Anti-Abortion Group Backs Fired Pregnant Teacher

Anti-Abortion Group Backs Fired Pregnant Teacher

Group Says Catholic School Is Encouraging Abortion by Firing Woman

By JAKE TAPPER and AVERY MILLER

Feb. 20, 2006 — When Michelle McCusker, 26, got a job teaching pre-school at St. Rose of Lima, a Catholic school in Queens, N.Y., she fulfilled a longtime dream.
(snip)

But then McCukser — who is Catholic and single — became pregnant. She decided to keep the baby and informed the school early in the school year.

The school — backed by the Brooklyn Diocese, which oversees Catholic churches in the New York City boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens — fired her.
(snip)

But what's unique about the case at St. Rose of Lima is that an anti-abortion group has sided with Michelle McCusker, claiming that the Catholic school was essentially encouraging abortion.
(snip/...)

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1641467&page=2

Since the school does not want a pregnant woman to teach pre-K, they're "encouraging abortion?"

We all know how much the Catholic Church just loves abortion.

employment and keeping her baby? If that doesn't become an inducment to abort, what is it?

they have a right to be jerks if they want.

In any case, many schools are very finicky about having pregnant teachers, especially with young children. It's an issue most adminstrators would rather avoid. Arguing that an employer is encouraging abortion when they no longer think the employee is fit for the job is pretty ludicrous.

I agree they have every right not to keep her employed as long as they also fire anyone else who has engaged in sex outside of marriage, but the fact is they are encouraging abortion. If you are a teacher at that school who becomes pregnant and is single, then inorder to keep your job you need to abort. That is a clear inducement to abort. The intent of the employmer is irrelevent it is what the action ends up causing that matters.

Even if they were "encouraging abortion" they are within their rights, as the article summizes.

"Feminists for Life" just wants to get their collective foot into the door of the Catholic Church to recruit members and influence its policies.

and I didn't say that the school was behaving illegally. I would imagine that a case could be made that it is gender discrimination due to not doing the same to male teachers. But since they could argue back that it is just easier to know in the case of pregnant women they probably still win.

Yes, they have a right to be jerks. No, the policy is not illegal (if you say so). NO ONE HAS SAID OTHERWISE.

FFL is contesting the policy ON MORAL GROUNDS, not legal grounds. FFL is not saying that the school authorities don't have the right to be jerks, or are applying an illegal policy. NEITHER IS ANYONE HERE.

Why do you do this???? Why do you speak to and about people as if they have said or done things they never said or did?


FFL, and anyone else who wants to, is at completely liberty to DENOUNCE the policy of any employer it likes, and to try to PERSUADE that employer to change the policy using any arguments it likes.

FREE SPEECH, right?

and a good evening.

As in,

You canot fire someone for a health condition.
You cannot fire anyone for being diabled.
You cannot fire anyome for your skin color.
You cannot fire someone for their marital status.
You cannot fire someone for their behavior OFF the worksite/clock. (otherwise is slavery by proxy)
You cannot fire someone for their sexual orientation (where applicable)
You cannot refuse to hire for any of these reasons.

These are not unreasonable requests, unless you're a "religious" institution.

THEREFORE,

Religious institution are unreasonable and should not be legally protected from these regulations.

Period.

(I would go so far as to disallow all "religious" employment, PERIOD, and subject ALL employers to employment laws, but religious people think they're speacial, so of course we HAVE TO except them from those laws. Sickening.)

She got fired for having sex outside of marriage. Presuming she got pregnant first, then got married, she would have merely delayed her firing by the number of months it took them to find out she had been pregnant first, then married.

but the people who are subjected to the behavior of a jerk also have the right to make noise about it, and maybe stop it

It's nice to see them actually trying to undo incidence of abortions by reducing factors which make abortions a "viable choice". This is not to say I am against abortions per se; rather, it is to say they need to be actively reducing factors which make abortion an acceptable choice to pregnant women.

