By DEXTER DUGGAN
An abortionist joking about the preborn baby he had just hacked up looking like barbecue.
A clinic freezer named “the Nursery” where aborted babies’ bodies were kept until being hauled away.
Baby-shaped cookies with blood-red icing sent by the abortion clinic to taunt a pro-life office next door.
Just a few of the ways abortion workers distanced themselves psychologically from having to get a paycheck by tearing apart little, brief lives.
These numbing strategies are mentioned in the new book by former Planned Parenthood abortion clinic director Abby Johnson, written with Kristin Detrow, The Walls Are Talking: Former Abortion Clinic Workers Tell Their Stories (Ignatius Press).
After Johnson fled that way of making her living, she founded the organization “And Then There Were None” (www.abortionworker.com), to help others leave that industry.
Various lines of work have their really rough spots to cope with mentally. Think of police patrol and hospital emergency rooms. But not many jobs simply are focused on killing the innocent inconvenient.
Police don’t hit the streets planning to shoot as many bystanders as they can every day. Nor are surgeons gowning up whose prime purpose is to inject poison into helpless patients’ hearts. Indeed, to do so would put them in jail.
Abortuaries are unique worksites that way. Not only are they killing centers, but places whose routine repellent tasks are hidden not simply behind curtains and walls but a curtain of secrecy by adoring media. To expose the facts would cause outcries to end them. So the silence of the grave is matched by the wall of protective silence about what occurs.
If any truth-teller like the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) bursts forth with ghastly video evidence, the protective abortionist media don’t repent over having covered up, but seethe with anger over the exposure and do all they can to bury it and slime the truth-teller.
That makes it easier for the abortion industry to churn along, and to expect obeisance from political candidates willing to deaden their principles just one more way. Sort of like having their own “nursery” of frozen consciences awaiting disposal.
Like National Socialist guards outside German extermination camps, many leading media are sentries so the 21st-century work inside goes on without bothersome hassle.
Many prominent politicians and candidates wouldn’t have arrived where they are without dominant media paving the permissive route ahead for them — media who lecture and hector society about what’s acceptable, even desirable, and who demandingly expect to be listened to.
When future historians look back in mystification at the industrialization of insatiable U.S. baby slaughter, they’ll have a better comprehension by reading the disgraceful old pages of the rotely liberal New York Times, which largely shaped attitudes among powerful media on how to cover the killing. With zest and hunger.
You’d think the Times was selling flavored vitamins or tasty snacks as it smacked its lips over massive abortion, from front page to back. Never enough, never too far-reaching. And, like an embarrassing old food-poisoner in the family, never to be looked at closely.
If a liberal, strongly pro-abortion candidate like Hillary Clinton could thank the Times for helping her get as far as she had, however her 2016 presidential run turns out, even the Times’ propaganda klaxons apparently still hadn’t managed to completely deaden a little voice of conscience inside her.
As the CMP videos exposing abortionists began to be released last summer, Clinton actually said, “I have seen pictures from them and obviously find them disturbing” — before Big Boss Planned Parenthood yanked her back in line.
Then, just before the Wisconsin primary, Clinton referred on NBC’s Meet the Press on April 3 to the “child” in a pregnancy, although expressing her approval that “the unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights” because she doesn’t favor “sacrificing the woman’s right to make decisions.”
Planned Parenthood was upset again, complaining against using the words “child” and “person” before birth, preferring its own theory that 15 seconds before delivery the baby is a useless little lump of porridge, which instantly, miraculously transforms into a human being.
Then, on the day of the April 5 Badger State primary, when asked on The View national television program if Clinton believes a woman can be both feminist and pro-life, she replied, “Yes, I do. Absolutely” — quickly followed by her own use of the word “pro-life.”
Clinton has struggled even with her own Democratic Party’s voters in this primary season, partly because of a well-deserved image as a cold, calculating liar, which helped drive up the vote for her self-proclaimed socialist foe, Bernie Sanders. So Clinton may hope to cultivate votes wherever she can find any, even among some pro-lifers.
However, if an abortion clinic director like Abby Johnson can become a pro-life leader, perhaps even Clinton’s pro-abortionism could start cracking around the edges. Being a relatively new grandmother also could be an influence.
Sanders easily beat Clinton in the Wisconsin Democratic primary, while on the GOP side pro-life Sen. Ted Cruz overwhelmed billionaire developer Donald Trump.
The race moves on to New York on April 19.
Radio talk king Rush Limbaugh had said the only GOP candidate who could stop the surging Trump is Trump himself.
The billionaire seemed to be doing a fine job of putting on the brakes shortly before the Wisconsin vote. He blundered through misstatements on abortion that he at least had the sense to correct quickly after the interviews were over, instead of doing a trademark of digging in his heels.
Laura Ingraham, an attorney as well as national radio talk host, was very accepting of Trump’s candidacy, but she was downright exasperated at his “self-inflicted injuries” when media figures recently quizzed him.
If Trump were a young associate handling a case at a law firm, Ingraham said, he’d never be on the road to becoming a partner with the firm because of his lack of preparation.
One might think Trump concluded the pro-life vote was worth having as he began his presidential run, because it would have been so much easier to avoid media hostility by saying he still was as pro-abortion as he’d ever been.
But just saying he’d converted to being pro-life is no more a guarantee of winning the wary pro-life vote than convincing a gourmet that a strip of bacon is a fine Trump steak.
When liberal Democrat pundit Chris Matthews, a pro-abortion Catholic, pressed Trump about what should happen to a woman who has an abortion if abortion is illegal, the billionaire fumbled around and concluded she deserved some punishment by the legal system.
If Trump thought his stab at an answer was what pro-life voters wanted to hear, he not only hadn’t studied up but apparently didn’t even recall what was done back when abortion generally was illegal, when he was a young man. The abortionist was the one charged.
Then Trump stumbled through an interview with John Dickerson on CBS’ Face the Nation, leaving confusion whether he thought the current permissive abortion law should stay in place.
Dickerson also asked, “Do you think abortion is murder?” Trump replied lamely, “I have my opinions on it, but I’d rather not comment on it.”
If there’s any question a GOP candidate has to be prepped for with a hostile media, it’s abortion.
Trump might better have told Dickerson that “murder” is a legal term for an illegal act, but there’s no doubt that abortion ends an innocent, defenseless heartbeat and life.
Of course, it’s hard to talk in any depth about many life-issues topics after pro-abortion media have spent literally decades keeping the public misinformed, and spreading that misinformation far and wide.
Just one example: The March issue of the Itochu Monthly, a Japanese trading company’s newsletter, carried an article from its Washington, D.C., office about abortion in the U.S.
Forty-three full years after the U.S. Supreme Court sweepingly legalized permissive abortion throughout pregnancy in 1973, the Japanese newsletter claimed Roe v. Wade affected “a pregnancy in the first trimester . . . under certain conditions.”
Even if the news were carried by pigeon, 43 years is an awfully long time for it still not even to be reported accurately.
It’s as if the end of World War II in 1945 hadn’t been learned in the U.S. until 1988. Or if Barack Obama’s presidential election victory in 2008 still won’t become known until 2051.
Memo to the future: You won’t like this Obama guy, once you find out he was elected.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress