The Washington Post, Adventists & Abortion

[Tammy]

Quote:

Seventh-Day Adventists and abortion

Christians of all denominations are gathering on the National Mall today to protest the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide. But one denomination that may be sparsely represented is Seventh-day Adventists whose large worldwide network of 170 hospitals allows elective abortions.

This stance was revealed last week when Maryland state regulators gave Holy Cross Hospital, a Catholic institution, permission to build a hospital in growing northern Montgomery County, shutting out the Seventh-day Adventists, who also wanted to build a hospital in the area. Some abortion rights advocates opposed Holy Cross's selection because it does not allow abortions.

Adventists resemble many conservative Protestant denominations as they believe in divinely inspired Scripture, six literal days of Creation, justification by faith and baptism by immersion.

Their distinctive rites include worshiping on Saturday, the seventh day of the week as opposed to Sunday, an emphasis on the Second Coming of Christ and an emphasis on following Jewish dietary laws concerning abstinence from pork, shellfish and other foods proscribed as "unclean" in the Old Testament. The denomination is known for its emphasis on health. Alcohol and tobacco are prohibited and many Adventists are vegetarians.

But the denomination may be the only theologically conservative Protestant group that allows elective abortions. Many of their own members didn't know that their worldwide hospital network performed the procedure, which has been quite the discussion on the Adventists for Life Facebook page. A number of posters were shocked to learn the denomination's stance.

"I can't belong to a organization who advocates abortion," one poster wrote. "I believe in Christ my Saviour, the Sabbath & etc. I believe in Sister White also," referring to Ellen G. White, one of the revered founders of the denomination.

Another poster said that Adventists opposed abortion until 1970. That is when Hawaii legalized abortion and Castle Memorial Hospital, an Adventist institution in Kailua, Hawaii, the poster said, was pressured by its own doctors, and donors, to start offering abortions. At the time, Adventist leaders in Washington indicated they did not oppose the procedure and thus, more Adventist hospitals began offering the procedure. In 1992, the denomination issued these guidelines on abortion. The official position of the church is that abortion is allowed in "extraordinary circumstances."

SDA evangelist Kevin Paulson has given the longest defense of the church's position here where he agrees the church essentially has no restrictions on the practice and might do well to restrict it more. "Many [Adventists] are forming opinions about abortion," he wrote, "not from the study of Scripture or the Spirit of Prophecy (Ellen G. White's) writings, but from listening to popular Christian leaders like James Dobson, Tim LaHaye, Franky Schaeffer, and Bill Gothard," all of whom oppose abortion.

"Sincere though they may be, these men espouse many theological errors and have no understanding of God's truth for this time," Paulson wrote. "Seventh- day Adventists should listen to such persons with extreme care and discriminating judgment. ...Among the Adventist pioneers, J.N. Andrews and John Harvey Kellogg wrote against abortion, yet the writings of Ellen White maintain the silence of Scripture on the subject... We find it interesting that when Ellen White speaks of the "earliest moments" of our children, she speaks of birth, not conception," he concluded.

Is the Seventh-day Adventists' heavy focus on healthful practices inconsistent with its position on abortion? Tell us in the comments section.

By

Julia Duin

| January 24, 2011; 9:51 AM ET | Category: Under God Save & Share: Send E-mail Facebook Twitter Digg Yahoo Buzz Del.icio.us StumbleUpon Technorati Washington Post, Seventh Day Adventists & Abortion

[Tammy]

Quote:

Who owns the word 'Adventist,' or 'Catholic'?

By Julia Duin

Do religious groups have the right to sue you if you use their name, logo or so-called branding color?

Maybe so. On Monday, this blog ran a report that mentioned an Adventists for Life Facebook page for Seventh-day Adventists who oppose abortion.

The SDA headquarters, based in Silver Spring, Md., reacted quickly, asking Facebook to remove the offending page. I contacted Facebook on Wednesday to ask why no one checked with the folks behind the page before killing it. I received a copy of their policy that says once someone lodges a plausible claim of trademark infringement, Facebook removes or disables access, no questions asked.

