Chuck Colson of Prison Fellowship wrote a commentary about Jim Wallis of Sojourners. Highlights:

Wallis’s favorite argument, as reported in the Times and elsewhere, is that the Bible makes more than three thousand references to poverty—far more than abortion or homosexuality—and yet religious conservatives, in his opinion, are obsessed with the abortion issue. So, says Wallis, the religious left is more in tune with the Bible than are conservatives.
(snip)
The implications of this argument are clear: that is, all moral issues are equivalent. So, pick and choose among them; as long as you get seven or eight right answers, you’re okay.
(snip)
Why help the poor if we don’t believe all lives are equal in God’s sight? If you support ending the life of a child because it will be born into poverty, how can you logically call yourself an advocate for the poor?
(snip)
Sorry, Jim Wallis, all issues are not morally equivalent. The first one, the right to life, is non-negotiable. It undergirds all others: Take it away, and the whole house of cards collapses.

Now, Wallis has responded (no link available at this time as the SoJo server seems to be down). Highlights:

As you may know, I’m currently traveling around the country speaking about my new book, God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It. And in all my speaking and media appearances, I say no such thing. What I do say is that there is, in the words of the late Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, a “seamless garment of life” in which all issues that infringe on human life are important.
(snip)
I believe deeply that Christians must seriously be concerned about everything that threatens the lives of people created in the image of God. Abortion is important; war and economic justice are also important.
(snip)
Christians can’t say, ‘All we care about is someone’s stance on abortion. I don’t care what they do to the economy, to the poor, I don’t care what wars they fight, I don’t care what they do on human rights.’ It’s almost like we care about children until they’re born and then after that, they’re on their own. We’re cutting child health care, cutting child care for moms moving out of welfare. No, you can’t just care about a child until they’re born.
(snip)
What I’m saying around the country is that there is a new option for American politics that follows from the prophetic religious tradition. It is “traditional” or “conservative” on issues of family values, sexual integrity, and personal responsibility while being very “progressive,” “populist,” or even “radical” on issues such as poverty and racial justice. It affirms good stewardship of the earth and its resources, supports gender equality, and is more internationally minded than nationalist - looking first to peacemaking and conflict-resolution when it comes to foreign policy questions.
(snip)
That’s the message that is resonating around the country, Chuck. Not that all issues are “morally equivalent” but that, indeed, as you say, the “first one, the right to life, is non-negotiable.” Perhaps the difference between us is that I believe that non-negotiable right continues after birth.