- Pregnancy
- Baby & Toddler
- Parents
- Getting Pregnant
- Baby Names
- Product Reviews
-
Registry
- Community
-
More
Want a personalized experience?
Download the free app
June 2011 Moms
J9melissa
member
Ugh...did you guys see this??
J9melissa
member
This discussion has been closed.
Re: Ugh...did you guys see this??
I am NOT catholic but:
I don't see what's so shocking or wrong about this. If she was pregnant and unwed they would have fired her too. Catholic school catholic rules. She should have known better.
It's the same issue with the Catholic organizations not wanting to provide an BC option in their health insurance policies.
I am Catholic and went to Catholic school 6-12th grade. My senior year, 2 of my teachers (one was single, one was divorced) ran off together and got married during spring break. They were both fired. They had signed a contract stating that they would abide by the teachings of the Catholic church and getting remarried after divorce was part of that.
This situation seems different to me. It wasn't clear from the article, but did this woman sign such a contract? If so, her principal should have let her know she'd be in violation of it before she started IVF. Also, since the church's objection is to embyros being destroyed, and none of hers were, I don't see how she is inviolation of church teaching.
So, yeah, I think the school/church is in the wrong here.
It does not mean that she will win the civil suit . I really don't see how the hell she won. You work for a religious orgnization you have to play by thier rules no matter how dumb you think they are. Otherwise look for a job somewhere else.
ETA: Pregnancy is a protected class by EEOC. Infertility/IVF isn't.
That isnt the point though. Do I like it that the Catholic church finds it immoral? No. Heck as I said I an not even Catholic, never been ever will be. But the beauty of America is choice. She chose to work there and she chose to break the rules and I QUITE sure that judges decision is going to be reversed on appeal.
ETA: (again) There is a difference btwn unfair and illegal. What they did is unfair but it is legal.
Now what happens if she started working there AFTER IVF treatment, or after she had a child through IVF. Could they fire her then? Cause I do not agree with that at all. It is none of their business.
One could argue that the embryo wasn't destroyed until after the first failed attempt at IVF. If the first one would have took then the embryo wouldn't have been "destroyed". KWIM?
Not that I am saying they're in the right or I agree with them.
Legally No! I don't like it any more than you do. Trust me on that. But if she got IVF the day before she signed the contract then they would have had to suck it up.
It is their business b/c the contract she signed made it their business.
It is implied. There is ALWAYS an ethics policy/contract you must sign even as a janitor working withing a religious organization.
ETA: Also if you send your child to a religious school you too have some sort of similar contract to sign.
this.
i mean actually my problem is the policy in the first place, but that's why after being brought up catholic and going to catholic school i no longer associate myself with the catholic church. my mother wasn't too happy to hear that we would not be baptising catholic, but i felt very strongly that i do not agree with MANY of their policies and i don't "pick and choose" what i believe in.
sorry rant over.
i'm going to guess that this is a direct result of the Pope/Vatican calling for a harder line to be taken on things like IVF and homosexuality a few months back, specifically from churches in the US.
As an IVF momma myself I hate that people think like this! I was raised Catholic but am not practicing and have not been for a long time because now that I can make my own choices about religion I find that I disagree with a lot of what the Catholic church stands for these days. I wouldn't have my sweetheart baby without IVF. And I am forever grateful that this technology is available.
I am completely appalled that someone can get fired for undergoing IVF treatment - that being said it's a Catholic School and that's the teaching of the church. Do I agree - no way!!! But if she signed a contract saying that she will live her life in accordance with church teachings then the school has the right to fire her for it.
It's not black & white there are a whole bunch of things that seem unanswered - if she hasn't mentioned that she needed time off for IVF, if she conceived via IVF before starting work there, what does her contract look like etc.
Again I am completely appalled that there are people out there who think like this but it's a religious issue and she was teaching at a religious school. It's shitty but not illegal . . .
