willie-parker-abc

The Dark World of Abortion, Part I: More Oversight Needed

avatar
Print Friendly and PDF

Late-term abortionist Willie Parker

The recent Esquire article, “The Abortion Ministry of Dr. Willie Parker,” is troubling in many parts, horrendous in others, and heartbreaking throughout. There is so much to highlight within its disturbing narrative that it is impossible to discuss everything in just one piece, so this will be the first in a series of exclusive articles for BarbWire, commenting on the illuminating picture of the abortion industry as seen through the eyes of writer John H. Richardson.

Richardson profiles abortion doctor Willie Parker, who travels to different states to provide abortions. They met at the abortion clinic in Mississippi called “The Pink House.” “[N]o doctor in Mississippi is willing to provide such a service,” writes Richardson. This should not be surprising, since most doctors join the distinguished profession to save lives, not to end them, but he tries to portray Parker as a hero.

At this he fails miserably. He gives his best shot at putting a positive spin on the whole experience, but any reasonable person will feel only sadness reading his piece. The conclusion must be that abortion is a sad, dark, undesirable experience for anyone and everyone involved: for the baby, of course, for the women, for their families, and even for Dr. Parker himself.

I want to focus this first piece in the series on Dr. Parker’s contempt for the law. He rages against abortion clinic regulations, yet the story presented makes the case that more oversight is needed. There is one thing in which I wholeheartedly agree with the author: This is Dr. Parker’s ministry. He is an abortion zealot; a true abortion “evangelist.” He is no doctor. In his zealotry, he betrays the oath of a doctor, and he may be breaking the law. He is certainly circumventing it.

His abortion pitch is very persuasive by Richardson’s account, and he repeats it “almost word for word” to group after group of vulnerable women. “There’s some things that the state requires me to tell you,” he is quoted as saying. “Some of the information I’m required to give you is designed to discourage you or to scare you about the decision you’re making, so I’m going to tell you the things that I have to tell you by law, but I’m also going to tell you what in my best medical opinion is more important for you to know.” The women should decide what is important, but he doesn’t want them to think for themselves.

He will tell them what the law requires, while pleading with them not to listen to any of it and to go through with the abortion. He tells them about possible complications, but says, “Those are all the exact same risks that go with having a baby.” He says that if they are having an abortion for financial reasons (and virtually all of the examples presented had a financial component, something we’ll discuss in an upcoming piece) then “the person you are pregnant by could be required to provide you with financial assistance.” One woman laughed at this, and Dr. Parker moved on. He is required to give a brochure, but he merely “point[ed] to a stack of pamphlets,” and said, “We are required to offer it to you, but you don’t have to take it.” And surprise, surprise, no one takes it.

Is not Parker violating Mississippi law with his approach? Imagine a police officer, who is required by law to read Miranda rights to a suspect, saying, “You have the right to remain silent, but don’t listen to that, in my professional experience, you better talk fast.” That sort of tactic would not withstand scrutiny in a court of law. It should not be allowed here, either.

Finally, Parker is required by law to tell the women that “having an abortion increases your risk for breast cancer,” but he tells them “there is no scientific or medical evidence that supports that.” Again, how is that not a violation of the law? He can disagree with what the legislature has found, but he cannot say there is no evidence for it. State legislatures look at evidence when enacting laws, and they make that determination. In fact, the doctor himself admits it a bit later saying, “The overwhelming majority of the studies show that that’s not the case.” Well, “the overwhelming majority” is not “there is no evidence.” It is supported in at least a minority of the studies.

But this type of shell game shows what is really at play here. Dr. Parker doesn’t provide abortion services; he sells them. He is not giving information to women and allowing them to make an informed decision; he is pushing them to go through with it. “Abortions actually protect your health,” he finally says. Wow. Perhaps we should require all women to go through them in order to protect their health. He sells abortion like it’s a vitamin.

Worse, he offers it like “salvation.” The author describes him as using a “Priestly cadence” as he “builds a sermon.” He talks about women who are Christians and feeling guilty about what they are about to do and, instead of encouraging them to take some time and think through a decision that they will have to live with for the rest of their lives, he blames everyone around them and encourages them to actually do the opposite − don’t think about it. Here is the exact language he used: “I address this because if those people are getting inside your head and you’re feeling conflicted, if you are not comfortable with what you’re doing, you may be processing this far longer than you need to.”

