The Washington Post, Adventists & Abortion

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 The Washington Post, Seventh Day Adventists & Abortion

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 Save & Share: Send E-mail Facebook Twitter Digg Yahoo Buzz Del.icio.us StumbleUpon Technorati The Washington Post & the ADVENTIST Name