Make HuffPost Your HomePage
Get Email Alerts
Rev. Jim Wallis Needs a Reality Check on Abortion Reduction Plank
The Rev. Jim Wallis lives in a world where his self-reinforcing ideas become his divine reality. Today he has called for the Democratic Party to adopt an "Abortion Reduction Plank" to the party's platform. What Wallis should realize is that many Democrats and moderate Republicans are already doing the hard work such a plank would call for. As opposed to picking a fight with the left, Wallis should be working with reproductive health advocates, asking why it is the far-right gets away with opposing common sense education and prevention ideas.
Comprehensive sexuality education, contraception and the prevention of unintended pregnancies, improved adoption and foster care and better health care for low-income familes that include pre- and post-natal care, are all issues that progressives have been pushing for quite some time.
At one time Rev. Wallis believed social issues like sexual health and rights were too divisive, choosing to focus on the environment and poverty instead. Apparently abortion is good for headlines again.
From ABC:
"This is going to be a big Denver conversation," said Wallis. "You don't have to call for criminalizing anyone. You don't have to take a different stance about a woman's right to choose. But you begin with the need for reducing abortion dramatically."
The abortion reduction plank that Wallis envisions would call for making adoption easier, supporting low-income women, and stepping up pregnancy prevention efforts.Without calling for restrictions such as parental consent laws, Wallis believes that if the Democrats were to alter their abortion platform, it could help them make inroads among young evangelicals and Catholics.
"Taking abortion seriously as a moral issue would help Democrats a great deal with a constituency that is already leaning in their direction on poverty and the environment," said Wallis. "There are literally millions of votes at stake."
Yes, Rev. Wallis there are millions of votes, as well as women's health and lives at stake, which is why the reproductive health community has been leading the fight for education and prevention issues. For us, it is not an issue of political convenience, or publicity, but the ultimate question about women's health and rights to determine how, when and how often to bring life into the world.
Instead of taking time to learn what advocates in the reproductive health care community actually believe and work towards, Wallis has at times bought into the "pro-life" social conservative talking points that would have people believe the GOP is the "big tent party" as he said in 2004, more accepting of pro-choice views than Democrats are of "pro-life" views.
Ironically, the Republicans, who actively and successfully court the votes of Christians on abortion, are much more ecumenical in their own toleration of a variety of views within their own party.
He might want to consult some pro-choice Republicans on that, like this piece on RH Reality Check from Darlee Crockett, Chair of Planned Parenthood's Republicans for Choice. He could also see that pro-choice Democrats are already seeing common ground with "pro-life" Democrats on prevention issues, and see that the real divisiveness on this issue is in the GOP, in two excellent pieces by Dana Goldstein.
Rev. Wallis has supported some education and prevention measures in Congress so he should understand that his ideas about pro-choice advocates are dated, and colored by social conservatives who DO NOT believe in education and prevention. The far-right wing of the GOP (and complicit Democratic Congressional leadership) prefers to keep using federal tax dollars on failed abstinence-only programs, denying the integration of family planning and HIV services to better help women and girls abroad, and persuading people to ban contraception, with slogans like "The Pill Kills."
As opposed to picking a fight with the left, he should start asking his fellow religious leaders on the far-right why they are so opposed to common sense education and prevention efforts. Anyone truly interested in reframing the debate about women's health understands that's where the real problems are.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Mr. Borosage would like for Jim Wallis to spend his time attacking the Republicans rather than trying to improve the Democrats. He obviously isn't in favor of changing the way the political process works. Wallis' proposal has this going for it, it makes good common sense. Most everyone, perhaps excluding Borosage, would like to see a diminution in convenience abortions. So reflecting that world view in the Democratic platform seems reasonable. If I were a dissatisfied Republican, and aren't they all?, but were also pro-life, I would find it much easier to cross over if the Democrats confirmed the truth that they too are against most convenience abortions. There is a great need to separate criminalization from moral opposition.