I'm thinking of their abandonment of the whole social safety net that allows single women to raise children who have opportunity. For their efforts to be credible, however, they also need to scream from the rooftops for fully funded prenatal care, protections for pregnant women (as demonstrated in this article), funding for poor/disadvantaged children (food stamps, public welfare for those who need it, etc), and so on.

This only demonstrates that they have no excuse to not do these things.

I admit I don't know either way but you are apparently assuming they don't.

she could have married the father of the baby (or someone else)...


Not saying the school is right, but simply that there was an alternative to having an abortion that likely would have satisfied the schools religious beliefs...

it wouldn't matter if she gave birth too soon after she got married. She got fired for sex outside of marriage. A birth 6 or 7 months into a marriage is no less proof of that than the pregnancy.

she could have married the father of the baby (or someone else)...

Now why haven't all those millions of other unmarried pregnant women thought of that?

Marry someone who doesn't want to marry you. Marry someone who's already married. Marry someone you can't find. Marry someone who beats you. Marry someone who mentally and emotionally abuses you. Marry someone you don't want to marry.

Just look at all the "alternatives" to having an abortion, or getting fired.

their boyfriends.

The Catholic High School I went to encouraged a girl not only to stay in school(she was going to drop out, and it was her senior year), but I know the priests actually recomended that she not marry the guy, that there would be enough support from her friends and family, and that she should apply to colleges as well. He was 24, and had multiple children by mutiple mothers, it definatly would have ruined her life to have married him.

if they respected life, they would keep her on and support her decision. They can't have it both ways. I suppose she is supposed to find some 1950's home for unwed mothers or something?

Me, my first thought was that an abortion would have solved all her problems. Until she got pregnant, nobody was checking up on her sex, and nobody would know about the abortion, either.

Clearly somebody, somewhere is going to have an abortion if it means her job.

I know its a stretch in logic but could the anti-abortion group be on to something?

and their goal is to control how the catholic church sets policies. That in itself is immoral.

They are on to nothing.

"Feminists for Life" is part of that second wave: the ones who've figured out that "abortion is murder" wasn't getting them anywhere, and have settled on "abortion hurts women" as their slogan.

They're subtle, and vicious.

Important reading for anyone wanting to understand their tactics:

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9804/articles/swope.html

Abortion: A Failure to Communicate

For twenty-five years the pro-life movement has stood up to defend perhaps the most crucial principle in any civilized society, namely, the sanctity and value of every human life. However, neither the profundity and scale of the cause, nor the integrity of those who work to support it, necessarily translates into effective action. Recent research on the psychology of pro-choice women offers insight into why the pro-life movement has not been as effective as it might have been in persuading women to choose life; it also offers opportunities to improve dramatically the scope and influence of the pro-life message, particularly among women of childbearing age.

This research suggests that modern American women of childbearing age do not view the abortion issue within the same moral framework as those of us who are pro-life activists. ...

The importance of a new approach became clear from the results of sophisticated research pioneered by the Caring Foundation, a group that presents the pro-life message to the public via television. This group has been able to tap into some of the most advanced psychological research available today, so-called "right brain" research. (The distinction between "right brain" and "left brain" activity may be physiologically oversimplified or even wrong, but it remains useful as a shorthand description of different ways of thinking.)

The right side of the brain is thought to control the emotional, intuitive, creative aspect of the person. Whereas most research involves analytic, rational questions and thus draws responses primarily from the left side of the brain, "right brain" research aims to uncover the underlying emotional reasons why we make particular decisions or hold certain beliefs. Such an approach has obvious applications to an issue such as abortion, as a woman in the grips of a crisis pregnancy certainly does not resolve this issue in a cold, logical, "left-brain" manner. ...

What it comes down to is: it's counterproductive to tell women they're evil if they don't agree with us. Let's try telling them they're stupid if they don't agree with us.

In order to persuade women that they are stupid if they terminate their pregnancies, they have to create the conditions in which this appears to be true: they have to remove the obstacles to continuing a pregnancy (e.g. loss of employment) that make it pretty obviously smart to terminate it.

Then, they can play on the unhappiness of women with unwanted pregnancies about the pregnancy, stick the knives in with all their talk of the guilt, shame and remorse that they will feel if they terminate it, and make continuing the pregnancy appear to be the better choice. But they can't do that if the women they're trying to manipulate are simultaneously getting fired from their jobs.

The RC Church, in this instance, isn't playing along. So FFL is pissed.

Nothing like a good internecine war.

FFL is of course right, for all the wrong reasons. Yes, the policy does provide women teachers with an incentive to terminate pregnancies even if they don't want to. No, that isn't "anti-life", it's anti-woman. And so is "Feminists for Life".

They're trying to utilize what successful marketing execs do - research, research, research - and maybe it will be successful for them. If they'd stick with that route and give up on legislation, I'd cheer them. Maybe.

I don't mind that they're taking on the church in this. Someone from within the parish needs to point out the outrageous failure of logic here. The institution would never have existed without an unplanned pregnancy.

Someone from within the parish needs to point out the outrageous failure of logic here.

... there might be a cascade reaction ... like Kirk induced in Nomad, the destroyer of imperfection gone haywire?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Changeling_(Star_Trek)

Kirk confronts Nomad, telling it that its sterilization of biological units is illogical, since the creator is a biological unit. ...

Kirk again confronts Nomad and questions its logic of destroying imperfect beings. Kirk tells Nomad that Nomad itself has made a mistake, something only an imperfect being can do. ... Realizing his own imperfections, Nomad is caught in a logic loop, and begins to execute its primary function on itself.

One can hope. ;)

Actually, if the RC Church's own Nomad were to return, that's just what he might do to the RC Church itself. As you point out:

The institution would never have existed without an unplanned pregnancy.

Motes and logs, glass houses, and all that, in not only this regard. RC pregnancy policy does not compute!

of each and every human life when they put as much energy, money, and publicity into feeding and providing medical care to each and every child in the United States. When they dedicate themselves relentlessly to making sure that nobody is homeless, or without the means to buy food and medicine, and that the government uses every resource available to keep good paying jobs in this country, so that parents can provide adequately for their families.

Further, I will have some respect for these groups when they campaign to remove the stigma of unwed motherhood, so that should an unmarried woman choose to have a child, and give that child up for adoption, the stigma of the pregnancy itself will not follow and haunt her in small communities, as it surely does now.

What about a married woman, in the situation where she and her husband can barely scrape together enough to provide for their present children? Married women do choose abortion, often because they lack the money, and time and energy, to provide for another child. Imagine such a woman in a small community, explaining that because she holds all life sacred, she chose not to abort, but to give her baby up for adoption.

How much moral and emotional support do you think that woman would receive? How many taunts might her children have to endure from children of parents who decided to speak out loud and clear about her moral choice? Until we live in a society where the holier-than-thou hypocrites stop pointing out what they consider other people's moral failings, abortion must be a private issue, strictly between a woman and her doctor. For any woman who chooses to give birth, the same hypocrites who condemn abortion must be willing to give love, acceptance, an moral support to these mothers.

When it comes to the intensely personal decision about whether to give birth, as a woman, the only choices I felt were mine to make were the ones I made when I was pregnant. I have enough trouble deciding which actions are right for me, and I have absolutely no right to control these kinds of decisions for other people. I am comfortable with speaking out against preemptive warfare, and against taking money from the poor to funnel to the rich, but as far as decisions which will impact nobody but the family involved, I have no right to dictate those choices.

American society has become, in many ways, a more intolerant, unforgiving society, and I associate these changes to some of the more right-wing religious right groups, who seem to spend a great deal of time in condemning, and not much time in loving and accepting. A society where differences are tolerated, and people are accepted, as long as they are not inflicting their views on others, seems to me to be the kind of society to strive for. The key seems to be accepting differences without imposing moral choices.

Women, whether here or in other countries, seem to be too frequently on the end of decisions which are made mostly by men. When women have equal say over issues which affect men, then maybe I'll be more open to the choices which are inflicted on women today by mostly men politicians. When an all woman group can be photographed signing a bill determining under what circumstances men can take medications such as Viagra, the bill having been voted on by a body of legislators almost overwhelmingly comprised of women, then I'll consider bills drafted by mostly men to be fair to us.

