US Constitution--for good or ill--does not codify such a right. 


The ELCA doesn't even try to argue that the Constitution enshrines a right to abort an unborn child.  By mischaracterizing the Court's role and the draft opinion, the ELCA unfortunately joins those on both sides of the political spectrum who are all too willing to undercut our governing institutions in pursuit of political ends. 


I disagree strongly with the ELCA's current position on abortion.  But why couldn't the Bp. Eaton have been honest about the draft opinion?  Like this:  "The Court's draft opinion concludes that the Constitution does not protect a woman's (or, ugh, birthing person's) right to abortion.  We don't agree with the Court's analysis.  That said, the Court's draft opinion does not turn on whether abortion rights should be protected in law.  The draft left those questions to Congress and to state legislatures, where we will continue our fight for reproductive rights."