I love it when we shoot at one of our own. Mr. Swenson, if you read Sojourners and the God's Politics blog, you will see that Rev. Wallis doesn't want to make abortion illegal (even though, because he follows the Seamless Garment of Life, Wallis has moral qualms about abortion) and wants to make real efforts to reduce the rate of unintended pregnancy through prevention and giving aid to poor women and making adoption easier. He makes a point that Democrats don't talk enough about pregnancy prevention. If they did, if they said, "We are the party of women's right to choose but we also want to make a real effort to reduce unwanted pregnancy and we want pro-life people to join us," then they could attract pro-life evangelicals and Catholics that might otherwise vote Republican. But Democrats tend to alienate pro-life people instead and these people wind up voting Republican. That is what Wallis is saying. He is trying to HELP the Left, not attack it.
A Spiritual Perspective on political and moral issues can be a good thing. Delusional thinking is a bad thing whether dressed in religious or political robes. For example, a cable news network and a religious show have the potential of becoming a delusional factory. In my view, Scott Swenson and Jim Wallis are leaders of an anti-delusional movement. One of the first signs of insanity is a disconnected view of reality. A debate about strategies based on facts is a good thing to reduce insanity from our political discourse.
Delusional and insane -- you are on target.
Reverends need to STOP PEEPING UNDER WOMEN'S SKIRTS and
into people's BEDROOMS. These guys are nothing but PEEPING TOMS
and BUSYBODIES.
They should take their "interests" and "causess" TO A PSYCHIATRIST
as soon as possible and be fitted for a straight jacket. Their "causes and they are
DANGEROUS TO CIVILIZED SOCIETY.
** Pro-Birth writ large is Pro-Death " **
"Pro-life" ranters are not pro-life. They are pro-birth. The dogma used to be called pro-natalism. It"s an androcentric, completely misogynistic, demand that no impediment whatsoever on *births* be permitted by law.
What happens to mother and child after birth is irrelevant since the "laws" of nature will then cull the weak from the strong. "Pro-life" is really pro-death -- ultimately the death impulse of the big-3 monotheisms in full operation. They reject the ultimate ends of human life as belonging to solely to culture, to accept some totally non-existent spiritual realm.
Today"s pseudo-scientific justification of pro-natalsim belongs to social darwinism (really, created by Herbert Spencer). However, that's merely a gloss on western religious demands -- 6,000 years of god damned male domination. When will it end? Enough of ancient paternalistic tribal customs which cannot be enlarged to become a planet-wide ethos. (As Marvin Harris made very clear: reproduction will always win the race over food production, leading to de-facto slavery, degraded environments, and marginal living conditions. Technological intensification makes for only short-term solutions.)
To fundie and RC alike it could be obvious that pro-birth is not pro-life. In fact their ideology is pro-mass-death -- creating disease, poverty, and ignorance worldwide by fostering overpopulation, damning safe non-reproductive sex, and blocking responsible medical research.
bipolar2
© 2008
It would seem Mr. Swenson, that you and Wallis are on the same side. So, why then, don't you take your own advice, and rail against those right wing nuts who claim to be pro-life but whose policies don't do anything to solve the problem. Perhaps this is why Wallis made the point, 4 years ago, that despite all the talk about the "big tent philosophy" of the democratic party, they fall short in that inclusion when it comes to pro-life progressives. Case in point, this article right here.
I am railing against the right wing nuts -- on an almost daily basis on www.rhrealitycheck.org -- and am simply asking for people like Rev. Wallis, who has a considerable platform, to give more credit to the sexual and reproductive health community who is in fact working on education and prevention legislation and has been for some time.
