Pro-Life

Silence in the Pulpit

Former abortionist cannot understand why many in clergy still remain silent on abortion issue

E-mail this page to a friend

James L. Lambert
Contributing Columnist
January 19, 2001

Dr. Bernard Nathanson offers keen insight into the abortion industry. He should. He served as Director of the Center for Reproductive Health, AKA Women's Services in New York City, one of the largest abortion clinics in the United States. Nathanson was also one of seven founders of NARAL, a politically active, abortion rights organization. NARAL is recognized by Fortune Magazine as "one of the top advocacy groups in America", and in Nathanson's words, "one of the most powerful pro-abortion lobby groups in this country."

Nathanson was a true believer. He performed abortions "out of my own personal convictions." He believed that the "good of the mother far exceeded the rights of the fetus." It was during this time (circa 1972) that many hospitals began acquiring ultrasound technology. Bernard's own scientific curiosity compelled him to study the motions within the uterus via ultrasound. In November of 1974, the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine published Dr. Nathanson's article where be simply explored the ethical questions of abortion. He considered this piece to be objective, because he still had yet to reach a conclusion on whether the procedure was morally right or wrong.

By simply questioning this procedure, Nathanson was quickly condemned by his peers at NARAL. He was asked to voluntarily resign. Representatives from NARAL would not return the call from this reporter for their comments. Around this time, Nathanson had resigned from his position at Women's Services in New York City and taken a position as Director of Obstetrics at St. Luke's Hospital which is closely tied to Columbia University in New York.

Nathanson's own desire to know the truth about the ethics of abortion caused him to further explore this controversial topic. Nathanson realized that at one time he played a part in promoting the abortion procedure with NARAL He also knew that he had performed numerous abortions himself, including the recently termed partial birth abortion. He briefly described this procedure "where a baby would be pulled two-thirds the way out of the birth canal”, legs first. The physician would then insert a (sharp) instrument into the back of head, using a device “to crush the skull, allowing the brain matter to ooze out." The end result would be the instant death of the baby.

Dr. Nathanson's scientific inquires into the abortion procedure finally led him to the conclusion that abortion was morally wrong. In the 1980s, he was in demand as a speaker for various pro-life, medical and religious gatherings. In 1984, he produced the short documentary entitled 'Silent Scream'. This film recorded an abortion procedure using ultrasound. The graphic nature of the film was instantly attacked by abortion advocates. They attacked the authenticity of the film as well. Producers of the film personally went to Dr. Ian Donald who is recognized as one of the founding inventors of ultrasound technology. Dr. Donald confirmed, in writing, the accuracy and truthfulness of Nathanson's documented ultrasound footage in the film.

Despite the ever increasing attacks from the media and the left, Bernard found solace in taking the moral high ground and speaking out for defenseless aborted babies. Eventually Nathanson converted to Catholicism.

Much of Nathanson's initial interaction with the church came from speaking engagements sponsored by a variety of religious pro-life organizations. Bernard had high hopes that by offering his support to the pro-life community, he would affect a change in the hearts of the religious community. While his impact has been very positive and encouraging to many people of faith, Bernard expressed sadness that more people in the clergy have not publicly come to the defense of the unborn.

Backed by additional support from a number of biblical passages (Prov. 24:11, Prov. 31:8, Jer.1:5), Nathanson still sensed a reluctance by many in the clergy to address the moral injustice of abortion. This perception is now supported by numerous examples of religious indifference to the rights of the unborn. They include:

- A recent successful initiative by the Presbyterian Church's general assembly to reject an initiative to study the biblical position on abortion. (The Presbyterian Layman)
- A number of Catholic bishops and priests nationwide have taken the position that they should not allow distribution of Christian Coalition and Pro-Life voter guides in their churches. These guides disclose the abortion stands of those running for political office. (Voter guides do not recommend any candidate, they just reveal their positions.) (News Notes)
Reports from regular church members (in a number of California cities) indicate that their pastors never discuss abortion from the pulpit, nor oppose it whatsoever. (Sylvia Sullivan - CRA)
- Pro-Life activists have told this reporter that Pastors routinely are “afraid to discuss this topic because it might be seen as an unpopular because many in their congregations may have had abortions or they are convinced that abortion is a political issue that should not be discussed from the pulpit.”(Troy Newman- Operation Rescue, West)

Dr. Nathanson, by his own experience, has seen the clergy's reluctance to discuss the morality of abortion. Randy Thomasson, Director of Campaign for California Families tells us that the apparent "evidence of this is in the recent (ABC news) exit polls conducted on November 7 here in California." The results from those surveys not only showed a large religious vote for pro-abortion advocates like Gore and Lieberman but other pro-abortion candidates in the state as well. This survey shows 40% of Protestants casting their vote for Gore/Lieberman with Catholic voters registering 56% for that same ticket. A recent survey by Barna Research confirm the ABC news exit polling figures.

Dr. Nathanson expresses "remorse and regret that this is the case." Still Nathanson is hopeful that there will be more people like himself that will discover the evidence and decide that abortion is wrong. Many pro-life advocates feel that as technology continues to increase, the evidence will overwhelmingly prove them right. On going improvements in equipment that scan images of the pre-born will allow more people in the scientific community to make an even stronger case for life. Hopefully the clergy will follow.