So Sarah and Pastor Dan have taken Jim Wallis to task for his rhetoric in support of policies that would "supply real support for the child and for the woman facing this question [of abortion] in terms of pre- and post-natal healthcare, in terms of income support, the kind of support like paternity leave, family leave and an improvement in the accessibility in adoption." Pastor Dan writes that Wallis "oozes patriarchy" as he discusses giving pregnant women economic support so they might decide to carry unplanned pregnancies to term.
Indeed, Wallis believes abortions, except in the case of a woman's health being at risk, should be avoided. And because Wallis is not pro-choice, yes, he does deny the moral agency women should have to control their own bodies. But given that he is not pro-choice, and that fact is not going to change due to his deeply felt religious beliefs, would people who are pro-choice or on the left in general rather have him pursue traditional culture war-style abortion demagoguery, or support smart public policies around health care and work/family balance that would improve the lives of women?
Jim Wallis deserves points for being constructive instead of destructive. It's fine that he's speaking at the DNCC -- it's clear from the drafted Democratic platform that Wallis doesn't set or even strongly influence reproductive health policy for the Democrats. But giving him recognition at the convention could result in better social policy, and the increased likelihood of electing a strongly pro-choice President.
--Tim Fernholz
