One year after the Texas Legislature passed some of the most extreme anti-abortion legislation in the nation, religious-right groups still treat supporters of women’s reproductive health care with open contempt. Today, for example, The Justice Foundation — a radical anti-abortion group based in San Antonio — sent out a nasty press release attacking the thousands of Texans who took part in the “people’s filibuster” at the at the State Capitol last summer.

In that press release Allan Parker, president of The Justice Foundation, calls those advocates of abortion rights a “mob”:

“I was there a year ago when mob rule was attempted in Texas. I was not there the night of the first filibuster, but I was at home watching it on my computer. The mob and Senator Wendy Davis accomplished through shouting, screaming and disruption, what they could not achieve through persuasion when the first filibuster worked to thwart the will of the majority.”

Parker fails to recount how anti-abortion lawmakers arrogantly shut down a public hearing on their bill, turning away many women who had waited for hours in a packed hearing room to speak out against the attack on women’s reproductive health care. He also doesn’t acknowledge how Senate leaders vandalized their own… Read More

Federal District Judge Sam Sparks has had just about enough of attorney Allen Parker’s attempts to grandstand on the pending sonogram lawsuit (courtesy of BurkaBlog):

However, the Court is forced to conclude that Allen E. Parker, Jr., the attorney whose signature appears on this motion, is anything but competent. A competent attorney would not have filed this motion in the first place; if he did, he certainly would not have attached exhibits that are both highly prejudicial and legally irrelevant; and if he foolishly did both things, he surely would not be so prejudicial as to file such exhibits unsealed. A competent attorney who did these things would be deliberately disrespecting this Court and knowingly shirking his professional responsibilities, offenses for which he would be lucky to retain his bar card, much less an intact bank balance.

For Mr. Parker’s sake, and because the Court has not time to hold a sanctions hearing–in part because it must take time out of deciding the actual legal issues in this case to address the self-serving entreaties of attention-seekers like Mr. Parker–the Court assumes Mr. Parker is as incompetent as he appears. Rather than sanction him, the Court simply does what… Read More