Mr. Wallis Needs to Come to Washington

Most people know that the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision legalized abortion and that the country is more-or-less split in the abortion debate. (Many polls show that the American public is still hovering around 50/50—with plenty of middle ground positions to discuss)[1],[2]. What people are less clear about is what place the pro-life debate has in modern America, and in politics.

Being pro-life isn’t just about believing that abortion is wrong. I know pro-lifers who cover the spectrum—from those who believe that oral contraceptives are just as harmful as the abortion pill, to those who believe that abortions in the case of rape and incest are acceptable.

What many people don’t know is that the battle between pro-lifers and pro-aborts doesn’t just exist during election years or when it’s politically “convenient.” There are many who work around the clock to advance the cause of life, or advance the cause of “choice.”

What people don’t see, including Jim Wallis (evangelical leader and editor of Sojourners) who was interviewed in a recent Newsweek article, is that there are people fighting on these issues day in and day out. Unfortunately, Mr. Wallis’ misdirected opinion would lead most to believe that the debate consists of name calling only—“baby killer” … “misogynist”. Side note: I’ve never thought to call someone a baby killer.

The Newsweek article focuses on how the “reproductive rights” debate should be restructured to actually decrease the number of abortions in America—a goal that everyone can get on board with. Immediately, I take offense with the term “reproductive rights”—as what they really mean is the right to abortion. We already have reproductive rights in this country. We, as American women and men, have the freedom to maintain full control over our reproductive future. Need I list the things that, in a ten minute drive to your nearest CVS, you can obtain to prevent pregnancy if you so choose? I think that you’re all smart enough to get that much. Contrast our “reproductive rights” with those of women in China or Ghana and you’ll realize that we are blessed to be free to choose whether or not we have sex in this country. What they are talking about here is the right to obtain an abortion.

The article claims that “NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood (PPFA), both committed to supporting a woman’s right to choose, say they’re just as committed to preventing unintended pregnancies in the first place.” As someone who receives mailers from both of these organizations (for opposition research), I can tell you that this is pure rhetoric. The goal of NARAL and PPFA is to expand “reproductive rights” to make abortion, cheap, easy and common. Lest we forget that abortion is lucrative for PPFA—they reported $1.017 billion in income in the last fiscal year. As much as PPFA might claim to be in the business of reducing unintended pregnancies by increasing the sale of birth control, their annual report shows that while dispensing 230,000 more contraceptives than the previous year, they performed approximately 25,000 more abortions than the previous year.

The article goes on to mention pro-lifers (namely pro-life Democrats) who support “legislation that targets the reduction of unintended pregnancies”—notice, they do not say “reduction of abortions”, because they can’t support a platform which would cost them essential campaign financing from PPFA and NARAL. The “pro-life” legislation that NARAL’s policy director refers to would actually send additional taxpayer funds to organizations such as Planned Parenthood. I would argue that you can’t reduce abortions by funding abortionists.

David O’Steen, of the National Right to Life, refers to real pro-life legislation that is aimed at directly decreasing the number of abortions in America. The legislation that he refers to would require women to have an ultrasound prior to an abortion—a method proven to change the heart and mind of the expectant mother. The legislation that he’s referring to is H.R. 5032, the Ultrasound Informed Consent Act (sponsored by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH). The bill would amend the Public Health Service Act to require that, prior to the woman making the final decision to have an abortion, the abortion provider perform an obstetric ultrasound on the pregnant woman, explain the results, display the ultrasound images so the woman may view them, and provide a medical description of the ultrasound images, including the dimensions of the baby and the presence of external members and internal organs, if present and viewable. The bill includes a medical emergency exception and the bill prohibits penalizing the physician or the woman if the woman refuses to look at the images.

If as Mr. Wallis suggests, being pro-life crosses party boundaries and we can all agree on reducing abortions, then why is there only one Democrat cosponsor of this legislation among the total 65 cosponsors?

Now, I’ve gotten myself off on a tangent. Circling back to Mr. Wallis’ interview, I take even greater offense to his response to the first question posed to him. “This divisive battle occurs every four years and never in between. Nothing changes, people win or lose elections and then it goes away. The debate is narrow, just pro-choice and pro-life. Right now we’re shouting at each other.”

Mr. Wallis: What rock are you living under? Have you forgotten about the thousands of people who volunteer daily and give their time and money to support crisis pregnancy centers, or those who adopt babies who were scheduled for abortion? Have you forgotten about the student organizations that fight on college campuses year round to spread the message of life? Have you forgotten about the people who fight tirelessly on both sides of the debate at organizations like National Right to Life, Family Research Council, PPFA, Marie Stopes International, and IPAS? Have you forgotten about the Congressional staffers in D.C. who remain vigilant everyday to ensure that the sanctity of life isn’t undermined by omissions or harmful language in legislation before Congress? I guess he didn't consider them.

No matter how much Mr. Wallis believes that pro-aborts can “hold to their pro-choice principles and still commit to abortion reduction”, there will always be a fundamental divide between those who believe that killing an unborn child is a legit choice and those who do not. He goes on to complain that politicians aren’t talking about “reducing abortions”, and he’s absolutely right. Democrats don’t talk about reducing abortions, they talk about “reducing unintended pregnancies.” Read: more birth control—don’t address abortion. Rep. Jordan, and the 64 Republican cosponsors of H.R. 5032 are talking about reducing abortions—but Mr. Wallis must not be talking about them. Maybe he just doesn’t know about them.

Finally, I would question any “evangelical leader”—as Mr. Wallis claims to be—who doesn’t support taking away a woman’s right to choose. Mr. Wallis, we aren't talking about a woman’s right to take contraceptives, to receive family planning, or to give her baby up for adoption. We are talking about a woman’s right to choose to end the life of her child.

[1] http://www.gallup.com/poll/27628/Public-Divided-ProChoice-vs-ProLife-Abortion-Labels.aspx
[2] http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm