Regarding the rather deceptive discussion of the abortion position of Jim Wallis and Sojourners here, I have a question.
For now at least, we have a slightly liberal Congressional majority and a Democratic President. Obviously, due to political commitments, there is going to be little change in abortion policy at the federal level barring a surprising Supreme Court decision. Yet, from 2001 to 2007, we had a Republican majority in both Houses of Congress and a conservative Republican President. It would have been easy enough, given the way the Republicans ran Congress, to pass legislation tightening restrictions on abortion, even if a constitutional amendment banning the practice could not have passed. Why is it Republicans only really whine about abortion when they are out of power and cannot do anything about it? They held the political whip-hand for six years, more or less, and lined their pockets with lobbyist money (the so-called "K Street Project" of former Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Majority Leader Tom DeLay), gave away billions of dollars in tax breaks to the wealthy, steered billions in pork-barrel contracts to home-town businesses, and legislated the physical and financial and economic infrastructure to the brink of oblivion. They did nothing, however, to end the practice of elective abortion on demand.
So, by the criteria that seems to exists in Neil's head, is the Republican Party's commitment to ending the practice fake? Is it, to use his terminology, "faux-life"? I have been arguing for years that this is so, and there is every indication this is so. Just curious.