While the state focuses on giving women information so that they can make the best decision for themselves, Dr. Parker does everything in his power to convince the women to ignore that information and to encourage them to go through with the abortion. He should be investigated in every state in which he practices.

Print Friendly and PDF



Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read More

  • Jeanette Victoria

    Gruesome, calling the murderof the most innocent unborn humans a ministry is chilling, what that monster really is, is a high priest to the God Moloch.

    • Old Salt

      Very good Jeanette, I didn’t think many people knew about the ancient women sacrificing their babies to Moloch or the worship of “Bel”, which is related to Baal worship. It is the murder of the young for the convenience of the murderess who needs her alley cat sexual freedom while feigning a high religeous reason for it or in laymens terms, “Ahmm sacrificin’ mah baby to god”, which is hypocritical male cow fecal matter.

    • 19gundog43

      Amen! Some have even likened it the a blood sacrifice to the heathen
      Canaanite god.

      • Doug Bristow

        And which god would that be?

        • 19gundog43

          The one Jeanette referred to, Moloch. The Canaanite god of child
          sacrifice.

  • Pingback: The Dark World of Abortion, Part I: More Oversight Needed | CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERICA

  • 19gundog43

    Someday they will face every soul they murdered at the Judgment and they
    will have to give an account of their soulless deeds. These soulless empty
    creatures may not believe in a literal Hell but when they finally die they will
    find a reserved spot in the lower, darkest reaches. And that goes for all the
    disgusting supporters of these bottom feeders.

    • Old Salt

      Correcto Mundo 19groundog43, but our preaching is foolishness to unregenerate man…they don’t realize that every, single, act of their sin which leaves a foul stench in Gods nostrils will be played before them for eternity as a reminder as to why they are where they are, and the worm dieth not. And they’ll recall, every time one of us told them how to escape that awful place but they instead laughed at us. Don’t know about you, sister, but I wouldn’t wish that on any human being and I try keeping them from it…oh well, I think I’m preachin’ to the choir. Nice post.

  • Old Salt

    Medical science (because non-believers put so much gravity with science), says the “egg” has 23 chromosomes, the “sperm” has 23 chromosomes and once united, it’s a 46 chromosome being (human) and doctors have actually testified seeing the spark of life take place under a microscope. So…scientifically, it’s alive, it’s human, it’s growing and to kill it, no-matter what the political take is…is the murder of a human being. I guess that ‘s just too simple for some to comprehend. Let me put it this way for those having trouble with this concept; you can pass a law against gravity but it’s still there and you can pass a law saying abortion is not murder but it still is.

  • tomd

    The author seems upset that the doctor is adding additional information in addition to the warnings he is required to say. However, if we were having any other type of procedure, we would expect our doctor to give us the best information available. And the best information available now doesn’t show that abortions cause an increase in cancer risk. Just because the legislature demands it does not make it an accurate statement.

    The doctor here complies with the law, but also provides the context around the information. Which is what one would expect from any doctor.

  • shepetgene

    From ACOG – The American Congress of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

    “The relationship between induced abortion and the subsequent development of breast cancer has been the subject of a substantial amount of epidemiologic study. Early case– control studies that reported an association between induced abortion and subsequent development of breast cancer had significant methodological problems, most notably reliance on retrospective reporting of abortion history. A key methodological consideration in interpreting the evidence for any relationship between abortion and breast cancer risk is the sensitive nature of abortion, which could affect the accuracy in retrospective studies that rely on participant reports of having had an abortion.

    In contrast to retrospective studies, prospective studies conclude there is no association between induced abortion and breast cancer. A world-wide meta-analysis of 83,000 women examined the relationship between induced abortion and breast cancer and found a significant difference between the overall estimate of relative risk (RR) from studies that had recorded information on induced abortion prospectively (RR, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.89–0.96) and the overall estimate of RR from studies that had recorded such information retrospectively (RR, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.09–1.14), suggesting that reporting bias was probably present in studies using retrospective reporting of abortion history (1).

