(Editor’s note: There has been much controversy about the position of the Anglican Church on abortion. The following is an attempt, by means of examining the original documents, to allow everyone to examine the matter and draw the proper conclusions.)
The current position on abortion of the Anglican Church stems from 1967. That year, the General Synod (the legislative body of the Anglican Church) approved a motion requesting that the Primate set up a committee “to prepare a statement on all aspects relating to abortion,” and authorizing this committee “to submit a brief” in the name of the Anglican Church of Canada to the federal government.
The Anglican brief was presented to the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare in Ottawa on December 14, 1967. This is, of course, the Committee which was studying the “liberalization” of the abortion law.
The Brief acknowledged that the sections of the Criminal Code relating to abortion were “in need of change” and went on to urge that prior consideration should be given to the “urgent need for major amendment to those parts of the Criminal Code which pertain to the dispensing of means and information about methods of family planning.”
The very next sentence of the Brief suggested that the writers might, perhaps, have believed that abortion is a form of birth control. If the inference was indeed unintentional, it was an unfortunate turn of phrase. The sentence read, “We believe that the prevention of unwanted pregnancies by contraceptive means is to be preferred to other alternatives.”
As far as this writer can see, the only alternative to contraception in preventing pregnancy is chastity. The experts writing this brief were, presumably not denigrating chastity, so what were they doing? Were they suggesting that abortion is an alternative to pregnancy? However, abortion is not an “alternative” to pregnancy, it is a violent method of destroying an already-existing pregnancy.
The crucial statements in this brief occur in paragraphs 10 to 17, which read as follows:
10…We assert the general inviolability of the foetus and defend, as a first principle, its right to live and develop. We lay the burden of proof to the contrary on those who, in particular cases, wish to extinguish that right on the ground that it is in conflict with another right having a greater claim to recognition.
11. “Abortion on demand” and the absolute prohibition of all abortion both seem to us indefensible positions. The first position ignores the rights of the unborn child and may also ignore those of the father, and moreover disregards the professional obligations and possible conscientious objections of the medical personnel involved. The absolutist position is strained to absurdity when it can in certain circumstances condemn both the mother and the unborn child to death. We recognize that there are cases in which, granted the right of the foetus to live and develop, this right may be superseded by another right with greater claim to recognition.
12. In every proposed abortion due consideration must be given to the sacredness of human life, the life of the unborn child and the life of the expectant mother.
13. We believe that it should be legally permissible to terminate pregnancy when either the life or health of the expectant mother is seriously threatened, provided that such termination is carried out under the conditions outlined in paragraph 17 below. Health in this context is to be understood in its broadest sense. Termination of pregnancy on grounds of health must be based on an understanding of the relationship of the expectant mother to her total environment and her ability to cope with the problems within it.
14. We would emphasize that in cases of alleged rape or incest it is the effect upon the woman’s total health rather than the circumstances of the conception which might provide a valid ground for termination of pregnancy.
15. When diagnosis can indicate that there is substantial risk of foetal abnormality, a request for therapeutic abortion should be considered by a therapeutic abortion committee as described in paragraph 17 below. Abortion in such cases would be directed towards the prevention of breakdown of the mother’s health.
16. In view of the principles set forth in paragraphs 13, 14 and 15, we recommend that the only grounds justifying abortion to which the Criminal Code should refer should be serious threat to the life or health of the expectant mother. Specific indications can better be left to the scientific and moral judgment of the doctors responsible for the decision and for the operation, in consultation with the patient and, where relevant, with her husband or responsible guardian.
17. Each termination of pregnancy should be performed in an accredited hospital, the request passed by the hospital’s Committee on Therapeutic Abortion, and the operation performed by a suitably qualified medical practitioner. In this connection the Criminal Code must also make provision to prevent abortion being performed by unqualified persons.
(The parts in italics above form a part of the February 1985 Statement from the Mississauga meeting of the House of Bishops. This is referred to below.)
The Brief went on to recommend that careful records be kept of “termination of pregnancy” and that hospitals, doctors and nurses with “conscientious objection” should not be required to perform abortions. Paragraph 20 stated:
In cases where abortion is not indicated the expectant mother should be given access to the skilled supportive services which can afford her the encouragement and help which she may need to continue the pregnancy and care for the child. This should include family planning, and in certain cases, might also include sterilization.
(Again, the sentence in italics above is included in the 1985 Mississauga statement, which will be referred to below.)
Moral blackmail
It is difficult to see how the Anglican Church can consider its position to be one of rejecting “abortion on demand.” The Brief endorses abortion for rape or incest and for “substantial risk” of foetal abnormality. Its approval for abortion when there is risk to the health of the mother hinges on the interpretation given to the word “health,” specifying that “health” should be understood “ in its broadest sense… based on an understanding of the relationship of the expectant mother to her total environment…” (see 13 above). In other words, abortion is permitted on socio-economic grounds.
In 1973, the General Synod, meeting in Regina, considered two abortion-related motions. The first read,
That this General Synod stand for one minute of silent prayer for all those human lives which have been killed by abortion in Canada by the present state of the law.
The Most Rev. E. W. Scott personally requested the mover and seconder to withdraw the motion. He said that “it amounted to moral blackmail and would be unfair to those who disagreed.” The motion was withdrawn.
