Wednesday, May 24, 2017

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.


  1. I would be on the side of SFL whom I have always held in high regard, if it were not for the fact that a relative who was a career public high-school teacher told me that after being empathetic to the point of visiting pregnant teen's homes to help them graduate with their class when they were ill, unwed teen pregnancy not only was not shameful, but became "the red badge of courage"in the town.
    My reason for being in favor of no punishment by the school is that a pledge of this type not legally binding as far as I know, and a student is not obliged to 'disclose' if he/she breaks it. So it is not improbable that other students have fornicated, contracepted, and perhaps even aborted. Also, if the pregnant girl's partner is a Heritage Academy student, what is happening to him?

    1. The boy does not attend the same school, according to the NYT piece. It might well be probable that others violated their pledge, but one person's wrong-doing does not excuse that of another. The school cannot address what it doesn't know.
      What too many seem to be disregarding is that the school administration is also Christian, and is due all respect and courtesy accordingly. From SFL and their followers, that doesn't appear to be happening.

  2. I agree that the school cannot address what it does not know. How did they "know" the girl was pregnant? Isn't that a matter of private medical records..the girl could have a tumor or some other medical condition. I recall that in the girl's catholic high school, staffed mostly by nuns, I attended in the early 1960's, there was a similar case. A good student who was one of the senior class officers and carried the banner in the graduation procession delivered a baby a month or 2 later. The sisters at the high school either did not notice her pregnancy or had decided not to comment on it. Rumors later circulated that she had been secretly married.


Please be respectful and courteous to others on this blog. We reserve the right to delete comments that violate courtesy and/or those that promote dissent from the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.