Single, Pregnant, & Out of a Job
— Posted by John (February 27, 2006 at 3:39 pm)
Michelle McCusker was interviewed on ABC News last week to talk about losing her job last fall as a preschool teacher at a Catholic school in Queens, NY.
Shortly after she was hired, the 26-year old McCusker, who is single, told school officials that she was pregnant. Abortion was out of the question for her — she was going to keep her baby. Two days later, the school fired her for violating the school’s policy that its teachers are required to “convey the faith, to convey the gospel values and Christian traditions of the Catholic faith.”
Should the school have fired her?
I don’t think so.
Now, there’s no question that engaging in sex outside of marriage is a serious sin. And it’s obvious why a Catholic school would not want to give the impression that it condones premarital sex.
But I don’t think this mother should have been fired. I’m inclined to agree with Serrin Foster, president of Feminists for Life, who has stated her organization’s support for McCusker in her lawsuit against the school. On the same ABC News report, Foster said, “It is not pro-life to take away the resources and support that women need and deserve to bring children into this world.”
McCusker had this to say:
“Here I’m being persecuted because I’m pro-life having my baby, and they fire me for it. I hope that no other woman ever has to go through this. … It’s been very stressful.”
It comes down to this: McCusker would still have her job if she had quietly had an abortion instead of telling school officials that she was pregnant. By firing her, what message is the school sending to the next teacher who finds herself in McCusker’s situation?
This entry is filed under Abortion, Chastity. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Joe says:
I think the idea of creating a truly Catholic environment is important for children going to Catholic schools. The idea is to avoid scandal by letting the teacher go. Catholic children should be exposed to a minimum of the evils in this world let alone having to explain to them why their pregnant teacher has no husband. If I follow the logic in the post, if abortion were illegal would it then be OK to fire her.
I think Feminists for Life should fight some other battle. A friend of mine was in exactly the same situation; her solution was to marry her boyfriend. This worked out well.
The statement that she was being persecuted because she was pro-life is ridiculous. She is being persecuted because she sets a bad example. If you could fire teachers for having abortions we certainly should do that too.
Joe
Comment posted February 27th, 2006 at 4:00 pm
Eric says:
I could possibly be persuaded otherwise, but right now I have to agree with Joe.
It’s unfair to place children in this situation. Either their respect for the teacher—and therefore the conditions necessary for learning—will be undermined, or their respect for Church teaching will be undermined. Moreover, every effort should be made to give parents the right to decide when to deal with these sorts of issues.
The teacher’s claim that she’s being “pro-life” rings a little flat. To truly be pro-life is also to be chaste. Also, to be fired from a job for quite clearly failing to live up to the terms of one’s employment is not to be “persecuted.”
Comment posted February 27th, 2006 at 5:40 pm
Sunnyday says:
I can see both sides of the issue. However, I think the crucial factor to consider here is being true to the objectives of the school and the need for employees and students to respect and live by those objectives.
“Here I’m being persecuted because I’m pro-life having my baby, and they fire me for it,” the teacher says but in my opinion, that sounds like some justification for illicit behavior. I agree with Eric; being pro-life goes beyond allowing one’s baby to be born. It involves the totality of the way a person conducts his/her life.
Two things: perhaps the school (and other institutions for that matter) can beef up the screening process for candidates for employment so as to determine if these are the ones they are looking for, before they are hired. That way, any discrepancies between the beliefs that one professes to live by and the way these beliefs are translated to daily living can be more easily noticed.
Second, firing an employee when finances are very much needed does send an unpleasant message — more so if the the institution is one that professes fidelity to teaching the Gospel of life. What about extending some assistance to the person and her baby? After all, letting her go and helping her out (with cash, facilitating prenatal care, referrals, etc.) are not incompatible. I understand it may lead to further complications, but I was thinking it’s one way to keep spreading God’s love to those who most need it, even when circumstances would have others possibly misinterpret the move.
