US NEWS
Who is Tom Parker, the justice who invoked God in the Alabama IVF case?
Tom Parker, the Alabama judge who invoked God during a case on the legality of IVF. What you need to know about his comments.
A recent case brought before the Alabama Supreme Court has made a splash after the Justices determined that wrongful death charges could be brought in cases where the ‘victim’ is an embryo.
The case aimed to answer the legal question of whether the avoidable death of a “pre-viable unborn child” or embryo could carry civil penalties. Under Alabama state law, criminal charges can be brought in these cases, and the concurring opinion provided by Chief Justice Tom Parker quoted a previous opinion of the court that found it to be “incongruous” if the law allowed “a defendant [to be found ...] responsible criminally for the homicide of a fetal child but would have no similar responsibility civilly.’”
What shocked many legal experts was the way God was invoked in the opinion published by the court’s Chief Justice. The legal arguments presented were supported by Alabama law where, for instance, the “sanctity of unborn life” includes as part of its legal definition “Godliness,” which is defined as “the quality or state of being holy or sacred.” While many may argue that a pillar of the US legal system is the division between Church and State, for Justice Parker, this fact can be ignored because Alabama’s constitution makes various references to God.
Additionally, the Chief Justice worked his way through several legal theories dating back to the time of Thomas Aquinas that argued human life could be “distinguished [...] from other things God made, including nonhuman life, on the ground that man was made in God’s image.” Lawyers have long cited Aquinas’ view to argue against abortion, some of which were cited by Justice Parker in his concurring opinion. One of the arguments came courtesy of Petrus Van Mastricht, a Reformist theologian and scholar born in 1630, who was inspired by Aquinas and wrote that “the image of God in man is nothing except a conformity of man whereby he in measure reflects the highest perfection of God.” This is just one example of religious scholarship being used in the legal argument presented by the Chief Justice.
The questions opened by this case
While the Chief Justice attempted to bolster his case by interweaving religious justifications into his legal arguments, he did understand that there were complicating factors to grant these rights to the unborn.
Justice Parker may have unwittingly weakened his argument by drawing attention to the point made by the defendant’s legal team. The families who signed the contract with the IVF clinic had given their consent for the embryos to be destroyed after they had been frozen for five years. Another couple “chose to donate similar embryos to medical researchers whose projects would “result in the destruction of the embryos.” The legal question that arises is how the destruction of embryos, in those cases, differs from the accident that led the embryos to be unfrozen, which prompted the families to bring the wrongful death case to the justice system. The Justice described this inconsistency and then stated that these “defenses have not been briefed and were not considered by the trial court” and that the Supreme Court would not “attempt to resolve them.” Instead, the decision was made that a wrongful death case could be brought forward, laying the groundwork for banning IVF in the state.
Who is Chief Justice Tom Parker?
In addition to being the highest-ranking member of the Alabama Supreme Court, Justice Tom Parker has not been shy in voicing his personal opinions that inform his work on the court. Justice Parker gave an interview earlier this week with Johnny Enlow, a known believer of the QAnon conspiracy theory. Media Matters reported that during the interview, Justice Parker indicated that he was a “proponent of the “Seven Mountain Mandate,” a theological approach that calls on Christians to impose fundamentalist values on all aspects of American life.”
His extreme views on abortion and IVF are one example of how his worldview informs the way he interprets the law. Previous comments made by the justice indicate that he sees the role of judges as agents of God’s will and that they will “play their forecast role in revival in this nation.” However, the case raises several questions about what the state or states, following Alabama’s lead, should do with embryos currently in laboratories across the country. As these embryos are considered full people, can they be destroyed? Should they be implanted? Or should they remain frozen indefinitely?