Are you picking a fight with someone you perceive to be picking a fight with you? Because I don't really think he is doing any such thing. I do, however, see how you might think that, and indeed, I may be wrong in my assessment of the matter. It must be noted that I have been wrong on one other occasion, but I contend that the sun was in my eyes, and the winds that around me blow, were a distraction that day, as I was having my period, and the weltshmerz, that very, very minute, was growing intolerable, tedious, manxome, jejune, apopemptoclinic, fefnicute, poopy-headed, dour. So you see, it is nearly impossible for the effulgent and wise Doctor Wallis to have done what you have charged, and that if he has, I see no reason for thin skins. With a foundation of truth anchored in stone, not phillips, but also not quicksand, something of value can arise that generations can enjoy. I think this is where Doctor Wallis is.
I don't get it. How is Rev. Wallis picking a fight with the left? If anything, it seems as though you're the one picking a fight with him. His pro-life stance on not only this issue but others as well is quite progressive. Does it bother you that someone can be religiously centered, pro-life, and progressive? Boggles your mind, doesn't it?
Hardly ... and you miss the point. As a person of faith I believe it is possible to support progressive policies such as comprehensive sexuality education, contraception and preventing unintended pregnancies. The point is that progressives are already working on what Wallis is calling for, and he would be advised to take up the cause of other sexual and reproductive health advocates and ask allegedly pro-life people why they stand in the way of common sense education and prevention efforts. That's the point. Some people are actually already working to prevent unintended pregnancies, and it's pro-choice, not pro-life people.
Progressives are working on making adoption easier, supporting low-income women, and stepping up pregnancy prevention efforts... But that's not Wallis' point... the point is for Democrats to call for Abortion Prevention!!!... to go to "People of Faith" and tell them and prove to them that "they want to prevent abortions too... and how..."
BECAUSE the frame now is...
Right = Anti-Abortion / "Pro-Life" (only until birth, that is)
Left = Pro-Choice (seen by right as Pro-Abortion / Anti-Life, they're not too smart so they can only think in polar opposites)
Wallis is calling on the left to be: Anti-Abortion / Pro-Life / Pro-Choice
Calling on Wallis to take on the Right Wing Religious Leaders, is like saying we should argue our way into the same situation that we are in now...
Instead it would be more effective to call on Democrats to adopt the actual higher moral ground... and declare it loud and pround... Anti-Abortion / Pro-Choice
making adoption easier, supporting low-income women, and stepping up pregnancy prevention efforts.
These are definitely noble ideals and it would be great if we as a society really did that, ie, make sure that low income mothers have a decent enough income to raise their children, and, make sure that any woman seeking birth control - prevention - at a price she can afford.
But we don't - so if his point is to add wording to the platform to point out that actually doing these things would reduce the number of abortions, I'm all for that because it's TRUE.
I'm become jaded at the people who are against these steps who claim to be pro-life. It's become difficult for me to believe that most really are pro-life, my stomach turns to ponder at exactly what they really are pro about.
What I'm not for is another pointless discussion between people where neither side is going to change their mind about why it is or isn't necessary for abortion to continue to be an option.
I would also suggest Reverend Wallis should focus all that moral, righteous energy on the OTHER party in this "Takes Two to Make a Baby"...
Always focusing on the FEMALE - the EGG. NEVER on the accountability or the responsibility of the MALE - the SPERM.
How about this, Reverend.....get the MEN/BOYS to be responsible and - viola! - NO UNEXPECTED BABIES. It IS that simple.
It is a proven fact:
ADULT MEN are most responsible for UNWANTED TEENAGER PREGNANCIES.
Men.
Get it?
The Men/Boys are responsible too, I agree. But women are the ones that actually become pregnant... besides,
that's not what Wallis' argument is...
the holy hell issue is unwanted pregnancies and abortions...
the point is if Democrats want voters and supporters, the Democrats need to say "No one thinks that abortions are
a good thing in and of themselvse"... "We want to prevent abortions too... and the only way to do that is to
minimize unwanted pregnancies... and the only way to minimize unwanted pregnancies is for our children to know how
babies are made, what pregnancy, childbirth, and raising children is really like... what STDs are and how you get
them..."
Dems get voters, people become informed, abortion rates drop, teen pregnancies drop, STD infection rates drop...
WIN-WIN for everyone...