Comment posted February 27th, 2006 at 10:41 pm
Quinn says:
Its no surprise at all that you would compromise on fornication in this case John, having already compromised on Thou Shall Not Murder when you supported Alito who has a record of giving extremist pro-abortion decisions.
Do you know if McCusker read the contract before she signed on for the pre-school teacher position? If she did, that would give the impression that she had sought employment from that school with the intent to challenge the reason for her later firing (in accordance with the contract she signed) with the help of the ACLU in New York since she had conceived PRIOR to her teaching there.
I fully support that school’s decision in taking an unambiguous stand against fornication and having children outside of marriage. That fornicator can find employment at another pre-school that does not care that she is a fornicator. There are plenty of pre-schools like that in New York. I’m sure that if she doesn’t wallow in victimhood that she will find employment just fine.
I want to see adultery re-criminalized and I want to make marriage mandatory for those caught fornicating. They must get married without any possibility of divorce. Strictly enforcing those laws would do much more good than 1,000 pro-life or abstinance ministries combined could do.
Comment posted February 27th, 2006 at 10:55 pm
John says:
McCusker conceived her child before she was hired, as Quinn pointed out. I haven’t read anything as yet that indicates whether or not she knew she was pregnant at the time she was hired.
Clearly, no school official is in any position to judge the state of her immortal soul. For all we know, following her child’s conception — which, it bears repeating, occurred before she was hired — she could have made a decision to embrace chastity.
Sunnyday’s comments are well thought out, and very much on the mark. They touch upon a much larger issue: the need for Catholic schools to adopt a much more scrutinous hiring process for faculty members. There is an urgent need for higher standards, but I don’t see how firing an unmarried pregnant teacher is a step in the right direction.
Quinn — regarding your desire to force couples who have premarital sex to get married, I don’t know where to begin, other than to say that this is an extraordinarily ill-advised idea.
Comment posted February 28th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
Eric says:
Quinn writes, “Its no surprise at all that you would compromise on fornication in this case John, having already compromised on Thou Shall Not Murder when you supported Alito . . .”
You know, Quinn, I’m disappointed that you insist on beating the dead horse of the Alito nomination, but the personal tone of your comment to John is totally unacceptable.
Comment posted February 28th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Quinn says:
Fine Eric. I’ll let that topic rest until later on in the year when this new court has an opportunity to show what these new judges really think when it comes to abortion with the partial-birth abortion case.
Remember, that at Nuremburg, the Nazi judges used the same excuse of obeying the Supreme Judge when they sentenced Jews to death. Thats the same excuse you have used when defending Alito’s pro-abortion decisions such as stirking down the partial birth abortion ban.
It cannot be claimed that Alito’s “hands were tied” in his pro-abortion decisions he gave for Blackwell v Knoll, Alexander v Whitman, PP v NJ Atty Gen or Chen v. Aschcroft. And there was nothing pressuring him to refine the new “undue burden” standard so that the Supreme Court could later use it to uphold abortion in PP v Casey.
As for reducing fornication and the consequences that come from fornication, the law I am proposing would have the greatest impact at reducing sex outside of marriage and the many negative consequences that arise from it. They will think much more seriously about engaging in any sex outside of marriage once they know that they could very likely end up married for the rest of their lives. Re-criminalizing adultery would also help a lot.
If you think you know of a better method, then please share. Check out this discussion about whether or not we should re-criminalize adultery if you want a better grasp on the topic http://kgov.com/bel/2005/20050621-BEL122.mp3
Comment posted February 28th, 2006 at 7:45 pm
Eric says:
Quinn, you have a curious manner of letting things drop.
Comment posted February 28th, 2006 at 11:18 pm
sunnyday says:
“There is an urgent need for higher standards, but I don’t see how firing an unmarried pregnant teacher is a step in the right direction.”
I think it has to do with helping the person realize and take responsibility for the consequences of her actions. And, much as it seems cruel, setting that as an example to others that the school means business.
Like I said, assisting the teacher in other ways would be good. But I personally believe there are cases wherein an institution ought not to compromise as regards policies (this being one of them).
An afterthought: a teacher who has been serving a school for 20 yrs, for example, and who has demonstrated loyalty, competence and other such qualities would probably be treated differently from one who only started working a month ago. I’m referring to the assistance that the school would extend to her — whether or not it decides to fire her.
What do you think?
I sure hope the issue is not being muddled up more by my comments!
Comment posted March 1st, 2006 at 6:18 am
Quinn says:
Eric,
I am letting the issue of your legal positivism, in this specific case, supporting pro-abort judge Alito for nomination to the Supreme Court until later on when the sourt takes up the Partial-Birth Abortion ban. I have every reason to expect that the court will rule to not uphold the ban.
I will, however, continue to point out that you and Eric, James Dobson and FOTF, Gary Bauer and Jay Sekulow are LEGAL POSITIVISTS and that your legal positivism is the a mirror image of the reasoning that the Nazi judges used when sentencing Jews to death. Basicly, they had to obey the Supreme Judge.
If I am mistaken about your being a legal positivist, then explain yourself well either online or during a discussion on Bob Enyart Live http://www.kgov.com
Comment posted March 2nd, 2006 at 9:48 pm
John says:
Sunnyday,
I have to come back to a point I first alluded to in my post. This mother actually has chosen to take responsibility for her actions by choosing to give birth to her baby. She could have chosen to abort her baby, and no one at the school would have ever known, and she would still have her job.
The decision to engage in premarital sex — a decidedly irresponsible one, to be sure — was made before she was hired. She can’t “undo” that decision, but faced with the consequences of that irresponsible decision, she has chosen to do the most responsible thing she can.
Comment posted March 3rd, 2006 at 7:15 pm
Quinn says:
Why doesn’t she just marry the guy who got her pregnant?? I could see a solution if she arranged a marriage and got married before the baby was born.
Is she totally unwilling to marry the guy?
Comment posted March 3rd, 2006 at 11:02 pm
Annie says:
“Why doesn’t she just marry the guy who got her pregnant??”
Perhaps the fellow isn’t around anymore. I agree it would be best for the baby for them to marry so that the child has a stable environment if in fact they are compatible. But, Quinn, I’m not sure the solution to every out of wed-lock pregnancy is marriage.
Comment posted March 4th, 2006 at 10:55 am
Quinn says:
I didn’t say the solution to every “out-of-wedlock pregnancy” was marriage. I said that if fornicators were caught they should be required to marry without the possibility of divorce.
This would cause them to think more seriously about sex outside of marriage knowing that if they were found out they would have to get married.
Comment posted March 4th, 2006 at 10:33 pm
sunnyday says:
John,
That she decided to do the right thing and keep the baby is one thing I appreciate about this whole thing, that’s for sure. And it indicates her willingness to take responsibility for her actions. But the consequences of her actions go beyond the pregnancy; these include the risks regarding her employment, which include losing her job due to clear guidelines she is aware of. Hence, difficult and seemingly unfair as it is, accepting to be terminated from the school ought to be part of “taking responsibility for her actions” in this case. That’s the way I see it.
Comment posted March 5th, 2006 at 2:24 am
SBW says:
The Catholic school did the right thing by firing McCusker. When Ms. McCusker signed the schools agreement to uphold the values of the Catholic church she knew full well that she was lying because she was currently having sex outside of marriage and was already pregnant.
If she did not want to abide by the morality of the Catholic church then she should have sought employment elsewhere.
I think Feminists For Life picked the wrong battle this time. McCusker willfully lied to the school.
Comment posted March 6th, 2006 at 2:26 am
John says:
SBW,
Perhaps you know something I don’t, but I haven’t read anything thus far that indicates that McCusker knew she was pregnant at the time she was hired.
I also haven’t read anything that indicates that she intended to continue having sex. As I stated in an earlier comment, for all we know, from the time her child was conceived, she could have made a decision to embrace a life of Christian chastity.
If there’s more to this story that I’m not aware of, I will welcome the clarification.
Comment posted March 6th, 2006 at 12:18 pm