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.