"Get it?"
No, he does not.
So, Rev. Wallis, are you against birth control? How about using facts in education versus banning information about preventing pregnancy? Why don't you ask why the founder of Republicans for Choice left the party if they are soooo accommodating right now?
Spoken like a true Republican - rebuffing Wallis for his brilliant effort to co-opt the very base the gave us the last five Republican administrations. You're duly scared.
Scared? Hardly. This unregulated country has left my body incapable of ovulation. I can't get pregnant. So why would I be scared?
Also, I went to school during an era or in a place where sex education was actually taught. What a concept, huh?
Can someone give me one good reason why the number of abortions needs to be reduced?
I guess I would start with......So there are less dead babies.
."So there are less dead babies."
Hey, check out the actual dead babies in Iraq, the economy and the results of welfare deformation. Out infant and child mortality rates are higher than those in Cuba. Proud of yourselves?
Because its a huge moral issue for a huge voting block that Dems would like to co-opt from the Rethugs so as to form a Dem supermajority. You interested in that? Because this same voting block is responsible for Reagan and both Bushes and they can do it again.
ummm... is that 'co-opt' or 'be co-opted by'?
"You interested in that? "
No. I've seen what you folks did to the republican party and to the country as a whole with your peculiar notions of proper governance. The last thing I would like to see is a Democratic party beholden to such 'leadership'. or a party platform rewritten by people who don't take responsibility for their lack of discernment or their poor judgement.
I don't think it is abortions that need to be reduced so much as it is the number of unwanted/unintended pregnancies. Kind of a 'You can't have one with out the other' thing.
Seems to me that the best way to reach this goal is to make sure that every person on the planet has contraceptives and condums readily available.... as we all know that people are going to have sex no matter how many times you tell them that someone might get pregnant from such activities.
Not abortion per se, but abortion as birth control.
Abortion is sometimes a medical necessity, literally a choice between a woman's life and her fetus. The so called "pro-life" advocates ignore this fact. They also oppose freedom of choice in contraception and real factual sex education, both of which actually CAN lead to a reduction in the number of abortions. They've adopted a pattern of incrementally nibbling away at women's freedom, so that anyone who advocates reducing abortions becomes automatically suspect of trying to overturn Roe v Wade by stealth. It doesn't have to be that way.
If the number of un-wanted pregnancies can be reduced, the number of abortions WILL be reduced without depriving women of the right to choose. The only effective way to accomplish abortion reduction is to increase choice. Give women more control of their own bodies BEFORE they become pregnant and you'll reduce the need for abortion.
But why should abortions as a method of birth control be reduced?
You don't really want to say why, do you?
I don't blame you, I wouldn't either if I was pro-choice.
Thank you to those who are working to shift sex education for minors away from abstinence only to abstinence plus discussion of the emotional, health, and financial issues of healthy sexuality and parenting and working to increase broad distribution of truthful information on contraceptives plus increasing access to contraception. I think that to the extent it can be done in an election year, your unsung work should be honored. Along with this of course we need child, woman, family and single-dad and nonparent guardian-friendly policies to increase availability and affordability of quality child care for working parents working all work schedules, and increases in minimum wage and universal health care so that parents can be both highly-productive workers and highly-effective parents.
It is just a fact that mainstream media will look for one religious leader to set off against another. Now that they finally realize there are moderate and liberal religious persons, they have put Jim Wallis in their contact lists as the go-to-guy of religious political liberals, so he is being given the forum to express whatever ideas he personally supports. It would be good to get additional pro-choice religious voices out into the media so news producers will have additional names in their contact lists.
It actually sounds like a good idea to me. Pro-Choice/Anti-Abortion is a great platform for the Democrats to take on explicitly, not just in effect but in message, too.