    In 2003, the National Cancer Institute convened the Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer Workshop to evaluate the current strength of evidence of epidemiologic, clinical, and animal studies addressing the association between reproductive events and the risk of breast cancer (2). The workshop participants concluded that induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk. Studies published since 2003 continue to support this conclusion (3–7).”

  • Jack Dillon

    Dr. Kermit Gosnell got convicted of first degree murder. It sounds like Dr. Willie Parker is following in Gosnell’s footsteps.

    • tomd

      Gosnell broke the law. What exactly is Parker doing that’s illegal?

      • Jack Dillon

        He starts by breaking the oath of a doctor.

        • tomd

          That’s debatable. Medicine is a self-regulating profession – has he been expelled? No. Because there are times when abortion is the medically recommended course of action. That’s not breaking the law.

          • Jack Dillon

            Abortion being the necessary course of action is the minority, and a small minority, of cases. The overwhelming number of abortions are for reasons of convenience or economics. Since roe v wade there have been 57 million abortions. If most of those were necessary because of medical reasons, having children ought to be outlawed for being hazardous to health. … As far as medicine being self-regulating, so was science through peer reviewed publishing. But, then, it wound up becoming a means of discriminating against a point of view, as in the case of evolution vs creation, or global warming vs non catastrophic change.

          • tomd

            Exactly – but such abortion cases do exist. And they are medically necessary.

            And doctors are self-regulating, as is science. Science doesn’t “discriminate” against creation. Creation can prove its case any time it wants to.

            But it needs evidence to do that. And it has none.

  • mojo

    If he wasn’t black he would be charged with murder and executed, which he would be before murdering and destroying another of GODS children.

  • tomd

    Sure, but I didn’t say that medically necessary abortions are the only kind that are valid.

    Regarding science, you need to actually pick up a science book. Linking to ICR proclaims to the world that you know absolutely nothing about science and are willing to accept anything you find on random websites. If this isn’t the case, or you don’t want it to be the case – go find some real science.

    There is almost no evidence supporting a young earth. We’ve known this for over 200 years. There is a mountain of evidence supporting an older earth.

    • Jack Dillon

      There are rarely, any “valid” abortions. Yours would have been justifiable. … “go find some real science” … sound the mantra. The brain dead American political left uses “racist” against anyone that opposes their ideology, and the evolutionary types use “go find some real science”.

      • tomd

        Yes, mine would have been. Our existence happens because of a myriad of random events, any of which could have caused us not to exist.

        On the Greenland icecap, snow falls every winter. Over the summer, the snow melts and forms a layer of ice. This happens every year. We’ve studied this process for years, and every year a new layer is added.

        You can dig into the ice, and the layers keep going. When you drill down deep, you find 100,000 layers – one for each year. In Antarctica, the same thing happens, and the layers go down 700,000 layers – one for each year.

        The earth is not 6000 years old. ICR is fiction. Go read some actual science.

  • tomd

    A very entertaining read. I especially liked the graph where he compared actual data (with the usual variations found in any real-world data) with a lovely smooth curve based on no actual data but using numbers “based on factors” he describes in the text – the part where he has to build and compress the entire Greenland ice sheet in 700 years [?].

    The fact that scientists use multiple methods to cross-compare ice data with other sources seems to have escaped him. Try reading Alley et al, History of the Greenland Ice Sheet, 2010, and Rasmussen et al, A New Greenland Ice Core Chronology for the last glacial termination ,2005. Feel free to ask Michael Oard when he plans to try submitting his ‘paper’ to a recognized journal.

    • Russell Sayce

      The Earth is approx. 4.5 billion years old, the “beast system” is 6000 years old. Evolution is a tool of creation, we are currently living through an evolution of consciousness, a cycle that has always been with us. as a natural part of creation. Only this time, we humans have learned how to enhance the cycle. The Bible was written by those humans that are enhancing the cycle, that’s why it states that never before have we been this divided, and it will never happen again, we will learn from this one….