If the embryo was destroyed after IVF then it would have been through miscarriage, not a deliberate action since she said there were no extras to be destroyed. So in that train of thought, one could argue that miscarrying would be destroying an embryo and therefore a grave sin. Do you fire any woman who miscarries while teaching there?
I did grow up in the Catholic Church. I can see the church's point of view, because it does fit in to the Catholic teachings. However, as it was stated, she should have been told BEFORE her FIRST round when she told her principal that it could and would cost her job. There is no mention of an employment contract, but I would bet there is. There is for almost any job, stating rules, regulations, and expectations. Just like going to BYU here, you don't have to be LDS, but you do have to sign a contract stating that while enrolled you will abide by LDS morals and standards. The Conduct Code if you will.
As a woman, I can see her point of view, because she just wants a family. No, it was not fair to her, and if there was not a contract stating explicitely that she must abide by Catholic teachings, it would also be illegal.
So I am torn on this one, and without more details, I cannot be overly angry with either side. It is shaky ground that I would never want to stand on
THIS I did not know. If that's true, it pretty much guarantees my child will not be attending the same schools his father did, no matter how crappy our local public schools are!
peace,
katharine
Book-Kitten blog
yes and no.. yes for catholic schools. some of the others are just a moral code to be followed at school activities. check with the school. DH teaches at a quaker school and they are pretty laid back.
Not to be Captain Obvious or anything, but Quakers are pretty laid back...
Exactlly! I don't understand the above argument. She had no control over the embryo sticking any more than a person who conceived naturally.
Anyway I'm obviously outraged that there are people who think this way in the world. I'm not religious, nor am I American so I am not going to comment on the laws of private schools there since I'm not 100% sure about them. I do know that it would be considered discrimination here. It's like saying if a private school had some belief that all people of X-race are bad then they wouldn't be allowed in the school. It's completely ludicrous to me. And it makes me livid.
No that is a completely different. Race is a protected EEOC class. Infertality is not.
that doesn't make it any less ludicrous to me. I have no more control over my fertility than I do over the colour of my skin.
Neither do I but my point is its the law. So yes you can get mad at them if you choose but they are not doing anything illegal.
IF we sit back and say nothing or sit back and not fight against ridiculous laws, things will always stay the same.
Look at the smoking bans that are going into place. THOSE happened because people fought back.
Just because it's the law doesn't mean we can't fight back and make our voices heard on how ridiculous they are.
Then why not make addiction a protected class, or mental illness, or smokers.
ETA: which shouldn't surprise me.
why shouldn't people with mental illness be protected?
In some states, addiction is a protected class, and I thought that mental illness was also, as long as the accommodation requested for it was considered reasonable and not a hardship on the company in question?
Either way, I get your point - it's not technically illegal, especially if she signed a contract. I just think most of the points are that, whether it's legal or not, it's bogus. I get that you're an HR person and that your job is to be very black & white about what is legal and what isn't, but they aren't necessarily arguing the legality, but rather the douche baggery of it.
exactly...I never asked anything about the law...I said that the law was ridiculous.
I don't think anyone in this thread has said otherwise. Everyone has said it is douchey... even Vigurl. She just said while douchey, it's likely not illegal.
Good point. How ironic.
Yeah I vaguely remember that it may be in some. But if we make EVERYTHING a protected class where does it end. And let me not even begin the argument on the separation of church and state and allowing that religious community to freely practice their beliefs.
I am sad to say there are some pretty absurd things that fly in Ontario's publicly funded Catholic school boards too. Don't even get me started.
I havent read this yet but just by the comments..... I think its wrong. Im Catholic was raised by my grandparents who practiced their religion. ( i say that because not many people do anymore) I think its wrong that they fired her, but if it says it in the "handbook" then rules are rules. I dont think it should matter how she got pregnant.
But then again im catholic but i think alot of the "old school" rules are exactly what i said old school.