I'm a pro-choice/anti-abortion person. In fact, that is exactly how I describe myself. I wish to see less abortions. I did a debate on this on high school and there are possible physical and sometimes emotional scars left after abortion. Obviously, not always, but some women experience a process of mourning. If we reduced the number of pregnancies to start with, women, with the exception of rape and incest victims, would possibly be in the mind frame of expecting a child when they do get pregnant. Also, a lot of it has to do with economics. Some people are so far into poverty that the thought of bringing a child into their existence is unthinkable. Adoption still has a stigma surrounding it and I don't see how it's a bad thing to erase that stigma.
Anyway, I would like to reduce the number of abortions, but when people have made the well-informed decision to get an abortion, I think they are entitled to an abortion and a safe, effective one at that.
I'm very much into a Pro-Choice/Anti-Abortion message and I think this decision isn't really anything from my religious experience, but how I feel as a woman. Prevention is the key. Better education on safe sex and birth control is the key. I think Barack Obama could own this topic if he tried.
How could republicans ever be trusted with effectively reducing abortions when their whole philosophy on sex education is that sex is a filthy, disgusting thing and thus must be saved for the one you love the most?
Thats one way you could look at it. Or you could say that some republicans(and democrats) view sex as sacred and meant for husbands/wives. And that recreational sex is dangerous and best avoided.
You would likely agree that the only, 100% way to avoid pregnancy and STD's is abstinence.
That would be a more positive way to look at how some republicans (actually some democrats too) look at sex, and is a more accurate depiction of republican philiosophy on sex.
With that said, and believing everything i just said, I am also a realist and know that Abstinence only messages are fraught with risk too. Because kids are going to have sex, even if we drill abstinence into their heads from birth. But that doesn't mean to abandon abstinence.
I think that the whole spectrum should be taught, from abstinence, to contraceptives, to risks, to consequences.
And i think everyone agrees that the fewer abortions there are, the better, there is no downside in democrats fully embracing THAT message.
The problem with your narrative is that invariably, republicans, while claiming the mantle of purest chastity, prudery and goodness, when unmasked invariably turn out to be the most grotesquely indiscriminate and promiscuous of sexual libertines - their staple including prostitutes, pages, and barnyard animals. Their real platform is hypocrisy in all things. "Be ye doers of the word and not preachers alone - deceiving yourselves."
Ask Larry Crag how sacred it is.
I concur with this post. I think people are missing your, "I think that the whole spectrum should be taught, from abstinence, to contraceptives, to risks, to consequences." quote.
I beg to correct a statement. STD's can also infect new hosts through blood transfusion and needle-sharing. So, no, I do not agree with your statement.
Bill Clinton expressed a fine summation about abortion: "Abortion should be legal, safe, and rare." That's my take, as well. In a better world, abortion would only be NECESSARY in exceptional cases: the woman was forced into unprotected sex; the woman's health is threatened by a WANTED pregnancy; contraception WAS employed, but failed to prevent conception. Education is essential to reducing unwanted pregnancies, and it must begin BEFORE sexual maturity. I truly believe awareness of the possible consequences (disease and pregnancy) and responsibilities of sexual activity would do more to slow the incidence of unwanted pregnancies than any other solution.
The column is slanderous, pathetically cynical, myopic, fails to understand even the basic 'big picture' of what Wallis is up to, and creates a false dichotomy being activism to reduce abortions and introduction of specific language to that effect into the official democratic platform.
Here's the bottom line. If you want those many disenchanted 'pro-life' voters in the democratic party to thus create a democratic super majority, add Wallis's proposed language to the platform. If not, you can make hay about nothing and send that block away.
How can asking that pro-choice sexual and reproductive health advocates be given credit for the work they are already doing to promote a reduction in unintended pregnancies be slanderous? I'm not saying that Wallis is wrong, I'm saying he should be taking the far-right to task for standing in the way of the very issue he claims to support. As opposed to picking a fight with the left, he should put the blame where it is due -- those who only seek to prohibit comprehensive sex, contraception and women's reproductive health and rights. Those of us on the pro-choice side are already doing what he advocates.