:applause:

fired two teachers; one for a divorce, other for a vasectomy. Wrote this before. Cannot remember which HS it was. Nassau County, I think. The students walked out of class over it. The parents refused to pay tuition until teachers were reinstated. It was all under their so called "morals clause" in the contract. This got a LOT of very bad publicity. I recall one parent saying that if they expelled every student in the school whose PARENTS did either of those two things, there would be nobody left in the school.

Bottom line, the teachers were reinstated and the morals clause was nixed.

Firing her was wrong(because I don't hold with the notion that "pre-marital" sex is a bad thing or causes you to be hell-bound - not that I believe in hell) - yeah, she broke a rule (a silly rule in my opinion) - but she's keeping the baby. They should forgive her her transgression (like Jesus would do) and applaud the fact that she's having the baby - and keep her employed. Let it be a lesson in forgiveness instead of "you must suffer for your sins!"


However, firing her in no way forces her to have an abortion. Yeah, she is hurting financially - but poor women who want to give birth give birth all the damn time. Contrary to popular myth, poor women don't all wish they had abortions(even if other people do - myself NOT included in that - as I'm for choice). Some poor women actually want their babies. It's also true that some poor women have greatly desired the means to an abortion and those means were not available. See, no two women are the same. One size does not fit all. Never has. Never will. All situations have their own circumstances. That's why it's a personal - private - choice.

The fired teacher is not being forced to abort. True, the Catholic church is making it harder for her - but she can still have that child - if that's her choice to do so. Yes, without a job it will be harder - But that's why we need social programs in place to help people.

Pregnant women should not have to feel desperate. A support system should be in place. Either to abort or give birth - a support system should be there.

Yes, without a job it will be harder - But that's why we need social programs in place to help people.

You might be forgetting that some people don't want social programs -- they actually want jobs. And babies.

Yup, we can't always get what we want. But when there is no decent reason for taking away what we have, we just might not want to settle for crumbs. And the fact is, "social programs" will always be crumbs when compared with a job as a teacher.

The social program that this woman needs is a public policy prohibiting the dismissal of women on the grounds of pregnancy -- by anyone.

hmmm...certain kinds of thinking - social programs are needed for them.

Is the government going to force the Catholic church into overturning their doctrine? I don't think so - not even under the best of circumstances. Are they going to force a "private" group to adhere to certain laws? (say, like they make the Boy Scouts do? Oh wait, they don't make the Boy Scouts adhere to non-discrimination laws)

I agree that the law should be prohibiting the dismissal of women on the grounds of pregnancy. I most certainly support that 1000%.

But I'm not from a country that recognizes that a good deal of religious doctrine is well..wrong. Do you live in such a country?

Some "values" and "morals" often create the need for social programs. Certain societal "norms" and "mores" do as well.

But I'm not from a country that recognizes that a good deal of religious doctrine is well..wrong. Do you live in such a country?

I wouldn't want to. I don't want my government taking a position on the rightness or wrongness of any religious doctrine. I certainly wasn't suggesting that any government "force the Catholic Church to overturn its doctrine". Prohibiting the RC Church from discriminating in employment has no effect on its doctrine at all.

What governments may do is prohibit discrimination against anyone that someone else claims to base on his/her religious doctrine. That says nothing about the rightness or wrongness of the doctrine; it says that it may not be applied to relationships that are governed by law and that when law and religion conflict, law prevails.

I was actually addressing what you said:

However, firing her in no way forces her to have an abortion. Yeah, she is hurting financially - but poor women who want to give birth give birth all the damn time.

I considered that to be the grossest trivialization of the dilemma faced by the woman in question. In what circumstances would any of us regard a forced choice between poverty and doing something we deeply did not want to do to be reasonable?

The teacher isn't poor. She's employed, and self-supporting. If her choice is between becoming dependent on the public and living in poverty, on the one hand, and terminating her pregnancy, on the other -- well, I agree with you, it's a choice. I don't think that women who terminate pregnancies rather than live in poverty are being "forced" to terminate their pregnancies. (The second-wave anti-choicers, on the other hand, would tell them, when they show up suffering from regret and self-blame, that they were so forced.)

