Some Pro-Life Organizations Are Jumping The Rails Regarding Maddi Runkles

I was hoping that some common sense had again taken root among some pro-life folks with regard to the situation at Heritage Academy and the animosity being ginned up against it by Students For Life.  I have two posts on it already (here and here).  While I'm seeing most of the flap in Facebook, I do see other articles being published outside; the New York Times article was already mentioned and I'll return to that one soon.

Students For Life is quite pleased with the online and network interviews that have drawn attention to this matter - and to them too.  Of course the school administration, themselves Christian, are being portrayed as "Simon Legree" hypocrites: that is to say, they are being slandered.  I just saw that Father Pavone of Priests for Life has unfortunately wafted from the kool-aid dispenser so now I'm going to attempt to bring some balance to the picture.  While there are plenty of common-sense comments on the various Facebook posts, I don't see other blogs taking issue with Runkles and SFL save for this one and the Remnant.  If I've missed any, please advise.

The SFL-led cabal seems to have two main objections:

1. The shame induced may lead to abortion.
2. Others in the school undoubtedly committed fornication yet they are participating in the commencement exercises.

Let's address these, dealing with the shame.  As mentioned before, Runkles and SFL have granted interviews with Fox News, New York Times, heaven knows who else.  Who, beset with shame, deliberately makes their plight a national gazing stock?

Speaking of shame, take a look at Runkles' picture in the NYT article.  What do you make of that facial expression, with hands on hips?  It certainly isn't that of shame.  In fact, a reasonable person might call that arrogant.  Now scroll to the very bottom of the article, for a quote from her that will, at the very least, have you scratching your head: "Some pro-life people are against the killing of unborn babies, but they won’t speak out in support of the girl who chooses to keep her baby.  Honestly, that makes me feel like maybe the abortion would have been better. Then they would have just forgiven me, rather than deal with this visible consequence."  I truly hope, for her own sake, that this is just a NYT misquote.  Else, I might have to conclude that this is a cheap attempt to instill guilt trips on those of us who don't fall lock-step in with her badgering of her school.  The fact that she speaks in the present tense of preferring abortion is really quite reprehensible - assuming that is an accurate rendition of something she said.

As for the second objection, whether or not others committed fornication is conjecture.  It may well be very reasonable conjecture, but it's conjecture nonetheless.  My blogging colleague, Steve Skojec who runs the blog One Peter Five, has some very good points about the added element of scandal that would be presented, had Runkles been allowed to walk.  We have to understand "scandal" to mean the enticement of others to sin by example.  I thought of paraphrasing Steve's facebook comments but I think instead that I'll just post the screen shots.  I did get Steve's permission to quote him, but not that of the other people, so I'll redact their names.  I'll also post these after the jump break since this will be a long post.

Students For Life And New York Times

When I last wrote about the attempt by Students for Life to meddle in the affairs of the Heritage Academy, I ended it with a question regarding the role of the New York Times in bringing undue pressure upon the school administration.  I'd like to continue with that thought, for reasons that will be made clear as this post progresses.

First, here is the original SFL post.  Now here is the NYT article.  Please notice that both of these were published to the internet on May 20.  However, the SFL post mentions the NYT article.  Was the SFL piece published as a response to the NYT article?  I may be incorrect, but that SFL post seems like it was written in advance, given the work that had to go into the content, layout, etc.

Now look at the NYT article.  Kristan Hawkins is quoted as saying, "she made the courageous decision to choose life, and she definitely should not be shamed."  I don't see that statement anywhere else: not on the SFL post..nowhere.  If that exact quote does exist elsewhere and that quote originated before May 20, please advise via the comments section.  Assuming that it doesn't, then I think it reasonable to assume that Hawkins granted an interview to the New York Times regarding the Heritage Academy situation.

Let that sink in for a moment.  The New York Times has made no secret of its hostility towards Christians, especially conservative and pro-life Christians.  Yet it appears that the New York Times was brought into this situation to put more pressure on the school administration to do the bidding of Maddi Runkles and Students for Life. Because of its own animus towards Christianity, NYT could have been only too willing to take a swipe at Heritage Academy.  Was that NYT attitude exploited by SFL to garner some publicity?

On Monday, David Hobbs, president of Heritage Academy, issued a statement regarding the situation on the HA site.  He stated the reasons that the administration acted as they did.  Kristan Hawkins yesterday issued her response on the SFL site.  Basically she said that Hobbs' statement didn't cut the mustard for her.  Well, so what?  Who appointed her to a position of oversight for the school?

To the right is an opinion of another faithful Catholic whose opinion on the matter differs from that of SFL.

One might ask me for my opinion on the matter.  I decline to give it for it is irrelevant to the deliberations of the HA administration.  So too is the opinion of Students for Life and all those who might be clamoring for HA to back down.  Suffice it to say any decision is that of the school administration and it should be respected.

I'm going to propose a course of action.  You have the HA site.  Why not pop them an email suggesting that they tune out all the noise and flak that they are receiving as a result of this SFL-instigated barrage?  Assure them of your prayers and encourage them to proceed as they deem best.

Students For Life Imperiously Demeans Heritage Academy

NOTE - Update at bottom
A lot of Christian sites are atwitter with a situation that has originated at Heritage Academy, a private Christian school in Hagerstown, MD, an hour's drive away from my home.  I learned of this primarily through news feeds from Students for Life.  They have posted an account of it on their site.  To their credit, they seem to have stated all the facts, although their disdain for the school is evident.

This is what I gather.  Heritage Academy is a private K-12 Christian school.  Its students sign a pledge (perhaps when they are old enough to understand it) promising to abide by Christian values; among other things, they promise not to engage in premarital sex, do drugs, drink alcohol.  A graduating senior named Maddi Runkles violated the pledge and became pregnant as a result.  It appears that the boy with whom she fornicated is not a student of the Academy.  Prior to that she occupied leadership positions in the Key Club and Student Council.  She was removed from those positions and will not be allowed to participate in commencement ceremonies.  She will receive her diploma.

Her father was president of the school board.  He resigned in protest over the disciplining of his daughter.  The Runkle family made contact with Students for Life through another agency and the result is the campaign that you see on the SFL site as they try to gin their followers into browbeating the Heritage Academy to do their bidding.

Maddi did toy with the idea of abortion.  To her immense credit she did not go that route and will give birth to her baby.  No one would think of condemning her.  What I must denounce, however, is the de facto demonization of the Heritage Academy administrators.  The SFL post is full of pejorative language aimed at the school, as are many of the comments on SFL's facebook page.  I will now unpack some of it, bit by bit, in "bullet" style.

• The very title "you won't believe what her Christian school did" is designed to introduce the initial bias against the school.  This is a clear case of none-too-subtle peer pressure.
• "what they did to Maddi for her mistake was unnecessarily cruel and set a bad example of what it means to be a pro-life Christian"  Dear SFL, with all due respect, you've no basis for sitting in judgment over the decisions of this school.
• "Punishment without Compassion"  Who is defining the language here?
• "Doesn’t that break your heart?"  And it better break your heart, or else you are judgmental and lack compassion.  Notice the manipulation?

Kristin Hawkins said she tried to convince the principal to see things her way, but he didn't bite the bait.  Did it not occur to her that he isn't answerable to her for his decisions?  Perhaps there are facts and other considerations that the principal won't divulge, simply because they are none of our damned business.  For that reason alone, SFL does not know what is the correct course of action in this matter; nor do I.  I, however, do not pretend to know it, let alone presume to urge others to strong-arm Heritage Academy to following any arbitrary dictates.

Too many commenters (and other bloggers) are following SFL's leads, allowing themselves to be swayed by the emotions ginned up by SFL's irresponsible post.  Some of the ridiculous comments include:

• "punished for choosing life"
• "the administrators should be ashamed of themselves"
• "the school is not showing Christ's love"

Now precisely who are being the judgmental and condemning ones?  One comment said the school should "remove the plank from their own eye".  I might suggest that SFL and some of these commenters follow that excellent advice.

UPDATE - Something just dawned on me.  The SFL post mentions that New York Times did a write-up.  Indeed they have.  Bear in mind that on the national scale, Heritage Academy is a relatively small school, not one to be easily noticed.  So how did the NYT come to hear of this in order to do a piece?  Who told them?  Why?  Something about this whole situation does not pass the "smell test".