But, this column isn't helping anything. Instead of agreeing with him and being thankful that someone from the other side of abortion is taking up your cause, you turn it into a blame game.
I get what you're saying and I agree that Rev. Wallis should be talking with the right on this, but they don't listen to anything he says anyway. His base is all people on the left and in the middle - he's talking to them and giving some advice to Democrats on how to win over the evangelicals. Instead of yelling at the other side, which does nothing, he's decided to try and reason with his people.
Scott, this only shows astounding ignorance of the religious constituency that Wallis is reaching out to. If he did what you think he should do - and by your snide remarks you are in no position to advise him - he might as well shut down shop and re-invite the Rethugs to take over that voting block. Because that's what he'd be doing if he followed your advise.
"How can asking that pro-choice sexual and reproductive health advocates be given credit for the work they are already doing to promote a reduction in unintended pregnancies be slanderous?"
Because Jim Wallis and his 'pro-life' followers want is a different thing entirely.
I don't understand how Wallis is "picking a fight with the left"... I read Wallis' article and I got the impression that he wants Democrats to change how they frame the pro-choice argument. From a Pro-Choice period.... to a "No one likes abortions, so we should act to prevent unwanted pregnancies by providing education and resources, while leaving this decision up to women" sort of argument... This would bring in more people, who are too stuck on the Pro-Choice/Anti-Life label being thrown on Democrats to recognize that they may have a far more effective policy...
As opposed to picking a fight with the Jim Wallis, you should fight the religious leaders on the far-right who are so opposed to common sense education and prevention efforts.
Alas! Someone else who gets it....
Wallis is changing the way sexual and reproductive health advocates frame this debate -- they already talk about comprehensive sexuality education over abstinence-only failures; about contraception over efforts to outlaw it; about access to reproductive health care for women to make sure they and the children they have are healthy. That's the point. What Wallis is arguing for is already happening and the only reason people perceive it otherwise is because they have bought into the far-right frame of the issues. Wallis should take the religious leaders that only want to overturn Roe v. Wade, support abstinence-only, and want to outlaw contrception to task -- that's where the logjam on these issues really is.
I personally don't see a lot of comprehensive debating on this... I hear some talk about sex eduction, I hear some talk about abstinence only failure, I hear some talk about contraception, but I mostly hear talk about a woman's right to choose...
The main point I took from Wallis was to frame sex education, contraception, etc., as THE WAY TO PREVENT ABORTION... which is not the message that I hear from democrats, possibly some vague message about that from certain ones, some of the time... but not overall. It's not "already happening."
Talking on the nutbags won't do anything... you need to present the "BEST WAY TO PREVENT ABORTIONS, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE ALL ULTIMATELY WANT" message to the chruchgoers, to the voters, to the resaonable religious leaders... you can argue with the insane, but it won't get you anywhere...
Loading comments…
These are not just the philosophical musings of a new...
I'm pleased to announce the launch today of two new HuffPost...
Long before $150,000-gate, Sarah Palin seemed to...
The Obamas dropped by the Vatican on Friday, with daughters...
Yesterday evening, Greg Sargent reported on The Plum Line that one of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's key reasons...
I never actually heard the words made famous by a certain man on a certain TV show. Instead I got a lot...
Jim Hansen is director of the NASA Goddard Institute for...
Don't write off Saint Sarah all you political pundits,...
ANCHORAGE, Alaska — The former fiance of Gov. Sarah Palin's...
Hermione herself, Emma Watson, charmed David Letterman and...
Think Progress flags David Brooks telling...
While we of course do not claim to know anyone's thoughts, we nominate these...
The Daily Show's John Oliver is unhappy with mainstream journalism, and even drearier...
For this week's installment of their "Lunch with the FT" feature the...
Al Franken's been anointed as Minnesota's junior senator, but how did the...
SYDNEY — Residents of a rural Australian town hoping to protect the earth and their wallets...
"What's for dinner?" A lot of us ask that question right...
Posted June 26, 2008 | 01:49 PM (EST)