Mark Price, a Canadian SDA'er who was in charge of the page, alerted the 600 members of the group that he'd been silenced. "The Adventists For Life group is not an organization but an informal gathering of Seventh Day Adventists who are pro-life," he wrote me. "I am very concerned, as you are, about this kind of power that the Adventist leadership have to shut people up."

I called SDA spokesman Garrett Caldwell to see what was up. He told me his organization had complained about trademark infringement; that is, the unauthorized use of the SDA brand.

"We are working hard to try to protect the name and organization associated with the name," he said. "Both 'Adventist' and 'SDA' are trademarked and registered names. We want to make sure the use of the name is connected with our organization."

If the originator of the page called SDA headquarters and asked permission to use the SDA name, "We'd say absolutely [yes]," he added.

Hmmmmm. I was sent a copy of a terse cease-and-desist letter written by Andrea Saunders, associate general counsel for the SDA, and there was no mention whatsoever of asking permission. The letter not only wanted the Facebook page renamed, it also wanted its originators to deregister the domain name for www.adventistsforlife.org, which the originators owned but were not using.

Now the page has existed on Facebook for some time. Only now did the SDA go after it. This whole situation brings up an interesting conundrum. What if other religious groups did the same thing? In this age of marketing, brand names and search engine optimization, are words such as "Jewish" or "Mormon" or "Catholic" now trademarks?

If so, someone had better call the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. They've been after the group Catholics for a Free Choice for more than a decade, informing anyone who will listen that CFFC "is an arm of the abortion lobby" and "is not a Catholic organization, does not speak for the Catholic Church, and in fact promotes positions contrary to the teaching of the Church as articulated by the Holy See."

Or how about many Jewish groups, which have resented the group Jews for Jesus ever since its 1973 founding partly because of its name?

Or the word "Mormon"? Surely the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints hasn't appreciated all the ways that word has been used.

Trademarking an ultra-common name, adjective or phrase may sound ridiculous, but look how the Susan G. Komen Foundation has threatened to sue more than numerous charities over the words "for a cure." That is, if you're a group of figure skaters that sponsors an event called "Skate for a Cure" to help fight cancer, you'll hear from the Komen lawyers. They'll also warn you against using the color pink, Komen's trademark hue.

The Lance Armstrong Foundation has taken a similar position with the color yellow, the Wall Street Journal reports.

It's only a matter of time before the world's religions pick up on this trend. The possibilities are endless. An enterprising Islamic group can claim it has exclusive rights to the world 'Muslim' and the color green. Hindus can certainly lay claim to the color saffron.

So the Adventists may be ahead of the times, not behind. They have been defending their name for some time, most notably in 1987, when they sued SDA Kinship, a group of gay Adventists, also charging trademark infringement. US District Judge Mariana Pfaeizer ruled against the church in 1991, saying the group's title did not infringe on the denomination's use of the name.

The SDA did not appeal that ruling, but it's been fighting the unauthorized use of its name ever since.

Should religious denominations be able to sue groups that use their name or logo without permission?

By

Julia Duin

| January 28, 2011; 10:28 PM ET Who Owns The Name ADVENTIST or CATHOLIC?

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

This stance was revealed last week when Maryland state regulators gave Holy Cross Hospital, a Catholic institution, permission to build a hospital in growing northern Montgomery County, shutting out the Seventh-day Adventists, who also wanted to build a hospital in the area. Some abortion rights advocates opposed Holy Cross's selection because it does not allow abortions.

Did our position have anything to do with Maryland State regulators allowing a Catholic hospital and not an Adventist one be built? I don't see that explained in the story.

Quote:

"Many [Adventists] are forming opinions about abortion," he wrote, "not from the study of Scripture or the Spirit of Prophecy (Ellen G. White's) writings, but from listening to popular Christian leaders like James Dobson, Tim LaHaye, Franky Schaeffer, and Bill Gothard," all of whom oppose abortion.

Very good point.

