No apology for quinacrine pushers
Dear Editor,
The following statement was provided to me by Kenneth Zorgdrager, the RCA (Reformed Church in America) supervisor for Asia and the Pacific:
The RCA has supported Dr. Charles Ausherman for fifteen years in our concern for women’s health issues, violence against women, and world population issues. We support the development of training materials for Christian health and social workers to teach women, usually the poor and uneducated in rural and urban areas. The curriculum materials are specific to promoting women’s health care. Issues include infection control, physical exams, female reproduction, communication skills, family planning, and AIDS education.
Regarding the issue of quinacrine sterilization, the RCA decided not to be part of or endorse this project. Dr. Ausherman felt compelled by conscience to produce this training package because of his commitment [sic] to women’s [sic] health.
We continue to value the ministry of Dr. Charles Ausherman.
Wayne Antworth, Director
Stewardship and Communications
Reformed Church of America
Editor’s Note: The Reformed Church of America sent PRI this letter, via email, at 10:00 p.m. on Friday, 11 June in response to our inquiries into the Church’s support of the Institute for Development Training, which is run by an RCA missionary. [See “Quinacrine’s latest pushers,” PRI Review, July/August 1997]. Unfortunately, our deadline, of which the RCA was aware, passed more than twenty-four hours previous to their sending the letter. We publish this in order that the record may be made perfectly clear: the RCA, an organization which claims the name of Christian, will not object to one of its members promoting, around the world, the burning of women’s wombs with acid.
More on World Vision
Dear Editor,
In “A diminished view” July/August 1997, Dean Owen of World Vision says I “misinterpreted” and later “misrepresented” the comments of World Vision Senior Vice President Ken Casey when we talked about his organization’s involvement in international “family planning” funding for FY97. I respectfully disagree.
In February, many members [of Congress] voted to release money to abortion providers (for HJRes 36) and not to release money to abortion providers (for HRSSI) and cited World Vision’s two letters to explain their contradictory votes.
On March 27, hoping to clarify confusion within the pro-life community, I called Mr. Ken Casey. (Mr. Casey’s name was listed as a contact in World Vision’s second letter to Rep. Chris Smith, dated Feb. 6.) Mr. Casey said his organization supported the pro-life Mexico City language and that World Vision considered the early release of the population funding important.
I asked Mr. Casey if World Vision supported the release of “family planning” funds even if some of the money went to groups like International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), which, I noted, promote and perform abortion and are on record as stating they wish to legalize abortion worldwide. He said there is “still good [that comes] out of what they do.” I asked Mr. Casey if he meant that IPPF does some good with the money that outweighs the evil that comes out of their performing abortions. He said that IPPF has “a lot of very positive impact.”
I am not sure how Mr. Owen interprets Mr. Casey’s response, nor do I understand why Mr. Owen is trying to impugn my integrity, when he wasn’t even a party to my conversation with Mr. Casey.
I have recently obtained a March 3 memo (written 24 days before I spoke to Mr. Casey) from World Vision’s President Robert Seiple to all his US employees which stated, “We did not intend for people to construe our advocacy on their [women and children’s] behalf as somehow supportive of abortion or those organizations which promote abortion. We are not.” I can only hope that World Vision uses better judgment in the future so that their organization’s stated positions coincide with the messages their staff sends to public policy officials.
Sincerely,
Sheila A, Moloney
Family Research Council
Washington, DC
