Tom Parker: the Biggest Threat to Abortion in this Generation, According to Pro-Abortion Critic

Last Days Watchman ^ | Julio Severo

[juliosevero]

Tom Parker: the Biggest Threat to Abortion in this Generation, According to Pro-Abortion Critic

By Julio Severo

Pro-abortion activist Nina Martin has labeled an Alabama judge as a man who “has figured out how to dismantle Roe v. Wade.”

In her piece in New Republic, she also said, “Tom Parker’s writings fuel the biggest threat to abortion rights in a generation.”

Yet, before nailing him to her cross, she points his “malevolent” credentials.

She says that in 2005, Justice Parker spoke to a group of homeschool students at a retreat of the Witherspoon School of Law and Public Policy. She proved that Witherspoon was a project of Vision Forum, a Texas-based Christian ministry.

Driven by the same motivation, she could disqualify the U.S. Constitution by proving the Christian connections of each of its framers.

She also thinks that Parker is not fit because he supported the Ten Commandments monument in the Alabama Supreme Court building.

She then quoted an “abominable” statement by him: “The very God of Holy Scriptures, the Creator, is the source of law, life, and liberty.”

What did she expect from a judge of a nation whose founders were Christian? If she wanted Parker to praise abortion, she should show him George Washington and other original Americans defending baby-killing.

Justice Tom Parker

Other Parker’s statements that annoyed her:

“It’s the judges who have legalized abortion and homosexuality ... They are shaking the very foundation of our society.”

“We have to stand for what’s right.”

“Because God, not the state, has granted parents the authority and responsibility to govern their children, parents should be able to do so unfettered by state interference.”

Parker’s words remind original Americans’ words, including Washington’s. If Nina wanted to hear what they would say today, Parker is the answer. But if Nina were to return to that time, they would surely ask her: “Are you sure that you are an American? All of us here are Christian, pro-life and pro-family.”

What is most annoying about Parker to Nina is what she calls “his relentless campaign to undermine legal abortion.” She complains, “He argues for full legal status for the unborn.”

She added an opinion of Justice Harry Blackmun: “If this suggestion of personhood is established, [Roe’s] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed.”

Parker believes that an unborn baby is entitled to life, as just original Americans did. But Nina is completely angry about Christianity and its pro-life values in America.

While the right to life of unborn babies is not recognized, more than one million of them are murdered in legal abortions in the United States every year under Roe v. Wade, a law that protects baby killing and their killers since 1973.

Again, Nina complains: “Step by step, Parker lays out his evidence: laws that give inheritance rights to unborn children, laws that ban pregnant inmates from being executed, laws that give fetuses legal guardians for the purposes of protecting their interests, laws that allow parents to sue for damages if fetuses are injured or killed as the result of negligence or some other wrongful act.”

Nina adds a comment by Parker: “Today, the only major area in which unborn children are denied legal protection is abortion and that denial is only because of the dictates of Roe.”

“What Justice Parker has done,” said Lynn Paltrow, executive director of the nonprofit National Advocates for Pregnant Women, “is explicitly lay out the roadmap for overturning Roe v. Wade.”

Parker has called on the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve the matter of full rights for the unborn babies once and for all.

Pro-abortion advocates, including Nina, are deeply worried about Parker’s writings influencing the justices in Washington.

Nina Martin has correctly identified the Alabama judge as the best chance for the U.S. pro-family movement to defeat Roe v. Wade.

It seems a too big challenge: Tom Parker facing the legal Goliath and his pro-abortion armies.

Yet, did not God use a young man called David to defeat a giant called Goliath in the past?

He is the same today.

This article was based on Nina Martin’s piece “This Alabama Judge Has Figured Out How to Dismantle Roe v. Wade Tom Parker's writings fuel the biggest threat to abortion rights in a generation.”

Portuguese version of this article: Tom Parker: A maior ameaça à agenda do aborto nos EUA, de acordo com escritora pró-aborto

Source: Last Days Watchman

Other articles on Justice Tom Parker:

Alabama Supreme Court Opinion Rules that “Child” Includes “Unborn Child”

US Supreme Court Genocidal Law Confronted by Major Pro-Life Decision of Alabama Supreme Court

[lavaroise]

Imagine that: thugs feel their thuggery industry threatened.

Sounds exactly like Satan accusing Jesus of persecuting him in the Bible.

Are liberals posesed?

[BeadCounter]

Bookmarked. Good article.

[Admin Moderator]

Please place your blog material in bloggers.

[juliosevero]

Ok. Should I do it right now? Sorry for the inconvenience.

[Carry_Okie]

Parker believes that an unborn baby is entitled to life,

My wife works in a Newborn Intensive Care Unit. She has also done everything from reproductive endocrinology, to high risk obstetrics, and L&D. We talk about these issues often (she opposes abortion). There can be a huge financial difference, not to mention needless and terrible trauma, between a "right to life" and a right not to be killed. The individual variations can be very complex. As a society, we do not have good ways of making determinations in such cases. I believe that those honestly seeking just and humane solutions (as opposed to over-simplified self-righteousness at the expense of everyone else) should involve themselves in the details of building systems with which to make these judgments expeditiously, justly, and humanely. It isn't as easy as one might think in some cases.

I think this is a real opportunity for Federalism, in that competition between the several States to develop such systems is a fine way to approach the many problems that do arise, not a few of which are created by advancements in technology. Unfortunately, I don't see much discussion of such among pro-life groups. Instead of being defined by what we oppose, it would be a refreshing change, albeit one involving real accountability to address how medical judgments should be made expeditiously in difficult life-and-death cases where time is critical.

[Westbrook]

Nina Martin, and those that think like her, are demonic.