But then, African-Americans who were turned away from restaurants in the US 60 years ago weren't being forced to starve, either.

This is a touchy issue: the intersection of individual rights and collective rights. Minority groups are entitled to institutions that allow them to practise the core elements of their identity, and to perpetuate their existence. Individuals are entitled to protection from discrimination in their relationships with employers so that they are able to eat and pay the rent. Tough one. Never possible to resolve to everyone's satisfaction.

I wasn't really meaning to get into that whole can o' worms. I just thought that your suggestion that public assistance, no matter how good it might be, is some sort of viable alternative to remaining employed was a bad one.

We agree that protection from discrimination should probably be granted in this instance, and that social supports should be available for people who need them.

I agree the teacher is being put into a position that presents few choices and her choices should not have to be child or job or public assistance - or even the appearance of it.I was also addressing another pet peeve of mine - the idea that women without work (or poor women) are forced to abort - they are only forced by the lack of choices governed by laws, morals, values and mores that a biased society imposes on them. Change the thinking - change the law - increase the choices. Change the law even if the thinking doesn't change. I happen to disagree with the school being able to get away with this - in case that wasn't plain enough already.

Nor did I suggest that public assistance is a viable alternative. I in no way suggested the woman go on welfare and not fight. Yet she will need help while she is fighting. You know, social programs do not mean people just sit at home and do nothing. Social programs mean help - that doesn't make them the solution - but help is needed when people are dirted in the way she was dirted.

When you live in a country that discriminates and foist archaic notions of morality on people - you need a safety net. Simply because discrimination and certain kinds of thinking ARE THE CAUSE of many societal "ills". We have to create laws to protect people from the prejudices/beliefs of others. Esspecially when people use those beliefs and prejudices to harm others. Women in America suffer under archaic notions of what a female's sexuality should be and those archaic notions express themselves in various forms of discrimination.

Sorta like my relatives who couldn't sit at those counters. Discriminated against based on idiotic notions of white superiority. Laws were needed. Attitude changes were needed.


Actually, I would prefer to live in a country where religious beliefs never come before secular law. If religious groups dicriminate under the guise/teachings of religion, then the law should slap it down. Do I want government to dictate church doctrine - no. But I want government to say religious groups cannot act in conflict of the law.


That you decided to turn what I said into something I didn't say is all on you.

on grounds of pregnancy but on grounds of premarital sex. Yes, I know this is a ridiculous line but that is the line being drawn. I do think that religious schools should be permitted their own rules provided they get no funding from the government.

she isn't aborting - so wouldn't forgiveness be in order? Wouldn't that be what Jesus would do?

She didn't use birth control - well, she could have, of course, and it failed. But let's say she didn't - so she didn't break that rule and she isn't breaking the rule about abortion - so forgive her - show the lesson of mercy and keep her employed. Wouldn't that reflect the teachings of Jesus?

Yeah - private groups/organizations get to discriminate all they want to. I know that. I don't like it - but I know that. And yeah, they shouldn't receive any form of government funding for that "privilege." But I still don't like it.

but it is legal. Legal isn't wise.

They have the right to fire someone who violates their code of ethics. It wasn't that long ago when a private school in California dismissed a student because her mother was involved in a lesbian relationship. Two years ago, another private school that I know of dismissed a student because he knocked up his girlfriend. Both were within their rights no matter what any of us may think of their decisions. A school that doesn't rely on taxpayer money doesn't have the same restrictions as a public school.

so many levels.

:puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke:

encourages abortion among its employees.

my wife worked taught at a catholic school (st.patrick-tacoma, washington) and they were the worse bunch of phony hypocrits. They were all gung ho about saving a fetus, but by God once that child was born-fuck it. They wanted no part of it. They also were gung ho about capital punishment and screwing the poor.

My wife got fired from there because we baptized our baby in a Lutheran Church due to the fact that my foster father is a Lutheran minister.