A second motion was carried overwhelmingly. It read,
That this General Synod, while admitting the necessity of therapeutic abortion in special circumstances – as spelled out in our 1967 brief to the Government, commends the government of Canada for the present law which is in accordance with this philosophy …
(This motion had a further clause calling for general distribution of the 1967 Brief throughout the church, which Dr. D. J. Broadwell told a news conference he introduced, because “we now have clergy condemning young girls for sin when in fact the national church does not consider it sin.”)
At the 1977 General Synod meeting in Calgary an attempt was made to reverse the Anglican policy supporting abortion on broad health grounds, and to introduce a motion with a pro-life clause rejecting therapeutic abortion except in the rare instances when human life was actually in danger.
Amendment after amendment
This motion did not come to a vote since it had been placed at the end of the Synod’s agenda, and there were no longer sufficient bishops present for a quorum.
The same pro-life motion was reintroduced at the 1980 General Synod in Peterborough. It stated,
That this General Synod, in proclaiming a Gospel of Life and Hope and Compassion for all of God’s people, rejects the principle of abortion on demand and expresses its conviction that abortion should not be an acceptable therapeutic procedure except in those rare instances in which the mother’s life and therefore the life of the foetus itself, may be seriously endangered by the continuation of the pregnancy; and commits itself to strong support of: …
(Here follows a list of three programmes directed toward family life, birth control and community support for those faced with unwanted pregnancies.)
But an amendment deleted the entire clause shown in italics above, and insisted that the words “abortion on demand” be placed in inverted commas. The amendment carried.
An amendment to the amendment added to the motion (now rejecting simply “abortion on demand”) the words “or for reasons of convenience or economic or social hardship” and was carried.
Following the 1980 Synod, a new sub-group of the church’s Task Force on Human Life, established at the request of the House of Bishops, went to work on the abortion question. Its report, The Abortion Question, was approved for publication by the National Executive Council in May 1982. In the report’s foreword, the Rev. E. W. Scott commends it to the church as “a pastoral resource for personal and congregational study.”
Establish abortion clinics
This group suggested that the 1980 General Synod (which, in fact, tried to cut down church approval for abortion) had been too narrow in its approach. The report says, specifically, General Synod in 1980 rejected “the principle of ‘abortion on demand’ or for the reasons of convenience or economic or social hardship.” Of course, given our psychosomatic human nature, a woman’s material and social circumstances can and do affect her health. Thus in any pregnancy such factors must be honestly and conscientiously examined if they seriously threaten to undermine the woman’s physical or psychological health.
Among the report’s recommendations were statements that:
- abortion may be morally acceptable for such reasons as economic hardship, lack of a stable partner, too many family responsibilities, unstable marriage;
- abortion of an unwanted child out of compassion for the humanity of that child;
- the value of human life lies not in any God-given soul, but in one’s living relationship with God, others, and the created order;
- the unborn has an obligation to accept “the burden of sacrifice” if the mother is “physically or psychologically unable to bear the weight of her obligations;”
- abortion clinics should be established, if necessary, to provide equal access to abortion across the country.
By the end of 1984, the Anglican newspaper, The Canadian Churchman, had adopted an editorial stand on abortion that distressed Anglican pro-lifers. Commenting on the Ontario jury acquittal of Morgentaler, the fourth of such verdicts, editor Jerry Hames wrote that these acquittals “will now persuade Parliament to change the current law.” He recommended both hospital and free-standing clinics so that abortion should be available “with the minimum of delay.” He urged that the role of the therapeutic abortion committee be more clearly “defined” since they “exist in no other field of medicine,” and concluded,
In many areas of the law, society leads and the legislators follow. The Morgentaler juries have given the legislators a clear indication of where society is leading. It is up to them now to follow.
Not only did readers of the monthly (circulation 272,000) react angrily, so too did several Bishops. Bishop Derwyn Jones of the Huronia (London) diocese, was said to be “horrified” at this “Morgentaler approach to abortion.” The negative reaction provoked the Canadian Churchman to publish a further article on abortion in its February 1985 issue. This article pointed out that the editorial views expressed earlier in December 1984 were simply a reiteration of the Church’s long-established views. (A comprehensive summary of The Canadian Churchman’s position was published in The Interim, April 1985, “Anglican Controversy,” by Anthony Hawkins.)
Clarifying statement
Clearly, the forthright stand taken by the Churchman, and equally firmly rejected by some Bishops and laypeople, was at least partly responsible for the abortion issue appearing on the agenda when the Bishops met in February 1985 in Mississauga. Although this was not a Synodical meeting, empowered to issue a binding policy, the Bishops did issue a clarifying statement on abortion, which stated it to be “the official position of the Anglican Church of Canada.”
The opening statement read, “In response to current public concern about abortion, the House of Bishops of the Anglican church of Canada has expressed its continuing support for the position previously stated by the Church.”
It proceeded to quote from the 1967 Brief to parliament. The parts reaffirmed in 1985 are shown in full above (italicized) in our extracts from the Brief. It is illuminating to note what is not restated. This condensed statement is fully endorsed by the Bishops. “The House feels strongly that this statement expressed its mind at the present time and is the position from which further discussion of the issue should proceed,” the statement continues.
The Bishops went on to affirm the 1980 Synod statement rejecting “abortion on demand or for reasons of convenience or economic hardship,” pledging support for family life and birth control programs, counseling for those facing “unwanted” pregnancies, and community support for “adequate practical help in the care and nurture of children.”
