Pro-Life Activists, Please Cease With The Circular Firing Squads

Recently Kristan Hawkins of Students for Life sent an email blast to her list.  The topic revolved around the pro-lifers who were arrested and are now facing prison because of the rescue at Cesare Santangelo's baby-killing center in Washington DC.  Five of the activists have already been convicted and the others will go on trial shortly. 

I gather that some affiliates of Students for Life were concerned that their sidewalk activism might land them in jail and Hawkins was trying to reassure them that it wouldn't.  While I understand her desire to give assurances to her affiliates, she did so in a way that appears to belittle the efforts of those who engaged in the rescue of 2020. 

The body of her email blast appears below, with problematic parts highlighted.

Begin blast email.

Dear XXXX,  I've had a handful of students reach out concerned that doing peaceful pro-life activism, like engaging in sidewalk counseling or praying in front of an abortion facility, could result in an arrest. First and foremost, I'm writing you today to nip that in the bud... but I also want to give you some context. In October of 2020, pro-lifers affiliated with a different organization protested at the Washington Surgi-Clinic, operated by the notorious late-term abortionist Cesare Santangelo. Their chosen form of protest was a blockade of the facility. They knew that blocking the abortion facility was illegal, and they could be arrested for a felony thanks to the unjust FACE Act, which has been a law since the early 90s. This week, these activists were found guilty of FACE Act violations, which will be appealed according to their attorneys’ statements, and they are now in jail awaiting their sentencing, which could mean up to 11 years in federal prison. These young people collectively face decades in jail. XXX, I understand the passion that drove these activists to protest this evil late-term abortion facility. What Santangelo allegedly did to at least five fully-formed babies is horror beyond words. But while I empathize AND wholeheartedly believe the FACE Act is a garbage law designed to silence pro-lifers, I don’t believe that risking arrest and eleven years in a federal prison is the way the Pro-Life Generation will abolish abortion. The activism we ask the Pro-Life Generation to engage in is always legal.   Now, you may be remembering a different 2020 incident in which Students for Life members were arrested in Washington, D.C. for sidewalk chalking. There are some really important differences between these two arrests: 1. SFLA made every effort to obtain legal permission to carry out our event in front of the Washington, D.C. Planned Parenthood. We were unjustly denied despite our peaceful activities being clearly protected by the First Amendment (as we've argued in court, due to viewpoint discrimination). We did not show up thinking anyone would be arrested for sidewalk chalking. 2. The activists arrested at Santangelo's facility knowingly violated the FACE Act. It's their prerogative to peacefully carry out pro-life activism that way, knowing they will be punished by a weaponized, pro-abortion Department of Justice. But it's just not how we do things at SFLA. I believe pro-life activism can be impactful, life-saving, and mind-changing within the confines of the law. Granted, the FACE Act is, as I mentioned, a garbage law meant to oppress Americans who believe abortion is wrong. It's representative of a pattern of legal oppression against pro-life Americans that is emerging. But we will protest and work to change bad laws - not break them. And we will not stop working as hard as possible to abolish abortion, no matter what stands in our way. Please let me know if you have any questions about our practices and beliefs as it relates to your involvement with Students for Life.

For Life,

End blast email.

I have things that I could say about those hghlighted phrases, but that would obscure my main point.  It's one thing to disagree with tactics used by others, but quite another to hold oneself superior to others because of that disagreement.  This is what comes across in this email blast.  If that was not the intent, I suggest some clarification be issued.  

The pro-life battle has many fronts.  Various good people will focus on given fronts, depending on their talents and their life circumstances.

This is not the first time I've addressed this matter.  Besides this blog, I also write for a Baltimore-based pro-life organization called Defend Life.  On page 3 of the May 23 - June 23 issue, I addressed it because of a talk given by one of the rescuers.  He too fell into the error of disparaging aspects of pro-life work that utilized tactics other than rescues.

I humbly suggest that all pro-life parties cease immediately this sniping at each other and/or engaging in self-aggrandizement at each other's expense.

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.

Video Of DC's Rally This Past Friday

Below is video from the Stand Up For Religious Freedom rally last Friday in DC, within view of the Capitol. All the speakers are to be thanked for their time, but Father Proporsky, the first speaker, fell into a bit of a booby trap at the 4:00 mark.  He extolled a poster of Norman Rockwell's entitled "Freedom To Worship".  It's true that in the 1940s there was no thought of relegating First Amendment religious rights to "worship" only, but there most certainly is an insidious effort along those lines now.

At around the 30:00 mark, listen very closely to the former POW.  He makes the point that those who propose a "new world order" must crush religion, for such a government cannot brook a higher moral/social order than itself.  I've never supported such a cockamaney notion and have long said that the United Nations should be abolished with all haste and without ceremony.

I also point out Trent Frank's comments at the 45:00 mark.  He's quite correct in saying that if Obama wins in November, then all hell (I mean that literally) will break loose.  That means we get behind the GOP nominee - now!

The clip will now follow this jump break.