Quote:

In 1992, the denomination issued these guidelines on abortion. The official position of the church is that abortion is allowed in "extraordinary circumstances."

The author of the article should have explained those circumstances by indicated Adventists do no believe in using abortion for birth control, convenience or choosing the sex of the child. That pretty much bans over 90% of abortions performed in America.

[LynnDel]

Quote:

Quote: In 1992, the denomination issued these guidelines on abortion. The official position of the church is that abortion is allowed in "extraordinary circumstances."

The author of the article should have explained those circumstances by indicated Adventists do no believe in using abortion for birth control, convenience or choosing the sex of the child. That pretty much bans over 90% of abortions performed in America.

It would be elucidating to learn if those criteria are considered for the abortions performed in SDA hospitals.

[Tammy]

The author of the article should have explained those circumstances by indicated Adventists do no believe in using abortion for birth control, convenience or choosing the sex of the child. That pretty much bans over 90% of abortions performed in America.

[Ellen]

Were any of those abortions on SDAs or the doctors SDA? Does it matter?

It is so easy for non-pregnant people to decry women getting abortions. I also think many are sorry after when they have rashly chosen abortion. I know several personally.

I liked the GC making the decision up to the member and not putting a curse on those who chose that way to solve their problem.

[doug yowell]

Quote:

"Many [Adventists] are forming opinions about abortion," he wrote, "not from the study of Scripture or the Spirit of Prophecy (Ellen G. White's) writings, but from listening to popular Christian leaders like James Dobson, Tim LaHaye, Franky Schaeffer, and Bill Gothard," all of whom oppose abortion.

Very good point.

To quote the great philosopher Artie Johnson,"But stupid!" Paulson concludes that "the writings of Ellen White maintain the silence of Scripture on the subject" and then proceeds to maintain that silence by criticizing SDA's for forming opinions about abortion by not studying the SOP and Bible writings.If,in fact,the Bible and EGW are silent on abortion then where do we get the truth about it's morality from???Kevin Paulson?Planned parenthood?Why not popular Christian leaders? And where does Kevin get his opinions from if the Bible and the SOP are silent????And why isn't he maintaining the same silence he's demanding of those with whom he disagrees? "Verrrry intarresting...........but stchupid!"

[doug yowell]

Were any of those abortions on SDAs or the doctors SDA? Does it matter?

It is so easy for non-pregnant people to decry women getting abortions. I also think many are sorry after when they have rashly chosen abortion. I know several personally.

I liked the GC making the decision up to the member and not putting a curse on those who chose that way to solve their problem.

Would you like it if they also left the decision about whether to drink or smoke or do drugs to allieviate personal stress up to each member? Wouldn't that be more consisitent?

[Dr. Shane]

That is the problem, Shane...the SDA hospitals do abortions for ANY and ALL reasons.

From what I understand, our hospitals have autonomy. The General Conference does not dictate how each hospital is operated throughout the world. I suspect that some Adventist hospitals take a more liberal approach to abortion than others do.

The point that if the woman doesn't get an abortion at our hospital, she will down the street, is a valid point from the perspective of the patient seeking the procedure. What is more troublesome to me is the perspective of the doctor. Our doctors shouldn't be performing abortions for reasons of birth control, convenience or choosing the sex of the child. Sure, the women can get the abortion elsewhere. That same philosophy would have us serving beer at potluck because the people can buy it across town.

All that said, I still don't see how the issue of abortion played into the Maryland State regulators allowing a Catholic hospital but not an Adventist one.

[Woody]

Quote:

I liked the GC making the decision up to the member and not putting a curse on those who chose that way to solve their problem.

Thanks Ellen. You hit the nail on the head.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: Tammy

That is the problem, Shane...the SDA hospitals do abortions for ANY and ALL reasons.

From what I understand, our hospitals have autonomy. The General Conference does not dictate how each hospital is operated throughout the world. I suspect that some Adventist hospitals take a more liberal approach to abortion than others do.

