By Dave Andrusko
Photo via Brett Deutsch/Physicians for Reproductive Health
I will give circuit-rider abortionist Willie Parker this much. In his exactly 900-word-long op-ed in today’s New York Times, at least he doesn’t wave the I-do-abortions-because-I-am-a Christian flag. He’s brandished that so often, it’s probably in near-tatters.
To be sure, the chairman-elect of the board of Physicians for Reproductive Health does attempt to co-opt one of the core tenets of the Christian faith which we will turn to momentarily.
So why is Parker contributing to the pro-abortion newspaper of record today? Who knows, but as we mentioned yesterday, with the Supreme Court agreeing to hear its first abortion case since 2007, the legion of abortion apologists are busy cranking out opinion pieces. All of them are designed to accomplish two goals.
First, insist that the “right” to abortion is already being heavily circumscribed and if the Supreme Court upholds the challenged provisions of Texas’ H.B 2, it’ll be a tragedy of apocalyptic proportions.
Second, to rehash the tiresome and self-congratulatory mythology that abortionists are secular saviors. If they are actually required to have admitting privileges in a local hospital when they botch an abortion, it’s both unnecessary and an unfounded aspersion cast on their all-purpose wonderfulness.
Parker’s first paragraph tells you all you need to know about his self-image:
IN public health, you go where the crisis is. If there is an outbreak and you have the ability to relieve suffering, you rush to the site of the need. This is why, a year and a half ago, I returned to my hometown, Birmingham, Ala., to provide abortions.
That “crisis” requires that Parker abort as many as 45 babies a day when he parachutes into Mississippi, where he also applies his grisly trade. Forty-five.
I guess 900 words didn’t give space to mention that Parker freely acknowledges performing abortions at 24 weeks, 6 days, and beyond.
I guess 900 words didn’t leave space for him to elaborate on what he calls “verbicaine.” That is the “counsel” he gives women to reassure them that destroying their unborn child is the best choice for them.
But 900 words did leave space for Parker to tell readers (yet again) that what he has called his “coming to Jesus” moment stemmed from Parker’s new understanding of the parable of the Good Samaritan. He writes
The Samaritan reversed the question of concern, to care more about the well-being of the person needing help than about what might happen to him for stopping to give help. I realized that if I were to show compassion, I would have to act on behalf of those women. My concern about women who lacked access to abortion became more important to me than worrying about what might happen to me for providing the services
That understanding of the Good Samaritan is true, although there is more. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (whose sermon about the Good Samaritan we’re told was the stimulus for Parker’s reassessment) said, “But then the Good Samaritan came by, and he reversed the question: ‘If I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?’”
But in our context, who is the injured “man” on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho? To Parker, it’s the pregnant woman to whom he renders “compassion.”
Pro-lifers would respond there are two people who need help : the woman and her unborn baby. To see it otherwise feeds Parker’s martyr complex but misses the central truth.
Also, one of the great insights of this fantastic parable is one that does not get nearly the attention it deserves.
Recall that Jesus put it this way at the conclusion of the parable : “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?” Not who is my neighbor but rather who acted as a neighbor to the one in need?
Which raises a secondary but still hugely important question. If I don’t stop to help, if I do not act as a neighbor to a pregnant woman in need, what happens to me-ethically, spiritually, and relationally?
What opportunity to serve and mature have I forfeited if I look the other way, let alone if I were to be the instrument of her child’s death? How much lesser of the man am I than I could have been?
Outlets like the Times will trot out the likes of Parker often over the next seven months until the High Court renders a decision. Listen carefully to what you hear them say, which is, of course, an inversion of the truth: “Choose Death.”
Editor’s note. If you want to peruse stories all day long, either go directly to nationalrighttolifenews.org and/or follow me on Twitter at twitter.com/daveha