The absolutism of the NY Times’ favorite abortionist

By Dave Andrusko

There will be back and forth–and an awful lot of backfilling–as Democrats sort of distance themselves in a perfunctory, meaningless way from DNC chairman Tom Perez’s diktat that there is no room in the Democratic Party for pro-lifers.

Those Democrats marginally less intimidated by NARAL will burble on about how they have pro-life colleagues in the House of Representatives. What they will not back off from, even an inch, even for a second, is the denial that these pro-life Democrats (a) could have any influence on the party’s direction ; and (b)could fail to salute the pro-abortion flag every time it is run up the poll–excepting for an occasional meaningless vote allowing the Democrat to insist (all appearance to the contrary notwithstanding) that he or she is “pro-life.”

I ran across something called The headline to a post I found there (which is for the most part a lengthy interview) is, “Dr. Willie Parker on Why the Democratic Party Cannot Shy Away From Abortion Rights.”

For our purposes, it doesn’t really matter why this itinerant abortionist who annihilates unborn babies with an assembly-line-like efficiency (over 10,000 notches in his belt!) believes his party ought to stay-the-course without the slightest deviation. For all his talk about “complexity,” there is nothing the least bit morally, ethically, or philosophically complicated about his reasoning. He scornfully denounces “oversimplified thinking,” not recognizing he is the worst offender.

For me, the only interesting part of his interview is the introduction:

In some ways Dr. Willie Parker, 54, fits neatly into the mold of an abortion provider — a compassionate, apt doctor, who fiercely advocates for women’s reproductive health. However, he’s often defined by what’s seemingly unconventional: His deeply-held Christian beliefs and the lens of morality that he brings to the discussion of abortion rights

This is the delusion to which defenders of abortion fiercely cling. Almost equal in importance to the “right” of women to abort their children is the gauzy, no-contact-with-reality portrait of abortionists as not only “compassionate” but “apt doctors.”

If you, like Parker, are someone who parachutes in and performs up to 45 abortions a day, we can rightly assume these women are little more than numbers. Parker’s time for “compassion” is probably 15 minutes, at max.

But, of course, Parker gets so much attention, including for his new book, Life’s Work: A Moral Argument for Choice, because he is an African-American. This allows him, without fear of being challenged, to analogize (falsely and maliciously) opposition to “feminism, reproductive justice and gender equality” to support for slavery.

That the unborn child has his or her life “controlled by someone else”; and that (when the baby is a girl) she has no “gender equality” is too mundane for the saintly Mr. Parker.

What else? Parker’s a spiritual sort of guy whose reverse Road to Damascus experience came when he overcame “a religious understanding that left me unable to help women when I felt deeply for their situation.”

Russell Moore is the president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, the public-policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention. A couple of weeks back Dr. Moore wrote a not-to-be-missed column about Parker under the headline, “Who Would Jesus Abort? Confessions of a ‘Christian’ Abortion Doctor.”

You absolutely should read it, so allow me to say just a couple of things.

Parker, Dr. Moore explains,

writes, chillingly, about aspiring to learn how to do abortions. He said that he would go to the Planned Parenthood clinic “and perform abortions, over and over, like the athlete who goes to the gym after practice to shoot three-pointers.” He would sometimes do fifteen abortions, sometimes thirty “I wanted to get to the point where the procedure was automatic, a synthesis of muscle memory and mental vigilance,”

To which Dr. Moore poignantly adds, “He learned not only how to do these abortions, but also how to quiet his conscience along the way.”

Parker, who tells us that early in his career he did not perform abortions, is now a True Believer’s True Believer. Anyone with the slightest scruple about ripping heads off of tiny torsos is almost worst than those awful pro-lifers.

In that vein Dr. Moore keenly observes that the end of the book, “Parker issues what amounts to a kind of altar call.”

He asks the reader whether he or she is truly committed to abortion as a moral good. “Or are you secretly squeamish about abortion rights now that you’ve seen the sonogram images of your precious and beloved children in utero?” he asks. “Do you find yourself agreeing, a little that life might begin at conception, that abortion is tragic?” If so, he implies, repent and believe in the wonders of “reproductive choice.”

Deviation from abortion absolutism? Second thoughts about likening proficiency at killing to learning how to shoot three pointers? A tug of conscience at a picture of tiny arms and legs swimming in blood? All are scenes of weakness, of “oversimplified thinking.”

What a guy. No wonder Parker is the New York Times’ favorite abortionist.

(For some further observations about Parker’s new book, see “The New York Times’ favorite abortionist: Willie Parker.”)

Editor’s note. If you want to peruse stories all day long, go directly to and/or follow me on Twitter at Please send your comments to