This is exactly right,Shane.The church has granted the hospitals the right of self imposed exclusion from church control.The church then takes credit for the good they do and washes their hands when they mess up. This and the fact that most of our American medical(missionary??)centers are staffed by non-Christians who are instrumental in instituting policies that don't have to conform with church standards and you get.........

[Tammy]

Quote:

I liked the GC making the decision up to the member and not putting a curse on those who chose that way to solve their problem.

Thanks Ellen. You hit the nail on the head.

Then why have any rules? Is there no RIGHT or WRONG? Why have a CHURCH if it can't lay out what sin is? Let people make up their own minds and do their own thing, but if they want to be a member of the Church, they should live by certain standards....

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Tammy

That is the problem, Shane...the SDA hospitals do abortions for ANY and ALL reasons.

From what I understand, our hospitals have autonomy. The General Conference does not dictate how each hospital is operated throughout the world. I suspect that some Adventist hospitals take a more liberal approach to abortion than others do.

That may be true (Re: autonomy), but if the Church had an anti-abortion stand, the hospital cannot carry the name "Adventist" and do something against church policy.

[Gerr]

[MariaS]

Originally Posted By: Tammy

That is the problem, Shane...the SDA hospitals do abortions for ANY and ALL reasons.

From what I understand, our hospitals have autonomy. The General Conference does not dictate how each hospital is operated throughout the world. I suspect that some Adventist hospitals take a more liberal approach to abortion than others do.

The point that if the woman doesn't get an abortion at our hospital, she will down the street, is a valid point from the perspective of the patient seeking the procedure. What is more troublesome to me is the perspective of the doctor. Our doctors shouldn't be performing abortions for reasons of birth control, convenience or choosing the sex of the child. Sure, the women can get the abortion elsewhere. That same philosophy would have us serving beer at potluck because the people can buy it across town.

All that said, I still don't see how the issue of abortion played into the Maryland State regulators allowing a Catholic hospital but not an Adventist one.

The adventist hospital where I am working is not supporting abortion. Even though there are many non SDA doctors, they do not perform abortion in our hospital. The hospital sets up their own policy, its depending on who is the leader. Sadly to say, not all Adventist leader are converted

[Woody]

Quote:

Sadly to say, not all Adventist leader are converted

I am not sure I want to make such a judgment. Can you please name a few that are not converted? I've seen no such evidence. And if you are going to make such an outlandish statement I would ask that you back it up. Please provide the names and evidence against them.

[doug yowell]

The problem is that not every Adventist (clergy or lay) is convinced that the Bible speaks clearly about abortion; and neither does EGW.

Do you mean that many SDA's are convinced that EGW does not speak clearly or do you mean that EGW was not convinced that the Bible speaks clearly? Not sure how to read this.

[Woody]

Quote:

The problem is that not every Adventist (clergy or lay) is convinced that the Bible speaks clearly about abortion; and neither does EGW.

Excellent observation

[Stan]

From the Washington post, same article

Quote:

I called SDA spokesman Garrett Caldwell to see what was up. He told me his organization had complained about trademark infringement; that is, the unauthorized use of the SDA brand.

"We are working hard to try to protect the name and organization associated with the name," he said. "Both 'Adventist' and 'SDA' are trademarked and registered names. We want to make sure the use of the name is connected with our organization."

If the originator of the page called SDA headquarters and asked permission to use the SDA name, "We'd say absolutely [yes]," he added.

SOURCE

RE READ AS NEEDED

[doug yowell]

Quote:

Sadly to say, not all Adventist leader are converted

I am not sure I want to make such a judgment. Can you please name a few that are not converted? I've seen no such evidence. And if you are going to make such an outlandish statement I would ask that you back it up. Please provide the names and evidence against them.

Outlandish?? Come on Woody do you really think that all SDA leaders are converted? I could name a few that aren't but do you think that that would be constructive? If EGW said that not 1 in 20(?) SDA's were not fully converted are our leaders today exceptions?

[Stan]

Just in case someone missed this the first time.

