Before we dissect the latest pro-abortion harangue by the New York Times’ Linda Greenhouse [“The Sound of Silence on Abortion”], it’s instructive to read what follows her plea/threat for corporate pro-abortion activism– or else.  It reads, “The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor.”

Of course, any “diverse” letters against the Times’ stridently pro-abortion stance (as personified by Greenhouse) would be as welcomed as ants at a picnic.

Now a “contributing Opinion writer,” Greenhouse, for nearly 30 years, contributed anti-life opinions in the form of the wholly one-sided “news stories” as the Times’ Supreme Court correspondent.

The gist of her 1,216 word long op-ed piece, posted at 5 am this morning,  is straightforward. We live in a time when “the country is drowning in antiabortion fanaticism. “(While you’re at it, tell us how you really feel.)

And if [a thin slice] of “corporate America” has taken “progressive” stands on other issues, well, how about taking another  big step? “And this brings us to a subject that corporate America would evidently prefer not to talk about: abortion. It’s possible,” Greenhouse laments, “I’ve missed something, but I’ve been listening hard, and so far all I’ve heard is the sound of silence.”

To be clear, Greenhouse concedes that, for the most part, the “progressive” stands on other issues taken by a segment of corporate America  are but “a fleeting suspension of the business of making money.” No matter.

Follow LifeNews on the Parler social media network for the latest pro-life news!

She is not subtle: Greenhouse wants economic blackmail of those states that are engaging in “anti-abortion fanaticism.” And she names [corporate] names, complaining “Who will speak up for your female customers and your female employees” if you don’t? Of course, in Greenhouse’s world, all “female employees” are pro-abortion.

After listing what are, to Greenhouse, examples of “a perversion of the legal system as Americans have traditionally understood it” (a reference to a Texas law but no doubt applicable to all protective laws), she tells us, “Much of this activity might have been shrugged off as just so much political theater” unless…

Unless what?

had the Supreme Court not agreed last month to hear Mississippi’s defense of its ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy….

In other words, what if the Supreme Court takes another look at its abortion jurisprudence and gives states additional leeway to protect unborn babies and their mothers? To Greenhouse, it would be “a ‘Handmaid’s Tale’ dystopia come to life.”

[Speaking of political theater, I wonder if pro-abortionists have any idea how absurd they look protesting “dressed in red robes and blinkering white bonnets” described by one sympathetic writer as “the uniform of reproductive slavery in Margaret Atwood’s dystopian novel” –aka, “The Handmaid’s Tale.”]

To Greenhouse, for corporations to make life miserable for states that don’t toe her line is a profile in courage. To the rest of us, it spells economic disaster for corporations, a ruinous misreading of public opinion on abortion, and a potentially calamitous backlash from the public.

The post Feminist Wants Corporations to Punish States That Pass Pro-Life Laws Protecting Babies first appeared on LifeNews.com.

Leave a Reply