      Buckle up kids, 6,000 years of planning has reached fruition…

      • tomd

        Umm – OK?

        • Russell Sayce

          TMI..?

          • tomd

            Nope. You have data to back this up, right?

          • Russell Sayce

            Sure, it’s an analysis of lots of “data”, pick a point made, and I will back it up, until either you get it, or the answers become too painful to look at, and you choose to remain in warm fuzzy denial.

            Go ahead and ask a specific question….

          • tomd

            Sure. What’s a beast system?

          • Russell Sayce

            A system that operates on lies, by appealing to man’s lower consciousness. It’s the system we operate in now, look around…..

            In this kind of system, lawyers are at the top of the food chain, they confuse language and cause as much division as possible in the host population. They do this with promises of help seeking justice, to get people to freely give them money and support, as they further divide the population. All politicians and judges that make laws and enforce laws are lawyers. It’s difficult to look around today, and not notice the evidence of their money sport. This is a world upside down, where liars and thieves control the highest positions in society.
            They do this while convincing the public (the host) that liars and thieves and murderers are what they are trying to protect the host from, it’s all a big lie, they murder people all the time, and call it “legal”. What is legal? Oh ya, it’s whatever the liars murderers and thieves say it is, that’s a beast system.

          • tomd

            Why yes. What does evolution have to do with this?

          • Russell Sayce

            There is a natural cycle of consciousness evolution that exists, it is commonly refered to as the yuga cycle.

            https://www DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=hlfYHAV1i8w

            (oops, site doesn’t like links, replace DOT w/ . )

            Above is a link to a movie on this cycle, if you don’t wish to watch the whole thing, advance to 32 min to see a description of the ages in the cycle. They are gold, silver, bronze and iron. As always, I look to the Bible to confirm truths that I feel might be right, and there, in the book of Daniel, there is a vision of a soldier that represents kingdoms.

            The soldier’s head and neck are gold, his chest and torso are silver, his waist and thighs are bronze, and his calves and feet are iron mixed with clay. Each metal represents a kingdom, each one less glorious than the previous one. Indicating that the yuga cycle is real, and the Bible is a book of the ages, written by people who have kept their fully 100% conscious state of being.

            The yuga cycle is mostly dominated by christ like humans, but for the iron age, those people are crucified, God’s spiritual goats dominate the landscape, and christ like humans are put into a form of sleep, and made into slaves.

            The changing of the age, is humans going back to being dominated by christ like people again.

            The goats rule for 5-6000 years, Jesus (the lamb) rules for 20,000 years. We are the chosen ones, (mostly by chance) to be here to witness this change.

            During the time of the goat’s reign, maya is used to by the 100% conscious to remain in control, if you don’t understand what I mean, Google “define maya”.

            More questions on this..??

          • tomd

            Well, I’m guessing that *actual* evolution – population change through genetic mutation and natural selection – doesn’t have much of a role here.

          • Russell Sayce

            That’s exactly what it is….

            During this time we’re in, humans, and all other conscious life, are starved for Love, this essentially causes a psycological winter for us. When we are able to find Love again within ourselves, spring comes, and our minds and bodies begin to grow again, in line with the source of Life. A healing takes place, and we are new creations again.

            Have you ever noticed in the Bible where it says people were living for 8 or 9 centuries..? Now that I understand what’s really wrong with us, I believe that to be true…..

          • tomd

            Why yes. What does evolution have to do with this?

  • tomd

    Right. Oard has no actual evidence supporting his 700 year ice age – he made that up to fit his flood chronology, and even his sources that he quotes disagree with that. Even the sources *you* quote see no evidence of such an event – your own quote indicates that counting layers is accurate at least back to 8-10 thousand years, and strangely those layers don’t show a 700 year ice age. Nor do they show a flood.

    And you’re comparing these guys to Galileo et al? Garbage. If Oard thinks he’s right, get it peer reviewed in a real journal and let other scientists critique it. Anyone can put stuff on a web site. He’s trying to argue actual science – ice compressions and flow. There are people who spend their lives studying just the dynamics of that process. He has to convince them, not me.

EmailTitle2

Sign up for BarbWire alerts!