From the Washington post, same article

Quote:

I called SDA spokesman Garrett Caldwell to see what was up. He told me his organization had complained about trademark infringement; that is, the unauthorized use of the SDA brand.

"We are working hard to try to protect the name and organization associated with the name," he said. "Both 'Adventist' and 'SDA' are trademarked and registered names. We want to make sure the use of the name is connected with our organization."

If the originator of the page called SDA headquarters and asked permission to use the SDA name, "We'd say absolutely [yes]," he added.

SOURCE

RE READ AS NEEDED

[doug yowell]

From the Washington post, same article

Quote:

I called SDA spokesman Garrett Caldwell to see what was up. He told me his organization had complained about trademark infringement; that is, the unauthorized use of the SDA brand.

"We are working hard to try to protect the name and organization associated with the name," he said. "Both 'Adventist' and 'SDA' are trademarked and registered names. We want to make sure the use of the name is connected with our organization."

If the originator of the page called SDA headquarters and asked permission to use the SDA name, "We'd say absolutely [yes]," he added.

SOURCE

RE READ AS NEEDED

Appreciate your work in contacting the GC,Stan!! But does anyone (outside of the legal dept) really think along these lines?? What in-the-pew SDA member thinks "I need to ask permission from the CG legal team in order to identify myself as a SDA when entering the public domain"? Shouldn't the GC have done their own investigation of the source and content before contacting Facebook? What's unreasonable about that? The Washington Post reporter noted that no mention of failure to get GC permission was included in their reason given for the actions regarding Facebook. Why haven't the SDA membership been notified in advance that permission must now be granted thru the GC before publically identifying oneself as a Seventh-day Adventist?

[Stan]

this was not my work, it was in the Newspaper article that is quoted.

I too, have had my issues with domain names, including this one, things got worked through.

please be sure to understand, I did not contact the GC legal over this, it was in the paper.

This is important to know, if you look at my facebook, I was with the GC Chief General Counsel last week, and we did NOT discuss this,

[Nic Samojluk]

In 1992, the denomination issued these guidelines on abortion. The official position of the church is that abortion is allowed in "extraordinary circumstances."

The author of the article should have explained those circumstances by indicated Adventists do no believe in using abortion for birth control, convenience or choosing the sex of the child. That pretty much bans over 90% of abortions performed in America.

I believe that you are wrong on this. The “Adventist Guidelines on Abortion” allow for the mental health exception. Notice what Martin Weber stated regarding the health exception contained in our Guidelines on Abortion:

“A minority view expressed by David Newman, editor of Ministry magazine, and Mildred Youngberg, of Family Life International, pointed to Doe v Bolton (1073) in support of their concern. “Doe,” said Newman, “established emotional distress as a health matter. Therefore, a woman’s anxiety over the financial or occupational implications of motherhood could qualify her for therapeutic abortion. Conceivably, a case could even be made for a gender selection abortion on the basis of health if the mother considered herself sufficiently distressed about getting another boy when she desperately wanted a daughter. Thus the “health of the mother” provision could sabotage the explicit restraints of the guidelines.” [Martin Weber, “The Christian View of Human Life,” Liberty 1993 v88 Jan-Feb p11-13]

In other words, a woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy could say: “I am mentally depressed, I am worried because I cannot raise this child, and I can't sleep at night. I need an abortion right now. This pregnancy is killing me emotionally.”

What happens then? Another innocent unborn baby is sacrificed on the altar of this anti-life lifestyle. Experts have told us that the majority of abortions are performed for convenience an not for valid moral reasons. The cases of rape, incest, and serious danger to the pregnant woman life represent no more than two percent of all cases of abortion.

[doug yowell]

this was not my work, it was in the Newspaper article that is quoted.

I too, have had my issues with domain names, including this one, things got worked through.

please be sure to understand, I did not contact the GC legal over this, it was in the paper.

This is important to know, if you look at my facebook, I was with the GC Chief General Counsel last week, and we did NOT discuss this,

Does that mean that I have to take back all the nice things I was thinking about you?