Having suggested that pro-life progressives didn’t really win much in the platform struggles, I’d like to give equal time here to Jim Wallis, who worked hard to get abortion reduction included and argues that the platform was a “step forward.” The nub of his argument:
The platform takes a significant step forward in affirming those whose moral convictions lead them to make a different decision than abortion. It reads, “The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman’s decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre- and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs.” That position will help make room for people, especially in the religious community, who have strong moral convictions about abortion. Many pro-life Democrats (and there are many in the party) have been looking to be heard, respected, and given a valued space in their own party (as pro-choice Republicans have in their party).
There is indeed some chance for common ground here in the mutual respect for different moral convictions and a shared desire to decrease the need for abortion. There is also a deep and growing conviction among evangelicals and Catholics that the “life issues” also extend to the 30,000 children who die globally each day from poverty and preventable disease, issues of genocide in places like Darfur, human trafficking, the domestic issues of poverty and health care, the foreign policy issues of war and peace, and even in threats like climate change. This election provides us with a pivotal opportunity to transcend old polarities and attempt to bring people together on common ground in a “consistent ethic of life” across a range of issues.