Peer Pressure, Fear… Keep Dominant Media In Line As Admirers Of Abortion Clinic Clique

By DEXTER DUGGAN

“You can’t say that!” may be a trademark command of political correctness, but there actually are some situations properly considered beyond debate.
If a baby is about to crawl onto a busy street, who would say there needs to be extensive argument over whether protective action is needed, or even justified, before someone tries to save her life?
The moral imperative to move fast generally is assumed, regardless of culture, belief, or social setting.
On the other hand, what if someone in the crowd on the sidewalk tries to distract everyone else from this concrete emergency by diverting their attention until the street traffic has had time to mow down the baby?
Moreover, what if this strange someone is just one member of a group that tries to mislead people around the nation into refraining from such vital action?
We’re talking about protecting the continuance of massive permissive abortion by dominant news media. One reason is major-media peer pressure within their workplaces, and this result extends its sickness into the wider society beyond those highly guarded reportorial walls.
Feminists for Life of America once ran an advertisement showing a wide-eyed baby holding her blanket. Below the photo was a question: “Is this the face of the enemy?”
Enemies, that’s what the pro-abortion movement has made of innocent babies, but all that dominant media think of is despised “anti-abortionists” unacceptably triumphing over Planned Parenthood.
“Abortion advocates pit women against our children,” the Feminists for Life ad said.
Back in the June 2000 issue of his Focus on the Family monthly magazine, traditional-values leader James Dobson, Ph.D., told of an experiment regarding how group pressure influences people.
In this case, the people were new adolescents facing general pressures to conform. But reluctance to defy the perceived norm and draw embarrassment upon oneself isn’t confined to that one generational group or only a certain issue.
Dobson said 10 young people were told that their perception was to be tested on how well they could see the front of the room. They precisely were told to hold up their hands only when researchers at the front of the room pointed to the longest of three lines on a series of cards.
However, upon viewing the first card, nine of the 10 raised their hands for a shorter line. The shocked tenth adolescent concluded he must have heard the instructions incorrectly, so he raised his hand, too.
The students again were told to raise their hands only upon seeing the longest line, but when shown the second card, nine of them again chose a shorter line, leaving the tenth among them flabbergasted but eventually joining with them again, and again and again, although knowing they were wrong.
It turned out that the erring nine previously had been told privately to vote incorrectly, to measure the reaction of just one student who didn’t want to be seen defying the group.
Dobson added that the study also revealed that if just one other student in the group voted correctly, this greatly increased the chance that the tenth student would make the right choice, too.
“This means that if you have even one friend who will stand with you against the group, you probably will have more courage, too,” Dobson wrote. “But it’s pretty difficult to take your stand alone.”
However, such insistence for the correct by a lonely individual can happen.
On December 28, LifeSiteNews.com reported that in a recent book in Portuguese, a leading Brazilian radical feminist repented of her pro-abortionism, topless exhibitionism, and attacks against religion three years ago.
The pro-life news service said Sara Fernanda Giromini, also known as Sara Winter, repented of having had an abortion and wrote that giving birth to a baby boy has given her life “a new meaning. I’m writing this while he sleeps serenely on my lap. It is the greatest sensation in the world.”
LifeSiteNews.com said she said, “Please, women who are desperate to abort, think carefully about it. I was very sorry I did it. I don’t want the same for you.”
If she can change so strongly, many others can, and have done so. But don’t expect to see these stories of enlightenment paraded across dominant U.S. media. That would only encourage more people to make the march away from these media’s sickly agenda, an agenda so unnatural that these media seem to fear that other people, even other journalists, are always on the verge of rejecting it — and amazed they haven’t yet.
At the end of December, Donald Trump spokeswoman Katrina Pierson must have sent a chill or two of fear through media when she threatened to wear a necklace with a human fetus image. Her forthrightness seemed characteristic of Trump’s presidential campaign’s rejection of stultifying “political correctness.”
Pierson, a Tea Party activist, had just been criticized for wearing a necklace adorned with bullets for a television interview, indicating her support for the Second Amendment. If people didn’t like that, she tweeted, “Maybe I’ll wear a fetus next time and bring awareness to 50 million aborted people that will never (get) to be on Twitter.”
Awareness of aborted people? Just imagine how some jittery cameras would try to aim above her neck lest any dangling fetus jewelry assault the hollow eyes of Andy Rosenthal, Dean Baquet, and other manipulative officials at The New York Times who think they’ve been enthroned to decide all life for America.
News media may seem to have an insatiable appetite for pounding the public with shocks, but the shocking reality these media hate to have shown is a simple reminder of scientifically accurate unborn baby images.
Indeed, when the pro-life Center for Medical Progress showed their poor bodies last year mangled by Planned Parenthood abortionists, dominant media churned with a fury of denial and distortion behind their arched eyebrows.
These journalists weren’t sorrowfully surprised to learn the facts about innocent victims destroyed by abortion. Instead, the tops of their heads popped off in blind anger that other people might become aware of these facts and decide to fight back against the journos’ beloved massive abortion. To them, this slaughter must continue at all costs, no matter how many millions of lives are plunged into suffering or ruin.
Like the guards at desperate concentration camps, these enforcers are alert to keep everyone in line, lest a few dissenters quickly stimulate a stampede from restraint that means the whole camp soon is emptied.
If their censorship wasn’t so consequential, it would be comical. Although photos often are the element that moves or wins a debate, the facts of baby photos are as poisonous as saline solution to the pro-abortion-clinic clique.
As the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade approached in 2013, the hardcopy version of the slimmed-down Time magazine made abortion its cover story. There were nine photos, as well as one graphic of abortion access in the 50 states.
Two photos were of an empty abortion table with stirrups, and one photo each of a tray of clean abortion tools, a patient whose head was cropped off in an abortuary waiting room, and upper-body shots of five pro-abortionists. But no photo whatever of the star of the show, the preborn baby, whose existence apparently is no more real than phlogiston, an imaginary 17th-century substance.
The populace is angrier than he’s ever seen before, conservative GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said December 29 on the national Hugh Hewitt radio program. Much of the “seething rage” is due to seven years of Barack Obama’s rule, Huckabee said.
He might have added that crafty dominant media adoring Obama and Obama’s pro-abortion radicalism share the blame.